PDA

View Full Version : Is there a different heaven for Jews?



Pages : [1] 2

Studyin'2Show
Oct 8th 2007, 12:30 PM
It threatens the Jewish character of the state of Israel, and they have every right to take action.

Then what? I go to hell forever- for believing the wrong thing?How can it possibly threaten the state of Israel when 90% of Israelis aren't even religious Jews? Do you believe the majority of Jews in Israel are going to become Christian for no reason? :rolleyes:

As for going to hell forever, I am not the one that makes that judgment. I would like to think that those who love YHVH and serve Him will not have that fate, but we're not discussing you or those like you who desire to serve YHVH. We are talking about those who have rejected YHVH and His Torah. If you're wrong and there is no temporary 11 month hell, then those who do not serve Him in this life, will not be with Him in the world to come. Then what? Do they miss out because you didn't take the time to evangelize them to serve the Living God and you didn't want us too? :hmm:

Shalom!

Fenris
Oct 8th 2007, 12:41 PM
How can it possibly threaten the state of Israel when 90% of Israelis aren't even religious Jews?What happens if you have your way and those 90% become Christians?



As for going to hell forever, I am not the one that makes that judgment. I would like to think that those who love YHVH and serve Him will not have that fate, but we're not discussing you or those like you who desire to serve YHVH. We are talking about those who have rejected YHVH and His Torah.
You mean people like me?:D


If you're wrong and there is no temporary 11 month hell, then those who do not serve Him in this life, will not be with Him in the world to come.
Well, I'm confident enough that I'm right that I'll take that chance.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 8th 2007, 01:40 PM
What happens if you have your way and those 90% become Christians?

You mean people like me?:D

Well, I'm confident enough that I'm right that I'll take that chance.You have not answered the question. How does it threaten Israel if this 90% hears the Gospel? You answer mine, then I'll answer yours. ;)

I did not say that you had rejected Torah. :rolleyes: Though I do believe you have not recognized the One Moses told Israel to watch for, I am not your judge. But again, this discussion here is not regarding you or those like you who desire to serve YHVH and observe Torah, but those who have rejected Him and His Torah.

Who are you to tell them they don't have the right to make their own decision? Sure, take your chances if you like to gamble. But you have no right to tell the culturally Jewish atheist that they don't have the right to hear for themselves and make their own choice.

Blessings!

Fenris
Oct 8th 2007, 01:57 PM
You have not answered the question. How does it threaten Israel if this 90% hears the Gospel? You answer mine, then I'll answer yours. ;)Because Israel is a JEWISH state. It defines itself in that way and it may take steps to preserve that character.



Who are you to tell them they don't have the right to make their own decision? Sure, take your chances if you like to gamble. You're gambling too. What if you're wrong and God punishes you for preaching lies?


But you have no right to tell the culturally Jewish atheist that they don't have the right to hear for themselves and make their own choice.

The Israeli government feels otherwise. take it up with them.

diffangle
Oct 8th 2007, 02:00 PM
Right, but again, the government here has the right to restrict some speech. The government in Israel also has the right to restrict some speech. And they are exercising that right.
The speech restricted here is incitement of violence... sharing the Gospel with someone hardly comes close to that. Again, why does Israel find the Gospel so threatening?


I didn't say that.

A Jewish atheist, whether they follow the Torah or not, is better off than a Jewish convert to Christianity. Christianity is a fine religion for non-Jews, but for Jews it is idolatry.
As I pointed out atheism is idolatry too... it makes ones self their own god. What heaven does the atheist Jew get compared to the Jew that follows the Jewish Torah-observant Messiah?


Because everyone doesn't get the same heaven. One's afterlife is based on their accomplishments in life; specifically, for a Jew, following the Torah.

ChildofImmanuel
Oct 8th 2007, 02:03 PM
What happens if you have your way and those 90% become Christians?

I don't want them to 'convert to Christianity', I want them to find a better way of being Jewish.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 8th 2007, 02:57 PM
Because Israel is a JEWISH state. It defines itself in that way and it may take steps to preserve that character.

You're gambling too. What if you're wrong and God punishes you for preaching lies?

The Israeli government feels otherwise. take it up with them.You have said that being Jewish is having a Jewish mother so that would not change. They would still be just as Jewish as they are now considering they are not religious Jews now. Anyway, Israel is quite obviously a culturally Jewish state otherwise all would be required to be observant and that is not the case. No change!

I'm not gambling since God does speak with me and I know Him. So, you see I am more than confident that I speak what is truth! :D But even in your eyes I will only spend a maximum of 11 months in hell and would only have been eligible for Gentile heaven anyway so even then, no gamble. :P

I believe those who are called to be missionaries there already are, so I'll leave it to them. ;)

Baruch HaShem!

Fenris
Oct 8th 2007, 03:42 PM
The speech restricted here is incitement of violence... sharing the Gospel with someone hardly comes close to that. Sharing the Gospel threatens the Jewish character of Israel. Incitement to violence threatens the lives of Americans, and converting Jews in Israel threatens the souls of Israelis.

Fenris
Oct 8th 2007, 03:42 PM
I don't want them to 'convert to Christianity', I want them to find a better way of being Jewish.
What makes you think you know how to make them a better Jew?

diffangle
Oct 8th 2007, 04:22 PM
Sharing the Gospel threatens the Jewish character of Israel. Incitement to violence threatens the lives of Americans, and converting Jews in Israel threatens the souls of Israelis.
But atheism is part of the "Jewish character" and is good for their souls? What is the threat to their soul if they're going to end up in heaven anyway?

Fenris
Oct 8th 2007, 05:02 PM
But atheism is part of the "Jewish character" and is good for their souls? What is the threat to their soul if they're going to end up in heaven anyway?
Atheism is religion-neutral, which I (and the Israeli government, apparently:lol:) find preferable to mass-conversion to Christianity.

diffangle
Oct 8th 2007, 05:26 PM
Atheism is religion-neutral, which I (and the Israeli government, apparently:lol:) find preferable to mass-conversion to Christianity.
Wouldn't this verse apply to an atheist since he/she doesn't observe Torah and doesn't believe in YHWH...

Jer 6:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jer&chapter=6&verse=19&version=kjv#19)Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, [even] the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto My words, nor to My Law, but rejected it.

So what position in heaven does the atheist get compared to the Torah-observant believer in Messiah?

Fenris
Oct 8th 2007, 05:34 PM
Wouldn't this verse apply to an atheist since he/she doesn't observe Torah and doesn't believe in YHWH...

Jer 6:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jer&chapter=6&verse=19&version=kjv#19)Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, [even] the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto My words, nor to My Law, but rejected it.

So what position in heaven does the atheist get compared to the Torah-observant believer in Messiah?

In Jeremiah's time, atheism didn't exist. So he's referring to religions other than Judaism. Whether that pertains so Christianity or not is a point on which we'll differ, of course.:P In any case, you're asking if it is better in God's eyes for a Jew to be a Christian than an atheist, I can only give you my personal opinion: Christianity is worse because for a Jew it is idolatry. Part of my opinion is formulated on the fact that the Noahide Laws appear to prohibit idolatry but not atheism.

Now, if someone born a Jew actually kept all 613 commandments (as they pertained, anyway) but believed in Jesus vs. an atheist who kept none, well, that's an interesting thought experiment.

Naphal
Oct 9th 2007, 02:27 AM
Quote:
What happens to a Jew that converts to Christianity and has good accomplishments in life? What heaven do they get into?
I dunno. Should they have known better??

You don't know or don't have any guess? You keep saying it is better for a Jew to deny God than for a Jew to accept Christ. No judgements here, I just want to know why and what "heaven" they go to.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 12:01 PM
You don't know or don't have any guess?
I don't know. Being an atheist is bad but worshiping idols is worse.


You keep saying it is better for a Jew to deny God than for a Jew to accept Christ. No judgements here, I just want to know why and what "heaven" they go to.

I don't know.

For us, it isn't all or nothing. Someone who violated the sabbath one time doesn't get the same punishment that Hitler is getting and someone who kept only a few commandments isn't getting the same reward as someone who was martyred for being Jewish.

Naphal
Oct 9th 2007, 12:10 PM
I don't know. Being an atheist is bad but worshiping idols is worse.

Christians believe the two are essentially the same. Both do not worship God.




For us, it isn't all or nothing. Someone who violated the sabbath one time doesn't get the same punishment that Hitler is getting and someone who kept only a few commandments isn't getting the same reward as someone who was martyred for being Jewish.

So, how long will Hitler spend in hell? You mentioned a max. of 7 years for yourself. Hitler who was the leader behind the final solution would get more than 7 years. Would it be eternity or would Hitler eventually be allowed into heaven?

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 12:13 PM
Christians believe the two are essentially the same. Both do not worship God.Well, Jews see it differently, what else can I say?


So, how long will Hitler spend in hell? You mentioned a max. of 7 years for yourself. Hitler who was the leader behind the final solution would get more than 7 years. Would it be eternity or would Hitler eventually be allowed into heaven?Well, he falls into the category of 'really really bad people'. Obviously. So anyway, we do not have the idea of eternal damnation; so he will be punished fully for his sins (however long that takes) and then his soul will be destroyed.

Naphal
Oct 9th 2007, 12:16 PM
Well, he falls into the category of 'really really bad people'. Obviously. So anyway, we do not have the idea of eternal damnation; so he will be punished fully for his sins (however long that takes) and then his soul will be destroyed.

Eh? If you believe his soul will be destroyed then that's eternal damnation as long as that destruction lasts eternally.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 12:23 PM
Eh? If you believe his soul will be destroyed then that's eternal damnation as long as that destruction lasts eternally.No, if a soul is destroyed that person simply ceases to exist.

Naphal
Oct 9th 2007, 12:25 PM
No, if a soul is destroyed that person simply ceases to exist.

Damnation is merely a judgement so eternal damnation is a judgement that is in effect forever.

Whether eternal damnation is eternal suffering or eternal destruction is debated by Christians. I believe in destruction as you do.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 12:27 PM
Damnation is merely a judgement so eternal damnation is a judgement that is in effect forever.

Whether eternal damnation is eternal suffering or eternal destruction is debated by Christians. I believe in destruction as you do.God is just, God is fair. Even Hitler, who was responsible for massive human suffering, did not cause an infinite amount of suffering. An eternal punishment would be an infinite amount of punishment, and that would not be just or fair.

Naphal
Oct 9th 2007, 12:27 PM
Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

eternal

166
166 aionios {ahee-o'-nee-os}

from 165; TDNT - 1:208,31; adj

AV - eternal 42, everlasting 25, the world began + 5550 2,
since the world began + 5550 1, for ever 1; 71

1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and
always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

For Synonyms see entry 5801


damnation

2920
2920 krisis {kree'-sis}
perhaps a primitive word; TDNT - 3:941,469; n f
AV - judgment 41, damnation 3, accusation 2, condemnation 2; 48
1) a separating, sundering, separation
1a) a trial, contest
2) selection
3) judgment
3a) opinion or decision given concerning anything
3a1) esp. concerning justice and injustice, right or wrong
3b) sentence of condemnation, damnatory judgment, condemnation
and punishment
4) the college of judges (a tribunal of seven men in the several
cities of Palestine; as distinguished from the Sanhedrin,
which had its seat at Jerusalem)
5) right, justice

Naphal
Oct 9th 2007, 12:29 PM
God is just, God is fair. Even Hitler, who was responsible for massive human suffering, did not cause an infinite amount of suffering. An eternal punishment would be an infinite amount of punishment, and that would not be just or fair.

Yet you believe Hitler will be destroyed forever, an infinite amount of time. So a man causing a finite amount of suffering will receive an infinite lasting punishment. I believe that is fair of God.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 12:32 PM
Yet you believe Hitler will be destroyed forever, an infinite amount of time. So a man causing a finite amount of suffering will receive an infinite lasting punishment. I believe that is fair of God.A soul that is destroyed is not being punished. It just doesn't exist anymore.

Naphal
Oct 9th 2007, 12:36 PM
A soul that is destroyed is not being punished. It just doesn't exist anymore.

I think you mean "not suffering anymore" rather than "not being punished". Being destroyed is a punishment. That is the final judgment or damnation God declares upon the wicked. Eternal destruction. To cease to exist.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 12:38 PM
I am sure that after suffering through the punishment he so rightly deserves, Hitler's soul being destroyed would be a...relief.

Naphal
Oct 9th 2007, 12:42 PM
I am sure that after suffering through the punishment he so rightly deserves, Hitler's soul being destroyed would be a...relief.

You might be underestimating the desire to exist...

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 12:44 PM
You might be underestimating the desire to exist...
Hmm. True, true.

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 01:15 PM
In Jeremiah's time, atheism didn't exist. So he's referring to religions other than Judaism. Whether that pertains so Christianity or not is a point on which we'll differ, of course.:P In any case, you're asking if it is better in God's eyes for a Jew to be a Christian than an atheist, I can only give you my personal opinion: Christianity is worse because for a Jew it is idolatry. Part of my opinion is formulated on the fact that the Noahide Laws appear to prohibit idolatry but not atheism.

Now, if someone born a Jew actually kept all 613 commandments (as they pertained, anyway) but believed in Jesus vs. an atheist who kept none, well, that's an interesting thought experiment.

Actually, atheism existed before Jeremiah.

Ps 14:1

The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God ."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
NIV

Ps 14:1

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;
There is no one who does good.
NASU


I am a little late coming to the discussion table. I hope I am not too intrusive. ;)

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 01:16 PM
Actually, atheism existed before Jeremiah.

Heh. I was not aware that the phenomena existed back then. Weird.


I am a little late coming to the discussion table. I hope I am not too intrusive. ;)
The more the merrier, I always say.

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 01:19 PM
Heh. I was not aware that the phenomena existed back then. Weird.

David saw it and wrote about it in the Psalms. ;)

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 01:23 PM
David saw it and wrote about it in the Psalms. ;)Apparently so.
I was under the impression that with idolatry being so rampant back then, no one believed in nothing, although they seemed to be willing to worship many strange things. I thought that atheism was more a product of the scientific revolutions in the middle ages.

You live, you learn.

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 01:26 PM
The reason many Christians believe atheism is idolatry comes from scripture and the attitude of atheist. For instance, atheist raise men to the highest place, which to us, is idolatry of man. Or said another way, worshiping the created instead of the creator. Atheism is faith in action as no one can disprove the existence of God. So one must "believe" God does not exist. I would think an agnostic is more intellectually honest than an atheist.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 01:33 PM
The reason many Christians believe atheism is idolatry comes from scripture and the attitude of atheist. For instance, atheist raise men to the highest place, which to us, is idolatry of man. Or said another way, worshiping the created instead of the creator.It's a good point. For certain, the behavior of atheist governments has been an appalling black mark in human history. That behavior seems to come from the attitude of men in power who feel they will never have to answer for their crimes, in this world or the next.



I would think an agnostic is more intellectually honest than an atheist.That is true, and I feel that an agnostic can 'walk a good path' and still be more or less ok with God. Lack of belief is something that one sometimes cannot help.

diffangle
Oct 9th 2007, 01:45 PM
Actually, atheism existed before Jeremiah.

Ps 14:1

The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God ."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
NIV

Ps 14:1

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;
There is no one who does good.
NASU


I am a little late coming to the discussion table. I hope I am not too intrusive. ;)

Thanks for the verses Mark. :) With the Jeremiah verse I posted...

Jer 6:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jer&chapter=6&verse=19&version=kjv#19)Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, [even] the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto My words, nor to My Law, but rejected it.

... it doesn't matter if the person who hasn't hearkened His Words or His Law and reject Him are into worshipping other gods or they're atheist... they both choose to reject Him so this verse applies to both. ;)


The reason many Christians believe atheism is idolatry comes from scripture and the attitude of atheist. For instance, atheist raise men to the highest place, which to us, is idolatry of man. Or said another way, worshiping the created instead of the creator. Atheism is faith in action as no one can disprove the existence of God. So one must "believe" God does not exist. I would think an agnostic is more intellectually honest than an atheist.
Exactly... atheists make men(and/or science) their gods.

diffangle
Oct 9th 2007, 01:57 PM
That is true, and I feel that an agnostic can 'walk a good path' and still be more or less ok with God.
They're still rejecting His Law/Word/Him.



Lack of belief is something that one sometimes cannot help.

All the people who worship other gods have a lack of belief in the True Elohim YHWH... can they not help their lack of belief in Him?

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 02:11 PM
All the people who worship other gods have a lack of belief in the True Elohim YHWH... can they not help their lack of belief in Him?One can't help not believing in God. But if one does believe in some superior being, they should at least do some research and try to find the right one.

diffangle
Oct 9th 2007, 02:19 PM
One can't help not believing in God. But if one does believe in some superior being, they should at least do some research and try to find the right one.

They can help it... they can either seek Him whole-heartedly or they can just be comfortable sitting on the fence their whole life. If they seek Him they will find Him, if they choose to be lukewarm sitting on the fence never really seeking Him then they are helping their unbelief... it's no different than those who worship other gods.

Rev 3:16 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Rev&c=3&v=16&version=KJV#16)So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 02:34 PM
They can help it... they can either seek Him whole-heartedly or they can just be comfortable sitting on the fence their whole life. One can seek God whole-heartedly and come to a different conclusion than you or I.

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 03:00 PM
One can seek God whole-heartedly and come to a different conclusion than you or I.

Well, almost. We may come to a different conclusion about many things. But God promises that when we seek Him with our whole heart, we will find him.

Jer 29:13-14
13'And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. 14'And I will be found by you,' declares the LORD,' and I will restore your fortunes and will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you,' declares the LORD,' and I will bring you back to the place from where I sent you into exile.'
NASB

Deut 4:28-30
28 And there you will serve gods, the work of man's hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. 29 But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul.
NASB

1 Chron 28:9

9 "As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.
NASB

There are other passages, but that will suffice. But we could also mention Ruth, Rahab and other gentiles that found God. Or Abraham, Noah and many others that are not Jewish.

diffangle
Oct 9th 2007, 03:17 PM
Fenris, you've refered to Christians as practicing idolatry... what makes us idolater's?

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 03:31 PM
Well, almost. We may come to a different conclusion about many things. But God promises that when we seek Him with our whole heart, we will find him.Given that you and I have come to different conclusions about God, which one of us is not seeking him with our whole heart?

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 03:42 PM
Fenris, you've refered to Christians as practicing idolatry... what makes us idolater's?I never said that Christians are idolators. Christianity is a beautiful religion, very close to the Truth. Ethically and morally, it is quite excellent, and all of you here are perfect examples of that. :)

Having said all that, for a Jew, practicing Christianity is idolatry. The whole 'God as man' and requiring an intermediary to communicate with God runs afoul of Jewish law and theology.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 9th 2007, 03:43 PM
Given that you and I have come to different conclusions about God, which one of us is not seeking him with our whole heart?Our conclusions may be different but God is the same! ;)

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 03:45 PM
Our conclusions may be different but God is the same! ;)
OK that's an interesting conjecture. Lemme think about it and we'll come back to it later.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 9th 2007, 03:46 PM
I never said that Christians are idolators. Christianity is a beautiful religion, very close to the Truth. Ethically and morally, it is quite excellent, and all of you here are perfect examples of that. :)

Having said all that, for a Jew, practicing Christianity is idolatry. The whole 'God as man' and requiring an intermediary to communicate with God runs afoul of Jewish law and theology.Even the Jews could not just walk into the Temple and to the Holy of Holies. Once a year the high priests would be the intermediary and go in before God to make atonement for all the people. Only he would make the sacrifice but all Israel would get the atonement. So, you did have an intermediary. ;)

diffangle
Oct 9th 2007, 03:46 PM
I never said that Christians are idolators. Christianity is a beautiful religion, very close to the Truth. Ethically and morally, it is quite excellent, and all of you here are perfect examples of that. :)

Having said all that, for a Jew, practicing Christianity is idolatry. The whole 'God as man' and requiring an intermediary to communicate with God runs afoul of Jewish law and theology.
With all due respect, haven't the Jews elevated their rabbi's to a messiah/intermediary status?

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 03:57 PM
Even the Jews could not just walk into the Temple and to the Holy of Holies. Once a year the high priests would be the intermediary and go in before God to make atonement for all the people. Only he would make the sacrifice but all Israel would get the atonement. So, you did have an intermediary. ;)
Jews did not pray TO the High Priest. The High Priest was a human being who was carrying out acts that could cause atonement. He did not grant atonement himself, nor was he capable of doing so.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 03:58 PM
With all due respect, haven't the Jews elevated their rabbi's to a messiah/intermediary status?
The word rabbi means 'teacher'. They teach about God and the Law. We do not pray to them nor are they needed for us to communicate with God.

Steven3
Oct 9th 2007, 04:07 PM
Hi folks
Can someone point out to me where the post before post #1 is because this thread looks like it started halfway..? :)


Is there a different heaven for Jews?


Originally Posted by Fenris http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1404139#post1404139)
It threatens the Jewish character of the state of Israel, and they have every right to take action.

Then what? I go to hell forever- for believing the wrong thing?

How can it possibly threaten the state of Israel when 90% of Israelis aren't even religious Jews? Do you believe the majority of Jews in Israel are going to become Christian for no reason? :rolleyes:

As for going to hell forever, I am not the one that makes that judgment. I would like to think that those who love YHVH and serve Him will not have that fate, but we're not discussing you or those like you who desire to serve YHVH. We are talking about those who have rejected YHVH and His Torah. If you're wrong and there is no temporary 11 month hell, then those who do not serve Him in this life, will not be with Him in the world to come. Then what? Do they miss out because you didn't take the time to evangelize them to serve the Living God and you didn't want us too? :hmm:

Shalom!

...but otherwise, just responding to the thread title - no there's the same heaven for Jews as for Christians, and Jews can't go there any more than Christians can. Why would anyone, Jew or Christian, want to go to heaven when the Messiah of Jews and Christians is coming to earth?

Ps115:16 The heavens are the Lord's heavens,
but the earth he has given to the children of man.
17 The dead do not praise the Lord,
nor do any who go down into silence.
18 But we will bless the Lord
from this time forth and forevermore.
Praise the Lord!

God bless
Steven

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 04:13 PM
Jews did not pray TO the High Priest. The High Priest was a human being who was carrying out acts that could cause atonement. He did not grant atonement himself, nor was he capable of doing so.

At the risk of starting another thread, Christians don't pray to a man either. They pray to God the Father though some might misunderstand and pray to Jesus. It is really the Father we are to pray to.

The argument you make for the High Priest and atonement will carry well with Jesus. Jesus presented the sacrifice to God just as the High Priest did. ;)

Studyin'2Show
Oct 9th 2007, 04:14 PM
Jews did not pray TO the High Priest. The High Priest was a human being who was carrying out acts that could cause atonement. He did not grant atonement himself, nor was he capable of doing so.Fenris, we pray TO God, through Yeshua. Remember, Yeshua IS God with us; Immanuel. But the bottom line is that there is only ONE God and we pray to Him! ;)

Studyin'2Show
Oct 9th 2007, 04:16 PM
Hi folks
Can someone point out to me where the post before post #1 is because this thread looks like it started halfway..? :)Here's the other thread: http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=10096 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=100966) It's closed now so you can't respond but you can read it to see how we got on this long rabbit trail that need to be moved to its own thread. :D

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 04:17 PM
The argument you make for the High Priest and atonement will carry well with Jesus. Jesus presented the sacrifice to God just as the High Priest did. ;)The High Priest wasn't the the sacrifice, last I checked.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 04:19 PM
Fenris, we pray TO God, through Yeshua.Not necessary in Judaism, and not permitted either.


Remember, Yeshua IS God with us; Immanuel.Right, and I already listed that as a separate problem for Jews.


But the bottom line is that there is only ONE God and we pray to Him! ;)
Judaism is more strictly monotheistic than Christianity.

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 04:23 PM
The High Priest wasn't the the sacrifice, last I checked.

Right. But the sacrifice has never been the one that granted atonement, unless bulls and goats make you clean. God requires a sacrifice, but as you stated, it is God that atones. ;) Jesus offered a sacrifice as High Priest. The sacrifice he offered was his body.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 04:33 PM
Right. But the sacrifice has never been the one that granted atonement, unless bulls and goats make you clean. God requires a sacrifice, but as you stated, it is God that atones. ;) Jesus offered a sacrifice as High Priest. The sacrifice he offered was his body.
Well, this runs into other problems with Judaism. Human sacrifice, sacrifices outside the temple, sacrifices not done by a priest, sacrifice that is wounded, sacrifice not killed in the prescribed manner, etc etc.

Listen, we're not going to sway each other's opinions, nor should that be our intent. As I already stated, I think Christianity is a fine religion for non-Jews. But from the Jewish perspective it is not what God wants from the Jewish people.

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 04:36 PM
Well, this runs into other problems with Judaism. Human sacrifice, sacrifices outside the temple, sacrifices not done by a priest, sacrifice that is wounded, sacrifice not killed in the prescribed manner, etc etc.

Granted. But what of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob that were OK before God and offered sacrifices? No temple, yet God reckoned them as righteous. Of course, that implies atonement had been made.


Listen, we're not going to sway each other's opinions, nor should that be our intent. As I already stated, I think Christianity is a fine religion for non-Jews. But from the Jewish perspective it is not what God wants from the Jewish people.

OK. No problem here.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 04:55 PM
Granted. But what of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob that were OK before God and offered sacrifices? No temple, yet God reckoned them as righteous. Of course, that implies atonement had been made.Perhaps. Or maybe there are other ways besides sacrifice that one can achieve atonement.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 9th 2007, 05:02 PM
Having said all that, for a Jew, practicing Christianity is idolatry. The whole 'God as man' and requiring an intermediary to communicate with God runs afoul of Jewish law and theology.
The High Priest wasn't the the sacrifice, last I checked.You had said that Judaism does not need and intermediary. I was merely showing the the high priest IS the intermediary, so Judaism does indeed use an intermediary.;)

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 05:03 PM
Perhaps. Or maybe there are other ways besides sacrifice that one can achieve atonement.

Yet, they offered sacrifices. But David, when he had sinned, said it was not sacrifices that pleased God. (Psalms 51). But sacrifices were still necessary.

Perhaps sacrifice was always necessary but THE sacrifice was not to be bulls and goats. ;)

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 05:08 PM
You had said that Judaism does not need and intermediary. I was merely showing the the high priest IS the intermediary, so Judaism does indeed use an intermediary.;)
The High Priest is not the intermediary. He is carrying out a function; he is not the subject of prayer.

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 05:09 PM
The High Priest is not the intermediary. He is carrying out a function; he is not the subject of prayer.

As has been said, neither is Christ. Christians pray to G-d the Father not to the High Priest. ;)

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 05:17 PM
Perhaps sacrifice was always necessary but THE sacrifice was not to be bulls and goats. ;)God spends much time in the bible laying out the rules for sacrifice; what, when, who does what, why, etc etc. Why go through all that effort if it was all for naught?

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 05:19 PM
God spends much time in the bible laying out the rules for sacrifice; what, when, who does what, why, etc etc. Why go through all that effort if it was all for naught?

Right. So if David said they didn't please God. But God went to all that effort, what was the point?

That's what I am getting at. You know what I think. The point is Jesus.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 05:22 PM
As has been said, neither is Christ. Christians pray to G-d the Father not to the High Priest. ;)If that's what you do, that's fine. That was not my understanding of Christianity and I don't think that all Christians do as you say. In any case, we still have issues with the God as man.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 05:25 PM
Right. So if David said they didn't please God. But God went to all that effort, what was the point?The point is that God wants us to do the right thing for the right reason. Bringing a sacrifice while continuing to sin does not please God at all.


That's what I am getting at. You know what I think. The point is Jesus.
Right, and I understand why you believe that. Do you understand why I don't?

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 05:39 PM
If that's what you do, that's fine. That was not my understanding of Christianity and I don't think that all Christians do as you say. In any case, we still have issues with the God as man.

Probably. Most Christians don't understand what Jesus taught about prayer... "Our Father...".

Yea. The God as man can be an issue.

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 05:41 PM
The point is that God wants us to do the right thing for the right reason. Bringing a sacrifice while continuing to sin does not please God at all.

I agree. And that is what David was getting at when he said "Thou desirest truth in the inward parts". But the sacrifice was still required for atonement. But atonement is not what God actually desires. It is what he does in order to get what he desires which is, fellowship with men/women that have truth in their heart.


Right, and I understand why you believe that. Do you understand why I don't?

A little. But I am sure there is much I don't know about why you believe as you do.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 05:44 PM
Probably. Most Christians don't understand what Jesus taught about prayer... "Our Father...".

Jews still use that phrase in prayer.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 05:47 PM
I agree. And that is what David was getting at when he said "Thou desirest truth in the inward parts". But the sacrifice was still required for atonement. But atonement is not what God actually desires. It is what he does in order to get what he desires which is, fellowship with men/women that have truth in their heart.Well...I guess I can't disagree with this too much. At the core of both our faiths is the idea that God wants us to love Him and each other.

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 05:58 PM
Right. Atonement only became necessary after the fall of Adam. But it was not the plan. It just became part of the plan when Adam fell.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 06:03 PM
Right. Atonement only became necessary after the fall of Adam. But it was not the plan. It just became part of the plan when Adam fell.I sometimes wonder what the world would have been like had Adam not sinned. But then, perhaps it was not meant to be.

Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 06:17 PM
I sometimes wonder what the world would have been like had Adam not sinned. But then, perhaps it was not meant to be.

Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.

God's eternal purpose was not altered when Adam sinned.

Enoch was the seventh from Adam and he was not because God took him. Perhaps there is something there that hints at God's eternal purpose.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 9th 2007, 08:42 PM
The High Priest is not the intermediary. He is carrying out a function; he is not the subject of prayer.He is not God, so of course he is not the subject of prayer. :rolleyes: His function, however, is the go between which is the definition of an intermediary. ;)

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 09:11 PM
You're arguing semantics. Regardless, as Brother Mark and I agreed, God as Man is also an issue.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 9th 2007, 09:13 PM
You're arguing semantics. Regardless, as Brother Mark and I agreed, God as Man is also an issue.I'm not arguing. ;) Just informing!

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 09:23 PM
You like to wink a lot. ;)

Your information is appreciated, although it seems more a rationalization than a statement of fact.

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 09:35 PM
You're arguing semantics. Regardless, as Brother Mark and I agreed, God as Man is also an issue.

This is where we will begin to disagree. As was pointed out in another thread, G-d told Abraham to offer his only son as a sacrifice. I don't believe G-d would tell someone else to do what he himself would not do.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 09:38 PM
This is where we will begin to disagree. As was pointed out in another thread, G-d told Abraham to offer his only son as a sacrifice. I don't believe G-d would tell someone else to do what he himself would not do.
God did not want Abraham to sacrifice his son. He stopped him from doing so.

Why did God ask Abraham to do such a thing? Because that is what people did in those days. They sacrificed their children to their gods. So Abraham had to demonstrate that he loved his God no less than they loved theirs.

diffangle
Oct 9th 2007, 09:42 PM
The word rabbi means 'teacher'. They teach about God and the Law. We do not pray to them nor are they needed for us to communicate with God.

What does it mean that these guys were considered messiah's?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiahs#Jewish_messiah_claimants

Jewish messiah claimants
Main article: Jewish messianic claimants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianic_claimants). Note that for messiahs lacking articles, there may be more detail here. The Jewish Messiah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah) originally meant a divinely-appointed king; David (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David) and Cyrus the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great) and Alexander the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiahs#_note-0) are examples of such. Later, especially after the failure of Bar Kokhba's revolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba%27s_revolt), it came to represent a figure who would deliver the Jews from oppression and usher in a new world.

Judas of Galilee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_of_Galilee) (?), son of Hezekiah/Ezekias, member of the Zealots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealots) faction who led a bloody revolt against a Roman census in AD 6. (JA18 (http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant18.html))
Simon (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_%28slave%29&action=edit) (ca. 4 BC), a former slave of Herod the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great) who rebelled.
Athronges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athronges) (ca. 3 BC)
Jesus of Nazareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_of_Nazareth) (ca. 4 BC - AD 30), a wandering prophet and teacher who was crucified by the Romans; Jews who believed him to be the Messiah were the first Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity).
Theudas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas) (? - 46), who attempted a short-lived revolt against the Romans before being slain. (JA20 (http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant20.html).5.1)
"Egyptian Prophet", c.55, (an allusion to Moses), with 30,000 unarmed Jews doing The Exodus reenactment massacred by Procurator Antonius Felix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonius_Felix) (JW2.13.5, JA20.8.6, Acts 21:38)
Menahem ben Judah (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Menahem_ben_Judah&action=edit) (?), allegedly son of Judas of Galilee, partook in a revolt against Agrippa II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_II) before being slain by a rival Zealot leader.
Simon bar Kokhba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_bar_Kokhba) (?- ca. 135), founded a short-lived Jewish state before being defeated in the Second Jewish-Roman War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba%27s_revolt).
Moses of Crete (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moses_of_Crete&action=edit) (?), who in about 440-470, convinced the Jews of Crete to attempt to walk into the sea to return to Israel; he disappeared after that disaster.
Ishak ben Ya'kub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Isa) (684-705), who led a revolt in Persia against the Umayyad Caliph 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan.
Yudghan (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yudghan&action=edit) (?), a disciple of Abu 'Isa who continued the faith after Isa was slain.
Serene (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serene_%28Messiah%29&action=edit) (?), who around 720 claimed to be the Messiah and advocated expulsion of Muslims and relaxing various rabbinic laws before being arrested; he then recanted.
David Alroy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Alroy) (?), born in Kurdistan, who around 1160 agitated against the caliph before being assassinated.
Nissim ben Abraham (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nissim_ben_Abraham&action=edit) (?), active around 1295.
Moses Botarel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Botarel) of Cisneros (?), active around 1413; claimed to be a sorcerer able to combine the names of God.
Asher Lemmlein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asher_Lemmlein) (?), a German near Venice who proclaimed himself a forerunner of the Messiah in 1502.
David Reubeni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reubeni) (1490-1541?) and Solomon Molcho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Molcho) (1500-1532), adventurers who travelled in Portugal, Italy, and Turkey; Molcho was eventually burned at the stake by the Pope.
A mostly unknown Czech Jew from around the 1650s[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiahs#_note-Prague).
Sabbatai Zevi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi) (1626-1676), an Ottoman Jew who claimed to be the Messiah, but then converted to Islam; still has followers today in the Donmeh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donmeh).

Barukhia Russo (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barukhia_Russo&action=edit) (Osman Baba), successor of Sabbatai Zevi.
Jacob Querido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Querido) (?-1690), claimed to be the new incarnation of Sabbatai; later converted to Islam and led the Donmeh.
Miguel Cardoso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Cardoso) (1630-1706), another successor of Sabbatai who claimed to be the "Messiah ben Ephraim."
Mordecai Mokia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mordecai_Mokia&action=edit) (1650-1729), "the Rebuker," another person who proclaimed himself Messiah after Sabbatai's death.
Löbele Prossnitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6bele_Prossnitz) (?-1750), a proven fraud who nevertheless attained some following amongst former followers of Sabbatai, calling himself the "Messiah ben Joseph."
Jacob Joseph Frank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Frank) (1726-1791), who claimed to be the reincarnation of King David and preached a synthesis of Christianity and Judaism.
Menachem Mendel Schneerson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson) (1902-1994), a Lubavitch rabbi who tried to "prepare the way" for the Messiah; some followers believe him to be the Messiah

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 09:42 PM
God did not want Abraham to sacrifice his son. He stopped him from doing so.

Why did God ask Abraham to do such a thing? Because that is what people did in those days. They sacrificed their children to their gods. So Abraham had to demonstrate that he loved his God no less than they loved theirs.

Agree on most accounts. G-d still gave the command and then stopped him. Yet, scripture says this wasn't about love, but fear. Two things are first mentioned in that passage though. Love and worship. Abraham loved Isaac. But he feared G-d. G-d commended him for fearing Him. David taught us that he would not offer anything to G-d that did not cost him. Worship requires sacrifice. Often, it means the sacrifice of something or someone we love.

But again, I do not think G-d would require of us that which he was unwilling to do Himself.

diffangle
Oct 9th 2007, 09:45 PM
God did not want Abraham to sacrifice his son. He stopped him from doing so.

Why did God ask Abraham to do such a thing? Because that is what people did in those days. They sacrificed their children to their gods. So Abraham had to demonstrate that he loved his God no less than they loved theirs.
What does Judaism make of YHWH's acceptance of Jephthah's daughter as a sacrifice?

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 09:56 PM
What does it mean that these guys were considered messiah's?

The word messiah means something different to me than it does to you. The messiah is not needed for us to do good, the messiah is the reward we get when we are good, on a national level.

None of those people were messiahs, obviously, because they did not usher in the messianic era.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 10:05 PM
Agree on most accounts. G-d still gave the command and then stopped him. Yet, scripture says this wasn't about love, but fear. I was always taught that Abraham did for God out of love. If there is fear mentioned, you'll have to show me where.


But again, I do not think G-d would require of us that which he was unwilling to do Himself.
You're anthropomorphizing God.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 10:06 PM
What does Judaism make of YHWH's acceptance of Jephthah's daughter as a sacrifice?
Allow me to do some reading and get back to you.

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 10:12 PM
I was always taught that Abraham did for God out of love. If there is fear mentioned, you'll have to show me where.

Gen 22:10-12
10 Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 12 He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
NASU



You're anthropomorphizing God.

I had to look that word up. Actually, I am not ascribing human attributes to G-d. What I am getting at is that He does not require from us that which he would not do himself. Nothing he requires of us goes against His nature. If he requires it of us, it is because it is in his nature to require it. Therefor, if it is in his nature, then He himself would do it.

Fenris
Oct 9th 2007, 10:22 PM
Gen 22:10-12
10 Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 12 He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
NASUHmm. My translation says "Now I know you are a God-fearing man" which has a slightly different connotation. In any case, I don't think we should ascribe fear to Abraham's motivation. The man loved God. God told him to sacrifice his son, and he got up early in the morning and saddled his own horse. That's not fear, that's love.


I had to look that word up. Actually, I am not ascribing human attributes to G-d. What I am getting at is that He does not require from us that which he would not do himself. Nothing he requires of us goes against His nature. If he requires it of us, it is because it is in his nature to require it. Therefor, if it is in his nature, then He himself would do it.God is God; man is man. Jews do not concern ourselves with what God will or will not do based on what he expects us to do. We have our responsibilities under a covenant and God has His. Regardless, we will again butt heads over the whole 'God as man' thing.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 9th 2007, 10:35 PM
You like to wink a lot. ;)Yes, it's usually at my husband. :lol: But, aww, these smilies are sooo cute!

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 10:42 PM
Hmm. My translation says "Now I know you are a God-fearing man" which has a slightly different connotation. In any case, I don't think we should ascribe fear to Abraham's motivation. The man loved God. God told him to sacrifice his son, and he got up early in the morning and saddled his own horse. That's not fear, that's love.

It is love. It's also God-fearing. I can go with that description.


God is God; man is man. Jews do not concern ourselves with what God will or will not do based on what he expects us to do. We have our responsibilities under a covenant and God has His. Regardless, we will again butt heads over the whole 'God as man' thing.

I have no problems with your description there. God will do what he does. But he cannot require of me what he himself does not endorse. For then, he is requiring me to sin and go against his nature. That's the point I make. So when God said "offer your son", we know he was going to stop the offering. However, Abraham had to be willing to sacrifice to God that which he loved. This kind of sacrifice God appreciates. It was a similar recognition that David had when he said "I will not offer to God that which cost me nothing". God likes to receive offerings and sacrifices that are costly. It is in his nature and character to enjoy such things.

If God requires sacrifice, will he not also give it? Abraham said that God would prepare for himself a lamb. In other words, God would provide for Abraham and Isaac a sacrifice for himself. And God did do that! Abraham new Isaac was the promised one. He knew God would keep his word. He trusted that God would provide a way. He knew God's character. If God requires a sacrifice from me, he will provide that sacrifice for himself. He will not require from me that which he will not do or provide for himself.

diffangle
Oct 9th 2007, 11:50 PM
Allow me to do some reading and get back to you.
Sure :D... Judges 11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2011&version=9;).

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 12:26 PM
God will do what he does. But he cannot require of me what he himself does not endorse.

Why not? God is God, man is man.

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 12:28 PM
I had to look that word up. Actually, I am not ascribing human attributes to G-d.

Sorry, I had to revisit this one. A Jewish person could say that Jesus is an anthromorphization of God.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 10th 2007, 12:47 PM
Sorry, I had to revisit this one. A Jewish person could say that Jesus is an anthromorphization of God.Actually, saying that God can not be man is giving a human trait to God. God is NOT limited so He can do ANYHTING! Which would include becoming man for His own purpose. You saying that He can NOT would be anthromorphizing God. ;)

Shalom!

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 12:49 PM
God is perfect and thus incapable of change.

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 12:50 PM
What does Judaism make of YHWH's acceptance of Jephthah's daughter as a sacrifice?
It doesn't say anywhere that the sacrifice was accepted, only that he made it. Unless I missed that somewhere.

Brother Mark
Oct 10th 2007, 01:22 PM
Why not? God is God, man is man.

Because God will not go against himself or his nature.

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 01:25 PM
Because God will not go against himself or his nature.
Possibly true. But still, it's presumptuous to believe that we can comprehend God or His nature.

Brother Mark
Oct 10th 2007, 01:30 PM
Possibly true. But still, it's presumptuous to believe that we can comprehend God or His nature.

Agreed, except where God chooses to reveal himself to us. Would he break his own commands?

Now granted, what I am suggesting can get confusing down the road. For instance, he tells us not to murder, yet he kills. But he is judge and a judge has the right to pass sentence.

Yet, he will never go against his own character. For character is what shapes our behavior. Our behavior is a result of character. A thief steals because he is a thief. God does what God does because of who he is.

It is this line of thinking that was on David's heart when he said "Moses knew the ways of God, Israel his acts". There is a difference between knowing how God acted and why he acted.

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 01:35 PM
Eh, I'm not sure that one can hold God to any set of human standards. This is interesting, I'm starting to get a clearer view of the Christian mind-set now.

diffangle
Oct 10th 2007, 01:47 PM
Why not? God is God, man is man.
YHWH appeared as a man before NT times... Genesis 18...

1 And YHWH appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,


It doesn't say anywhere that the sacrifice was accepted, only that he made it. Unless I missed that somewhere.
Why did YHWH allow him to win his battle? Why didn't YHWH stop him from doing it like He did with Abraham and Isaac?

Brother Mark
Oct 10th 2007, 01:50 PM
Eh, I'm not sure that one can hold God to any set of human standards. This is interesting, I'm starting to get a clearer view of the Christian mind-set now.

Oh, I am not holding him to my standards at all. He is God and he does as he pleases. (That's in Psalms too. :D)

But what pleases him? Well, for that, we have to understand his character and his heart. For that is what will determine what is or is not pleasure to God.

David understood this about God when he wrote Psalms 51. He said sacrifice did not please God. That was not what he really wanted. It was truth in the inward parts that pleased Him.

Is God mysterious? Yes. Can he be known? Yes. David knew Him. Moses knew Him. They didn't just speak of what God did. They spoke of why he did what he did. For this reason, God described David as a "Man after my own heart". As David learned who God was, what His heart was like, David became like God in his character. So did Moses.

Ever wonder why Moses offered himself as atonement for Israel on Mount Sinai?

Brother Mark
Oct 10th 2007, 01:52 PM
Why did YHWH allow him to win his battle? Why didn't YHWH stop him from doing it like He did with Abraham and Isaac?

Well, because God didn't tell him to make that offer in the first place. I am with Fenris on this one. I don't think God ever accepted that offering. I think it was a rash promise that should have been repented of.

But your points about God appearing as a man in OT times are excellent! He also appeared as a man when he wrestled with Jacob.

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 02:04 PM
YHWH appeared as a man before NT times... Genesis 18...
Jews do not read that to mean that the men were God.



Why did YHWH allow him to win his battle? Why didn't YHWH stop him from doing it like He did with Abraham and Isaac?
Because God does not always save us from ourselves. Obviously this man did not merit divine intervention.

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 02:07 PM
Is God mysterious? Yes. Can he be known? Yes. David knew Him. Moses knew Him. I disagree. They knew Him to the extent that any human being can, but that in no way implies that they actually got a complete perception of God. Moses was only able to look at God's 'back'; that is to say, he could get some general impression of God.


Ever wonder why Moses offered himself as atonement for Israel on Mount Sinai?

Explain, please.

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 02:08 PM
But your points about God appearing as a man in OT times are excellent! He also appeared as a man when he wrestled with Jacob.

We believe that was an angel, specifically Esau's guardian angel. Not God. How could God be defeated in a wrestling match anyway?

Brother Mark
Oct 10th 2007, 02:14 PM
We believe that was an angel, specifically Esau's guardian angel. Not God. How could God be defeated in a wrestling match anyway?

If you read the account closely, he was not defeated. Jacob just wouldn't quit. Never again could he trust his flesh. The angel could have touched Jacob's thy early in the contest but waited until he saw Jacob would not give up.

How could an angel be defeated in conflict with a man?

Jacob thought he had wrestled with God. I think everyone should have a Jabbock experience and learn to trust in the Lord and not in their own flesh.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 10th 2007, 02:14 PM
God is perfect and thus incapable of change.Not change. Man is made in the image of God. God in flesh is still God. He does not change.

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 02:19 PM
Man is made in the image of God.That means that man has free will and intellect, not that God actually has a body.

God in flesh is still God. He does not change.I would say that God going from non corporeal and infinite to a finite, fleshy body is a major change. But hey, that's just me. ;)

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 02:20 PM
How could an angel be defeated in conflict with a man?Because, theoretically, man can attain higher spiritual heights than an angel.


Jacob thought he had wrestled with God.
Uh, I never got that impression from reading it. Perhaps our perception of scripture is as much theological as intellectual. For me and you.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 10th 2007, 02:35 PM
I would say that God going from non corporeal and infinite to a finite, fleshy body is a major change. But hey, that's just me. ;)Yeshua was not finite! The resurrection shows that. Look, Fenris, just because it's difficult for US to wrap our human brains around does not mean it's difficult for God. :cool:

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 02:41 PM
Yeshua was not finite!
Another point we can disagree on.

diffangle
Oct 10th 2007, 02:45 PM
Jews do not read that to mean that the men were God.


One of the three was YHWH, the other two were angels... the two angels that went on to destroy Sodom. The Scriptures say that YHWH "appeared" to Abraham, it says that Abraham "stood before" YHWH and "drew near" to Him... if YHWH was a voice from the heavens speaking to Abraham then how could Abraham draw any nearer to YHWH?

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 02:54 PM
One of the three was YHWH, the other two were angels... the two angels that went on to destroy Sodom.

Every angel has one and only one mission. In this case, one to bring the news of Isaac’s birth to Sarah, one to overturn Sodom, and one to heal Abraham.

I find it interesting that you think God walks the earth like a human being.

diffangle
Oct 10th 2007, 03:03 PM
[quote=Fenris;1406498]Every angel has one and only one mission. In this case, one to bring the news of Isaac’s birth to Sarah, one to overturn Sodom, and one to heal Abraham.
How do explain that the text says YHWH appeared?
1 And YHWH appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre:


I find it interesting that you think God walks the earth like a human being.
I believe YHWH can take on many forms... Man, Spirit, Fire, Cloud/Shekinah. :saint:

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 03:09 PM
How do explain that the text says YHWH appeared?
1 And YHWH appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre:
Well, the very next verse is And he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing beside him.



I believe YHWH can take on many forms... Man, Spirit, Fire, Cloud/Shekinah. :saint:How do you reconcile this with Deuteronomy 4?

Then the LORD spoke to you from the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; there was only a voice...

You saw no form at all on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Be strictly on your guard, therefore,not to degrade yourselves by fashioning an idol to represent any figure, whether it be the form of a man or a woman...

Take heed, therefore, lest, forgetting the covenant which the LORD, your God, has made with you, you fashion for yourselves against his command an idol in any form whatsoever.

Or Exodus 33

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 10th 2007, 03:24 PM
Well, the very next verse is And he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing beside him.

How do you reconcile this with Deuteronomy 4?

Then the LORD spoke to you from the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; there was only a voice...

You saw no form at all on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Be strictly on your guard, therefore,not to degrade yourselves by fashioning an idol to represent any figure, whether it be the form of a man or a woman...

Take heed, therefore, lest, forgetting the covenant which the LORD, your God, has made with you, you fashion for yourselves against his command an idol in any form whatsoever.

Or Exodus 33

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.How do you reconcile the verse she quoted that says 'YHVH'? God can manifest Himself as a cloud, as fire, as a man, as the fourth in the fiery furnace that looked like a Son of God; He can manifest Himself in whichever way He pleases! ;)

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 03:35 PM
How do you reconcile the verse she quoted that says 'YHVH'? God can manifest Himself as a cloud, as fire, as a man, as the fourth in the fiery furnace that looked like a Son of God; He can manifest Himself in whichever way He pleases! ;)If God could manifest Himself as any form, why couldn't Moses see Him? Why did He stress to the Jews that they saw no form?

Studyin'2Show
Oct 10th 2007, 03:38 PM
If God could manifest Himself as any form, why couldn't Moses see Him? Why did He stress to the Jews that they saw no form?God showed Moses what He showed Moses. Why is that difficult to grasp? He also showed him pillars cloud and fire, as well as a burning bush. Does that mean God is a bush? Absolutely not, but He can manifest in whatever way He chooses to manifest. ;) He also says that He spoke with Moses face to face.

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 03:48 PM
So basically, the verses in Deuteronomy and Exodus are wasted space in the bible.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 10th 2007, 04:50 PM
So basically, the verses in Deuteronomy and Exodus are wasted space in the bible.How do you come to that conclusion? :eek: You seem to want an 'Easy button' and it doesn't work that way. God can manifest in whatever way He wants. That does not contradict the fact that Moses said He had no form when he saw Him.

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 05:14 PM
How do you come to that conclusion? :eek: You seem to want an 'Easy button' and it doesn't work that way. God can manifest in whatever way He wants. That does not contradict the fact that Moses said He had no form when he saw Him.
Then why did God take the time to explain to the Jews that they saw no form at Sinai? Why was it important to mention, if Gd could and did take a human form.

Teke
Oct 10th 2007, 05:18 PM
Well, the very next verse is And he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing beside him.

How do you reconcile this with Deuteronomy 4?

Then the LORD spoke to you from the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; there was only a voice...

You saw no form at all on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Be strictly on your guard, therefore,not to degrade yourselves by fashioning an idol to represent any figure, whether it be the form of a man or a woman...

Take heed, therefore, lest, forgetting the covenant which the LORD, your God, has made with you, you fashion for yourselves against his command an idol in any form whatsoever.

Or Exodus 33

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
It is my opinion that our intellect does not have a natural power to be moved to the divine vision of Divinity. And in this one deficiency we are the peers of all the celestial natures, for both in us and in them grace moves that which is alien by nature both to the human intellect and to the angelic. For divine vision concerning the Godhead is not to be numbered among the other kinds of divine vision. For we possess divine vision of the natures of things through participation in their twofold nature, because there is a portion of all things in us. But we do not have a portion of the nature of the Divine Essence, and so neither do we have by nature divine vision of it.
The Ascetical Homilies of St. Isaac the Syrian.


Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostases. As we have seen, those privileged to be united to God so as to become one spirit with Him - as St. Paul said, 'He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with Him' (I Cor. 6:17) - are not united to God with respect to His essence, since all theologians testify that with respect to His essence God suffers no participation.

Moreover, the hypostatic union is fulfilled only in the case of the Logos, the God-man.

Thus those privileged to attain union with God are united to Him with respect to His energy; and the 'spirit', according to which they who cleave to God are one with Him, is and is called the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, but not the essence of God... St. Gregory Palamas (Topics of Natural and Theological Science no. 75, The Philokalia Vol. 4 edited by Palmer, Sherrard and Ware; Faber and Faber pg. 380)


What then shall we call this power which is an activity neither of the senses nor of the intellect? How else except by using the expression of Solomon, who was wiser than all who preceded him: "a sensation intellectual and divine." By adding those two adjectives, he urges his hearer to consider it neither as a sensation nor as an intellection, for neither is the activity of the intelligence a sensation, nor that of the senses and intellection. The "intelligent sensation" is thus different from both. Following the great Denys [Dionysios the Areopagite], one should perhaps call it union, and not knowledge. "One should realize," he says, "that our mind possesses both an intellectual power which permits it to see intelligible things, and also a capacity for that union which surpasses the nature of the intellect and allies it to that which transcends it." St. Gregory Palamas, The Triads


...in the visible form of our nature the immortal God described the likeness of His invisible Being, and thus we apprehend eternity. Through prayer we enter into Divine life; and God praying in us is uncreated life permeating us. Archimandrite Sophrony (His Life is Mine, Chapter 8; SVS press pg. 66)

Studyin'2Show
Oct 10th 2007, 05:23 PM
Then why did God take the time to explain to the Jews that they saw no form at Sinai? Why was it important to mention, if Gd could and did take a human form.That had to do with idolatry. You know what? I think you have us mistaken for Roman Catholics. :rolleyes: We do not worship a crucifix with the body of Jesus on it or a statue of Mary or even the cross as you may think. That is why Moses reminded them that it wasn't about worshiping a form. It is also one of the reasons Protestants separated themselves from the RC church. Really, we worship Elohim, YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel and none other.

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 05:53 PM
That had to do with idolatry. You know what? I think you have us mistaken for Roman Catholics. :rolleyes: We do not worship a crucifix with the body of Jesus on it or a statue of Mary or even the cross as you may think. That is why Moses reminded them that it wasn't about worshiping a form. It is also one of the reasons Protestants separated themselves from the RC church. Really, we worship Elohim, YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel and none other.
Erm, perhaps. If God was actually capable of physical manifestation, Sinai would have been the ideal time for it. I mean, every Jew in the world was there at the same time- a condition that has never been repeated. The fact that He chose to remain incorporeal at such a time surely goes along way to explaining why Jews do not believe that He could ever fit into a finite shape like the human body.


I still think you go through a lot of trouble to vindicate your beliefs by novel interpretation of the text. That does not per se make your reading wrong, or your beliefs for that matter, but it is not the way Jews interpreted the text at any point in history. By my estimation, anyway.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 10th 2007, 07:26 PM
Erm, perhaps. If God was actually capable of physical manifestation, Sinai would have been the ideal time for it. I mean, every Jew in the world was there at the same time- a condition that has never been repeated. The fact that He chose to remain incorporeal at such a time surely goes along way to explaining why Jews do not believe that He could ever fit into a finite shape like the human body.

I still think you go through a lot of trouble to vindicate your beliefs by novel interpretation of the text. That does not per se make your reading wrong, or your beliefs for that matter, but it is not the way Jews interpreted the text at any point in history. By my estimation, anyway.Your view that it would have been an ideal place is just that...your view. God's ways are above our ways so we could never attempt to say He should have done this or that because we do not know the motivations. God is His infinite wisdom has it all under control so why He did one thing in one circumstance and another thing in another is His business. ;)

Nope, no trouble at all. The truth needs no vindication, it stands on it's own. The others here and I are simply attempting to correct any misconceptions you may have about those of us, Jews included, who have accepted Yeshua as Messiah. :D

Shalom!

Brother Mark
Oct 10th 2007, 08:18 PM
Well, the very next verse is And he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing beside him.

How do you reconcile this with Deuteronomy 4?

Then the LORD spoke to you from the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; there was only a voice...

You saw no form at all on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Be strictly on your guard, therefore,not to degrade yourselves by fashioning an idol to represent any figure, whether it be the form of a man or a woman...

Take heed, therefore, lest, forgetting the covenant which the LORD, your God, has made with you, you fashion for yourselves against his command an idol in any form whatsoever.

Or Exodus 33

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

But scripture does say that God met with Moses face to face. Of course, that has already been pointed out.

Here's another passage I like.

Dan 3:24-25

24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astounded and stood up in haste; he responded and said to his high officials, "Was it not three men we cast bound into the midst of the fire?" They answered and said to the king, "Certainly, O king." 25 He answered and said, "Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!"
NASB

I suppose our Jewish friends might see that person as an angel. But I think he might be the same one speaking from the burning bush. He never left the fire because he is the fire. He is the consuming fire that consumes the enemy but sets the captives free.

Jesusinmyheart
Oct 10th 2007, 08:39 PM
Erm, perhaps. If God was actually capable of physical manifestation, Sinai would have been the ideal time for it. I mean, every Jew in the world was there at the same time- a condition that has never been repeated. The fact that He chose to remain incorporeal at such a time surely goes along way to explaining why Jews do not believe that He could ever fit into a finite shape like the human body.

Fenris,

He did physiucally manifest at that time at Mt Sinai.... the tablets of stone with the Word written thereon were a physical manifestation though not a huiman manifestation:
Recall that Yeshua is called the Rock:


The Feast of Pentecost began at Mt. Sinai, when God gave His commandments to Israel. When God gave His law, "all the people saw the thunderings" (Exodus 20:18). Exodus does not say the thunder but "the thunderings." It is believed that God's voice split into different voices, or into different languages, so that all the nations would understand God's commandments.

The Midrash, by Rabbi Moshe Weissman: In the occasion of Matan Torah (the giving of the law), the Bnai Yisrael (the children of Israel) not only heard Hashem's (God's) Voice but actually saw the sound waves as they emerged from Hashem's (God's) mouth. They visualized them as a fiery substance. Each commandment that left Hashem's (God's) mouth traveled around the entire Camp and then to each Jew individually, asking him, "Do you accept upon yourself this Commandment with all the halochot (the law) pertaining to it?" Every Jew answered "Yes" after each commandment. Finally, the fiery substance which they saw engraved itself on the luchot (tablets of stone).



And so we too are to be living stones, with the Law of God engraved on our hearts.

Shalom my friend,
Tanja

BTW, where are you going to go once Shorashim is closed ?

Fenris
Oct 10th 2007, 09:10 PM
BTW, where are you going to go once Shorashim is closed ?
I dunno, controversial issues? I only just got back here and I don't intend to leave just yet.

Toymom
Oct 12th 2007, 12:12 AM
How can it possibly threaten the state of Israel when 90% of Israelis aren't even religious Jews? Do you believe the majority of Jews in Israel are going to become Christian for no reason? :rolleyes:

As for going to hell forever, I am not the one that makes that judgment. I would like to think that those who love YHVH and serve Him will not have that fate, but we're not discussing you or those like you who desire to serve YHVH. We are talking about those who have rejected YHVH and His Torah. If you're wrong and there is no temporary 11 month hell, then those who do not serve Him in this life, will not be with Him in the world to come. Then what? Do they miss out because you didn't take the time to evangelize them to serve the Living God and you didn't want us too? :hmm:

Shalom!
This is a long thread and I did not read all the replies :blush: so perhaps this has been brought up already, but Jews don't believe in heaven and hell.
The concept of dead people going to a place called heaven or hell is not from the Jewish religion. It echoes the beliefs of several pagan religions though.

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 12:33 AM
This is a long thread and I did not read all the replies :blush: so perhaps this has been brought up already, but Jews don't believe in heaven and hell.


We don't? That's news to me.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 12th 2007, 12:34 AM
This is a long thread and I did not read all the replies :blush: so perhaps this has been brought up already, but Jews don't believe in heaven and hell.
The concept of dead people going to a place called heaven or hell is not from the Jewish religion. It echoes the beliefs of several pagan religions though.They do believe in the Olam Haba (The World to Come). :yes: Fenris here is an Orthodox Jew and according to him everyone will go to a place of punishment after death to get what they deserve for their bad deeds. According to him, they will be there no longer than eleven months at the end of which they will take their place in the Olam Haba or if they were really bad, their soul will be destroyed forever. This is what I was refering to when I was responding to Fenris. Since he is an Orthodox Jew, I have taken him at his word regarding his beliefs. ;)

Shalom!

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 12:39 AM
What she said. :D

Olam Haba is actually the post-messianic world. It literally means 'The world to come', when the dead are resurrected and everyone enjoys the reward for their good deeds, or feels bad for all their missed opportunities.

Mograce2U
Oct 12th 2007, 02:54 AM
That means that man has free will and intellect, not that God actually has a body.
I would say that God going from non corporeal and infinite to a finite, fleshy body is a major change. But hey, that's just me. ;)Just a point to make while there is still time.

If God created the physical world, why should it be beyond belief that God could manifest Himself within our realm? We see that angels were able to do so and they ate and everything. God created Adam from dust and a body for Jesus from the seed of a woman.

(Jer 31:22 KJV) How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

Toymom
Oct 12th 2007, 03:08 AM
Shalom Fenris. I was raised a Reform Jew and never heard of that Olam Haba.
Of course, there is a lot I never heard of in Reform Judaism. :lol:
I did look on Jewfaq and it said that the belief in Olam Haba is a belief of some Orthodox Jews. I guess that is why I had not heard of it.
The Old Testament and the Jewish religion don't have a lot to say about the afterlife with the exception it seems of the belief in Olam Haba by some Orthodox Jews.
That is interesting.
http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 09:39 AM
Just a point to make while there is still time.

If God created the physical world, why should it be beyond belief that God could manifest Himself within our realm?

I didn't say that God couldn't manifest Himself. But God does not exist inside of our universe; our universe exists inside of God. To say that an infinite God could, in His entirety, fit inside a human body, makes Him much too small.

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 09:41 AM
Shalom Fenris. I was raised a Reform Jew and never heard of that Olam Haba.Ah, another lost child.


I did look on Jewfaq and it said that the belief in Olam Haba is a belief of some Orthodox Jews.Not some Orthodox Jews. All of us believe in an afterlife.


The Old Testament and the Jewish religion don't have a lot to say about the afterlife That's because God would rather us be concerned with what goes on here in this world, and leave the details of the afterlife to Him.

Naphal
Oct 12th 2007, 09:54 AM
I didn't say that God couldn't manifest Himself. But God does not exist inside of our universe; our universe exists inside of God. To say that an infinite God could, in His entirety, fit inside a human body, makes Him much too small.

I'd say a God that could do that (and did) proves how "large" and powerful He is.

Besides, I rarely think any of us can describe God's limits and be right.

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 10:01 AM
I'd say a God that could do that (and did) proves how "large" and powerful He is.

Then the pagan Greeks were more theologically correct than the monotheistic Jews.

Naphal
Oct 12th 2007, 10:04 AM
Then the pagan Greeks were more theologically correct than the monotheistic Jews.

I'd say both were eventually theologically incorrect. There is no reason to decide who was more wrong.

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 10:07 AM
I'd say both were eventually theologically incorrect. There is no reason to decide who was more wrong.
No no, we're on to something here. The Greeks believed that the gods could walk the earth as human beings and even impregnate mortal women. Perhaps there was some element of prophecy in that they were right.

Naphal
Oct 12th 2007, 10:19 AM
No no, we're on to something here. The Greeks believed that the gods could walk the earth as human beings and even impregnate mortal women. Perhaps there was some element of prophecy in that they were right.

Jesus didn't impregnate anyone. No amount of parallels in pagan religions matter.

It is believed that the Greeks formed such beliefs based on the events of Gen 6.

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 10:24 AM
Jesus didn't impregnate anyone. No amount of parallels in pagan religions matter. God did, though.


It is believed that the Greeks formed such beliefs based on the events of Gen 6.I find that difficult to believe, given that the Greeks formed these beliefs before they ever read the OT.

Naphal
Oct 12th 2007, 10:28 AM
God did, though.


Not in the crude method man does.



I find that difficult to believe, given that the Greeks formed these beliefs before they ever read the OT.

They would have heard of the events by word of mouth. Those children became "famous" Gen. 6:4

They were considered gods by many and they indeed did have children but this isn't equal to God causing a virgin to be pregnant.

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 10:33 AM
Not in the crude method man does.
Why pick nits, though? The Greeks were more right than the Jews in this aspect.




They would have heard of the events by word of mouth. Those children became "famous" Gen. 6:4

They were considered gods by many and they indeed did have children but this isn't equal to God causing a virgin to be pregnant.

Why not? The concept is the same: A divine figure impregnating a mortal woman.

Naphal
Oct 12th 2007, 10:38 AM
Why pick nits, though? The Greeks were more right than the Jews in this aspect.

Like I said, wrong is wrong.





Why not? The concept is the same: A divine figure impregnating a mortal woman.

I know it's similar but the details vary quite a lot.

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 10:39 AM
Well, it does explain the appeal that Christianity had amongst the Greeks and Romans. Perhaps that too was some hidden aspect of a divine plan.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 12th 2007, 10:41 AM
Genesis 3:15 - And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.

It is spoken paternally except in this case. Did Cain or Abel bruise the head of Satan? Did Noah? Abraham? David? The nation of Israel? No! This seed is Yeshua Messiah! :pp

Baruch HaShem!

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 10:42 AM
Genesis 3:15 - And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.Eh. A simpler way to read this is to presume that it means people won't like snakes, which is actually true.:D

Naphal
Oct 12th 2007, 10:46 AM
Eh. A simpler way to read this is to presume that it means people won't like snakes, which is actually true.:D

A true simpler way would to believe the children of snakes would get into boxing fights with Eve's children. Maybe a type of kick boxing.

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 10:48 AM
A true simpler way would to believe the children of snakes would get into boxing fights with Eve's children. Maybe a type of kick boxing.Well, think about it; we can step on a snake's head but it can only bite our heel.

Jews don't see this as being messianic.

Naphal
Oct 12th 2007, 11:03 AM
Well, think about it; we can step on a snake's head but it can only bite our heel.

lol


Jews don't see this as being messianic.

Most don't but I already knew this.

I wonder if they did before Christ? I can understand why after Christ they would not admit to it being Messianic but I bet it was Messianic before Christ.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 12th 2007, 11:08 AM
Eh. A simpler way to read this is to presume that it means people won't like snakes, which is actually true.:DI know many that love snakes! :P So, I doubt that it was just that people won't like snakes. :lol:

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 11:12 AM
I wonder if they did before Christ? I can understand why after Christ they would not admit to it being Messianic but I bet it was Messianic before Christ.

Ah. The old 'rabbi's conspiracy'. :rolleyes:

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 11:14 AM
I know many that love snakes! :P So, I doubt that it was just that people won't like snakes. :lol:Yes, yes, it's easy to love a snake when it's in a glass tank. Human beings have traditionally been terrified of snakes because in the wild snakebites were usually fatal.

Anyway, with a bit of imagination one can find messianic references anywhere and everywhere, which is why I'm no great fan of types and shadows.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 12th 2007, 12:44 PM
Anyway, with a bit of imagination one can find messianic references anywhere and everywhere, which is why I'm no great fan of types and shadows.Shadows are only shadows when there's something there to cast it. ;)

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 12:47 PM
Shadows are only shadows when there's something there to cast it. ;)I can make a shadow of a rabbit with my hands. That doesn't make my hands into a rabbit.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 12th 2007, 01:14 PM
I can make a shadow of a rabbit with my hands. That doesn't make my hands into a rabbit.Quite true! :P However, if one sees what appears to be the shadow of a rabbit, it is not too difficult to investigate to see what is really there. This is what the Berean Jews did in their synagogue as they searched the scriptures to see if what Shaul said was really true. And, to use and expand on your analogy, they found that not only was there a rabbit there but that there was also a large trail of carrots leading to it. ;)

Blessings!

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 01:17 PM
I am not familiar with these Berean Jews. In any case, with a little imagination one can find all sorts of hints in any book that can't be proved or disproved. I have done it myself as an intellectual excersize.

diffangle
Oct 12th 2007, 02:18 PM
I didn't say that God couldn't manifest Himself. But God does not exist inside of our universe; our universe exists inside of God. To say that an infinite God could, in His entirety, fit inside a human body, makes Him much too small.
Your Talmud says that YHWH appeared to Abraham (b. Bava Mesia 86b).:P If YHWH can reveal His glory through fire and shekinah then He most certainly can reveal His glory through a man. :yes:

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 02:28 PM
Your Talmud says that YHWH appeared to Abraham (b. Bava Mesia 86b).:P If YHWH can reveal His glory through fire and shekinah then He most certainly can reveal His glory through a man. :yes:Uh, I don't know what the Talmud says there. I don't have one handy and I bet you don't either. :lol:

If the Talmud is so chock-full of proofs about Jesus, why didn't the Redactors convert?

Studyin'2Show
Oct 12th 2007, 03:33 PM
Uh, I don't know what the Talmud says there. I don't have one handy and I bet you don't either. :lol:

If the Talmud is so chock-full of proofs about Jesus, why didn't the Redactors convert?:hmm: Very good question! We've been trying to figure that out too. :confused How could they (and you) miss what seems to be so obvious to us? Oh well, our scripture tells us that there will be a time when you WILL see.

Shalom!

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 03:35 PM
Oh well, our scripture tells us that there will be a time when you WILL see.


And mine tells me there will be a time when you will see. :D

Studyin'2Show
Oct 12th 2007, 03:49 PM
And mine tells me there will be a time when you will see. :DThat time has already come! We see and recognize that YHVH is God; that YHVH our God is one! That YHVH is Author and Finisher, Creator, Sustainer, our all in all! ;)

Brother Mark
Oct 12th 2007, 03:58 PM
I can make a shadow of a rabbit with my hands. That doesn't make my hands into a rabbit.

But even God told Moses to make a copy of what he had seen. In other words, Moses was making a duplicate of the real but what he made was not the real. Isn't that what a shadow is?

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 04:31 PM
But even God told Moses to make a copy of what he had seen. In other words, Moses was making a duplicate of the real but what he made was not the real. Isn't that what a shadow is?No, I wouldn't call a shadow a copy.

Brother Mark
Oct 12th 2007, 04:41 PM
No, I wouldn't call a shadow a copy.

But that's what we are referring to when we say shadow. It is a copy of the real. Reproduction, representation, copy, shadow. That's what we mean.

Fenris
Oct 12th 2007, 04:45 PM
But that's what we are referring to when we say shadow. It is a copy of the real. Reproduction, representation, copy, shadow. That's what we mean.I think when you say 'types and shadows' what you really mean to say is 'hints and clues'. That's fine. It's just that creative thinking can come up with all sorts of things that are difficult to prove or disprove, which is why I personally never found them very convincing. If you and many other Christians believe that they're hints from Above, that's your right.

Brother Mark
Oct 13th 2007, 10:32 AM
I think when you say 'types and shadows' what you really mean to say is 'hints and clues'. That's fine. It's just that creative thinking can come up with all sorts of things that are difficult to prove or disprove, which is why I personally never found them very convincing. If you and many other Christians believe that they're hints from Above, that's your right.

Hints and clues sound interesting, but copy is a better word. Because that is the word God used with Moses. The tabernacle was a copy of what was in heaven. Or, using NT language, a shadow of what was in heaven.

As for the creative thinking, I would say, and I know you disagree, that God was very creative in what he did.

For instance, how is it that Isaac was offered on Mount Moriah, the place of the temple and Jerusalem before they ever existed? Is that not interesting?

Joyfilled
Oct 13th 2007, 12:56 PM
How can it possibly threaten the state of Israel when 90% of Israelis aren't even religious Jews? Do you believe the majority of Jews in Israel are going to become Christian for no reason? :rolleyes:

As for going to hell forever, I am not the one that makes that judgment. I would like to think that those who love YHVH and serve Him will not have that fate, but we're not discussing you or those like you who desire to serve YHVH. We are talking about those who have rejected YHVH and His Torah. If you're wrong and there is no temporary 11 month hell, then those who do not serve Him in this life, will not be with Him in the world to come. Then what? Do they miss out because you didn't take the time to evangelize them to serve the Living God and you didn't want us too? :hmm:

Shalom!

Jesus makes the decision and he tells us; "No one can come to the Father except through me." That's because if they deny God in Jesus, they don't know who God is. It's that simple.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 13th 2007, 01:15 PM
Jesus makes the decision and he tells us; "No one can come to the Father except through me." That's because if they deny God in Jesus, they don't know who God is. It's that simple.Again, I am not the one who makes that judgment. Those who came before the cross who recognized that it would have to be God that would save them and not their own deeds may not have known Yeshua or His name but I believe they were saved because they were trusting in God who is Yeshua. So, I leave the judgment to Him and I'll continue to love God and love my neighbor and testify to the truth. ;)

God Bless!

Mograce2U
Oct 13th 2007, 04:35 PM
I want to comment on the early posts that stated Christianity is equated to idolatry in the Jewish mind. Although I don't see why it wouldn't be for a Gentile as well if it is true.

Idolatry occurs when men take the good things God created and elevate them in their worship of the Creator. For example fashioning a calf out of gold which was then used to praise YHWH. Now God did create the calf but the thing man makes as a likeness is not the same thing. We cannot create life, so an image of God's work is not equal in the place of worship and ought not to be used to mediate our praise. The idol gets in the way because it is man-made not God-made.

However, scripture is also clear that a live calf would not remove this curse on idolatry. The creature is not to be worshipped either.

So how does Jesus, as a man, escape these laws which define idolatry for us?

Jesus is the image of God given to us. He was sent to earth in a body that God made for Him to show us the Father. In that body dwelt no sin - no curse from the fall which is upon creation. Here we see the God-Man, unique in that He existed before the world began and is the One who created it. What God creates for Himself to inhabit is not an idol, but the very thing which IS to be the vehicle for our worship. A tangible image given to us by God and the only being in all His creation which was given for that purpose. That is why all else that exists in creation is unacceptable for worship - because all creation is under the curse - except Jesus.

Now if we worshipped statues of Jesus, then the charge of idolatry would be true. But our Lord is alive and presently in heaven where He personally receives our worship seated on His Father's throne. No idol can do that!

Judaism makes a false charge because they do not accept the work the Father wrought in Messiah which He promised to send them. Only the Son of God can forgive sins because He represents the Father and does His will because the Father dwells in Him. The resurrected Jesus is the Temple made without hands and is the acceptable place for the Father to dwell.

Any other temple made by men IS an idol! This puts Judaism under the curse by the very law they think they are keeping that they say we are not.

The cross folks is where this transition in the law took place. And it was the purpose for which the law was given as a shadow to point us to. The brass serpent that Moses lifted up in the wilderness which Israel has yet to understand. They also made that thing of brass into an idol because they failed to understand what it represented. Israel who hopes to make another temple in which God will not dwell is still in an idolatrous mindset.

Only now they call the true Temple of God an idol while they look to build another which actually is.

diffangle
Oct 13th 2007, 04:52 PM
Any other temple made by men IS an idol!

What about a stone retaining wall that people bow to, pray to, and kiss? ;)

Brother Mark
Oct 13th 2007, 07:11 PM
Again, I am not the one who makes that judgment. Those who came before the cross who recognized that it would have to be God that would save them and not their own deeds may not have known Yeshua or His name but I believe they were saved because they were trusting in God who is Yeshua. So, I leave the judgment to Him and I'll continue to love God and love my neighbor and testify to the truth. ;)

God Bless!

I agree wholeheartedly! I will add one statement... if they love God and follow him, they will recognize God in Jesus when confronted with Christ. That is why Jesus could say "If they believed Moses, then they would have believed me" or "Abraham saw my day and rejoiced".

I know people that trusted the One God. Didn't know much about Him at all. All they knew was that they were sinners and God had to provide a way for them to be saved. I think God himself taught them that. When they heard about Jesus, they recognized that was the way God had provided.

I know another that God gave a vision to. He had never heard of Jesus. He barely knew the 10 commandments. God showed up one day and asked him "What is heaven like". My friend was a drug addict and a thief. He told God "Well my friends steal from and I steal from them. There won't be any stealing there". Then he said "Well, we all lie, and I don't think there will be any lying there." He kept going. Eventually he realized he was stating the 10 commandments. It scared him because as he stated them, he realized that if lying and stealing weren't allowed in, then he couldn't go in. He dropped and begged God for mercy. God gave him a vision of a man on a cross and my friend knew it was God's Son and it was for his sin. My friend trusted immediately. It was a strange experience and he had no idea who the man was or what had happened in his own heart. But he was different. He went and got a bible and started reading it. He finally read where Jesus was crucified and knew the vision was of Jesus. He also read what happened to his own heart was called being born again or saved. But no one ever told him. He got saved before he even knew the name of Jesus. But when he heard of Christ, he recognized him as the God he had personally met.

Fenris
Oct 14th 2007, 02:59 AM
Hints and clues sound interesting, but copy is a better word. Because that is the word God used with Moses. The tabernacle was a copy of what was in heaven. Or, using NT language, a shadow of what was in heaven.Umm, what gave you that idea? I've never heard that before.


For instance, how is it that Isaac was offered on Mount Moriah, the place of the temple and Jerusalem before they ever existed? Is that not interesting?
No, the place was always holy.

Fenris
Oct 14th 2007, 03:02 AM
What about a stone retaining wall that people bow to, pray to, and kiss? ;)
You guys have a lot of weird misconceptions about Judaism.

No one is praying to the wall; the wall is the last structure of a holy building.

Fenris
Oct 14th 2007, 03:04 AM
Jesus makes the decision and he tells us; "No one can come to the Father except through me." That's because if they deny God in Jesus, they don't know who God is. It's that simple.
Well, that's a matter of faith, not fact.

Fenris
Oct 14th 2007, 03:07 AM
I want to comment on the early posts that stated Christianity is equated to idolatry in the Jewish mind. Although I don't see why it wouldn't be for a Gentile as well if it is true.Because God holds Jews to a higher standard than He holds others to, obviously.


So how does Jesus, as a man, escape these laws which define idolatry for us?

Jesus is the image of God given to us.Again, that is a matter of faith, not fact.



Only the Son of God can forgive sins because He represents the Father and does His will because the Father dwells in Him. I thought God could do anything. You mean he can't forgive my sins, only His son can?

diffangle
Oct 14th 2007, 03:56 AM
You guys have a lot of weird misconceptions about Judaism.

No one is praying to the wall; the wall is the last structure of a holy building.
People stand in front of it, lean their foreheads on it, they stick paper with prayers on them in the cracks, they bow, kiss and cry while touching the wall... it really isn't any different than the Catholics standing infront of their idols of Mary or the saints. Just as you believe that believing in Yahushua is idolatry... imo, the wall has been made into one big stone idol. :P

Brother Mark
Oct 14th 2007, 12:19 PM
Umm, what gave you that idea? I've never heard that before.

Ex 25:9
9 According to all that I am going to show you, as the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture, just so you shall construct it.
NASB

The word for pattern is model. So God showed him something. Personally, I think the tabernacle is a pattern as well of the tabernacle in heaven.


No, the place was always holy.

Right. Interesting though!

That's where Isaac was offered. It was 3 days journey. Hmm. Carried the wood up the hill. Abraham, in faith said he and the lad would return. Abraham was willing to offer Isaac because he knew he was the child of promise and God would not break his word.

Mograce2U
Oct 14th 2007, 03:07 PM
I thought God could do anything. You mean he can't forgive my sins, only His son can?Jesus was raised from the dead to fulfill this role as Judge.

(John 5:19-24 KJV) Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. {20} For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and he will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. {21} For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. {22} For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: {23} That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. {24} Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

(Acts 17:29-31 KJV) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. {30} And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: {31} Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

(Dan 7:13-14 KJV) I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. {14} And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

I like how you put "facts" over faith as the basis for why you do not believe. Did you see the miracles that Moses did to bring the people out of Egypt? Where is your evidence that these things you do believe ever happened? Even those who did see them were without faith in the face of the evidence they had. We have the eyewitness testimony of the apostles who saw the resurrected Lord for 40 days, yet prophecy is a more sure witness than even that. You do not see these things because you do not want to see them - not because there is no evidence for them. The facts mean nothing if faith is not the result - as those who were in the wilderness discovered when they were kept from the promise.

(Heb 4:8-13) For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. {9} There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. {10} For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. {11} Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. {12} For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. {13} Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 14th 2007, 05:19 PM
Carried the wood up the hill. Abraham, in faith said he and the lad would return. Abraham was willing to offer Isaac because he knew he was the child of promise and God would not break his word.Yeshua carried the wood up the hill too! :D His Father knew He would return also! ;)

Fenris
Oct 14th 2007, 05:37 PM
People stand in front of it, lean their foreheads on it, they stick paper with prayers on them in the cracks, they bow, kiss and cry while touching the wall... it really isn't any different than the Catholics standing infront of their idols of Mary or the saints. Just as you believe that believing in Yahushua is idolatry... imo, the wall has been made into one big stone idol. :P
Yeah, ok, whatever. :rolleyes:

Fenris
Oct 14th 2007, 05:38 PM
The word for pattern is model. So God showed him something. Personally, I think the tabernacle is a pattern as well of the tabernacle in heaven.



I bolded the important part. You were expressing an opinion, not a fact.

Fenris
Oct 14th 2007, 05:39 PM
Jesus was raised from the dead to fulfill this role as Judge.

Right, so you're placing limitations on God.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 14th 2007, 06:23 PM
Right, so you're placing limitations on God.How do you see that as a limitation on God? Yeshua IS God! Remember! What limitation?

Fenris
Oct 14th 2007, 06:30 PM
How do you see that as a limitation on God? Yeshua IS God! Remember! What limitation?
God 'the father' can't forgive sin. Only God, 'the son' can.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 14th 2007, 06:33 PM
God 'the father' can't forgive sin. Only God, 'the son' can.Where did you see someone post that God the Father can't forgive sin? :confused

Fenris
Oct 14th 2007, 06:36 PM
Read Morgrace2u's post.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 14th 2007, 07:02 PM
Okay. I would have to say that Robin did not say that the Father can not forgive sins, but I can see how you may have gotten that impression. In her last post she quoted the verse that says the Son can ONLY do what He has seen the Father do. Just ask her to explain what she meant. Be assured that it doesn't mean the Father can't forgive sin. Let's let Robin explain what she meant. ;)

Shalom!

Mograce2U
Oct 14th 2007, 09:18 PM
Originally Posted by Mograce2U http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1410230#post1410230)
Jesus was raised from the dead to fulfill this role as Judge.

Right, so you're placing limitations on God.I am not placing any limitations upon God. It is the "limitation" He has placed for His own purpose and the people's request. Remember at Mt. Sinai when the people heard God speak and were so terrified that they asked for a Mediator? God perhaps coerced them a bit to make this request, but only because this was His plan all along. Moses initially filled this role but ultimately he knew Messiah would (Deut 18:15). This is the same Deliverer promised to Adam in the Garden - One who could defeat the devil. That was not Moses.

David's Psalms 2 & 110 are interesting in this light.

(Mat 22:42-45 KJV) Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. {43} He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, {44} The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? {45} If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

The Father can do whatever He pleases. But what pleases Him is to work according to His revealed will. Remember too in Ezekiel that the people did not think it was fair of God to judge them if they turned away from righteousness in the end nor to forgive the wicked man who repented? His ways are not our ways and yet it is not because He has not told us what His way is.

It is both appropriate and fair that our Judge will be a Man who has done the will of God perfectly.

Mograce2U
Oct 14th 2007, 09:37 PM
Okay. I would have to say that Robin did not say that the Father can not forgive sins, but I can see how you may have gotten that impression. In her last post she quoted the verse that says the Son can ONLY do what He has seen the Father do. Just ask her to explain what she meant. Be assured that it doesn't mean the Father can't forgive sin. Let's let Robin explain what she meant. ;)

Shalom!Of course the Father can forgive sins and He does so thru the One He has chosen for this role - Jesus! That is why if you do not have the Son, you do not have the Father's forgiveness either. That day of atonement the Jews just celebrated was for nought, because they are not in the way the Lord has provided. A new way is here and everybody can approach the Father now - thru the Son. The old has given way to the new. That's what the new covenant is all about. The promise to Abraham was to be a father to MANY nations of which Israel would be the first, and hopefully not also the last.

(John 14:6-7 KJV) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. {7} If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Fenris
Oct 14th 2007, 09:44 PM
I am not placing any limitations upon God. Of course you are. God can't forgive, only the son can. And only through sacrifice, at that.


David's Psalms 2 & 110 are interesting in this light.Why? They aren't messianic.

Fenris
Oct 14th 2007, 09:45 PM
Of course the Father can forgive sins and He does so thru the One He has chosen for this role - Jesus! God can't forgive without Jesus? Why not? Can't Gd do anything?!


That day of atonement the Jews just celebrated was for nought, because they are not in the way the Lord has provided.Then why did God say that it was forever?

Mograce2U
Oct 14th 2007, 09:55 PM
Of course you are. God can't forgive, only the son can. And only through sacrifice, at that.
Why? They aren't messianic.
(Psa 2:12 KJV) Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Who is this Son but the Heir to His Father's throne? This is the son of David who is also his Lord.

You seem to be confusing "ability" with "will". Do you think all those animal sacrifices - which are no more - were not pointing to a higher truth? God never desired the blood of bulls and goats, these were but a temporay measure to keep the people sanctified which is why they needed to be repeated over and over. That picture was to show the means to the end which would be complete forgiveness. A forgiveness which has been provided to us by Jesus' death and resurrected life. There are no more sacrifices in Judaism today and yet the people do not see themselves forgiven. In fact, as you said, they hope the temple will be rebuilt when all the people repent. Why is that? So they can resume sacrifices...

Mograce2U
Oct 14th 2007, 10:05 PM
Mograce2u:
That day of atonement the Jews just celebrated was for nought, because they are not in the way the Lord has provided.

Fenris:
Then why did God say that it was forever?Forever til when? The end of the age? The age of the Mosaic covenant? In your generations? Or when it would be moved into the realm of eternity? That is what the new covenant provides - eternal forgiveness. The temporal will not last forever, but the kingdom of God will. The seasonal day of atonement was only needed until the spiritual kingdom of God arrived and a once for all sacrificial atonement would be provided to the people. That is the only "forever" that can endure past the season of this world.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 14th 2007, 10:31 PM
Okay, so we have gotten very far away from the OP huh? Is there a different heaven for Jews? :idea: Maybe we could get back on topic! :OFFT:

Naphal
Oct 15th 2007, 03:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1408555#post1408555)
I wonder if they did before Christ? I can understand why after Christ they would not admit to it being Messianic but I bet it was Messianic before Christ.

Ah. The old 'rabbi's conspiracy'. :rolleyes:



That's not an answer. I'll start a new thread and we'll see if anyone knows what was taught before Christ came.

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 12:55 PM
(Psa 2:12 KJV) Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Actually, in Hebrew it reads 'embrace the purity'. 'Bar' means purity in Hebrew; it means 'son' in Aramaic, a language unknown to the composer of the Psalms, king David. Just FYI. ;)

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 12:58 PM
Forever til when?
I dunno, but when I think 'forever', I think of a period longer than 1300 years.

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 12:59 PM
That's not an answer. I'll start a new thread and we'll see if anyone knows what was taught before Christ came.I made the same comment in there :D

diffangle
Oct 15th 2007, 01:49 PM
Actually, in Hebrew it reads 'embrace the purity'. 'Bar' means purity in Hebrew; it means 'son' in Aramaic, a language unknown to the composer of the Psalms, king David. Just FYI. ;)
Why are bar mitzvah's for boys and a bat mitzvah's for girls?

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 02:11 PM
Why are bar mitzvah's for boys and a bat mitzvah's for girls?
Because the name of the ceremony comes from the Aramaic language. That language did not exist in king David's time, so how could he have used it in his Psalms?

Studyin'2Show
Oct 15th 2007, 02:55 PM
I dunno, but when I think 'forever', I think of a period longer than 1300 years.I believe the point was that the atonement you receive is only for one year, hence the need to have another day of atonement each year and sacrifice (at least symbolically now w/o the Temple). :idea: You see, in Messiah our atonement is forever, not just for the year! Although Messianic believers still honor the feasts as Leviticus states they are YHVH's feasts forever.

Shalom!

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 03:10 PM
I believe the point was that the atonement you receive is only for one year, hence the need to have another day of atonement each year and sacrifice (at least symbolically now w/o the Temple).
Yes, because becoming a better person is part of a lifelong process, not a one-time event.



You see, in Messiah our atonement is forever, not just for the year!
Right, but it says that holiday will be observed forever.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 15th 2007, 03:53 PM
Because the name of the ceremony comes from the Aramaic language. That language did not exist in king David's time, so how could he have used it in his Psalms?Actually, it seems that http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/hs370.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/hs341.gif can be 'bor' as in pureness or purity as used in Job 22:30 or can be 'bar', as in son or heir, in Hebrew or Aramaic. One must remember that David lived and wrote between the ancient Hebrew and the Aramaic used while in exile. However, unlike the Pentatuch that had been passed from generation to generation, much of the rest of TaNaKh was compiled much later. Needless to say, whether you translate it as Son or purity, I still see Yeshua! ;)

God Bless!

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 03:55 PM
Needless to say, whether you translate it as Son or purity, I still see Yeshua!
Yeah, that pretty much says it all.

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 03:56 PM
One must remember that David lived and wrote between the ancient Hebrew and the Aramaic used while in exile. However, unlike the Pentatuch that had been passed from generation to generation, much of the rest of TaNaKh was compiled much later.
So David didn't write the Psalms. Someone else wrote them, later.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 15th 2007, 05:15 PM
So David didn't write the Psalms. Someone else wrote them, later.Where did you see me write that? :rolleyes: I said the TaNakh, consisting of the prophets, the psalms, etc. were COMPILED much later. Really, Fenris! We are really getting farther and farther off topic and for what? So, is there a different heaven for Jews?

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 05:26 PM
Where did you see me write that? :rolleyes: I said the TaNakh, consisting of the prophets, the psalms, etc. were COMPILED much later.
So the people who compiled it later changed what king David wrote. Hmm?

Studyin'2Show
Oct 15th 2007, 08:07 PM
So the people who compiled it later changed what king David wrote. Hmm?Once again, where did I write that? You tend to assume a lot, Fenris. The psalms were songs, right? I have lots of songs that I sing and know by heart. This songs would have been sung from generation to generation. Now, it's time to compile these songs together for posterity because things are changing, everyone's going into exile and these song can not be forgotten. The person who may be 'writing down' a song in no way changed not one iota. Not one little itty bit. As I previously stated, IN HEBREW, http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/hs370.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/hs341.gif can be 'bor' pureness or purity OR 'bar' meaning son or heir. So, no, no one sabotaged the psalms changing a single word. You translate it purity, I translate it Son, it can be either and still I recognize Yeshua! :pp

So, is there a different heaven for Jews?:hmm:

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 08:21 PM
Once again, where did I write that? You tend to assume a lot, Fenris. The psalms were songs, right? I have lots of songs that I sing and know by heart. This songs would have been sung from generation to generation. Now, it's time to compile these songs together for posterity because things are changing, everyone's going into exile and these song can not be forgotten. The person who may be 'writing down' a song in no way changed not one iota. Not one little itty bit. As I previously stated, IN HEBREW, http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/hs370.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/hs341.gif can be 'bor' pureness or purity OR 'bar' meaning son or heir. So, no, no one sabotaged the psalms changing a single word. You translate it purity, I translate it Son, it can be either and still I recognize Yeshua! :ppSo there are other examples of Aramaic in the Psalms?


So, is there a different heaven for Jews?:hmm:yes

Pilgrimtozion
Oct 15th 2007, 08:26 PM
I didn't take the time to read 212 posts so what I am saying may have been said before, but didn't Paul say that Jesus made Gentiles Jews into 'One New Man'? Are we not one in Christ? How can we then have a different eternal destiny?

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 08:30 PM
I didn't take the time to read 212 posts so what I am saying may have been said before, but didn't Paul say that Jesus made Gentiles Jews into 'One New Man'? Are we not one in Christ? How can we then have a different eternal destiny?The question was asked from the Jewish perspective.

Fenris
Oct 15th 2007, 08:36 PM
Studyin', we should examine the premise that Jews are a bad people because of what the bible says about us. Let's think about a contemporary example. If you read the NY Times in the 1960s and the Russian daily Pravda in the period, which paper do you think would be more critical of it's home country? And would that observation actually make that country a bad place? Or would it be an example of honesty and legitimate self-criticism?

Mograce2U
Oct 16th 2007, 01:54 AM
Fenris,


Quote:
So, is there a different heaven for Jews?

yeslol, 15 pages for that answer? How about some detail?

Fenris
Oct 16th 2007, 12:33 PM
Fenris,
lol, 15 pages for that answer? How about some detail?
When I give detail I get complaints that there's no scripture to back it up. So why bother?

diffangle
Oct 16th 2007, 02:16 PM
When I give detail I get complaints that there's no scripture to back it up. So why bother?
Are there not Scriptures to back up your belief?

Fenris
Oct 16th 2007, 02:21 PM
We believe that we are supposed to do what God tells us and leave the rest up to Him. Certainly, the OT devotes precious little time to the Afterlife.

Pilgrimtozion
Oct 16th 2007, 05:45 PM
The question was asked from the Jewish perspective.
My answer was intended to be all-inclusive, since both Jews and Gentiles and have been made into one new man. If you have one man, one can really not speak of two anymore, can he? Thus, the Jews cannot have a different eternal destiny from the Gentiles. Supporting such a claim would imply that the Jews have a different relation to the cross than Gentiles do. That position is not supportable, in my opinion, if seen in light of Scriptures such as Ephesians 2-3 and other parts of the New Testament.

Fenris
Oct 16th 2007, 06:02 PM
My answer was intended to be all-inclusiveYour answer is all inclusive- from the Christian perspective.

Pilgrimtozion
Oct 16th 2007, 06:24 PM
Exactly. And my point is there is no other relevant perspective, since the cross provides us with the only relevant perspective to begin with. One cannot speak of heaven with regards to a specific people or race without going through the cross and only the cross. Since the cross makes all people equal and creates one new man as Paul points out, no other perspective remains than the Christian perspective - within the boundaries of truth, that is.

Fenris
Oct 16th 2007, 06:38 PM
Exactly. And my point is there is no other relevant perspectiveErm, that's a matter of faith, not fact.

I take it you aren't too interested in hearing how other faiths believe.

Pilgrimtozion
Oct 17th 2007, 07:12 AM
Erm, that's a matter of faith, not fact.

I take it you aren't too interested in hearing how other faiths believe.
You misunderstand me - I certainly am interested in hearing what other faiths believe. I merely think that any religion that does not have the cross as central reference point is not a foundation for truth nor can it define any kind of present or future reality. Does that mean it's not interesting? No, it just means it probably should be discussed in World Religions.

Do you understand where I am coming from? Or are we misunderstanding each other?

Studyin'2Show
Oct 17th 2007, 10:23 AM
So there are other examples of Aramaic in the Psalms?

So, is there a different heaven for Jews?:hmm:yesAs I said in my previous post 'in Hebrew' it can mean son or pureness/purity. So, why would we find Aramaic in the psalms? No need, it's Hebrew.

As for the different heaven for Jews, does a REALLY good Gentile end up in a higher heaven than a 'not so good' Jew? Being an American black, it sort of reminds me of segregation. :o Will your heaven need desegregation?

Teke
Oct 17th 2007, 12:46 PM
I merely think that any religion that does not have the cross as central reference point is not a foundation for truth nor can it define any kind of present or future reality.

Historically the church defended the dogma of the Incarnation, Transfiguration and Resurrection in reference to Christ's divinity and humanity's salvation. The cross is an aspect, but not a "central reference point" for a "foundation of truth". The foundation of truth is in the dogma of Christ the God-Man.:)

Fenris
Oct 17th 2007, 12:50 PM
You misunderstand me - I certainly am interested in hearing what other faiths believe. I merely think that any religion that does not have the cross as central reference point is not a foundation for truth nor can it define any kind of present or future reality.
That is your opinion; it is not a fact.

Fenris
Oct 17th 2007, 12:55 PM
As I said in my previous post 'in Hebrew' it can mean son or pureness/purity. So, why would we find Aramaic in the psalms? No need, it's Hebrew.OK, so the only word in all of Psalms that is in Aramaic is this on? You don't find that just a little bit...convenient? :hmm:

Actually, the word Bar does show up once more in Psalms. In Psalm 24:4 it says 'Bar Levav" which KJV translates as "a pure heart", not "son of the heart." Isn't that interesting?


As for the different heaven for Jews, does a REALLY good Gentile end up in a higher heaven than a 'not so good' Jew? Is Raoul Wallenberg in a higher heaven than many Jews? Definitely yes.


Being an American black, it sort of reminds me of segregation. :o Will your heaven need desegregation?Yes, our heaven needs desegregation. But at least people of other belief systems can get in...

Teke
Oct 17th 2007, 02:21 PM
Originally Posted by Mograce2U View Post
(Psa 2:12 KJV) Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.


Actually, in Hebrew it reads 'embrace the purity'. 'Bar' means purity in Hebrew; it means 'son' in Aramaic, a language unknown to the composer of the Psalms, king David. Just FYI. ;)

Fenris your father was a Syrian. The usage of the Aramaic may be intentionally directed to foreign nations in that Psalm.

The Aramaic "bar" is a homonym with two meanings.
1) Son- Daniel 3:25, Ezra 5:1,2, 6:14, Dan. 3:25, 5:22, 7:13, and Prov. 31:2 (king Lemuel)
2) ground- here in Psalm 2:12 it can be a figure of speech (kiss the ground), for prostrate yourselves in submission.

The usual Hebrew for son is "ben" and is translated 'son' or 'sons' 2,890 times, and 'child' or 'children' 1,549 times, making 4,439 inall. The Aramaic 'ben' is also used for "son".

In Job 39:4, "with corn"=open field, a third meaning for this homonym. 1)pure, clean, also see 11:4, Song 6:9,10, Ps. 19:8, 24:4, 73:1), hence corn winnowed and cleansed (Gen. 41:35,49, Ps. 65:13, Prov.11:26, Joel 2:24)
2) the ground or open field (Job 39:4), because bare and clean.
3) meaning "son"

A bit of double talk:D

Fenris
Oct 17th 2007, 02:27 PM
Fenris your father was a Syrian. The usage of the Aramaic may be intentionally directed to foreign nations in that Psalm.

David did not know Aramaic. The language did not exist in his lifetime. How could he use a word he did not know?

The second problem is grammatical. You read it as 'kiss the son' but there is no word 'the' in the sentence. In Hebrew it reads as 'embrace purity', so even if 'Bar' meant 'son' it would be read as 'kiss son'. What does 'kiss son' mean?

Mograce2U
Oct 17th 2007, 02:58 PM
David did not know Aramaic. The language did not exist in his lifetime. How could he use a word he did not know?

The second problem is grammatical. You read it as 'kiss the son' but there is no word 'the' in the sentence. In Hebrew it reads as 'embrace purity', so even if 'Bar' meant 'son' it would be read as 'kiss son'. What does 'kiss son' mean?It is not necessary to argue over one word when the context gives us the gist of the Psalm.

Psalm 2
(Psa 2 KJV) Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
{2} The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
{3} Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. {4} He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
{5} Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
{6} Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
{7} I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
{8} Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
{9} Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
{10} Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
{11} Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
{12} Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Who is this Son but the anointed of the Lord? Do you see this as the Lord speaking this to David only or a future son of his? I see it as Messianic. This is the Son in whom the kings of the earth are to put their trust.

But of course you will disagree.

Fenris
Oct 17th 2007, 03:05 PM
It is not necessary to argue over one word when the context gives us the gist of the Psalm. Yes, by all means, let's just ignore the language and focus on the predetermined answer.


Who is this Son but the anointed of the Lord?The psalm fits king David's life to a 'T'. No other explanation is needed.


But of course you will disagree.

Yep.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 17th 2007, 03:28 PM
OK, so the only word in all of Psalms that is in Aramaic is this on? You don't find that just a little bit...convenient? :hmm:

Actually, the word Bar does show up once more in Psalms. In Psalm 24:4 it says 'Bar Levav" which KJV translates as "a pure heart", not "son of the heart." Isn't that interesting?
Is Raoul Wallenberg in a higher heaven than many Jews? Definitely yes.
Yes, our heaven needs desegregation. But at least people of other belief systems can get in...Look Fenris, I've already given you pureness/purity. NOT a big deal really! Do you think we all follow Yeshua solely because 'bar' is translated son in psalm 2? You're really are missing the point. It's ironic that you will debate tooth and nail over one word that even you admit IS in the modern Hebrew, yet you have a HUGE hunk of your doctrine that has no scriptural basis at all. :o If one word is so important to you, shouldn't THE WORD be what you base such things on? You blast us for making certain statements then you say that somehow you DEFINITELY know what part of heaven Mr. Wallenberg is in? How did you acquire such absolute knowledge....from your gut? I do not dispute whether he is in heaven. He clearly sacrificed his own life to save others, but who am I to say what zip code he has in heaven?

Fenris
Oct 17th 2007, 03:43 PM
Heaven is God's domain, our job is to do our mission here on earth.

As far as scripture and Judaism goes, no Jewish doctrine contradicts scripture. Many things in scripture make no sense as written, and there is a huge body of work- much larger than the Tanach itself- that traditionally dates back to Moses at Sinai.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 17th 2007, 03:53 PM
Heaven is God's domain, our job is to do our mission here on earth.

As far as scripture and Judaism goes, no Jewish doctrine contradicts scripture. Many things in scripture make no sense as written, and there is a huge body of work- much larger than the Tanach itself- that traditionally dates back to Moses at Sinai.So, if it's God's domain, who are you to make an absolute statement about how things are done? You say scripture makes no sense but that is a personal opinion. Every iota makes sense. ;)

Teke
Oct 17th 2007, 04:02 PM
David did not know Aramaic. The language did not exist in his lifetime. How could he use a word he did not know?

The second problem is grammatical. You read it as 'kiss the son' but there is no word 'the' in the sentence. In Hebrew it reads as 'embrace purity', so even if 'Bar' meant 'son' it would be read as 'kiss son'. What does 'kiss son' mean?


Hebrew and Aramaic are asyndetic as English.
I gave you examples and tried to show the double meaning being related. Not in "kiss the son" but in "kiss the ground" as in prostrate yourself, this in relation to "son".

I did not say it meant "kiss the son". And what does David speaking Aramaic have to do with the text. David didn't write the text either. I gave you other examples from the Massoretic text, which is not what I use anyway.

The LXX (my version) reads, "embrace discipline" (Vg.) or "recieve instruction" (Tg.) rather than "kiss the son". And where the KJV Massoret has "He", my LXX says "the Lord".

Fenris
Oct 17th 2007, 04:05 PM
So, if it's God's domain, who are you to make an absolute statement about how things are done?
I made no absolute statements. I made general statements that are 1)Supported by Jewish tradition and 2)Seem fair.

You say scripture makes no sense but that is a personal opinion. Every iota makes sense. ;)
Some of it is maddeningly vague. Almost as if...there as a commentary given that wasn't written down until later. ;)

Fenris
Oct 17th 2007, 04:07 PM
Hebrew and Aramaic are asyndetic as English. Clue me in.


I gave you examples and tried to show the double meaning being related. Not in "kiss the son" but in "kiss the ground" as in prostrate yourself, this in relation to "son". There is still no 'the' in that sentence.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 17th 2007, 04:16 PM
Is Raoul Wallenberg in a higher heaven than many Jews? Definitely yes.

I made no absolute statements. The above statement seems pretty absolute to me. :P

Fenris
Oct 17th 2007, 04:19 PM
The above statement seems pretty absolute to me. :P
Because it seems fair and is in line with Jewish thinking.

Can non-Jews go to heaven? Yes. It depends on their actions in life.
Do all Jews go to heaven? No. It depends on their actions in life.

Ergo, Raoul Wallenberg has a better spot in heaven than some Jews. The logic seems pretty simple to me.

Teke
Oct 17th 2007, 04:26 PM
Clue me in.

I already did when I posted to you, "your father was a Syrian". In the KJV of the Massoretic text it is written, "A Syrian ready to perish was my father" (Deut. 26:5). Syrian is an Aramaean (so was Bethuel who was Rebekahs father and Laban, as was Kenuel who was Nahors son, Nahor was Abrahams brother Gen.22:21) .

This is all common knowledge anyone can read of in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Don't be coy.


There is still no 'the' in that sentence.

OK. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other.;)

Fenris
Oct 17th 2007, 04:38 PM
I already did when I posted to you, "your father was a Syrian". In the KJV of the Massoretic text it is written, "A Syrian ready to perish was my father" (Deut. 26:5). Syrian is an Aramaean (so was Bethuel who was Rebekahs father and Laban, as was Kenuel who was Nahors son, Nahor was Abrahams brother Gen.22:21) . How does this explain an Aramaic word, unknown to the writer of Psalms, appearing just one time in a theologically important verse?


OK. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other.;)Right, grammar can be ignored if the result is the desired one.:spin:

Teke
Oct 17th 2007, 04:51 PM
How does this explain an Aramaic word, unknown to the writer of Psalms, appearing just one time in a theologically important verse?

You'd have to ask the Massoretes.:dunno:
Here's a theory.

The Consonantal Text

Hebrew had no vowels in its alphabet. Vowel sounds were for the most part handed down by tradition. Certain consonants were used to express some long vowels, these consonants were called Matres lectionis, because they determined the pronunciation. The efforts of copyists would seem to have become more and more minute and detailed in the perpetuation of the consonantal text. These copyists (grammateis) were at first called Sopherim (from the Hebrew meaning "to count"), because, as the Talmud says, "they counted all the letters in the Torah" (Kiddushin, 30a). It was not till later on that the name Massoretes, was given to the preservers of Massorah.

Letters were omitted which had surreptitiously crept in, variants and conjectural readings were indicated inside-margins -- words, "read but not written" (Qere), "written but not read" (Kethibh), "read one way but written another". These marginal critical notes went on increasing with time.


Right, grammar can be ignored if the result is the desired one.:spin:

No, as I've said before, proper hermeneutic. ;)

Fenris
Oct 17th 2007, 05:00 PM
You'd have to ask the Massoretes.:dunno:
Here's a theory.


Eh, I am not convinced. Jews were very faithful in transmitting the exact text of the bible. Yemenite Jews were separated from the rest of Judaism for nearly 2500 years, yet their copy of the bible contains only 5 spelling differences that do not change the meaning of the words.

It is in any case convenient that a word that could have such theological ramifications is the only one that was changed. IMHO.

Teke
Oct 17th 2007, 05:37 PM
Eh, I am not convinced. Jews were very faithful in transmitting the exact text of the bible. Yemenite Jews were separated from the rest of Judaism for nearly 2500 years, yet their copy of the bible contains only 5 spelling differences that do not change the meaning of the words.

It is in any case convenient that a word that could have such theological ramifications is the only one that was changed. IMHO.

Well there are at least two systems of punctuation that are Massoretic, the eastern and western. The western is called Tiberian, after the far famed school of Massorah at Tiberias, and is the preferred from what I understand. But hey, it's the sound they are trying to get right to be read orally (we chant the scriptures also, so I understand).

But I'm not a nit picker or a contentious person about things like this. Cause, yeah, we even have this sort of stuff go on in my religious affiliation. The Greeks are always pointing out that we are not speaking the words correctly in English. ie. one lil word like "to" versus "into", when we say in our service "remember me when you come to (or into) your kingdom".:P

I merely wanted to point out the Aramaic isn't that unusual in Hebrew text because of the close relation of Semitic languages. :)
Don't tell me that your rabbis don't wrestle with this type of stuff.

Fenris
Oct 17th 2007, 05:46 PM
I merely wanted to point out the Aramaic isn't that unusual in Hebrew text because of the close relation of Semitic languages. :)
They are similar languages. Some prayers are in Aramaic. The entire Talmud is written in Aramaic. Having said that, there is no Aramaic in Psalms.


Don't tell me that your rabbis don't wrestle with this type of stuff.

What type of stuff?

Teke
Oct 17th 2007, 06:47 PM
They are similar languages. Some prayers are in Aramaic. The entire Talmud is written in Aramaic. Having said that, there is no Aramaic in Psalms.

"there is no Aramaic in Psalms" of what text?


What type of stuff?

Pronunciations.

Fenris
Oct 17th 2007, 06:49 PM
"there is no Aramaic in Psalms" of what text?Psalms is written in Hebrew.

Teke
Oct 17th 2007, 07:45 PM
Psalms is written in Hebrew.

The Psalms were not written down in Hebrew before the 6th century BCE, nearly half a millennium after David's reign (about 1000 BCE), they doubtless depended on oral or hymnic tradition for transmission of any Davidic material.

And Psalm 1 and 2 do not bear the name of David as author. David did many of them, but not all.

Fenris
Oct 17th 2007, 08:02 PM
The Psalms were not written down in Hebrew before the 6th century BCE, nearly half a millennium after David's reign (about 1000 BCE), they doubtless depended on oral or hymnic tradition for transmission of any Davidic material.Possibly, I shall research the facts.


And Psalm 1 and 2 do not bear the name of David as author. David did many of them, but not all.
Regardless of who the author is, Psalm 2 matches David's life.