Jewish Roots

[Dancing]

"If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you." - Rom 11:17-18 NIV

In the last 5 years or so I've had my eyes opened to the Jewishness of our faith. I'm hoping this thread helps to uncover what the Bible teaches about this so that we can all embrace and come into ALL our heritage.

[Dancing]

The following is an excerpt from Jesus the Rabbi by Dwain Miller

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOING AND KNOWING

There is a fundamental contrast in the mindset of the Hebrews of biblical times, and the Western, Hellenistic way of thinking, out of which has emerged a large part of Christian belief systems.

In writing on "The Hebrew Mind vs. the Western Mind," scholar Brian Knowles makes these observations:

William Barrett, explains that one of the most fundamental differences between the Western, Hellenistic mind and the Hebrew mind is found in the area of knowing vs. doing. Says Barrett, "The distinction arises from the difference between doing and knowing. The Hebrew is concerned with practice, the Greek with knowledge. Right conduct is the ultimate concern of the Hebrew, right thinking that of the Greek. Duty and strictness of conscience are the paramount things in life for the Hebrew; for the Greek, the spontaneous and luminous play of the intelligence. The Hebrew thus extols the moral virtues as the substance and meaning of life; the Greek subordinates them to the intellectual virtues, the contrast is between practice and theory, between the moral man and the theoretical or intellectual man."

This helps explain why so many Christian churches are focused on the issues of doctrinal orthodoxy (however they may define it)--often at the expense of godly living. In many Christian circles, what one believes or espouses is treated as more important than how one lives--i.e. how one treats his or her neighbor.

In Biblical Judaism, it is precisely the opposite. Christians are inclined to subject each other to litmus tests of orthodoxy, while Jews are concerned mainly with behavior.

It was gentile Christians, influenced by Greek philosophy, who both intellectualized and systematized Christian doctrine. Worse, they radically changed much of it. The Biblical Hebrews, and the Apostolic Era of the Church, had no formal theology as such. Nothing was systematized. The believing community had no entrenched hierarchy or magisterium through which all doctrine had to be filtered and approved As with the unbelieving Jews, opinions varied from sage to sage.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dancing

"If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you." - Rom 11:17-18 NIV

In the last 5 years or so I've had my eyes opened to the Jewishness of our faith. I'm hoping this thread helps to uncover what the Bible teaches about this so that we can all embrace and come into ALL our heritage.

I don't know about you but I wasn't born of a Jewish mother, so I'm not a Jew. And it's not like the Rastafarian's believe, that everybody is from one the the tribes of Israel, so I'm not a Jew that way either.

Neither am I a Ebionite or Nazarite, so I'm not Jewish that way.

I think the only way I'm even close to being Jewish is I follow a Jew. But I'm not a follower of James, the brother of Jesus, who was clearly Jewish.

Other than that I'm a gentile. So why do I need to become Jewish?

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know about you but I wasn't born of a Jewish mother, so I'm not a Jew. And it's not like the Rastafarian's believe, that everybody is from one the the tribes of Israel, so I'm not a Jew that way either.

Neither am I a Ebionite or Nazarite, so I'm not Jewish that way.

I think the only way I'm even close to being Jewish is I follow a Jew. But I'm not a follower of James, the brother of Jesus, who was clearly Jewish.

Other than that I'm a gentile. So why do I need to become Jewish?

Lol...you don't need to become Jewish! Just love and preach the gospel to them! And Jewish believers, especially listen to them. There's so much to learn, which is why I started this thread.

Learn from them what there is to learn. You have a Sspirit. And you have the Word of God. Abba says in the OT we should search for Him with all our heart. Keep searching and listening for the Father's voice in ALL His children. This is the way we grow.

[Dancing]

ALL OF US have been specially created by our Heavenly Abba to know Him and to glorify Him. The way is one of honor. We should all honor one another.

And should we not honor the ones whom the Lord chose to bring us His word and our Messiah? This is His way. This is the oneness so longed for and prayed for by our Jesus.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by awareness

Other than that I'm a gentile. So why do I need to become Jewish?

Thank you.

I detect a slippery precipice. Abraham was not a Jew so God's covenant with him does include us. Then there was the Old Covenant with natural Israel that finally ended in 70 AD. The New Covenant that started with the death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ in 30 AD includes us.

Isn't there some confusion here between the Jews of Judaism and Zionism? Orthodox Jews in Israel and especially in New York distance them from Zionism and they refuse to fight in the Israeli Defense Force.

Who are we talking about now? David Ben-Gurion, the father of modern Israel "hated Judaism more than any other man he had met", according to modern orthodox philipsopher, Yeshayahu Leibowitz. (Source: Wikipedia.)

So, if the Zionists hate Judaism and the Jews of Judaism hate Zionism, where does that leave us?

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Thank you.

I detect a slippery precipice. Abraham was not a Jew so God's covenant with him does include us. Then there was the Old Covenant with natural Israel that finally ended in 70 AD. The New Covenant that started with the death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ in 30 AD includes us.

Isn't there some confusion here between the Jews of Judaism and Zionism? Orthodox Jews in Israel and especially in New York distance them from Zionism and they refuse to fight in the Israeli Defense Force.

Who are we talking about now? David Ben-Gurion, the father of modern Israel "hated Judaism more than any other man he had met", according to modern orthodox philipsopher, Yeshayahu Leibowitz. (Source: Wikipedia.)

So, if the Zionists hate Judaism and the Jews of Judaism hate Zionism, where does that leave us?

Abraham was a Hebrew, a river crosser.

The covenant God made with him is for the whole world.

"The LORD had said to Abram, "Go from your country, your people and your father's household to the land I will show you. "I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."" - Gen 12:1-3 NIV

It is still ongoing as the plan is not over, has not been completely fulfilled. But more than anything, God is a God of covenant. He's not a covenant breaker. His words are not light. What He says He will do.

Does the Bible ever say that the Mosaic covenant ended? Or did God just add a new covenant?

There's always a lot of confusion but not necessarily a distinction between ALL Zionists and ALL of Judaism. Some are in both camps.

As always, that leaves us seeking to know Him in His word and to follow Him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dancing

Keep searching and listening for the Father's voice in ALL His children. This is the way we grow.

Well amen to that. If we're really hungry for God we'll being listening all the time, to everyone, including Jews, for a possible speaking from God.

But I can't become a Jew. I guess I can convert, and become a Jew, but to me that would be going backwards.

I'm already backwards enough, thank you. As you prolly agree.

Question: Were you born from a Jewish mother? Are you a born Jew?

[bearbear]

I think we are throwing around different definitions of being "Jewish". Here's my understanding of the different definitions

1. Jews by culture/birth: This includes secular Jews who may observe and attend synagogue on the major feast days as part of their culture but they don't necessarily believe in God or the OT.

2. Judaism / Religious Jews (Orthodox, Karaite, Hasidic, etc). These are Jews who practice the Jewish religion which rejects Jesus. Most of the streams of modern Judaism derive from the Pharisee movement of Jesus' time. Like the Pharisees, modern Judaism (excluding Karaites) believes that only Rabbinic system and the Talmud (life study-like commentary) have the authority to interpret scripture, and stuff the Rabbis and Talmud say can actually supersede anything the bible says if there is contradiction. The Rabbis/authorities in Judaism can act like the ministers of the age who speak for God. The system vehemently reject Jesus as Messiah and go out of their way to re-interpret OT prophecies and passages like Isaiah 53 which clearly point to Jesus.

Jesus told the Pharisees that they were of their father the devil and that they were not children of Abraham. Perhaps the same could be applied to some the leaders of this system. However Paul also says in Romans 9-11 that the gifts and calling of God are not revocable and there are still many promises for Israel that have not been fulfilled, so the promises of the OT still applies to them. Daniel's 70 weeks have been paused at week 69 and hasn't been completed yet so God is still not done with them. Israel's heart will eventually soften and turn to Jesus at his return.

3. Romans 2:29 Jews: Jews who believed in OT and observe Torah and look to it's promise, and later become born-again, believing in Jesus as Messiah: These include the Jews who comprised most of the early church. Initially they didn't have the New Testament like we do, but scripture to them was only the Old Testament, so they had to rely on the Holy Spirit and memories of Jesus' teachings for revelation. They got to enjoy the fulfillment of the law and promises of the OT. At the Holy Spirit's direction, the gospel was open to the Gentiles who also got to enjoy the fulfillment and blessing of God's promises in the OT.

The New Testament, with the exception of Luke was written by such Jews. Jesus himself was a Torah observant Jew who did things such as command the lepers he healed to go see the Priests first (Leviticus 13).

This can also include Messianic Jews of today who observe feast days, sabbaths in a commemorative way to gain blessing and worship God (Col 2:16) but not as works that they base their salvation on.

According to Isaiah, seemingly "Jewish" things will be observed in the millennial kingdom such as the Sabbath and the Feast of Tabernacles (sukkot). People will also look to Jews to grant favor with God (Zechariah 8:23).

Interestingly enough in Jesus' seven letters to the churches in Rev 2-3, he refers to "Jews" as members of the churches instead of the term we use today "Christians". Perhaps Jesus uses this term to refer to the Jew and Gentile as one new man in Christ (Romans 10:12) who are children of Abraham by faith.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dancing

. . . one of the most fundamental differences between the Western, Hellenistic mind and the Hebrew mind is found in the area of knowing vs. doing. . . . The distinction arises from the difference between doing and knowing. The Hebrew is concerned with practice, the Greek with knowledge. Right conduct is the ultimate concern of the Hebrew, right thinking that of the Greek. Duty and strictness of conscience are the paramount things in life for the Hebrew; for the Greek, the spontaneous and luminous play of the intelligence.

While I will probably not be joining up with any Jewish or specifically Jewish-Christian group, I understand those statements quite well.

And the more modern portions of Christianity, especially among the evangelical and fundamentalist groups, are heavily mired in knowledge over practice. But that is not an absolute — not in all groups/assemblies, or even completely true of very many assemblies. Most have a realization of doing. Or are gaining such a realization.

But the emphasis is there. And the default mode is to deal with doctrine and orthodoxy rather than practice and orthopraxy. There is a tremendous belief that the ongoing grace of God is for covering our continued sins/unrighteousness. And it is true that it does that. But that was not the purpose of grace — to allow us to say we are positionally righteous while being dispositionally unrighteous and not really thinking much of it.

The scary thing to many about moving from the overt crutch of grace to cover our willingness to just skip sanctification and on to living righteousness is that it is the place we we all tend to go Pharisee. We start looking under every rock for another edict to keep ourselves righteous by discovering rules rather than by relying on the source of righteousness, which is God.

In fact, it has been suggested that the fall was not simply the disobedience of eating fruit. It was more the determination that we could be wise and decide right and wrong for ourselves. And while many argue that they leave the right v wrong to the Bible, that is often not really true. They are either parsing scripture to create allowance for their favorite unrighteousness, or layering rule after rule upon it to make sure we never get close to unrighteousness. In scriptural references, we can either be those who use a trick to avoid caring for their parents, or alternately become those that do not actually say or even write the name of God so that they won't inadvertently use it in vain.

And at some level, that is not much better than knowing a lot that you don't put into practice. Why do I say this? Because Jesus spoke strongly about both sides of the problems with "doing" that I mentioned (along with others).

So it is not as simple as to just start doing. Doing what? Avoiding people of certain kinds? (Like the kinds that Jesus ate with.)

We like to talk about our joy, or enjoyment. I note that in all kinds of ways different people are seeking great experiences. I even note that at least one wrote something out in another language (I think Hebrew or something like that) that was done in ALL CAPS with lots of exclamation points.

Not dissing that thought or experience. But how often do we do the same concerning our failures? To bring another language into the picture, how often do we declare "Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison"? There is another part of modern evangelical/fundamental Christianity that is often heavily missing. Or only given a little time or thought.

Repentance. Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy. We too often look on that as poor worship. Especially if it is said in Latin or Greek.

I don't see the problem being that we don't spend enough time knowing what the law demands. We know what it demands. But we are convinced that we don't really need to worry about it that much because we are "under grace." (Now those who declare that the law has been abolished are even worse off because they know what is true, but don't have any care for it because the think it no longer applies.)

I have little doubt concerning where I am righteous and where I am unrighteous. My unrighteousness is, rightly, repented of as often as I can. But I am not waiting on more dispensing. Or on finding a new appreciation for the law. I know that I have been charged to walk according to the Spirit and fulfill the righteousness of the law. I have the expectation that if I connect with the Spirit that I have what it takes to do it. Failure is due to my lack of application of the Spirit (or not staying in sync with the Spirit), not lack of knowledge or appreciation for the law. Or any lack of "dispensing."

So despite the fact that I have been driving many of the long-time regulars on this forum crazy with my "obedience" mantras the last couple of years, I cannot find myself determining that following a group whose emphasis is a renewed love for the law and doing it is really what I need. I need the knowledge that those Evangelical groups provide. It is from knowledge that we are first brought to Christ. It is from knowledge that I realize my failings. But knowledge has its limits. Once the knowledge is found, practice should follow. I don't need to love the knowledge source more (the scripture). I need to do.

And I don't need a different group to do that. I just need to do. (And that would have put Lee into conniptions.)

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Dancing

Does the Bible ever say that the Mosaic covenant ended?

Indeed, it does.

"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13, ESV). Kenneth Wuest put it in this way: "In the fact that He says, New in quality, He has permanently antiquated the first. Now, that which is being antiquated and is waning in strength, is near to the point of vanishing away."

I say again: Abraham was not a Jew but a Hebrew. God's covenant with him still in effect.

The Old Mosaic Covenant, which is not the same as the Abrahamic Covenant, indeed ended when Jerusalem, the Temple and the bloodline records of natural Israel were permanently destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Indeed, it does.
The Old Mosaic Covenant, which is not the same as the Abrahamic Covenant, indeed ended when Jerusalem, the Temple and the bloodline records of natural Israel were permanently destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

That is the preterist view which requires that one also interpret Revelation, which describes the events that take place during 70th week of Daniel, as allegorical and mostly fulfilled.

According to dispensational premillenialism we are within the huge gap between Daniel's 69th week and 70th week. According to this view God is not done with the Jews yet. Jesus referred to this gap as the "time of the Gentiles".

Luke 21:24
They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Paul also refers to this in Romans 11:25

I want you to understand this mystery, dear brothers and sisters, so that you will not feel proud about yourselves. Some of the people of Israel have hard hearts, but this will last only until the full number of Gentiles comes to Christ.

The bloodline records may have been destroyed, but the Jews are using genetic analysis to determine priestly heritage for priests to serve in the third temple:

http://www.cohen-levi.org/jewish_gen..._tradition.htm

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well amen to that. If we're really hungry for God we'll being listening all the time, to everyone, including Jews, for a possible speaking from God.

But I can't become a Jew. I guess I can convert, and become a Jew, but to me that would be going backwards.

I'm already backwards enough, thank you. As you prolly agree.

Question: Were you born from a Jewish mother? Are you a born Jew?

Nope. No Jewish DNA that I know of.

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by bearbear

I think we are throwing around different definitions of being "Jewish". Here's my understanding of the different definitions

1. Jews by culture/birth: This includes secular Jews who may observe and attend synagogue on the major feast days as part of their culture but they don't necessarily believe in God or the OT.

2. Judaism / Religious Jews (Orthodox, Karaite, Hasidic, etc). These are Jews who practice the Jewish religion which rejects Jesus. Most of the streams of modern Judaism derive from the Pharisee movement of Jesus' time. Like the Pharisees, modern Judaism (excluding Karaites) believes that only Rabbinic system and the Talmud (life study-like commentary) have the authority to interpret scripture, and stuff the Rabbis and Talmud say can actually supersede anything the bible says if there is contradiction. The Rabbis/authorities in Judaism can act like the ministers of the age who speak for God. The system vehemently reject Jesus as Messiah and go out of their way to re-interpret OT prophecies and passages like Isaiah 53 which clearly point to Jesus.

Jesus told the Pharisees that they were of their father the devil and that they were not children of Abraham. Perhaps the same could be applied to some the leaders of this system. However Paul also says in Romans 9-11 that the gifts and calling of God are not revocable and there are still many promises for Israel that have not been fulfilled, so the promises of the OT still applies to them. Daniel's 70 weeks have been paused at week 69 and hasn't been completed yet so God is still not done with them. Israel's heart will eventually soften and turn to Jesus at his return.

3. Romans 2:29 Jews: Jews who believed in OT and observe Torah and look to it's promise, and later become born-again, believing in Jesus as Messiah: These include the Jews who comprised most of the early church. Initially they didn't have the New Testament like we do, but scripture to them was only the Old Testament, so they had to rely on the Holy Spirit and memories of Jesus' teachings for revelation. They got to enjoy the fulfillment of the law and promises of the OT. At the Holy Spirit's direction, the gospel was open to the Gentiles who also got to enjoy the fulfillment and blessing of God's promises in the OT.

The New Testament, with the exception of Luke was written by such Jews. Jesus himself was a Torah observant Jew who did things such as command the lepers he healed to go see the Priests first (Leviticus 13).

This can also include Messianic Jews of today who observe feast days, sabbaths in a commemorative way to gain blessing and worship God (Col 2:16) but not as works that they base their salvation on.

According to Isaiah, seemingly "Jewish" things will be observed in the millennial kingdom such as the Sabbath and the Feast of Tabernacles (sukkot). People will also look to Jews to grant favor with God (Zechariah 8:23).

Interestingly enough in Jesus' seven letters to the churches in Rev 2-3, he refers to "Jews" as members of the churches instead of the term we use today "Christians". Perhaps Jesus uses this term to refer to the Jew and Gentile as one new man in Christ (Romans 10:12) who are children of Abraham by faith.

Very helpful info. Thank you so much, bearbear.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dancing

Nope. No Jewish DNA that I know of.

Then what do you mean by going back to your Jewish roots? If I go back to my roots they would be English from my mothers side and Scotch-Irish on my Dads side.

If you aren't Jewish how can you go back to your Jewish roots? You don't have any.

Are you just pretending?

[countmeworthy]

SHEMA ISRAEL ! ADONAI ELOHEINU ADONAI ECHAD!
O HEAR ISRAEL! THE LORD IS OUR GOD. THE LORD IS ONE.


BARUCH HA SHEM K'VOD MALKHUTO L'OLAM VA'ED
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF HIS GLORIOUS KINGDOM FOREVER AND EVER.

BARUCH HA SHEM HA MESSHIAH YAHUSHUAH. BARUCH HA SHEM ADONAI ECHAD.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF MESSIAH JESUS. BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD (THE LORD IS ONE.)

I attended a Messianic Jewish fellowship/synogague/church for a couple of years back in the 90s.

I learned a little Hebrew. I loved the singing but the service otherwise was as dead as a doorknob.

Sometimes I run across Jewish people who are selling their stuff at kiosks at the mall. So I greet them with the SHEMA (Deuteronomy 4:6-9). They get all excited and we sing it together. Great testimony eh???

I tell them even though they might not believe and follow Yahshuah, I love the God of ABRAHAM, ISSAC, AND JACOB. I don't even know if they ever hear anything I say about Yahshuah to them, they're are just beside themselves that I greet them in Hebrew and with the Shema prayer.

REMEMBER EVERYONE....
GOD IS LOVE !

BLESSINGS,
Carol

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I will probably not be joining up with any Jewish or specifically Jewish-Christian group, I understand those statements quite well.

And the more modern portions of Christianity, especially among the evangelical and fundamentalist groups, are heavily mired in knowledge over practice. But that is not an absolute — not in all groups/assemblies, or even completely true of very many assemblies. Most have a realization of doing. Or are gaining such a realization.

But the emphasis is there. And the default mode is to deal with doctrine and orthodoxy rather than practice and orthopraxy. There is a tremendous belief that the ongoing grace of God is for covering our continued sins/unrighteousness. And it is true that it does that. But that was not the purpose of grace — to allow us to say we are positionally righteous while being dispositionally unrighteous and not really thinking much of it.

The scary thing to many about moving from the overt crutch of grace to cover our willingness to just skip sanctification and on to living righteousness is that it is the place we we all tend to go Pharisee. We start looking under every rock for another edict to keep ourselves righteous by discovering rules rather than by relying on the source of righteousness, which is God.

In fact, it has been suggested that the fall was not simply the disobedience of eating fruit. It was more the determination that we could be wise and decide right and wrong for ourselves. And while many argue that they leave the right v wrong to the Bible, that is often not really true. They are either parsing scripture to create allowance for their favorite unrighteousness, or layering rule after rule upon it to make sure we never get close to unrighteousness. In scriptural references, we can either be those who use a trick to avoid caring for their parents, or alternately become those that do not actually say or even write the name of God so that they won't inadvertently use it in vain.

And at some level, that is not much better than knowing a lot that you don't put into practice. Why do I say this? Because Jesus spoke strongly about both sides of the problems with "doing" that I mentioned (along with others).

So it is not as simple as to just start doing. Doing what? Avoiding people of certain kinds? (Like the kinds that Jesus ate with.)

We like to talk about our joy, or enjoyment. I note that in all kinds of ways different people are seeking great experiences. I even note that at least one wrote something out in another language (I think Hebrew or something like that) that was done in ALL CAPS with lots of exclamation points.

Not dissing that thought or experience. But how often do we do the same concerning our failures? To bring another language into the picture, how often do we declare "Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison"? There is another part of modern evangelical/fundamental Christianity that is often heavily missing. Or only given a little time or thought.

Repentance. Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy. We too often look on that as poor worship. Especially if it is said in Latin or Greek.

I don't see the problem being that we don't spend enough time knowing what the law demands. We know what it demands. But we are convinced that we don't really need to worry about it that much because we are "under grace." (Now those who declare that the law has been abolished are even worse off because they know what is true, but don't have any care for it because the think it no longer applies.)

I have little doubt concerning where I am righteous and where I am unrighteous. My unrighteousness is, rightly, repented of as often as I can. But I am not waiting on more dispensing. Or on finding a new appreciation for the law. I know that I have been charged to walk according to the Spirit and fulfill the righteousness of the law. I have the expectation that if I connect with the Spirit that I have what it takes to do it. Failure is due to my lack of application of the Spirit (or not staying in sync with the Spirit), not lack of knowledge or appreciation for the law. Or any lack of "dispensing."

So despite the fact that I have been driving many of the long-time regulars on this forum crazy with my "obedience" mantras the last couple of years, I cannot find myself determining that following a group whose emphasis is a renewed love for the law and doing it is really what I need. I need the knowledge that those Evangelical groups provide. It is from knowledge that we are first brought to Christ. It is from knowledge that I realize my failings. But knowledge has its limits. Once the knowledge is found, practice should follow. I don't need to love the knowledge source more (the scripture). I need to do.

And I don't need a different group to do that. I just need to do. (And that would have put Lee into conniptions.)

Thank you for this. It truly echos in my heart. And no, it's never as simple as just doing.

And you are right about the pitfalls of legalistic observance without heart. But isn't this what the Lord exposed when he said,

[Deu 10:16 KJV]
Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

[Deu 30:6 KJV]
And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

[Jer 4:4 KJV]
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench [it], because of the evil of your doings.

But you hit the nail on the head here:
But how often do we do the same concerning our failures? To bring another language into the picture, how often do we declare "Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison"? There is another part of modern evangelical/fundamental Christianity that is often heavily missing. Or only given a little time or thought.

Repentance. Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy. We too often look on that as poor worship.

This is PRECISELY what is needed! This IS true worship! If we could only see what is gained through true repentance! We would all DROP OUR FEARS AND SUCCESSES AND RUN INTO HIS ARMS!
You said:
I don't see the problem being that we don't spend enough time knowing what the law demands. We know what it demands. But we are convinced that we don't really need to worry about it that much because we are "under grace." (Now those who declare that the law has been abolished are even worse off because they know what is true, but don't have any care for it because the think it no longer applies.)

And that is called, Taking God for granted. So, taking the law for granted is really taking God for granted. And, a TRUE heart loves the law in the TRUEST way

Therefore, aside from abuse of grace or law I think there is yet another position (place). It is where we come to Him with hearts that know His mercy and could never condemn another, but long to have His laws seared into our hearts; a place where as we behold the law we don't see an impossible or cruel demand but as it were the Spirit of the law calling us and lifting us to heights that He alone in His grace can and WILL bring us, for which we can take no credit but only praise Him and cry, "Holy, holy, holy!" To this place we believe all can come because we truly know His mercy and love.

And I believe these days the Lord is raising up such lovers. He CAN do it and He IS. He MUST. It is a place were perfection is perfect because all self-righteousness is detestable. It's a place we can only arrive at by knowing the depths of our depravity and the heights of His love. In time, I believe He would help us all arrive there, if we are willing to let go of everything we think WE know for the price of knowing HIM in HIS LOVE.

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]
I attended a Messianic Jewish fellowship/synogague/church for a couple of years back in the 90s.

I learned a little Hebrew. I loved the singing but the service otherwise was as dead as a doorknob.

Sometimes what we think is dead is quite alive and what impresses as "life" isn't really that at all.

I don't read people the same anymore.

But that 's a great testimony that you get to share with your Jewish acquaintances!

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by bearbear

According to dispensational premillenialism we are within the huge gap between Daniel's 69th week and 70th week. According to this view God is not done with the Jews yet. Jesus referred to this gap as the "time of the Gentiles".

When you carefully read Daniel 9 and the prophecy of the 70 weeks you have three time periods that make up the 490 years (70 weeks or heptads): 49 years (7 weeks) to rebuild the temple; 434 years of darkness until the coming of Messiah and seven years ("And one week shall establish the covenant with many" (Daniel 9:27, Complete Apostle's Bible).

There is absolutely no indication here or anywhere that the last week of seven years, must be separated from the 69 weeks or 483 years. To postpone it to some indeterminate time in the future has absolutely no Biblical foundation.

It is the first ever that I have come across anyone suggesting that the words from the Lord Jesus in the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21:24) — "the times of the Gentiles" — refers to the postponed last week of the 70 weeks. I do not understand how you can come to such a conclusion. There is no reference to this in either location.

In fact, when Daniel realized that according to Jeremiah's prophecies (Jeremiah 25:11 and 29:10) the exile would last 70 years he interceded on behalf of his people before the Lord. Then the Lord answered him: "O Daniel, I have now come out to give you insight and understanding. 23 At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the vision" (Daniel 9:23–27).

Then God proceeded by giving him the vision of the 70 weeks, the vision of what would befall Daniel's people, the exiles, and their city. "Seventy weeks" were given (490 years were given)to "To finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place" (Daniel 9:26). All six items refer to what happened when the Lord Jesus came.

I have been unable to find support from Scripture for the "Gap Theory".

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Friedel

When you carefully read Daniel 9 and the prophecy of the 70 weeks you have three time periods that make up the 490 years (70 weeks or heptads): 49 years (7 weeks) to rebuild the temple; 434 years of darkness until the coming of Messiah and seven years ("And one week shall establish the covenant with many" (Daniel 9:27, Complete Apostle's Bible).

There is absolutely no indication here or anywhere that the last week of seven years, must be separated from the 69 weeks or 483 years. To postpone it to some indeterminate time in the future has absolutely no Biblical foundation.

If you were to take this prophecy literally without the pause, then the 70th week should have began between 30AD-32AD (depending on which 360 day Calendar system you use). This would require all the events described by Daniel in the 69th-70th week to have been fulfilled by 39AD at the latest, not 70AD. During the 69th week, the angel Gabriel says that the Messiah will reveal himself and go on to die and look like he did nothing (Daniel 9:26).

From http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

Let's look at Daniel 9:25:

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. "

This includes a mathematical prophecy. The Jewish (and Babylonian) calendars used a 360-day year; 4 69 weeks of 360-day years totals 173,880 days. In effect, Gabriel told Daniel that the interval between the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem until the presentation of the Messiah as King would be 173,880 days.

The commandment to restore and build Jerusalem was given by Artaxerxes Longimanus on March 14, 445 B.C.

During the ministry of Jesus Christ there were several occasions in which the people attempted to promote Him as king, but He carefully avoided it: "Mine hour is not yet come".

Then, one day, He meticulously arranges it. On this particular day he rode into the city of Jerusalem riding on a donkey, deliberately fulfilling a prophecy by Zechariah that the Messiah would present Himself as king in just that way.

Whenever we might easily miss the significance of what was going on, the Pharisees come to our rescue. They felt that the overzealous crowd was blaspheming, proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah the King. However, Jesus endorsed it!

Luke 19:40
I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

This is the only occasion that Jesus presented Himself as King. It occurred on April 6, 32 A.D

When we examine the period between March 14, 445 B.C. and April 6, 32 A.D., and correct for leap years, we discover that it is 173,880 days exactly, to the very day!

It is the first ever that I have come across anyone suggesting that the words from the Lord Jesus in the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21:24) — "the times of the Gentiles" — refers to the postponed last week of the 70 weeks. I do not understand how you can come to such a conclusion. There is no reference to this in either location.

The times of the Gentiles refers to pause between the 69th and 70th week , and neither of those weeks during when God turns away from Israel to minister among the Gentiles (See Romans 11:25).

Not that I consider Lee an authority but this is surprising because Witness Lee was also a premillenial dispensationalist given his Brethren background. I don't know if Lee cited this verse in his life study on the 70 weeks but this is one of the major verses cited by scholars who support this view. Paul also references it in Romans 11:25 and suggests that Israel will turn to Jesus after the time of the Gentiles, which is also described in more detail in Revelation. Israel as a nation has never turned to Christ leading up to 70AD so this has yet to be fulfilled.

The reason behind the pause in Daniel's 70 weeks was due to Israel's rejection of Messiah which Jesus hinted at in Luke 19 but didn't set in stone perhaps because the offer was still open until when he ascended to heaven.

From http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bibl...eeks-prophecy/

"We can tell Jesus expected the Jewish leadership to understand Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy because He held them accountable for knowing the exact day of His official arrival in Jerusalem, and only the 70 weeks prophecy could have told them. Luke 19:41-44 records His indictment of the Jewish people. He began by saying, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace,” and ended with a prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction “because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

But from my studies, I’m convinced that His offer of the Kingdom remained open until at least 40 days after the resurrection, and if Israel had accepted Him as their Messiah at that time, the 70th week would have begun and there would have been no Church Age. So even though God knew what their response would be, it was really their decision to make, and that’s why Jesus didn’t talk about the gap between the 69th and 70th Weeks, not even to the disciples.

Even after Jesus returned to Heaven, they didn’t really understand the pause between the 69th and 70th Weeks until James explained it to them at the Council of Jerusalem 20 years later (Acts 15:13-18)."

In fact, when Daniel realized that according to Jeremiah's prophecies (Jeremiah 25:11 and 29:10) the exile would last 70 years he interceded on behalf of his people before the Lord. Then the Lord answered him: "O Daniel, I have now come out to give you insight and understanding. 23 At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the vision" (Daniel 9:23–27).

Then God proceeded by giving him the vision of the 70 weeks, the vision of what would befall Daniel's people, the exiles, and their city. "Seventy weeks" were given (490 years were given)to "To finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place" (Daniel 9:26). All six items refer to what happened when the Lord Jesus came.

I have been unable to find support from Scripture for the "Gap Theory".

Revelation describes Daniel's 70th week and according to your view this has already past.

Revelation 16:12 states that the Euphrates will have dried up. The Euphrates river has never dried up between the time of Jesus until 70AD. There are also a ton of other prophecies both in Revelation and Isaiah, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Psalms etc. related to the 70th week that have yet to find fulfillment.

Furthermore Revelation is convincingly dated to 96 AD well after the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Why would the Apostle John prophesy concerning things that have already past?

https://www.christiancourier.com/art...lation-written

You'd also have to toss out Romans chapters 9-11 where Paul makes it clear that God is not through with Israel yet.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Dancing

Sometimes what we think is dead is quite alive and what impresses as "life" isn't really that at all.

I don't read people the same anymore.

But that 's a great testimony that you get to share with your Jewish acquaintances!

i get what you say ...but perhaps 'dead' was a poor choice of words. It was very, very boring... and the Rabbi spoke about the importance of tithings for almost the entire 3 yrs I attended.

The music was awesome !! Both Hebrew and English. The prayers were awesome..Hebrew and English...

Seeing the Schroll being paraded around (I say this RESPECTFULLY)...while people touched it, was moving to me.

It was just the message.. I really wanted to hear the Word of God...not the same tithing message over and over again. That's why I left. Nothing changed...nothing new.

I still love them though ! and look forward to meeting them again when we get our Glorified bodies!

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

i get what you say ...but perhaps 'dead' was a poor choice of words. It was very, very boring... and the Rabbi spoke about the importance of tithings for almost the entire 3 yrs I attended.

The music was awesome !! Both Hebrew and English. The prayers were awesome..Hebrew and English...

Seeing the Schroll being paraded around (I say this RESPECTFULLY)...while people touched it, was moving to me.

It was just the message.. I really wanted to hear the Word of God...not the same tithing message over and over again. That's why I left. Nothing changed...nothing new.

I still love them though ! and look forward to meeting them again when we get our Glorified bodies!

I'm sure you do And I can understand how you felt. I would not last three years if all they ever spoke about was tithing!

I found a messianic congregation in 2009. Actually, the Lord led me miraculously. I had read a book entitled, "Messianic Church Arising" by Robert Heidler and wept as I realized my blindness for 30 years. I just hadn't come across believing Jews (came across quite a number of violently unbelieving Jews though!) and I lost my ability to believe the Jews were really still a part of God's plan even though the Lord expresses His love and longing on nearly every page of the Bible. As I wept, I prayed, "Lord, forgive me. What should I do?" The next day I was at the local YMCA and in the locker room I saw a woman I'd never seen before. I sensed the Lord telling me, "She's a messianic Jew." I went to her and asked if this was so and she nodded yes. She told me about the several congregations in the area and offered to take me to one she thought I'd like and, Bingo. That became my home for five years now. God is amazing.

Its congregants are wonderful people and the messages are quite relevant. There's a lot of care and prayer for one another and our fellowship is vibrant. I was especially attracted by the dancing. It had been a dream of mine when I first witnessed it at my faux cousin's bar mitzphah. I never imagined it would become a part of my life in my 50's! Lol... AND that the position of dance leader would fall in my lap! It's really a wonderful opportunity to "love the Lord with all my strength". And the themes of the songs are conducive to much prayer toward the fulfillment of end-time prophesies regarding the Jews.

Perhaps things have changed in all these years...or maybe there's another congregation around you...?

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

Then what do you mean by going back to your Jewish roots? If I go back to my roots they would be English from my mothers side and Scotch-Irish on my Dads side.

If you aren't Jewish how can you go back to your Jewish roots? You don't have any.

Are you just pretending?

I assume Dancing is referring to the Jewish roots of the Christian faith (Romans 11:17-18), rather than being descended from Jews in the natural.

I heard from my mom that my Uncle went to China once and did an ancestral study on my maternal Grandmother (who has some slight features that don't look Chinese) and found that her ancestors can be traced to a village in China known for having a Jewish community (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangzhou and scroll to Jewish community). He speculated that she may be partly Jewish. I emailed him once to ask for more details but he never replied.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dancing

I'm sure you do And I can understand how you felt. I would not last three years if all they ever spoke about was tithing!

I found a messianic congregation in 2009. Actually, the Lord led me miraculously. I had read a book entitled, "Messianic Church Arising" by Robert Heidler and wept as I realized my blindness for 30 years.

I was introduced to the Hebraic roots movement and elements of Messianic Judaism via Sid Roth. Have you read his books on Jewish roots?

I think you would enjoy these two books if you haven't already:

http://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-T...words=sid+roth

http://www.amazon.com/The-Incomplete...words=sid+roth

He also has a weekly television show and radio program at sidroth.org and has had Robert Heidler on his show before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlRa2_xuZdI

Here's the latest episode which touches on the blood moons and the feasts CMW referred to earlier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew1FBRnw9ao

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Dancing

I'm sure you do And I can understand how you felt. I would not last three years if all they ever spoke about was tithing!

I found a messianic congregation in 2009. Actually, the Lord led me miraculously. I had read a book entitled, "Messianic Church Arising" by Robert Heidler and wept as I realized my blindness for 30 years. I just hadn't come across believing Jews (came across quite a number of violently unbelieving Jews though!) and I lost my ability to believe the Jews were really still a part of God's plan even though the Lord expresses His love and longing on nearly every page of the Bible. As I wept, I prayed, "Lord, forgive me. What should I do?" The next day I was at the local YMCA and in the locker room I saw a woman I'd never seen before. I sensed the Lord telling me, "She's a messianic Jew." I went to her and asked if this was so and she nodded yes. She told me about the several congregations in the area and offered to take me to one she thought I'd like and, Bingo. That became my home for five years now. God is amazing.

Its congregants are wonderful people and the messages are quite relevant. There's a lot of care and prayer for one another and our fellowship is vibrant. I was especially attracted by the dancing. It had been a dream of mine when I first witnessed it at my faux cousin's bar mitzphah. I never imagined it would become a part of my life in my 50's! Lol... AND that the position of dance leader would fall in my lap! It's really a wonderful opportunity to "love the Lord with all my strength". And the themes of the songs are conducive to much prayer toward the fulfillment of end-time prophesies regarding the Jews.

Perhaps things have changed in all these years...or maybe there's another congregation around you...?

OH ! YES ! THE DANCING !! NOTHING LIKE JEWISH DANCING ! SO MUCH FUN!!!!! There are Messianic congregations around here...I'm not led to go to any 'church' anymore. But I do listen to a show called 'Messianic perspectives' on the radio. It is really good !

To EL-SHADDAI BE ALL THE GLORY AND PRAISE. My spirit and soul bless Abba Father, Yahushuah and His Ruach Ha Kodesh.

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by bearbear

I assume Dancing is referring to the Jewish roots of the Christian faith (Romans 11:17-18), rather than being descended from Jews in the natural.

I heard from my mom that my Uncle went to China once and did an ancestral study on my maternal Grandmother (who has some slight features that don't look Chinese) and found that her ancestors can be traced to a village in China known for having a Jewish community (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangzhou and scroll to Jewish community). He speculated that she may be partly Jewish. I emailed him once to ask for more details but he never replied.

Thanks for catching my oversight, bearbear! Sorry, awareness! I didn't mean to ignore you!

I'm familiar with what you're talking about. Sounds like you very well could be descended from them! I heard recently that a good number from the community in Hangzhou made aliyah (emmigrated) to Israel. It had been their dream for some time. I can't recall now...were they believed to be of the tribe of Mannasseh?

How exciting that must be for you!!

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by bearbear

1. If you were to take this prophecy literally without the pause, then the 70th week should have began between 30AD-32AD (depending on which 360 day Calendar system you use). This would require all the events described by Daniel in the 69th-70th week to have been fulfilled by 39AD at the latest, not 70AD.

2. "We can tell Jesus expected the Jewish leadership to understand Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy because He held them accountable for knowing the exact day of His official arrival in Jerusalem, and only the 70 weeks prophecy could have told them."

3. Furthermore Revelation is convincingly dated to 96 AD well after the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Why would the Apostle John prophesy concerning things that have already past?

https://www.christiancourier.com/art...lation-written

I have read the entire post and you have indeed raised so many issues regarding my post, focusing only on the prophecy of the seventy weeks, that it will require a lot of time to answer; time that I unfortunately do not have. However, I will answer briefly on three points from your post that I have numbered 1, 2 and 3 to make it easier.

1. I never suggested that the 70 weeks will end in 70 AD. It ended with Messiah being cut off which is in the middle of the 70th week. Jesus was crucified in the year 32 or 33. Note that the prophecy makes no mention what happens the rest of the week. Any suggestion would be conjecture. (I have read that at the end of the seven years, the last week, Stephan was martyred. That might be so, or not.)

2. Not only the Jewish leadership expected the Messiah around the time of His birth but also common people like Simeon and Anna, the prophetess (Luke 2).

3. I do not agree that the date of the writing of the Revelation has been convincingly dated to 96 AD (during the closing years of the reign of Domitian). The Revelation had to be written before the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. For example, Revelation 11 speaks of John being instructed to measure the temple. When John wrote the Revelation the temple was still standing and it would have been before the siege and the destruction of the temple and the city. In the whole history of Israel, the greatest catastrophe, the most woeful tragedy, had to be the destruction of their beloved city and their temple, the center of the religious activities. Yet according to your argument about a late date (at the most 25 years after the siege and subsequent sack of the temple and the city), John totally ignores it, as if it never happened. Impossible!

You also give a link to Wayne Jackson's "Christian Courier". He discusses the external and internal evidence for a late-date argument. Regarding the external evidence there is and always has been only one argument although people like Wayne Jackson and others would cite several sources who use this particular argument as support for their argument of the external evidence in support of a late date. I quote from your link:

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

In case you did you did not know, Irenaeus wrote De Incartione, which gave us that most famous of phrases, "… that we might become God". Therefore, I am suspect of his pronouncements.

Wayne Jackson is somewhat disingenuous with his quote from Irenaeus and I will show why. He should have explained the dilemma of this quote. The original Greek writing was lost but Eusebius had written it down in his Ecclesiastical History. The statement in the Greek is somewhat ambiguous and could mean that the "Apocalypse was seen" (by John) or that Polycarp had seen him who had seen the Revelation (i.e. John). Polycarp was allegedly trained by the apostles and Irenaeus had seen Polycarp when he (Irenaeus) was probably still a child because his Against Heresies from which this quote comes was written only about 75 years later.

Irenaeus has been described as "even in the Greek … a very obscure writer." Expositor F J A Hort (of Westcott and Hort) insisted that according to the Greek construction it had to refer to John who had seen the Revelation and not to the Apocalypse itself.

Whatever the case, evidence for a late date is at best tenuous. That leaves us only with the internal evidence and the sheer weight from Revelation itself supports an early date (pre-70 AD).

[Dancing]

Originally Posted by bearbear

I was introduced to the Hebraic roots movement and elements of Messianic Judaism via Sid Roth. Have you read his books on Jewish roots?

I think you would enjoy these two books if you haven't already:

http://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-T...words=sid+roth

http://www.amazon.com/The-Incomplete...words=sid+roth

He also has a weekly television show and radio program at sidroth.org and has had Robert Heidler on his show before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlRa2_xuZdI

Here's the latest episode which touches on the blood moons and the feasts CMW referred to earlier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew1FBRnw9ao

Yes! I've read both those books off Sid's! Awesome and wonderful testimonies! And I've read Mark Biltz book about the blood moons... We are living in amazing times... Thanks for sharing!

[bearbear]

A poster asked me to add some interesting revelations from Hebraic roots studies here so I thought it would be nice to share this.

The camp of the children of Israel in the wilderness formed a cross with the Levites in the center:
http://asis.com/users/stag/bible/wildcamp.html

Once a year during the day of atonement, yom kippur, the high priest would enter the holy of holies, at the center of the tabernacle, at the center of the camp forming a cross, and sprinkle blood on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant.

According to the Mishnah, while sprinkling the blood, the high priest would say God's name, the tetragrammation, YHVH. In the pictographic form of Hebrew used in those days, the letters had meaning and looked like objects such as hands, houses and windows.

God's name spelled yod-hey-vav-hey when spoken would have meant and looked like "yod - hand", "hey - behold! (a man with two arms lifted up)", "vav - nail", "hey - behold!". Taken together it would form the sentence "behold the hand! behold the nail!"

http://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/yh...hold-the-nail/

In summary, the high priest would repeat "behold the hand! behold the nail!", while sprinkling blood on the ark of the covenant, while standing in the middle of a huge cross in the wilderness... Viewed from the sky, it would have looked like an epic ceremony commemorating the future sacrifice of the Messiah 1200 years later, well before the cross was ever thought of as an execution method.

Interestingly, the letter tav, the first letter of the word Torah, meant covenant and was written exactly as a cross, foreshadowing the new covenant which would come through the cross of Christ.

Torah in Hebrew is spelled "tav, vav, resh, hey"

In paleo hebrew:

1. the letter tav was written as a cross.
2. vav was a nail
3. resh was written as head or person
4. hey was a window or a man holding up two hands and meant behold! or reveal

Which taken together is "a man nailed to the cross revealed".

The word torah itself reveals Jesus, who was the fulfillment of torah, and his sacrifice on the cross!

more on this here:
http://www.ecclesia.org/TRUTH/torah.html

[bearbear]

The line from Adam all the way to Noah was ten generations. If you write out the Hebrew meaning of each of the names from Adam to Noah it forms an interesting sentence.

Name - Hebrew meaning

1. Adam - Man
2. Seth - Appointed
3. Enosh - Mortal
4. Kenan - Sorrow
5. Mahahlalel - The blessed God
6. Jared - Shall come down
7. Enoch - Teaching
8. Methuselah - His death shall bring
9. Lamech - The despairing
10. Noah - Rest, comfort

Taken together, these names summarize and prophesy all of scripture.

1. Man appointed mortal sorrow (the fall of man).
2. The blessed God shall come down teaching (Torah given to Moses)
3. His death shall bring the despairing rest and comfort (death of Messiah and Matt 11:28-29)

Matthew 11:28-29
Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

The line from Adam all the way to Noah was ten generations. If you write out the Hebrew meaning of each of the names from Adam to Noah it forms an interesting sentence.

Name - Hebrew meaning

1. Adam - Man
2. Seth - Appointed
3. Enosh - Mortal
4. Kenan - Sorrow
5. Mahahlalel - The blessed God
6. Jared - Shall come down
7. Enoch - Teaching
8. Methuselah - His death shall bring
9. Lamech - The despairing
10. Noah - Rest, comfort

Taken together, these names summarize and prophesy all of scripture.

1. Man appointed mortal sorrow (the fall of man).
2. The blessed God shall come down teaching (Torah given to Moses)
3. His death shall bring the despairing rest and comfort (death of Messiah and Matt 11:28-29)

Matthew 11:28-29
Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Wait till Nigel Tomes writes a paper on Hebrew word studies like he did for Greek word etymologies.

[Lynn Derrick]

Torah!
Isaiah 2:3
"For the Torah (law) will go forth from Zion And the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem"

Micah 4:2
"For from Zion will go forth the Torah (law), Even the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ezra

Torah!
Isaiah 2:3
"For the Torah (law) will go forth from Zion And the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem"

Micah 4:2
"For from Zion will go forth the Torah (law), Even the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem"

Ezra, welcome to the forum!

Can you say more? This is a Christian forum, so our Yahweh is Jesus (in English) who is our Lord and Savior.

Furthermore, the Torah was not written to us, it was written to Israel. As Apostle Paul instructed us, "Why then the Torah law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed, who is Christ, should come to whom the promise was made. The law was ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator." (Galatians 3.19, 16)

The New Testament is written to us, and the Old Testament (Law, Songs, History, and the Prophets) is for our admonition. (I Corinthians 10.11)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a Christian forum, so our Yahweh is Jesus

Not so fast. Yahweh said to our Lord (Gk: Kurios), "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies into Your footstool under foot."

How can Yahweh say to Himself, "Sit at My right hand"? How can someone talk to themselves, saying pronouns "I" and "You", and doing things thus? "He will set His angels round You, to protect and keep You, lest you stumble Your feet against a stone." If Yahweh is Jesus, then "He" and "You" have no meaning.

I have been reading English too long to see "He", and "My" and "His" and "You" and so forth as having no meaning anymore. Sorry but I am stuck in my ways, until further notice. I can't upend the meaning of plain words in front of me, to satisfy some theological precept.

[OBW]

aron,

I was thinking some of the same things. But at the same time, it is not really that Ohio said something wrong, just may have said it wrong.

Jesus is the Messiah. Whether we can simply attribute the OT term Yahweh to Jesus may not be a simple as we often think. Since God in the OT was not called different persons though given many different names, the inferences in the OT are less clearly identifiable directly with one or the other of the Trinity in the NT.

Not trying to muddle the three or separate the one (why didn't you just say so Patrick — for followers of Lutheran Satire on YouTube). There is a truth of one and of three. Unless we really have a need to force the OT terminology into the neat terminology of the NT, we might be better off just admitting that there is God in the OT and that he is explained differently in the NT, though nothing actually changed. (Well, if you don't count the Son becoming flesh.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

How can Yahweh say to Himself, "Sit at My right hand"? How can someone talk to themselves, saying pronouns "I" and "You", and doing things thus? "He will set His angels round You, to protect and keep You, lest you stumble Your feet against a stone." If Yahweh is Jesus, then "He" and "You" have no meaning.

Well, aron, you have your logic, but I have my scripture. I have a lengthy list here, but I'll start with just a few.

1. Yahweh is the creator (Isa 45.11) / Jesus is the creator (John 1.3)
2. Yahweh is our husband (Isa 54.5) / Jesus is our husband (Rev 19.7)
3. Yahweh is the I AM (Exo 3.14) / Jesus is the I AM (John 8.52)
4. Yahweh is our shepherd (Psa 23.1) / Jesus is our shepherd (John 10.14)

This list goes on and on.

Now either we got two creators, two husbands, two shepherds, two "I AM"s, two redeemers, two rocks, two stones of stumbling, two healers, etc. etc. or Yahweh of the O.T. is Jesus of the N.T.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Well, aron, you have your logic, but I have my scripture.

You have your scripture, and I have my scripture; whatever are we to do?

I noticed you didn't address mine, but merely trotted out verses of your own.

In order for us to come to common agreement, I daresay we must include all of scripture, not merely that which supports our view.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

... it is not really that Ohio said something wrong, just may have said it wrong.

I wouldn't say Ohio said something wrong; he'd have to say something like, "God is evil", for me to say, "wrong." And in all the years that he and I have posted, here, I have no recollection of him violating Christian understanding thus.

When I say, "Not so fast", I mean, "There is more than merely, 'reality consists of 'x''". Jesus took this method with the Pharisees: "You say that reality is 'x', but why then does scripture say 'y'?" Yes that is logic.

Especially if you consider Jewish readers, or people with Jewish understanding: There is One God. I think that we should be respectful of and inclusive of all scripture, and all reading, in coming to understanding, collectively, rather than simply saying, "reality is 'x'" and dismissing out of hand all who can't get it. And ignoring all scripture that doesn't line up with today's version of 'reality'.

My own understanding was deeply informed by a certain person who wasn't a Jew or a disciple, at least an open one. The Roman Centurion. "I also am a man under authority". Jesus marveled at his understanding.

Notice that a name isn't mentioned in the message which the Centurion's friends gave to Jesus. The name of Caesar. But it was clearly understood: the centurion was "one" with Caesar. Operationally, the centurion 'was' Caesar. If he got mad, Caesar was mad, because his will was to do the will of Caesar. So if the servants disobeyed, they disobeyed Caesar, because the centurion spoke forth the word of Caesar.

"The word that I speak to you is not My own, because the Father speaks through Me." Operationally, Jesus is indeed Jahweh. Jesus is the Father. Yet the monotheistic God is not dumped to accommodate our understanding; in fact the monotheistic God, Jehovah of the Jews, is standing and speaking right in front of us, through His Servant Jesus! The Sendee and the Sender are one.

And Ohio and I are one, just as Jesus is one with the Father. I believe this. And though I often exasperate him, I think that he agrees. Because we are one in Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

You have your scripture, and I have my scripture; whatever are we to do?

I noticed you didn't address mine, but merely trotted out verses of your own.

In order for us to come to common agreement, I daresay we must include all of scripture, not merely that which supports our view.

Trotted out my own verses?

This goes back to the age old question: Is God one, two, or three? You interpret your verses to indicate that God is perhaps two, saying pronouns "I" and "You" imply this, otherwise "if Yahweh is Jesus, then "He" and "You" have no meaning." But that is simply your logical interpretation of the cited verses.

I, however, believe God is one, as the scriptures in the old and new assure us. I also believe there is Father, Son, and Spirit without concluding that this makes "three." I also believe when Jesus prayed to the Father, that was not "two." Don't ask me to explain the heavenly "math," rather I desire to accept and believe what I am unable to comprehend.

As a young Catholic boy, I spent too much time thinking how old was God. I wondered how he could wait trillions and quadrillions of years before creating the earth and man, and then coming to earth as Jesus. That was just the foolishness of a little boy, but now that mental anguish helps me not to project my mental inabilities upon an infinite God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now either we got two creators, two husbands, two shepherds, two "I AM"s, two redeemers, two rocks, two stones of stumbling, two healers, etc. etc. or Yahweh of the O.T. is Jesus of the N.T.

Here's how I understand it. You have a very, very rich man that wants to do business. Now, there's people all over doing stuff. Some of them, for example, are working in a vineyard, owned by the rich man. So the rich man sends emissaries. Those emissaries speak for the rich man.

When they speak, he speaks. They weep at the condition, because He grieves. The rich man even cares so much for the vineyard that He sends His only Begotten Son.

You get my drift. The sender and the sendee are one. The sendee speaks for the sender. Operationally, he is and should be treated as the sender. And I do.

Jesus is Jehovah made flesh. He presents us with the Creator, made a small, Nazarene Jew living under Roman occupation. And yet my concept of One God, the God of the Jews, is not troubled.

Look at the appelations: "You are the King of Israel!!" "You are the Holy One of God!!" "You are the Son of God!!" "You are the Messiah(Christ)!!" "You are the One who comes in the name of the LORD!!" Etc. Jesus denied none of these appelations. The Pharisees got upset because He called God His Father, and this made Him (so they said) God. But He never said, "I am God", in spite of many opportunities to do so.

And I put forth the last paragraph, because I believe that Jesus was a Jew, walking among Jews, and to say, "I am God" would violate the monotheistic understanding. He never did that. I find that interesting. It was His followers that challenged monotheism as the Jews understood it. Please let me emphasize the last phrase, "as the Jews understood it." We are entering upon a discussion of scripture already written. We are not writing scripture here. Let's honor the past, not hurry past it to today's truth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Jesus is Jehovah made flesh. He presents us with the Creator, made a small, Nazarene Jew living under Roman occupation. And yet my concept of One God, the God of the Jews, is not troubled.

Look at the appellations: "You are the King of Israel!!" "You are the Holy One of God!!" "You are the Son of God!!" "You are the Messiah(Christ)!!" "You are the One who comes in the name of the LORD!!" Etc. Jesus denied none of these appellations. The Pharisees got upset because He called God His Father, and this made Him (so they said) God. But He never said, "I am God", in spite of many opportunities to do so.

There is no way I would accept that Jesus was merely an emissary, acting in another's stead, as the centurion did. That would make Jesus as the created angels, yet oftentimes He did act as an emissary or messenger, and then was called the Angel of Jehovah.

Perhaps because I live in Jehovah Witness country, I have formed decisive opinions concerning Jesus and Yahweh / Jehovah. From these I will never back down. As you have said, Jesus is Jehovah made flesh. Amen to that! Jesus is the eternal Logos, who was in eternity with God. The Logos Word was with God, and the Logos Word was God. That's the greatest mystery!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ezra

Torah!
Isaiah 2:3
"For the Torah (law) will go forth from Zion And the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem"
Micah 4:2
"For from Zion will go forth the Torah (law), Even the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem"

Brothers, let's give our new friend Ezra some breathing room before we blitzkrieg him with our personal theological understandings and interpretations, shall we?

I think he made his first post in the "Jewish Roots" thread here for a very good reason, so let's give him some space and time to bring forth his reason(s), if he so chooses. He's not the one who started this thread, but I'm assuming that he was attracted to the subject enough to put his very first post here.

Ezra, the floor is yours now, my brother.
-

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Well, aron, you have your logic, but I have my scripture. I have a lengthy list here, but I'll start with just a few.

1. Yahweh is the creator (Isa 45.11) / Jesus is the creator (John 1.3)
2. Yahweh is our husband (Isa 54.5) / Jesus is our husband (Rev 19.7)
3. Yahweh is the I AM (Exo 3.14) / Jesus is the I AM (John 8.52)
4. Yahweh is our shepherd (Psa 23.1) / Jesus is our shepherd (John 10.14)

This list goes on and on.

Now either we got two creators, two husbands, two shepherds, two "I AM"s, two redeemers, two rocks, two stones of stumbling, two healers, etc. etc. or Yahweh of the O.T. is Jesus of the N.T.

Don't start pulling the "two life-giving spirits" argument.

(That was meant a little tongue-in-cheek)

The problem with the analysis is that while there are the persons, there is the aspect of one. What is shared (in "essence") is not clearly delineated from what is unique. If "God is spirit" then your kind of analysis could assert that the whole is the Holy Spirit. I know you don't assert that, but it is a potential way to consider it. We know the reasons why not to though and don't go there (even if Lee did, at least partly).

While there may be nothing obvious telling us that the verses you provided are not broad in reference to I AM (for example) in reference to Jesus as part of the Godhead rather than to Jesus uniquely relative to the whole Godhead, are we sure that that is or is not the correct way to understand it? In other words, if you can read it either way, what makes your way right and another wrong?

And the reason that I interjected in the first place was that it almost seemed as if it was a challenge to Ezra to not bother looking at OT things rather than at the "we have it right" Christian perspective.