PDA

View Full Version : What does 'Forever' mean in the bible?



Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 02:22 PM
What does 'Forever' mean when God says it?

For example, God says many things are to be 'forever' or 'throughout your generations'. Do these laws still apply?

For example:



Exodus 29:9 You shall dress them with belts, Aaron and his sons, and bind headbands on them: and they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute: and you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons.

Leviticus 3:17 "'It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood.'

Leviticus 23:21 You shall make proclamation on the same day: there shall be a holy convocation to you; you shall do no regular work. This is a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations

Leviticus 23:31 You shall do no manner of work: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

Leviticus 23:41 You shall keep it a feast to Yahweh seven days in the year: it is a statute forever throughout your generations; you shall keep it in the seventh month.

Exodus 12:17 You shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this same day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations by an ordinance forever.

12 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 13 'Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying: Verily ye shall keep My sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am the LORD who sanctify you. 14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you; every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel for ever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He ceased from work and rested.'

Numbers 15:37 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 38 'Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue. 39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray; 40 that ye may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy unto your God

menJesus
Mar 11th 2008, 02:40 PM
Thank you so much for starting this thread. I have seen these Scriptures and wondered about them so much.

It seems to me like God says what He meant, and He means what He says.

But then, nothing is as cut-and-dried as it seems, in the Bible.

I am unable to articulate well enough to join in, here, but rest assured I am watching closely as this thread goes on. But I may ask a question or two, as it goes along...

I, personally, want to do everything I can to be obedient to God. And now I can learn just what these things are...

Thank you again, very much, for your work here, and I thank the others in advance.

May God bless us all.

th1bill
Mar 11th 2008, 02:45 PM
I believe you already know my position on this, especially in reference to Israel, so I'll be interested to see responses also.

moonglow
Mar 11th 2008, 03:17 PM
Forever has been discussed before on here but I don't remember if I really kept up with that one or not...it is interesting though. Some have questioned whether forever really means forever...so anyway I did some looking and found an interesting website on this...I would like for you to take a look at it and see what you think...especially in regards to these verses posted on it:

Edited...took out the link because I am not sure if its ok or not...and don't want to get in trouble for breaking board rules.

Quoted from the site:
Now let’s discover how long the "eternity" REALLY is in many leading "selling" English translations:

Sodom's fiery judgment is "eternal" (Jude 7)--until--God "will restore the fortunes of Sodom" 16:53-55).

Israel's "affliction is incurable" (Jer. 30:12)-until--the Lord "will restore health" and heal her wounds (Jer. 30:17).

The sin of Samaria "is incurable" (Mic. 1:9)-until-- Lord "will restore ... the fortunes of Samaria." (Ez. 16:53).

Ammon is to become a "wasteland forever" and "rise no more" (Zeph. 2:9, Jer. 25:27 --until--the Lord will "restore the fortunes of the Ammonites" (Jer. 49:6).

An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord's congregation "forever"-until--the tenth generation (Deut. 23:3):

Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were "everlasting", that is -until-- they "were shattered" Hab. 3 3:6).

The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an "everlasting" priesthood (Ex. 40:15), that is-until-it was superceded by the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 7:14-18).

Many translations of the Bible inform us that God would dwell in Solomon's Temple "forever" (1 Kings 8:13), that is,--until the Temple was destroyed.

The children of Israel were to "observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant" (Exodus 31:16)-until--Paul states there remains "another day" of Sabbath rest for the people of God (Heb. 4:8,9).

The Law of Moses was to be an "everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8) yet we read in the New Covenant the first was "done away" and "abolished" (2 Corinthians 3:11,13), and God "made the first old" (Hebrews 8:13).

The fire for Israel's sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be a "perpetual"-- until-- Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for our sins. We now have a better covenant established on better promises (Lev. 6:12-13, Heb. 8:6-13).

God's waves of wrath roll over Jonah "forever"-until--the Lord delivers him from the large fish's belly on the third day (Jonah 2:6,10; 1: 17); Egypt and Elam will "rise no more" (Jer. 25:27)-until--the Lord will "restore the fortunes of Egypt" (Ez. 29:14) and "restore the fortunes of Elam" (Jer. 49:39).

"Moab is destroyed" (Jer. 48:4, 42)-until--the Lord "will restore the fortunes of Moab" (Jer. 48:47).

Israel's judgment lasts "forever"-until--the Spirit is poured out and God restores it (Isa. 32:13-15).

So, narrow is the way to life and few find it-until-- and His church confiscate the "strong man's" booty, setting the captives free so God becomes all in all (Isa. 61, Luke 11:21-22, Matt. 7:13; 16:18, 1 Cor. 15:24-28).

The King James Bible, as well as many others, tells us that a bondslave was to serve his master "forever" (Exodus 21:6), that is,--until--his death.
***********************
There are alot more listed on that site and this person seems to be intent on proving hell is not forever and God will restore everyone to Him. I don't know that I agree with that view...but I really do like the examples used though in ow the bible defines forever. (so I hope the mods don't remove this).

More from this site:

Another pleasant change which more Bible translations of the future will make deals with the subject of the words "everlasting," "eternal," and "for ever and ever." These words have been used in times past to translate the Hebrew word "olam," and its Greek counterpart "aion," and its adjective, "aionios." These ancient words should NEVER have been translated this way. Many modern scholars are beginning to cut the grain of tradition and speak the truth which has been shackled by the chains of tradition long enough. It’s time for light. The body of Christ has had enough of living in the shadows. It’s time for pure light!

Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, a well-known Bible teacher, hailed as "the prince of expositors" wrote in his book "God’s Method’s With Men" on pages 185, 6, "Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how to use the word ‘eternity.’ We have fallen into great error in our constant use of that word. There is NO word in the whole Book of God corresponding with our ‘eternal,’ which as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end."

The above statement may come as a shock to the traditional Christian in the typical Church. It was certainly a shock to me. How could he make what appeared to me such a ridiculous statement. The Bible translations I had were FILLED with verses that spoke of things which were "eternal," "everlasting," and went on "forever and ever." How could he be hailed as a renowned Bible teacher and be given the honor of being called by the evangelical world the "prince of expositors" and yet make what appeared to me based upon my few Bible translations an utterly ridiculous statement? But when I decided to dig through my walls of tradition to see if what the famous Doctor Morgan said was true, I found MANY other well-known and respected scholars and Bible teachers had come to the very same conclusions to which Dr. Morgan had come.
*************************
I am trying to find more information about this Dr. G. Campbell Morgan and his studies on these words. Just wanted to see what your thoughts are on it.

God bless

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 03:28 PM
Another pleasant change which more Bible translations of the future will make deals with the subject of the words "everlasting," "eternal," and "for ever and ever." These words have been used in times past to translate the Hebrew word "olam," and its Greek counterpart "aion," and its adjective, "aionios." These ancient words should NEVER have been translated this way. Many modern scholars are beginning to cut the grain of tradition and speak the truth which has been shackled by the chains of tradition long enough. It’s time for light. The body of Christ has had enough of living in the shadows. It’s time for pure light!

Now see, this is defining a word based on what you believe. To wit: God's covenant with the Jews was not forever, so the word 'Olam' can't mean forever. The law was not meant to be followed forever, so 'throughout your generations' doesn't mean that.

moonglow
Mar 11th 2008, 04:20 PM
Now see, this is defining a word based on what you believe. To wit: God's covenant with the Jews was not forever, so the word 'Olam' can't mean forever. The law was not meant to be followed forever, so 'throughout your generations' doesn't mean that.

I didn't write that...I put it in italics to show it was from that site and said it was that site...

It seems to be the verses this person listed do show forever is not forever though.. in comparing those bible verses listed...though that doesn't mean ALL verses using that word or words meaning the same thing don't mean forever (if that makes any sense).

As one of the examples given:

Zephaniah 2:9
9Therefore, as I live," declares the LORD of hosts,
the God of Israel,
"Moab shall become(B) like Sodom,
and the Ammonites like Gomorrah,
a land possessed by nettles and salt pits,
and a waste forever.
The remnant of my people shall plunder them,
and the survivors of my nation shall possess them."

Jeremiah 25:27
27"Then you shall say to them, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Drink, be drunk and vomit, fall and rise no more, because of the sword that I am sending among you.'

This appears to be forever and they will never ever rise again...yet we see this verse:

Jeremiah 49:6

6"But afterward I will restore the fortunes of the Ammonites, declares the LORD."

So in this case, forever is not forever and ever....along with those other verses listed.

For myself, I am undecided on all of this...I mean obviously given those verses listed it wasn't meant as forever...but if everything is not forever...does that mean Heaven is not forever? :hmm: Or does it just apply to the verses that show later they were not forever? I do not know.

I just wanted to see how you viewed those verses given, that used strong words such as 'forever' and 'incurable' (incurable usually means it can NEVER be cured) yet in these cases they were....'eternal'...'ever lasting' and so on...yet other verses show they didn't last forever...were curable and weren't eternal...etc.

I don't know..this is new to me so I am just now looking at it.

God bless

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 04:38 PM
I didn't write that...I put it in italics to show it was from that site and said it was that site...I didn't say you said it. I just remarked that it was a phenomena.


It seems to be the verses this person listed do show forever is not forever though.. in comparing those bible verses listed...though that doesn't mean ALL verses using that word or words meaning the same thing don't mean forever (if that makes any sense). ok, but once again, that could just be doctrine posing as definition.


As one of the examples given:

Zephaniah 2:9

"Moab shall become(B) like Sodom,
and the Ammonites like Gomorrah,
a land possessed by nettles and salt pits,
and a waste forever.

This appears to be forever and they will never ever rise again...yet we see this verse:

Jeremiah 49:6

6"But afterward I will restore the fortunes of the Ammonites, declares the LORD."

So in this case, forever is not forever and ever....along with those other verses listed.
OK, well two points. First of all, the first verse refers to the LAND and not THE PEOPLE. So the LAND may be desolate.

Second, a better translation of your second verse is " 6. And afterwards, I will return the captivity of the children of Ammon, says the Lord." which is clearer and speaks of the PEOPLE and not the LAND.

moonglow
Mar 11th 2008, 06:18 PM
I didn't say you said it. I just remarked that it was a phenomena.
ok, but once again, that could just be doctrine posing as definition.

OK, well two points. First of all, the first verse refers to the LAND and not THE PEOPLE. So the LAND may be desolate.

Second, a better translation of your second verse is " 6. And afterwards, I will return the captivity of the children of Ammon, says the Lord." which is clearer and speaks of the PEOPLE and not the LAND.

Ok...sorry about the misunderstanding...I just wanted to make it clear it wasn't me making a pat statement on this because I really don't know and wanted you to understand that.

You made a good point...on whether this is referring to land or people...I will have to go back now and review the examples given on that site. I am still reading the website anyway to see how sound it may or may not be anyway. Just thought it was interesting though that at least in some areas of the bible, forever isn't forever. But again as I pointed out IF forever never means forever then that begs the question on passages regarding promises of good things...such as ever lasting life as in John 3:16.

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

So this wouldn't just affect you as a Jew, it would also have major affects on us Christians also which I realize...

Even taking a poor argument (which this site might be..not sure yet) though can help us have a better understanding of what forever means. Or the 'not forever' as you pointed out could only apply to land, and/or certain situations. This means further studying is needed.

God bless

2Witnesses
Mar 11th 2008, 06:33 PM
Fenris,

'Forever' means as long as God requires or desires it. That's all! And it could be long or short forever.

2Witnesses

ps Again, I believe one day ALL death will end. The first physical death was an animal. Adam died spiritually, then in the flesh. But one day ALL death will end!

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 06:36 PM
Ok...sorry about the misunderstanding...I just wanted to make it clear it wasn't me making a pat statement on this because I really don't know and wanted you to understand that. No, that's ok. I should have been clearer in my post.


But again as I pointed out IF forever never means forever then that begs the question on passages regarding promises of good things...such as ever lasting life as in John 3:16.

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

So this wouldn't just affect you as a Jew, it would also have major affects on us Christians also which I realize...

Right, and I can't comment on this for two reasons. First, I am not a Christian. Second, I am not fluent in Greek.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 06:37 PM
Fenris,

'Forever' means as long as God requires or desires it. That's all! And it could be long or short forever.


Again, this sounds like translation driven by theology and not the meaning of the text.

Brother Mark
Mar 11th 2008, 06:39 PM
It means forever Fenris. But not all of God's covenants were covenants of salt. Some were conditional.

stillforgiven
Mar 11th 2008, 06:39 PM
I believe you already know my position on this, especially in reference to Israel, so I'll be interested to see responses also.

Some of us are relatively new to the boards, though. If others don't mind, I wouldn't mind seeing your point of view on this.

2Witnesses
Mar 11th 2008, 06:40 PM
Again, this sounds like translation driven by theology and not the meaning of the text.

Fenris,

Allow me to ask you this again, since you have not answered me before. Will blood be offered forever? And if you say yes, then why? And if does not atone, what is the point?

2Witnesses

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 06:44 PM
It means forever Fenris. But not all of God's covenants were covenants of salt. Some were conditional.Do tell. Which ones were conditional?:hmm:

menJesus
Mar 11th 2008, 06:46 PM
Can we presume that forever means as long as the world lasts, and that everlasting means as long as God is on His throne?

"16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 06:46 PM
Fenris,

Allow me to ask you this again, since you have not answered me before. Will blood be offered forever? If you mean sacrifice, then yes, the rebuilt Temple will have that.


And if you say yes, then why?Because that is what God wants.


And if does not atone, what is the point?It can atone, bit not for all sins. So can prayer and good deeds.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 06:48 PM
Can we presume that forever means as long as the world lasts, and that everlasting means as long as God is on His throne?


Hmm interesting.

I'll have to check the Hebrew, but I think the Tanach uses two terms: 'Forever' and 'Throughout your generations'. I wonder if it's just poetic or if it implies something else...?

2Witnesses
Mar 11th 2008, 06:55 PM
Fenris,

Fine! If you can live forever with that. But let me ask then, is a curse associated with the Law 'forever' also? And if so, under what conditions is the curse given?

Is it not 'conditioned' upon sin by a person? And is not the blessing under the Law also 'conditional'?

The Covenant of the Law was conditional because it was a covenant bases on works. And cursed is the one who continues not in all things written in the book of the Law to do them.

Christ removed this conditional covenant, and replaced it by the unconditional covenant of God's grace.

2Witnesses

Souled Out
Mar 11th 2008, 07:00 PM
Fenris,

'Forever' means as long as God requires or desires it. That's all! And it could be long or short forever.

2Witnesses

ps Again, I believe one day ALL death will end. The first physical death was an animal. Adam died spiritually, then in the flesh. But one day ALL death will end!

This is correct, 2Witnesses.

Jonah was said to be in the fish of the belly "forever" but scripture later defines "forever" as 3 days. The olam varies depending on however long God determines. That's why a definite period of time cannot be applied to it across the board.

"Forever" can be 500 years, until the end of an age, for the duration of a person's lifetime, 3 days, etc.

People need to get out of the midset and stop seeing the English definition of "forever" and start seeing the term "olam" as God gave it, as an "age" or unspecified amount of time (unless it is specified).

Brother Mark
Mar 11th 2008, 07:02 PM
Do tell. Which ones were conditional?:hmm:

Well, how bout all the blessings and curses listed in Moses writings? Very conditional.

But how about another interesting question. What of the covenant of salt mentioned to King David? His descendants were to always be on the throne. Did God keep his promise to David?

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 07:04 PM
Fenris,

Fine! If you can live forever with that. But let me ask then, is a curse associated with the Law 'forever' also? And if so, under what conditions is the curse given? Uh, there's no curse associated with the law. The law is the way to elevate man.


Is it not 'conditioned' upon sin by a person?What?


And is not the blessing under the Law also 'conditional'?Material blessings and curses? yes.


The Covenant of the Law was conditional because it was a covenant bases on works. No place does God say that His covenant with us is conditional. And several places where He says it's not.



Christ removed this conditional covenant, and replaced it by the unconditional covenant of God's grace.

2Witnesses

Again, a point of faith and not fact.

menJesus
Mar 11th 2008, 07:05 PM
Hmm interesting.

I'll have to check the Hebrew, but I think the Tanach uses two terms: 'Forever' and 'Throughout your generations'. I wonder if it's just poetic or if it implies something else...?

I have seen the words "forever and ever" and "throughout the generations".

"Throughout the generations is what keyed me in to all this: it must mean, since the generations have carried down until today, 2008, that these things must apply to those of us who are alive today, in 2008.

Dunno Greek or Hebrew - can barely manage English, here... ;)

I use KJV, NASB, and RSV, plus Amplified and anything else I find on the internet.

Souled Out
Mar 11th 2008, 07:06 PM
Can we presume that forever means as long as the world lasts, and that everlasting means as long as God is on His throne?

Why do we need to presume when God has already told us what it means? If He tells us then we can either reject it and come up with our own definition or we can just accept it.



"16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.""Aionian zoe" is what's been translated as "everlasting life" which does not mean living forever. It means so much more than that.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 07:08 PM
Well, how bout all the blessings and curses listed in Moses writings? Very conditional. Yes, God said that if we did His will we would be blessed with material things and if we disobeyed we would be punished with pain and exile. Nowhere does He say that the covenant will be nullified though. In fact, he specifically states the opposite: Leviticus 26: 44 And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them; for I am the LORD their God. 45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God...


But how about another interesting question. What of the covenant of salt mentioned to King David? His descendants were to always be on the throne. Did God keep his promise to David?The point there was that when there was a proper king of Israel he would be from David.

2Witnesses
Mar 11th 2008, 07:09 PM
This is correct, Fenris.

Jonah was said to be in the fish of the belly "forever" but scripture later defines "forever" as 3 days. The olam varies depending on however long God determines. That's why a definite period of time cannot be applied to it across the board.

"Forever" can be 500 years, until the end of an age, for the duration of a person's lifetime, 3 days, etc.

People need to get out of the midset and stop seeing the English definition of "forever" and start seeing the term "olam" as God gave it, as an "age" or unspecified amount of time (unless it is specified).

Fenris,

The point Soulout makes is not to be taken lightly, nor ignored. And you need to reread Deut. 27.

2Witnesses

The 'proper king' Fenris is Jesus.

menJesus
Mar 11th 2008, 07:09 PM
This is correct, Fenris.

Jonah was said to be in the fish of the belly "forever" but scripture later defines "forever" as 3 days. The olam varies depending on however long God determines. That's why a definite period of time cannot be applied to it across the board.

"Forever" can be 500 years, until the end of an age, for the duration of a person's lifetime, 3 days, etc.

People need to get out of the midset and stop seeing the English definition of "forever" and start seeing the term "olam" as God gave it, as an "age" or unspecified amount of time (unless it is specified).

Please pardon me that I apparently do not share your status of multi-lingual Bible scholar. I am, however, willing to learn. Thank God someone is willing to teach me...

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 07:10 PM
Jonah was said to be in the fish of the belly "forever" but scripture later defines "forever" as 3 days.Where does it say Jonah would be in there 'forever'?
.


People need to get out of the midset and stop seeing the English definition of "forever" and start seeing the term "olam" as God gave it, as an "age" or unspecified amount of time (unless it is specified).Hmm what about 'throughout your generations'?

Brother Mark
Mar 11th 2008, 07:11 PM
Yes, God said that if we did His will we would be blessed with material things and if we disobeyed we would be punished with pain and exile. Nowhere does He say that the covenant will be nullified though. In fact, he specifically states the opposite: Leviticus 26: 44 And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them; for I am the LORD their God. 45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God...

No problem with that.


The point there was that when there was a proper king of Israel he would be from David.


Really? Only for when there is to be a "proper king"? So today, God's covenant of salt is no longer for David? A covenant of salt is even more lasting because it is eternal. Not just for this life but the next as well.

Shouldn't there be a king for Israel today from the line of David?

2Witnesses
Mar 11th 2008, 07:13 PM
Where does it say Jonah would be in there 'forever'?
.
Hmm what about 'throughout your generations'?

There we come a time when there will be no more 'generations'.

2Witness

There is no longer a king for David because the son of David came, the last, who fulfilled the promise of 'forever'.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 07:14 PM
Fenris,

The point Soulout makes is not to be taken lightly, nor ignored. And you need to reread Deut. 27.Right, the curses. OK, so people who sin get punishment from above. So?




The 'proper king' Fenris is Jesus.OK, let's say this all together now"

"That's a point of faith, not fact":)

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 07:16 PM
Really? Only for when there is to be a "proper king"? So today, God's covenant of salt is no longer for David? A covenant of salt is even more lasting because it is eternal. Not just for this life but the next as well.

Shouldn't there be a king for Israel today from the line of David?
There was no king at all from 586BC to 516BC.
There was no proper king from about 150BC and on.

When the messiah comes and such there will again be a proper king on Israel's throne.

moonglow
Mar 11th 2008, 07:17 PM
Yes lets slow down a bit here for those of us just learning and not assume we are 'stuck' in some idea or church teaching...don't assume we are just being stubborn or rebellious but truly trying to understand.


God bless

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 07:17 PM
There we come a time when there will be no more 'generations'.Perhaps, but we ain't there yet. ;)




There is no longer a king for David because the son of David came, the last, who fulfilled the promise of 'forever'.
You have an odd take on what the word 'fulfilled' means. I'm just saying.:kiss:

Souled Out
Mar 11th 2008, 07:17 PM
Please pardon me that I apparently do not share your status of multi-lingual Bible scholar. I am, however, willing to learn. Thank God someone is willing to teach me...

Menjesus, I only thank God for showing me things as on my own I can be dense. :lol:

I just don't take the word of men anymore when it comes to things. God made me hungry to search the scriptures in their original languages and everything that He reveals to me first always bears to be true in my studies. You have to dig for gold and it is so rewarding.

2Witnesses
Mar 11th 2008, 07:18 PM
There was no king at all from 586BC to 516BC.
There was no proper king from about 150BC and on.

When the messiah comes and such there will again be a proper king on Israel's throne.

Fenris,

Thatis a 'point of faith' on your part. You know, you need a redeemer, a helper. You are one among many.

2Witnesses

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 07:19 PM
Fenris,

Thatis a 'point of faith' on your part.
Right. And I don't speak it as though it is fact. Especially since it hasn't happened yet.

2Witnesses
Mar 11th 2008, 07:21 PM
Right. And I don't speak it as though it is fact. Especially since it hasn't happened yet.


Fenris,

I love you man! But I have to sleep now. :kiss:

2Witnesses

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 07:24 PM
Fenris,

I love you man! But I have to sleep now. :kiss:

2WitnessesSleep tight. :)

Souled Out
Mar 11th 2008, 07:32 PM
Where does it say Jonah would be in there 'forever'?

See the use of olam (forever) in Jonah 2:6 and for contexual purposes, Jonah 2:1-9.


Hmm what about 'throughout your generations'?And apply that across the board? Why? That's not how it's used in the scriptures.

menJesus
Mar 11th 2008, 07:35 PM
Menjesus, I only thank God for showing me things as on my own I can be dense. :lol:

I just don't take the word of men anymore when it comes to things. God made me hungry to search the scriptures in their original languages and everything that He reveals to me first always bears to be true in my studies. You have to dig for gold and it is so rewarding.

Please read "my thumbnail testimony". As I said in my first post here, I do not have the ability to do this on my own. My avatar is not a joke...

I do not have the mentality of a 10-year old - just a bad handicap, especially in something as complex as the Bible.

That being said, I am not the only one wanting to learn the fundamental truths of God.

Fenris, carry on! ;)

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 07:37 PM
See the use of olam (forever) in Jonah 2:6 and for contexual purposes, Jonah 2:1-9.Umm that's Jonah saying he thought he would be trapped in the fish forever. That's quite different from God telling us "Do this forever", don't you think?


And apply that across the board? Why? That's not how it's used in the scriptures.

I mean when God tells us to do something "Throughout your generations". Doesn't that sound like something...permanent?

Brother Mark
Mar 11th 2008, 08:01 PM
There was no king at all from 586BC to 516BC.
There was no proper king from about 150BC and on.

Wasn't Israel in bondage to another king at that time, meaning God had rejected them for a time? Probably wouldn't hurt me to do a little more research on that.


When the messiah comes and such there will again be a proper king on Israel's throne.Right. And as has already been pointed out, that King is Jesus.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 08:09 PM
Wasn't Israel in bondage to another king at that time, meaning God had rejected them for a time? From 150BC until about 63BC was the Hashmonean dynasty, who were from the tribe of Levi. Kings, but not proper kings.

It is true that in the present day God has rejected us.


Right. And as has already been pointed out, that King is Jesus.As I have pointed out, that is a point of faith and not fact.

Souled Out
Mar 11th 2008, 08:25 PM
Umm that's Jonah saying he thought he would be trapped in the fish forever. That's quite different from God telling us "Do this forever", don't you think?

Jonah is recounting the period of time that he was in the fish which was defined as an owlam. If we replace "for ever" or "owlam" with “throughout your generations” as you propose, do you think that would make the passage make any more sense? We find out that what Jonah says was forever was 3 days.

Ex. 21:6 says that a bondslave was to serve his master "forever"/"owlam". Do you think the passage would make more sense to say “throughout your/his generations”?

Or does the olam specify that the bondslave will serve his master for all the days of his life/throughout his life?


I mean when God tells us to do something "Throughout your generations". Doesn't that sound like something...permanent?When God tells us to do something for an "olam" we continue it until He specifies. When Jesus came, things changed and for those that put their faith in Christ and the New Covenant, all the old practices changed in the New Testament, specifically Galatians, Jeremiah, Hebrews and Colossians.

To you, the "owlam" is still on-going but for me being a believer in Christ, that "owlam" ended and that's where my faith in Christ began.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 08:41 PM
Jonah is recounting the period of time that he was in the fish which was defined as an owlam. If we replace "for ever" or "owlam" with “throughout your generations” as you propose, do you think that would make the passage make any more sense? We find out that what Jonah says was forever was 3 days. Oh, you misunderstood me. In the bible, sometimes it says "forever" and sometimes it says "throughout your generations" and sometimes it says both. What does it mean when God tells us to do something "throughout your generations"?


Ex. 21:6 says that a bondslave was to serve his master "forever"/"owlam". Do you think the passage would make more sense to say “throughout your/his generations”?
Obviously that means for his whole life.



When God tells us to do something for an "olam" we continue it until He specifies. When Jesus came, things changed and for those that put their faith in Christ and the New Covenant, all the old practices changed in the New Testament, specifically Galatians, Jeremiah, Hebrews and Colossians.

To you, the "owlam" is still on-going but for me being a believer in Christ, that "owlam" ended and that's where my faith in Christ began.Exactly. So how you define the word is based on what you believe.

Brother Mark
Mar 11th 2008, 08:44 PM
From 150BC until about 63BC was the Hashmonean dynasty, who were from the tribe of Levi. Kings, but not proper kings.

OK. I know what you mean now. I would think the silence after Malachi is when things started going crazy.


As I have pointed out, that is a point of faith and not fact.

Can faith and fact not meet? :P

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 08:52 PM
OK. I know what you mean now. I would think the silence after Malachi is when things started going crazy.No, the problems with the kingship started a bit later




Can faith and fact not meet? :P

Possibly, but not in this case. Since you can't convince someone who doesn't believe as you do do, obviously. ;)

Teke
Mar 11th 2008, 09:25 PM
What does 'Forever' mean when God says it?

For example, God says many things are to be 'forever' or 'throughout your generations'. Do these laws still apply?


Good article on this subject at the Christian Think Tank site. Here's a snip.


Does 'eternal' (olam) mean 'unchangeable', when applied to the Law?


The curious thing about this issue is that it is a little unclear what the assertion of 'eternal law' really means…

Historically, those who have argued the most tenaciously about the Mosaic law being still in-force and applicable eternally were some of the formative Jewish rabbis. But oddly enough, the element of change and annulment of specific commands of the mosaic law can be documented (1) within the Mosaic corpus, (2) within the OT/Tanaak, (3) in post-biblical Judaism, and (4) absolutely within Rabbinic Judaism! Let's survey some of this data on the mutability of the Mosaic Law.


1. Mosaic Law changed within the lifetime of Moses.

* For example, the Passover in Exodus was supposed to be eaten in the individual homes (Ex 12), but in Deut 16, it was NOT supposed to be so--it was supposed to be eaten at the sanctuary in Jerusalem. This is a change within the period of Moses' leadership.

* "This law [Lev 17.5-7] could be effective only when eating meat was a rare luxury, and when everyone lived close to the sanctuary as during the wilderness wanderings. After the settlement it was no longer feasible to insist that all slaughtering be restricted to the tabernacle. It would have compelled those who lived a long way from the sanctuary to become vegetarians. Deut. 12:20ff. therefore allows them to slaughter and eat sheep and oxen without going through the sacrificial procedures laid down in Leviticus, though the passage still insists that the regulations about blood must be observed (Deut. 12:23ff.; cf. Lev. 17: 10ff.)." [NICOT, Lev, at 17.5-7]

* We might also point out the changes in where Israel was supposed to live: camped out around the tabernacle, or in the lands allotted at the end of Moses life. The circumstances changed--and the 'old' laws of the wilderness wanderings were annulled and new ones created. Numerous other examples can be adduced: no more following the cloud, no more laws about the manna, etc.


* For more examples of this, see references to changes in the laws in Ze'ev's Falk's book [OT:HLBT]

* In fact, the covenant at the end of Moses' life is said to be different from the earlier covenant at Sinai!:



"These are the terms of the covenant the LORD commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb (Deut 29.1)



· Slightly related to this is the difference in God's pre-Mosaic law and God's Mosaic law. The patriarchs seem to reflect slightly different laws (e.g. the penalty for Reuben's sleeping with his father's wife/concubine was loss of firstborn inheritance rights, and not death, as under the Law of Moses), further showing that torah did indeed change. For example, in Gen 26.5 Abraham is said to have kept all of God's "charge, commandments, statutes and laws" (torah). Does this mean that Abraham celebrated the Passover (before the Exodus), went to the non-existent tabernacle for sacrifices, gave his tithes to non-existent Levites, fasted on the non-existent Day of Atonement, observed the Sabbath (before it was legislated in the Mosaic Covenant), and abstained from making treaties with the inhabitants of the land? Of course not--torah can and has and does change…The 'obligatory content' (i.e., laws) contained in Torah for Abraham was different than that for Noah, Moses, Adam, Ezekiel-in-Exile, and Ezra-in-the-land.


2. Mosaic Law changed within the post-Mosaic period of the Hebrew Bible, with some laws becoming obsolete and new ones being added.


· "Other rabbis, however, saw in this contradiction [Ezek vs. Moses on 'children dying for sins of fathers'] a direct prophetic improvement upon the words of the Torah. 'Moses said, 'God visits the sins of the father upon the children,' but there came Ezekiel and removed it and said, 'The soul that sinneth, it shall die'"" [ART, p.187; cites b. Makk 24a]


· Some of the more obvious examples of this would be the 'annulment' of the laws of the layout of the tabernacle when the Temple (with its different dimensions and layout) was built, the addition of singers under David, legal execution by the 'avenger of blood' and the cities of refuge as protection against that, and specific monetary amounts of fines (e.g., shekels).

· Of course, the feast of Purim arose after the Mosaic period, too--it wasn’t part of the Mosaic feasts, but is typically considered torah because it is in the Hebrew Bible.

· In fact, the Hebrew bible represents the Laws as coming from "Moses plus prophets":



"The LORD warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets and seers: “Turn from your evil ways. Observe my commands and decrees, in accordance with the entire Law that I commanded your fathers to obey and that I delivered to you through my servants the prophets.” (2 Kings 17.13--notice the plural 'servantS', delivered not just through Moses. Commandments were added after Moses, 'changing' the Law)



3. And many of these 'eternal laws' were obsoleted before we get to the NT/Rabbinic periods, but many more were 'obsoleted' by the Rabbi's themselves:


· "But even a superficial analysis will discover that in the times of the Rabbis many of these commandments were already obsolete, as, for instance, those relating to the arrangements of the tabernacle, and to the conquest of Palestine; whilst others concerned only certain classes, as, for instance, the priests, the judges, the soldiers and their commanders, the Nazirites, the representatives of the community, or even one or two individuals in the whole population, as, for example, the king and the high priest. Others, again, provided for contingencies which could occur only to a few, as, for instance, the laws concerning divorce or levirate-marriages. The laws, again, relating to idolatry, incest, and the sacrifices of children to Moloch, could hardly be considered as coming within the province of the practical life even of the pre-Christian Jew; just as little as we can speak of Englishmen being under the burden of the law when prohibited from burning their widows or marrying their grandmothers, though these acts would certainly be considered as crimes." [ART, p141]



· "Nor were these [rabbinic] deliverances confined to laying down the proper way of fulfilling the requirements of the law under changing conditions, or to protecting the law from infringement by a thickset hedge of prohibitions more stringent than the letter. When the exigencies of the time seemed to them to demand it, the rabbis in council or individually did not hesitate to suspend or set aside laws in the Pentateuch on their own authority, without exegetical subterfuges or pretense of Mosaic tradition. Where justification is offered for extraordinary liberties of this kind, Psalm 119,126 is frequently quoted, with a peculiar interpretation. Instead of, "It is time for the Lord to do something, they have made void thy law," the verse is taken, "It is time to do something for the Lord." … "There are in fact numerous rabbinical enactments from all periods which are more or less directly at variance with the plain letter and intent of the law. Among the most noteworthy was the legal fiction called prozbul (or prosbul) devised by Hillel. The law of Deut. 15, 1-3 by which all loans were cancelled at the beginning of every seventh year worked as, in human nature, such a utopian economic experiment might be expected to work. Notwithstanding the pathos of the exhortation in verses 7-11, and no matter what the distress of the borrower might be, moneylenders could not be induced to make a loan in the fifth or sixth year which would automatically become a donation in the seventh. Like much equally well-meant legislation in later times, the effect of the law was the diametrical opposite of its intent. Hillel's remedy was the execution in court of an instrument, attested by the seals of the judges or witnesses, by which the lender retained the right to reclaim the loan at any time he saw fit. Shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 A.D., in consequence of the multitude of adulterers, R. Johanan ben Zakkai did away with the ordeal of jealousy (Num. 5, 11-31), alleging as a warrant for the abrogation of the law Hos. 4, 14: 'I will not punish your daughters when they commit harlotry, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery; for they themselves go apart with harlots and sacrifice with the prostitutes of the sanctuary.' In a similar way the frequency and boldness of murders led, we are told, to the abolition of the antique rite prescribed in Deut. 21, 1-9, when the victim of a murder by an unknown hand was found lying in the open field." [HI:JFCCE, 1, 259, 260; other examples (?) of using this principle: Yoma 69a: wearing the priestly garments outside of Jerusalem (to meet Alexander!); Gittin 60a - using/carrying a portion of the prophetic scrolls; Temurah 14b - writing of tradition or not (Soncino: "When a thing is done in the name of God it is sometimes necessary to nullify the Law")…!

· Such changes were made in wholesale after the Destruction of the Temple, of course. The exiled rabbi's invented all sorts of substitutes for sacrifice and atonement--quite substantial 'changes to an eternal law'. (For a list of these, see Section C, "The phenomena of sacrifice in the Pharisaical Jewish world of first century Palestine" in cross3.html.).

· This is, of course, one of the problematic issues for Jesus, too: "He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 “For Moses said, ‘ Honor your father and your mother ’; and, ‘ He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God ),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”" [Mark 7.9f]


Given this mutability of the specific legal status of the various 'laws', it is not altogether clear what is being asserted when someone says 'the law is eternal' or 'cannot be changed'…So, let's look at our main word for eternal -- olam.

…………………………………………………………………………….

3. What exactly was the content of the word 'olam' (eternal) in biblical and rabbinical writings?

Oddly enough, the lexical data will indicate how something could be 'olam' and still easily be of finite duration.

* First of all, olam does not mean "philosophical eternity". It is always relative to some 'base'. Let's look first at the lexical data and biblical usage, and then look at how the Rabbinics understood this word.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/finaltorah.html

[Historical note (added Dec/05): The objection/question raised above will sound familiar to many, for it is often believed to be a central tenent of modern Judaism. Historically, this was expressed for the first time (systematically, at least) by Maimonides (1138-1204), whose 13 Principles formed the basis for the informal definition of heresy by the Orthodox Jewish community. However, neither the 13 Principles in general, nor the Ninth Principle--on the Eternity of Torah--specifically, were accepted by all, or even 'most', of the rabbinic authorities of his day (or subsequently). Readers should be aware of the controversy surrounding this assumed 'foundation' of historic Judaism. I refer readers here to an excellent specialist work in the field, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised, by Marc B. Shapiro [The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004]. Readers who are interested in seeing the rabbinic disagreements with Maimonides should consult this work for further/additional historical detail.]

Brother Mark
Mar 11th 2008, 09:30 PM
No, the problems with the kingship started a bit later

I believe that. But I wonder if the problems with God didn't start around that time because that is when he went silent.


Possibly, but not in this case. Since you can't convince someone who doesn't believe as you do do, obviously. ;)


Sense when does your faith have to verify facts? I mean, there's a lot of facts I can't convince you of Fenris. But that's OK, I like you anyway.
:cool:

Souled Out
Mar 11th 2008, 10:23 PM
Oh, you misunderstood me. In the bible, sometimes it says "forever" and sometimes it says "throughout your generations" and sometimes it says both. What does it mean when God tells us to do something "throughout your generations"?
In all the passages in your OP, including the ones that say "throughout your generations," the Hebrew word used is still "owlam," so the meaning doesn't change for Christians.


Obviously that means for his whole life.Correct, context defines the owlam and that's why I can't in good conscience (or exegesis) just say, "throughout a generation" or "forever" everywhere owlam appears.



Exactly. So how you define the word is based on what you believe.Yes, and since you don't believe that Jesus is the Saviour or Messiah, you'll continue in the rituals and practices. Your wait is much different than that of Christians. Our wait is over. :)

moonglow
Mar 11th 2008, 11:05 PM
Good article on this subject at the Christian Think Tank site. Here's a snip.

That was an excellent article...thanks for posting it. :) I refer to his site quite often!

God bless

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 12:29 PM
Good article on this subject at the Christian Think Tank site. Here's a snip.
Yow, what a big post to digest.

OK, first some preliminary thoughts. As a Jewish person, much of this looks like excuses for throwing out the law. I'm not saying that's what it is, I'm saying that's what it looks like. This would fall back on my point about theology determining definition; "Jesus came and we don't have to follow the law, now let's interpret scripture in a way that supports that conclusion."

I also have to observe that the specific laws mentioned here do not have the proscription that they are 'forever'.

Ok, to the nitty gritty:


Does 'eternal' (olam) mean 'unchangeable', when applied to the Law?The central question.


Mosaic Law changed within the lifetime of Moses. Of course it did. And it changed after the Jews got to Israel and built the Temple too. Changing external circumstances will change obligations.


Slightly related to this is the difference in God's pre-Mosaic law and God's Mosaic law. The patriarchs seem to reflect slightly different laws (e.g. the penalty for Reuben's sleeping with his father's wife/concubine was loss of firstborn inheritance rights, and not death, as under the Law of Moses), further showing that torah did indeed change. For example, in Gen 26.5 Abraham is said to have kept all of God's "charge, commandments, statutes and laws" (torah). Does this mean that Abraham celebrated the Passover (before the Exodus), went to the non-existent tabernacle for sacrifices, gave his tithes to non-existent Levites, fasted on the non-existent Day of Atonement, observed the Sabbath (before it was legislated in the Mosaic Covenant), and abstained from making treaties with the inhabitants of the land? Of course not--torah can and has and does change…The 'obligatory content' (i.e., laws) contained in Torah for Abraham was different than that for Noah, Moses, Adam, Ezekiel-in-Exile, and Ezra-in-the-land.We are told that the patriarchs did in fact keep the whole of the bible, although they were not so obligated. Essentially, they were spiritually sensitive enough to see the need to follow the commandments, even when not told to do so.


Mosaic Law changed within the post-Mosaic period of the Hebrew Bible, with some laws becoming obsolete and new ones being added.
for example

Ot
her rabbis, however, saw in this contradiction [Ezek vs. Moses on 'children dying for sins of fathers'] a direct prophetic improvement upon the words of the Torah. 'Moses said, 'God visits the sins of the father upon the children,' but there came Ezekiel and removed it and said, 'The soul that sinneth, it shall die'children dying for sins of fathers' does not mean that if a father sins, his children also get the death penalty. :rolleyes: It's a ridiculous concept that comes from reading the bible hyper-literally. What it has been interpreted to mean is that if a child continues in the sinning ways of his parents, he is held culpable for their sins as well.


Some of the more obvious examples of this would be the 'annulment' of the laws of the layout of the tabernacle when the Temple (with its different dimensions and layout)Because the Tabernacle was only meant to be temporary.


the addition of singers under DavidWhat's wrong with this?

legal execution by the 'avenger of blood' and the cities of refuge as protection against thatThis is in the bible.


and specific monetary amounts of finesOf course the specific monetary fines have to change. Ever hear of inflation? :lol:


Of course, the feast of Purim arose after the Mosaic period, too--it wasn’t part of the Mosaic feasts, but is typically considered torah because it is in the Hebrew Bible.So? Where in the bible does God say that "These holidays I have given you are the only ones you will ever celebrate?"


In fact, the Hebrew bible represents the Laws as coming from "Moses plus prophets":Actually, no. The prophets never added laws. They simply told the Jews to follow the laws already given.


"The LORD warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets and seers: “Turn from your evil ways. Observe my commands and decrees, in accordance with the entire Law that I commanded your fathers to obey and that I delivered to you through my servants the prophets.”yes, because they reiterated what the Jews were supposed to do. If you feel otherwise, show me where the prophets added laws.


3. And many of these 'eternal laws' were obsoleted before we get to the NT/Rabbinic periods, but many more were 'obsoleted' by the Rabbi's
themselves:For example:

those relating to the arrangements of the tabernacleA temporary structure, as already stated.


and to the conquest of PalestineWhere were any laws obseleted?


whilst others concerned only certain classes, as, for instance, the priests, the judges, the soldiers and their commanders, the Nazirites, the representatives of the community, or even one or two individuals in the whole population, as, for example, the king and the high priest.

examples?


When the exigencies of the time seemed to them to demand it, the rabbis in council or individually did not hesitate to suspend or set aside laws in the Pentateuch on their own authority, without exegetical subterfuges or pretense of Mosaic tradition.examples?


Among the most noteworthy was the legal fiction called prozbul (or prosbul) devised by Hillel. The law of Deut. 15, 1-3 by which all loans were cancelled at the beginning of every seventh year worked as, in human nature, such a utopian economic experiment might be expected to work. Notwithstanding the pathos of the exhortation in verses 7-11, and no matter what the distress of the borrower might be, moneylenders could not be induced to make a loan in the fifth or sixth year which would automatically become a donation in the seventh.The biggest head-scratcher in the bunch. The NT rails against the rabbis for making laws that are difficult for the community. So here the rabbis make a law to ease the burdens on the poor, by ensuring that they could get loans near the end of the 7-year cycle. And somehow this is also bad. It's more of 'heads I win, tails you lose'.


Yoma 69a: wearing the priestly garments outside of Jerusalem (to meet Alexander!)A single instance of violation is permitted, even obligated, if human life is at stake.


Such changes were made in wholesale after the Destruction of the Temple, of course. The exiled rabbi's invented all sorts of substitutes for sacrifice and atonement--quite substantial 'changes to an eternal law'.They were not 'invented'. I have another thread here where the rabbis drew on scripture to demonstrate that there are other ways of appeasing God besides sacrifice.


What exactly was the content of the word 'olam' (eternal) in biblical and rabbinical writings?

Yes, what?


Oddly enough, the lexical data will indicate how something could be 'olam' and still easily be of finite duration.Examples?

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 12:35 PM
In all the passages in your OP, including the ones that say "throughout your generations," the Hebrew word used is still "owlam," so the meaning doesn't change for Christians.Fringes on garments (Numbers 15) only uses the term 'throughout your generations.' No 'olam'. Comments?



Yes, and since you don't believe that Jesus is the Saviour or Messiah, you'll continue in the rituals and practices. Your wait is much different than that of Christians. Our wait is over. :)
Good for you! I'm still waiting for universal peace, rebuilding of the temple, universal knowledge of God, etc etc.

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 12:41 PM
I believe that. But I wonder if the problems with God didn't start around that time because that is when he went silent.The silence really begins shortly after the destruction of the first temple. Make of it what you will.



Sense when does your faith have to verify facts?
Well, statements like 'Jesus died for our sins' is not a fact, it's a statement of faith.


I mean, there's a lot of facts I can't convince you of Fenris. But that's OK, I like you anyway.
:cool:

The feeling is mutual, trust me. :kiss:

Souled Out
Mar 12th 2008, 01:46 PM
Fringes on garments (Numbers 15) only uses the term 'throughout your generations.' No 'olam'. Comments?

Numbers 15:37 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 38 'Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue. 39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray; 40 that ye may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy unto your God
You have blue fringe, we have the Holy Spirit that helps us remember. Everything for us always leads back to the work of Christ on the Cross.



Good for you! I'm still waiting for universal peace, rebuilding of the temple, universal knowledge of God, etc etc.Thanks! I'm with you on the universal peace and knowledge of God, but the rebuilding of the Temple in my view is already done and as of this morning, the Lord is reigning!

Peace, my brother.

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 02:08 PM
Everything for us always leads back to the work of Christ on the Cross. Yeah, that's what I hear...


Thanks! I'm with you on the universal peace and knowledge of God, but the rebuilding of the Temple in my view is already done and as of this morning, the Lord is reigning!Right, because it's 'temple' and not Temple.


Peace, my brother.
Peace out, yo.

Souled Out
Mar 12th 2008, 03:08 PM
Right, because it's 'temple' and not Temple.

If you call it 'temple' and not 'Temple,' was it a typo when you referred to it as 'Temple' here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1567968&postcount=6)? If there's a distinction to you, I can go with that but in my scriptures there's no such distinction.


Peace out, yo.YoYo was a nickname growing up and the guys (just the guys) at work took to shortening it to Yo, so thank you. :lol:

Peace to you, too.

Teke
Mar 12th 2008, 03:16 PM
OK, first some preliminary thoughts. As a Jewish person, much of this looks like excuses for throwing out the law. I'm not saying that's what it is, I'm saying that's what it looks like. This would fall back on my point about theology determining definition; "Jesus came and we don't have to follow the law, now let's interpret scripture in a way that supports that conclusion."

If you read the whole article at the site, it becomes apparent it is not as simple as changing theology. It is a matter of continuing support for the foundation already laid. As the rabbinic sources site in speculation, it actually could become harder or easier, which is a matter of perspective of the participant.





Of course it did. And it changed after the Jews got to Israel and built the Temple too. Changing external circumstances will change obligations.


Glad to see you admit it is changeable. Christians view the external circumstance of God being Incarnate of flesh as a huge circumstance that obligates changes.

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 03:18 PM
If you call it 'temple' and not 'Temple,' was it a typo when you referred to it as 'Temple' here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1567968&postcount=6)? If there's a distinction to you, I can go with that but in my scriptures there's no such distinction.My point is that you guys says that Jesus is the 'temple'. I put the quotes on it because Jesus is a metaphorical temple, not a physical edifice.


YoYo was a nickname growing up and the guys (just the guys) at work took to shortening it to Yo, so thank you. :lol:

Peace to you, too.

:lol:

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 03:28 PM
If you read the whole article at the site, it becomes apparent it is not as simple as changing theology. It is a matter of continuing support for the foundation already laid.Continuing support for the foundation already laid by whom...? If Christianity was the logical conclusion of Judaism, why did none of the rabbis follow it?






Glad to see you admit it is changeable. Christians view the external circumstance of God being Incarnate of flesh as a huge circumstance that obligates changes.
Judaism does not see this as possible.

Souled Out
Mar 12th 2008, 03:47 PM
My point is that you guys says that Jesus is the 'temple'. I put the quotes on it because Jesus is a metaphorical temple, not a physical edifice.

That's where we differ. You say Jesus is the metaphor and we say the building is the metaphor.

It's amazing how we can use the same words and yet speak different languages...The Father will remedy this someday.

Teke
Mar 12th 2008, 03:49 PM
Continuing support for the foundation already laid by whom...?

By God in human history.


If Christianity was the logical conclusion of Judaism, why did none of the rabbis follow it?

:dunno: Maybe religion means more to them than God does....




Judaism does not see this as possible.

Judaism seems to believe a lot of things are impossible for God to do. They also seem to very much be people of writings. Everything concerning God doesn't depend on what's written. It depends more on our experience of Him. Hence the different writings according with experience.

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 03:55 PM
It's amazing how we can use the same words and yet speak different languages...The Father will remedy this someday.
Yep. Speedily, in our day.

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 03:59 PM
By God in human history.No, I mean who would follow in the established framework?



:dunno: Maybe religion means more to them than God does....
Or maybe they saw these new ideas as running counter to the established ones. Maybe?




Judaism seems to believe a lot of things are impossible for God to do. They also seem to very much be people of writings. Everything concerning God doesn't depend on what's written. It depends more on our experience of Him. Hence the different writings according with experience.'Experience' is individual and not collective. But someone has to determine what is normative and what is not.

Teke
Mar 12th 2008, 04:48 PM
No, I mean who would follow in the established framework?

Whoever God calls. Only the Father can reveal the Son to a person, and then if the person is willing the Holy Spirit can guide them.


Or maybe they saw these new ideas as running counter to the established ones. Maybe?

Maybe they did see them as counter to their established ideal of religion. I see them as expanding it beyond their religious borders.


'Experience' is individual and not collective. But someone has to determine what is normative and what is not.

Actually experience is collective as is evident by human history. No man is his own island. Man's experience is interwoven with the collective of humanity.

Your example within scripture is of a collective. God didn't reveal Himself to only one person, but all persons in His creation.

For instance, we both see a mountain, yet how you see that mountain and how I see that mountain may differ, it is still the same mountain. The "seeing" part is an ontological experience, but collectively we all see the same mountain.

This is also why it is best to approach things as a collective, such as in conciliar manner. This is also the approach scripture gives. It guards against "self righteousness".

th1bill
Mar 12th 2008, 04:58 PM
.. This has gone exactly where I thought it would. First point, God never changes! There is a consistency maintained from Genesis one-one through the very last Amen of the Revelation of John. God has not and God will not change. That anyone would find my opinion important is, indeed, a dangerous thought. The only thing that matters is what God has said!
.. God promised the Hebrew people that He would never forsake them and He has not. He did not promise they would not forsake Him though. The average Christian has this point ll twisted and misconfigured. I'll not list the scripture, I've done that hundreds of times in the past and it has prompted no one to study the Old Testament to this date.
.. There is a good reason that the first five books of the Holy Scriptures are so important to our Jewish brethren and that is where God's promise to never forsake them for a thousand generations is found. An important point for Fenris; Saul, later named Paul was a Rabbi's Rabbi and He did follow God into Christianity, so much so that just as he, as Saul, had sought to exterminate Christians, before his conversion, the Sanhedrin sought to exterminate him.
.. Now, as much as some of you love to argue and to prove your point, all you are doing to Fenris is to stiffen his opposition. Unless you are a scholar of the Bible you will never impress him with your efforts to shine.
.. When God says "forever" or for a "thousand generations" it is a matter worthy of very deep study, just as when God repeats Himself. God's word is never to be taken lightly but when God goes to the trouble to put emphasis on a statement, do not just gloss over it, it is very important.
.. Many of you today only read the New Testament and to do so is shear folly. The New Testament, by and large, is a commentary on the Old Testament. If you never read the Old Testament you will never understand what Paul, the most prolific author of the New Testament is, commenting on.
.. Saul, later known as Paul, was one of the most educated men of Judaism. He did not divest himself of that knowledge at the Damascus Road experience, no, it came forward with him. Aside from Jesus, the Christ and God in the flesh, Paul knew the faith of both branches of the faith that saves, better than any other man that ever lived. His knowledge of God is certainly worthy of knowing through study. You will glean that knowledge as you read the Old Testament and then as you read the New Testament you will be very richly blessed by the knowledge with understanding you never imagined.
.. The long and the short of the matter is that God means just what He said and we need to be in prayer as we read His word so that the Spirit of God will give us the true meaning of the Word and we will not be guilty of imposing our meaning and thereby go amiss.
.. Most of all though, pray, study and stop fighting with your Jewish brothers, it's a trrick of the devil and you will never influence him by raising his hackles.

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 05:09 PM
Whoever God calls. Only the Father can reveal the Son to a person, and then if the person is willing the Holy Spirit can guide them.Riiight. Hmmm. Even someone unfamiliar or uninvolved with the original framework? What's the point of giving man the ability/right to make changes if it will become irrelevant?



Maybe they did see them as counter to their established ideal of religion. I see them as expanding it beyond their religious borders.I also see it as expanding it beyond their religious borders. In an illegitimate way.


Actually experience is collective as is evident by human history. No man is his own island. Man's experience is interwoven with the collective of humanity.

Your example within scripture is of a collective. God didn't reveal Himself to only one person, but all persons in His creation.No, he revealed himself to some 2 million followers the first time. The second time, if it happened, was to substantially less people.


For instance, we both see a mountain, yet how you see that mountain and how I see that mountain may differ, it is still the same mountain. The "seeing" part is an ontological experience, but collectively we all see the same mountain.

This is also why it is best to approach things as a collective, such as in conciliar manner. This is also the approach scripture gives. It guards against "self righteousness".And yet with no authority to determine orthodoxy, the whole system will eventually collapse.

Teke
Mar 12th 2008, 07:51 PM
Riiight. Hmmm. Even someone unfamiliar or uninvolved with the original framework? What's the point of giving man the ability/right to make changes if it will become irrelevant?

In the beginning they may be uninvolved with the original framework, but that just means they need to seek guidance from others who are already learned.

That is why I've said before, one cannot establish their own righteousness. If they could the Church wouldn't be necessary.

I don't see changes such as adding a NT to an OT as making one become irrelevant. The point to such an addition is to bring clarity to the meaning of the whole.


I also see it as expanding it beyond their religious borders. In an illegitimate way.

?Illegitimate?, why because everyone doesn't become Jewish to practice Judaism.



No, he revealed himself to some 2 million followers the first time. The second time, if it happened, was to substantially less people.

Your speaking of the manner in which He revealed Himself.
Do the Psalms not speak of all creation knowing of the Creator.


And yet with no authority to determine orthodoxy, the whole system will eventually collapse.

A Christians authority is the Church (a structural authority) which constitutes the Body of Christ, Him being the Head. Shouldn't seem strange to you, since your authority is the rabbi's and I would think their head is God.

You didn't receive the scriptures with no instruction, and neither did Christians.

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 09:08 PM
In the beginning they may be uninvolved with the original framework, but that just means they need to seek guidance from others who are already learned.What, they spoke to the rabbis?


That is why I've said before, one cannot establish their own righteousness. If they could the Church wouldn't be necessary.I think the church would be necessary in any case, to determine what is normative.


I don't see changes such as adding a NT to an OT as making one become irrelevant. The point to such an addition is to bring clarity to the meaning of the whole.By disregarding large portions of it?



?Illegitimate?, why because everyone doesn't become Jewish to practice Judaism.
Everyone in the world does not need to be Jewish to merit God's favor.



Your speaking of the manner in which He revealed Himself.
Do the Psalms not speak of all creation knowing of the Creator.Where

Teke
Mar 12th 2008, 09:56 PM
What, they spoke to the rabbis?

Jesus from Bethlehem is THE Rabbi.


I think the church would be necessary in any case, to determine what is normative.

Right, that's how hierarchy's work.


By disregarding large portions of it?

The NT finished the story of God's redemption.



Everyone in the world does not need to be Jewish to merit God's favor.

That's easy to agree with. But that is not the issue in the world. The Jew doesn't favor any other understanding than their own in relation to their religious beliefs. And that is fine if that is what they choose to do. Still they'd have to deal with the fact that a huge portion of the world's people have consistently shown them they are missing something.


Where

Who and what praise and glorify God, but that which He created.

Fenris
Mar 13th 2008, 01:15 PM
Jesus from Bethlehem is THE Rabbi. As per Exodus 23:2, rule is always according to the majority. No one rabbi has the right or the authority to make major changes to the law.



The NT finished the story of God's redemption.Right, so you believe.




That's easy to agree with. But that is not the issue in the world. The Jew doesn't favor any other understanding than their own in relation to their religious beliefs. And that is fine if that is what they choose to do. Still they'd have to deal with the fact that a huge portion of the world's people have consistently shown them they are missing something.
They are not missing anything. Any person who leads amoral life is capable of coming close to God. One doesn't need to be Jewish to do that. Being Jewish actually makes it more difficult to come close to God, because we have more rules to follow.


Who and what praise and glorify God, but that which He created.
What

Teke
Mar 13th 2008, 04:21 PM
As per Exodus 23:2, rule is always according to the majority. No one rabbi has the right or the authority to make major changes to the law.

OK, so Moses and the Israelites were a democracy that decided the laws.:rolleyes:



They are not missing anything. Any person who leads amoral life is capable of coming close to God. One doesn't need to be Jewish to do that. Being Jewish actually makes it more difficult to come close to God, because we have more rules to follow.

I understand there are people who believe that they are moral and also believe that will save their eternal soul. So sure are they that God will accept their self righteousness. :huh:




What

:giveup:

Let me be as others have (stroking your ego) and say that it is wonderful to have such a well informed Jewish person here to tell us all about THE rules, or the rules of Judaism (not sure which). I am absolutely amazed that a non Christian can come and proselytize and yet others of the Christian faith are not allowed to do so. Wonders never cease here.
Sorry for the air of sarcasm, but you are the first poster I have ever seen here who has been allowed to post that Jesus is not necessary and continue to post. What I find even more amazing about that is that there are actually Christians here agreeing with you.

If this is just to harsh a truth, then the mods can delete it to oblivion. I've said my peace and had enough of Fenris, who is not the least bit interested in the Church other than it's furthering his own views (proselytizing) in some form or fashion.

Fenris
Mar 13th 2008, 05:06 PM
OK, so Moses and the Israelites were a democracy that decided the laws.:rolleyes:Within a certain established framework, yes. Their main activity was not writing news laws, however, but interpreting the bible to establish exactly how the laws were to be carried out.




I understand there are people who believe that they are moral and also believe that will save their eternal soul. So sure are they that God will accept their self righteousness. No, they believe that God will accept their actions. And why shouldn't He?





:giveup:

Let me be as others have (stroking your ego) and say that it is wonderful to have such a well informed Jewish person here to tell us all about THE rules, or the rules of Judaism (not sure which). I am absolutely amazed that a non Christian can come and proselytize and yet others of the Christian faith are not allowed to do so. Wonders never cease here.
Sorry for the air of sarcasm, but you are the first poster I have ever seen here who has been allowed to post that Jesus is not necessary and continue to post. What I find even more amazing about that is that there are actually Christians here agreeing with you.

I have never said that Jesus is not not necessary, only that Jews see him as unnecessary. And I don't get offended when people tell me I'm going to hell for not believing, why should you be offended when I tell you you're going to heaven for your good deeds?
:confused

Teke
Mar 13th 2008, 07:15 PM
Within a certain established framework, yes.

And what would that framework be? Something like a council of educated persons.


Their main activity was not writing news laws, however, but interpreting the bible to establish exactly how the laws were to be carried out.


How does Christianity differ from this?



No, they believe that God will accept their actions. And why shouldn't He?

Why do they believe their actions are acceptable?


I have never said that Jesus is not not necessary, only that Jews see him as unnecessary.

That is the point you are making with your posts and scripture. In a subtle manner you are mocking Christianity and it's use of OT scripture.


And I don't get offended when people tell me I'm going to hell for not believing, why should you be offended when I tell you you're going to heaven for your good deeds?
:confused

Well you should be offended that a Christian would tell you that you are going to hell. I'd like to know how anyone knows where anyone else is going.

I am not offended that you tell me I'm going to heaven for my good deeds, I just don't believe that. That is equivalent to some preacher telling me to confess Christ and I'm going to heaven, I don't believe that either.

Truly everyone believes that whatever they do is good....or for a greater good....good intentions.....even God's will, etc. We have a whole world of history and proof that our "doing good" doesn't amount to much. In all reality, we really don't know what we are doing. We're just having faith, that God knows what He is doing.

Fenris
Mar 13th 2008, 07:34 PM
And what would that framework be? Something like a council of educated persons. The framework is the realm of established ideas and rulings already present.



How does Christianity differ from this?The process isn't much different, although Judaism does not have a pope or other high-ranking figure to overrule the majority.




Why do they believe their actions are acceptable? I don't know, maybe because they are in-line with what God told us to do?



That is the point you are making with your posts and scripture. In a subtle manner you are mocking Christianity and it's use of OT scripture. Obviously I don't agree with Christian interpretation of Tanach scripture. If I did, I would be a Christian.

I'm a guest here and have no intention of offending, but I also can't help it if you interpret my disagreement as mocking.



Well you should be offended that a Christian would tell you that you are going to hell. I'd like to know how anyone knows where anyone else is going.Why should I be offended? How does someone else's beliefs have any impact on my final outcome?


I am not offended that you tell me I'm going to heaven for my good deeds, I just don't believe that. That is equivalent to some preacher telling me to confess Christ and I'm going to heaven, I don't believe that either.Well, some Christians do. And that's their right, too.


Truly everyone believes that whatever they do is good....or for a greater good....good intentions.....even God's will, etc. We have a whole world of history and proof that our "doing good" doesn't amount to much. In all reality, we really don't know what we are doing. We're just having faith, that God knows what He is doing.I disagree. I can cite many examples of human beings who made the world a better place. And I don't think that God holds their actions as meaningless. Indeed, they became God's partners in rectifying the world.

Teke
Mar 13th 2008, 08:31 PM
The framework is the realm of established ideas and rulings already present.

And those just magically appeared.


The process isn't much different, although Judaism does not have a pope or other high-ranking figure to overrule the majority.

Only the Roman church has such a thing as that. That every other Christian group is at odds with such thinking, speaks for itself.


I don't know, maybe because they are in-line with what God told us to do?

Ah, the "in the name of God" defense. ie. God told us
If we made a judgment call of God on that, we'd have to conclude the He is schizophrenic.


Obviously I don't agree with Christian interpretation of Tanach scripture. If I did, I would be a Christian.

I'm a guest here and have no intention of offending, but I also can't help it if you interpret my disagreement as mocking.

All know I don't agree with all the Christian interpretations of OT scripture, and I am a Christian.

I'm a guest as well, and more so a Trinitarian Christian, yet I am restrained more than you. But I must admit that I do not believe that you are as inept as you display, so I can only conclude it to be mocking.


I disagree. I can cite many examples of human beings who made the world a better place. And I don't think that God holds their actions as meaningless. Indeed, they became God's partners in rectifying the world.

I understand this is your philosophy/theology, "God partners rectifying the world" by "good deeds". Very practical approach, easy to swallow.
Now what if God says this isn't enough? How do you respond?

Fenris
Mar 13th 2008, 08:38 PM
And those just magically appeared.Yep. From God, at Sinai.



Ah, the "in the name of God" defense. ie. God told us
If we made a judgment call of God on that, we'd have to conclude the He is schizophrenic. So God hasn't given us any instructions on how to behave? What exactly do you think the bible is? A book of stories? A tome on extinct rituals?


I'm a guest as well, and more so a Trinitarian Christian, yet I am restrained more than you. But I must admit that I do not believe that you are as inept as you display, so I can only conclude it to be mocking.
Oh, so now I'm mocking and inept? :rolleyes:


I understand this is your philosophy/theology, "God partners rectifying the world" by "good deeds". Very practical approach, easy to swallow.
Now what if God says this isn't enough? How do you respond?I wasn't aware that God had made any such statement. Perhaps you could illuminate me, however.

Teke
Mar 13th 2008, 09:19 PM
Yep. From God, at Sinai.

Alrighty then.
I wonder how poor Abraham managed without that.



So God hasn't given us any instructions on how to behave? What exactly do you think the bible is? A book of stories? A tome on extinct rituals?

I believe it is a holy spiritual book, which is also it's purpose. I also believe that God (in the flesh of Jesus) gave instructions to those whom He spoke with, who in turn passed it on.

It certainly doesn't teach that morality means favor with God, as in you get to go to heaven. Nor that God is what we term as, fair or honest. ie. the wicked will be destroyed and yet God forgives them.



Oh, so now I'm mocking and inept? :rolleyes:

:lol: Now your just being smug. I don't buy that your inept at all.


I wasn't aware that God had made any such statement. Perhaps you could illuminate me, however.

I said, "what if". Is that within the realm of Jewish possibility.

Fenris
Mar 13th 2008, 09:47 PM
Alrighty then.
I wonder how poor Abraham managed without that. Well, a few things. First of all, the Patriarchs lived before the bible was given and therefore not obligated to uphold it; Jacob married two sisters, expressly forbidden when the bible was given. Second, the Patriarchs were on a very high spiritual level. They were sensitive enough to know what was spiritually beneficial without being told.

Obviously we are not on that level.



I believe it is a holy spiritual book, which is also it's purpose. I also believe that God (in the flesh of Jesus) gave instructions to those whom He spoke with, who in turn passed it on.OK, fair enough.


It certainly doesn't teach that morality means favor with God, as in you get to go to heaven. Nor that God is what we term as, fair or honest. ie. the wicked will be destroyed and yet God forgives them.No, it doesn't. All it tells us is what God wants us to do. Where that leads us in the hereafter is not discussed.




:lol: Now your just being smug. I don't buy that your inept at all.I don't think I'm being inept either. ;)



I said, "what if". Is that within the realm of Jewish possibility.
No. It runs counter to Jewish theology.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 13th 2008, 11:05 PM
I read back through the entire thread and have read others and can find NOWHERE a post by a believer saying that there is no need for Messiah. :confused

th1bill
Mar 14th 2008, 01:32 AM
Fenris,
.. I am interested in seeing that you reach the point of understanding the issue and it seems that no one is ever going to approach it so I am again going to be guilty of being intrusive. If I missed it and someone has brought it up. please, dismiss me, our relationship is greatly valued by myself.
.. I and many others are Christians because, like Abraham, all we have is faith. You do dislike the term Gentile but that is what we are, Gentile Believers. As I have studied the Pentateuch, everytime I read it I am left with the feeling that God so prefers obedience to repentance and yet I have never met a single man that has been able, from birth, to keep the Law.
.. God not being a cruel God had a very good reason for giving us the Law and I am moved by the Spirit, every time I read the Books of the Law that God needed us to understand and to admit, to ourselves that we were never going to be good enough to get into Heaven without His help.
.. And here I am, a Gentile, and yet I want to be a pleasing vision in the sight of God.
.. I'm not going to try to bowl you over and I'll stop there for now and allow you to meditate and to seek God's influence on the matter.

Fenris
Mar 14th 2008, 09:44 AM
I read back through the entire thread and have read others and can find NOWHERE a post by a believer saying that there is no need for Messiah. :confused
I think we can all agree that the coming of the messiah will be the culmination of human history.

We just disagree on what specifically the messiah's mission is.

Fenris
Mar 14th 2008, 09:48 AM
.. I and many others are Christians because, like Abraham, all we have is faith.
I don't think that was all that Abraham had and I don't believe it's all that you have either.


You do dislike the term Gentile but that is what we are, Gentile Believers. As I have studied the Pentateuch, everytime I read it I am left with the feeling that God so prefers obedience to repentance Being repentant is part of being obedient. God understands that we are not perfect and so, when we do fall short, He expects us to apologize and try to do better the next time.


and yet I have never met a single man that has been able, from birth, to keep the Law.
No one is capable of being perfect. The question is, are we expected to be? I guess that's where you and I will agree to differ.


.. And here I am, a Gentile, and yet I want to be a pleasing vision in the sight of God.


And I think that you and most others here are pleasing in God's eyes.

Teke
Mar 14th 2008, 01:04 PM
I believe it has been demonstrated in this thread that "forever" doesn't mean "forever" in the sense that we would usually understand.

The following quote by Fenris is right in line with the early fathers, as well as Jewish rabbi's on the view of recapitulation, which in essence means a return to the beginning of things.


Well, a few things. First of all, the Patriarchs lived before the bible was given and therefore not obligated to uphold it; Jacob married two sisters, expressly forbidden when the bible was given. Second, the Patriarchs were on a very high spiritual level. They were sensitive enough to know what was spiritually beneficial without being told.


"Forever" as a meaning within time can only be viewed within the framework of God who created time, Alpha and Omega. Jesus having said "it is finished", did so within time, and thus it is an end within time. Being at such an end, leaves one with only one alternative, which is to return to the beginning, as there is no other place to go except that which is within God.

Fenris
Mar 14th 2008, 01:32 PM
The following quote by Fenris is right in line with the early fathers, as well as Jewish rabbi's on the view of recapitulation, which in essence means a return to the beginning of things.
I am unfamiliar with this concept. I am unaware of any rabbinical view on it. Perhaps you could elaborate on it?

Studyin'2Show
Mar 14th 2008, 01:38 PM
I am unfamiliar with this concept. I am unaware of any rabbinical view on it. Perhaps you could elaborate on it?I'm not familiar with it either! :confused It seems clear to me that forever mean exactly that; not merely till the end of time. Forever exist past all concept of time. Otherwise, the promise to be in His presence 'forever' would have a possible end to it. :hmm:

th1bill
Mar 14th 2008, 02:00 PM
I'm not familiar with it either! :confused It seems clear to me that forever mean exactly that; not merely till the end of time. Forever exist past all concept of time. Otherwise, the promise to be in His presence 'forever' would have a possible end to it. :hmm:
I am also at a loss on this. For God there is no end of time because God is not bound by time or space. It is from this eternal position that God speaks. When God says forever, He means without end.

Teke
Mar 14th 2008, 04:58 PM
I am unfamiliar with this concept. I am unaware of any rabbinical view on it. Perhaps you could elaborate on it?

It's a simple concept of God returning us to the state which He created us to be in before "the fall".

There are many rabbi's with this view. One of my favorites, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, holds the identical view of the Orthodox Church and early church fathers in his last two and best discourses (I believe they were his last two), "Section 20" of Igeret HaKodesh, and "The Humble Soul". Here (http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2734/jewish/Body-The-Physical-World-According-to-Rabbi-Schneur-Zalman-of-Liadi.htm) is a commentary from Chabad.org. His understanding of spirituality is superbly related by his understanding of Spirit over matter (the material, the created).

If you understand his view on spirituality, you'll also understand mine.;)

Fenris
Mar 14th 2008, 05:11 PM
If you understand his view on spirituality, you'll also understand mine.;)

Right...but I don't see how this nullifies my concept of 'forever'. Of course the end result of human history will be a return to the state before the first sin. But what will human beings be doing then? Ezekiel 37:24...they shall live by my statutes and carefully observe my decrees.

Teke
Mar 14th 2008, 05:12 PM
I'm not familiar with it either! :confused It seems clear to me that forever mean exactly that; not merely till the end of time. Forever exist past all concept of time. Otherwise, the promise to be in His presence 'forever' would have a possible end to it. :hmm:

It's a cyclic concept, so it's unending. Why else would one think of God as Alpha and Omega, or do you disagree with that.

Teke
Mar 14th 2008, 05:31 PM
Right...but I don't see how this nullifies my concept of 'forever'. Of course the end result of human history will be a return to the state before the first sin. But what will human beings be doing then? Ezekiel 37:24...they shall live by my statutes and carefully observe my decrees.

"But what will human beings be doing then?", mitzvah, in your vernacular.
An example of mitzvah for the Christian would be the marriage feast of the Lamb, the Eucharist.

Fenris
Mar 14th 2008, 05:45 PM
"But what will human beings be doing then?", mitzvah, in your vernacular.
An example of mitzvah for the Christian would be the marriage feast of the Lamb, the Eucharist.Well, if the original Mitzvot were 'forever', why won't we be doing those?

Studyin'2Show
Mar 14th 2008, 05:55 PM
It's a cyclic concept, so it's unending. Why else would one think of God as Alpha and Omega, or do you disagree with that.I read the link you posted am clueless as to what it has to do with the question of the OP dealing with what the word 'forever' means. :confused Cyclical I understand. But whether were talking cyclically or linearly, forever is still FOREVER! It doesn't stop because there's a good reason. There is no end to forever.

Teke
Mar 14th 2008, 06:08 PM
Well, if the original Mitzvot were 'forever', why won't we be doing those?

Spiritually, what does "mitzvot" mean for you?

Teke
Mar 14th 2008, 06:14 PM
I read the link you posted am clueless as to what it has to do with the question of the OP dealing with what the word 'forever' means. :confused

That was further info to the question asked about "recapitulation", not the OP.


Cyclical I understand. But whether were talking cyclically or linearly, forever is still FOREVER! It doesn't stop because there's a good reason. There is no end to forever.

I didn't say there was an end to forever, I just explained it in the context of God and our contrast of time in relation to being.

Souled Out
Mar 14th 2008, 06:19 PM
I read the link you posted am clueless as to what it has to do with the question of the OP dealing with what the word 'forever' means. :confused Cyclical I understand. But whether were talking cyclically or linearly, forever is still FOREVER! It doesn't stop because there's a good reason. There is no end to forever.

But neither the word nor concept of forever as we know it, was inspired. Although our English Bibles use the word forever, even in places where it makes no sense, I believe God will give revelation to you if you study the actual words that were inspired. It is up to us to study out a thing. Seriously, get alone, just you, humbled, and God. He is our teacher.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 14th 2008, 06:53 PM
But neither the word nor concept of forever as we know it, was inspired. Although our English Bibles use the word forever, even in places where it makes no sense, I believe God will give revelation to you if you study the actual words that were inspired. It is up to us to study out a thing. Seriously, get alone, just you, humbled, and God. He is our teacher.Yes, I agree! The Holy Spirit is our best Teacher! :D However, in regards to the OP question, the forever, I believe, is forever! As in as long as we have our being. That's my take on it. ;) Actually, if you see Yeshua as the perpetual fulfillment of, let's say, the feasts and the Sabbath, forever still means forever. You are just interpreting it in a solely spiritual manner but that doesn't change what forever is.

Teke
Mar 14th 2008, 08:16 PM
I read the link you posted am clueless as to what it has to do with the question of the OP dealing with what the word 'forever' means. :confused

:hmm: Unless you meant the link I posted earlier in the thread, from the Christian Think Tank, which addresses the use of the Hebrew word "olam" and it's relation to the meaning of "forever" and/or "eternal".
I believe that article covered the subject well.;)

Fenris
Mar 14th 2008, 08:49 PM
Spiritually, what does "mitzvot" mean for you?You mean aside from the obvious benefit of doing the deeds? Mitzvot are a way of spiritually elevating one's soul.

Souled Out
Mar 14th 2008, 09:49 PM
Yes, I agree! The Holy Spirit is our best Teacher! :D However, in regards to the OP question, the forever, I believe, is forever! As in as long as we have our being. That's my take on it. ;) Actually, if you see Yeshua as the perpetual fulfillment of, let's say, the feasts and the Sabbath, forever still means forever. You are just interpreting it in a solely spiritual manner but that doesn't change what forever is.

I agree with this. It would be great if Christians understood that Christ is our Sabbath, but so many are still pointing to a day and not pointing to the Man.

Our Sabbath has no end, not because of the translated word "forever" but because Jesus is our Sabbath and to Him there is no end. Our rest in Christ even goes beyond this life. How wonderful!

In Exodus 40:15 the Aaronic Priesthood was to be an everlasting (owlam – the same word as forever) priesthood but it only lasted until it was superceded by the Melchizedek Priesthood in Hebrews 7:14-18, in which biblically is never described as having an end. I say it's because this priesthood is tied to Jesus Christ.

The owlam is defined by context.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 14th 2008, 10:29 PM
I agree with this. It would be great if Christians understood that Christ is our Sabbath, but so many are still pointing to a day and not pointing to the Man. Come on, Souled Out. Let's be real. What disciple of Yeshua that happens to observe the Sabbath 'day' is NOT pointing to Yeshua? :rolleyes: I believe you miss the point completely. If they were ONLY celebrating the day and not Messiah, they would be Jews, not Messianics! The difference is that they DO celebrate Messiah. :yes:

Souled Out
Mar 17th 2008, 02:07 AM
Come on, Souled Out. Let's be real. What disciple of Yeshua that happens to observe the Sabbath 'day' is NOT pointing to Yeshua? :rolleyes: I believe you miss the point completely. If they were ONLY celebrating the day and not Messiah, they would be Jews, not Messianics! The difference is that they DO celebrate Messiah. :yes:

You're taking what I'm saying personal, applying it your situation and I don't know why.

You've expressed how blessed you are in celebrating the Sabbath. I wish you continued blessings in how you see and celebrate it.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 17th 2008, 11:20 AM
You're taking what I'm saying personal, applying it your situation and I don't know why.

You've expressed how blessed you are in celebrating the Sabbath. I wish you continued blessings in how you see and celebrate it.
I agree with this. It would be great if Christians understood that Christ is our Sabbath, but so many are still pointing to a day and not pointing to the Man. No. This is just a message board and you don't even know me. :D Not taking it personal but just pointing out that even in the most extreme cases, there are NO (that's right I said no) disciples of Yeshua that point to the day and NOT the Man (which is what you stated). That would be elevating the day ABOVE Him. What would be the point of that? Those who observe Sabbath are NOT worshiping the day, but rather worshiping the Almighty God who made the day and called it Sabbath. ;)

Souled Out
Mar 17th 2008, 02:01 PM
No. This is just a message board and you don't even know me. :D Not taking it personal but just pointing out that even in the most extreme cases, there are NO (that's right I said no) disciples of Yeshua that point to the day and NOT the Man (which is what you stated). That would be elevating the day ABOVE Him. What would be the point of that? Those who observe Sabbath are NOT worshiping the day, but rather worshiping the Almighty God who made the day and called it Sabbath. ;)

There are Christians that are Sabbath (day) keepers who don't know that Christ is our Sabbath rest. I know many.

They don't know that the Sabbath is not just one/two day(s) anymore. God's day is all day, everyday. Every second of every day. We're not dating God anymore, He lives with us.

In Scripture this is described in many ways: putting new wine into old wine skins, putting oneself under law, making Christ of no effect, calling the Law good enough even with grace.

I don't condemn people that do this; they just don't know. Christians can have wonderful intentions and yet miss the boat on something. I know I do.

Teke
Mar 17th 2008, 02:28 PM
You mean aside from the obvious benefit of doing the deeds? Mitzvot are a way of spiritually elevating one's soul.

I believe we would all agree this is a very good thing and should be "forever".
Orthodox Christianity continues in this physical aspect of worship.

Fenris
Mar 17th 2008, 02:34 PM
I believe we would all agree this is a very good thing and should be "forever".
Orthodox Christianity continues in this physical aspect of worship.
So why aren't the original Mitzvot being used? I assume if they spiritually elevated in biblical times they would do the same now?

Teke
Mar 17th 2008, 04:12 PM
So why aren't the original Mitzvot being used? I assume if they spiritually elevated in biblical times they would do the same now?

I believe they are, in the Orthodox church, in some form or fashion. For instance, lighting candles is done. The bread of our Eucharist is done by the faithful, this is comparative to Jewish women putting aside a part of their bread for the cohen priest, difference is the Christians bread is for the whole priesthood of believers. Christian women don't do a mikvah after their cycle, but they don't partake of the Eucharist during that time, and they do go to confession, which is considered a healing mystery.

There are other compaisons, such as prayer shawls worn by Jews, Orthodox Christians use knotted ropes called "chotki's" for prayer (also prayer beads).
Christian men don't cover their heads, but the women do. Clergymen don't shave their faces.

Orthodox Christians don't shave a persons head for a vow, but they do "tonture" them, which is cutting some of their hair off.

There are many things.....:)

Fenris
Mar 17th 2008, 04:33 PM
I believe they are, in the Orthodox church, in some form or fashion.
Why the change from the original?

Teke
Mar 17th 2008, 05:56 PM
Why the change from the original?

Messiah has come. :saint:
Changes also came for Judaism, such as presenting a sacrifice, which the Jews quit doing after the temple's destruction. This threw Jews into confusion. Many of the Jewish people were sympathetic to the misguided Pharisees who decided sacrifice was not necessary. They held that prayers and good deeds could replace sacrifice (a Protestant concept as well). So they emphasized synagogue worship rather than temple worship.

Orthodox Christian priests do present a sacrifice on the altar. (the manner the bread is cut up/separated into, relates of the OT sacrifices in that there was a prescribed manner to do so)

But you know that some things aren't original, like the lighting of candles, which was prescribed by the rabbi's.

That is a few things I can think of brought up by my Jewish brethren in Orthodoxy. They don't even have a problem with the Trinity, as God is the Father, and the Son is the Son "of God" and the Spirit is the Spirit "of God". Their point being the Father, is not, the Father "of God". ;)

Fenris
Mar 17th 2008, 06:25 PM
Messiah has come. :saint:So why do these things at all?

You guys 'sort of do them'.


Changes also came for Judaism, such as presenting a sacrifice, which the Jews quit doing after the temple's destruction. This threw Jews into confusion. Many of the Jewish people were sympathetic to the misguided Pharisees who decided sacrifice was not necessary.
There was also no sacrifice from 586BC to 516BC. And whatever the Jews did in that time period to achieve atonement was sufficient for God to have the Temple rebuilt.



That is a few things I can think of brought up by my Jewish brethren in Orthodoxy. They don't even have a problem with the Trinity, as God is the Father, and the Son is the Son "of God" and the Spirit is the Spirit "of God". Their point being the Father, is not, the Father "of God". ;)It's a subtlety beyond me I guess.;)

Teke
Mar 17th 2008, 07:02 PM
So why do these things at all?

Is that a chiliast question.


You guys 'sort of do them'.

Our priests might agree with you.:lol: Bishops are even stricter. But it is their calling to try to mind the flock, and the flock is a wiley bunch.
The point though, is that they are there to be done. Whether everyone does them or not......well look how the Reformation that brought Protestantism went.

Personally on the head shaving for a vow, I'd prefer the tonture over being a bald woman. :D


There was also no sacrifice from 586BC to 516BC. And whatever the Jews did in that time period to achieve atonement was sufficient for God to have the Temple rebuilt.

Likely because Messiah hadn't come yet, God blinked at those times.(see my subscript)


It's a subtlety beyond me I guess.;)

No problem, it's beyond some Christians as well.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 17th 2008, 09:47 PM
There are Christians that are Sabbath (day) keepers who don't know that Christ is our Sabbath rest. I know many.
That's odd that you say you know so many, and I have yet to meet one follower of Yeshua that does not find their spiritual rest in Him. I think maybe there is some misunderstanding involved. ;) Can I ask if you are looking at a particular scripture that says Yeshua is our Sabbath or are you translating the word 'rest'?

God Bless!

Friend of I AM
Mar 19th 2008, 08:00 PM
That's odd that you say you know so many, and I have yet to meet one follower of Yeshua that does not find their spiritual rest in Him. I think maybe there is some misunderstanding involved. ;) Can I ask if you are looking at a particular scripture that says Yeshua is our Sabbath or are you translating the word 'rest'?

God Bless!


Mark 2:28
Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Matthew 11:28-29
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Hebrews 3:11
So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

I think the Lord of the Sabbath verse is the most pertinent one in essentially stating that Christ himself is the Sabbath. If you go back as far as Genesis, God's initial punishment to Adam and Eve was that of having to work hard labor for the rest of their lives due to their disobedience.

There's also multiple scriptures which state that we are under God's wrath at this present time, so one could come to the conclusion that we have not entered God's full rest in the observance of any full sabbath in him at this time.

In Christ,

Stephen

Studyin'2Show
Mar 19th 2008, 08:10 PM
Mark 2:28
Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Matthew 11:28-29
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Hebrews 3:11
So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

I think the Lord of the Sabbath verse is the most pertinent one in essentially stating that Christ himself is the Sabbath. If you go back as far as Genesis, God's initial punishment to Adam and Eve was that of having to work hard labor for the rest of their lives due to their disobedience.

There's also multiple scriptures which state that we are under God's wrath at this present time, so one could come to the conclusion that we have not entered God's full rest in the observance of any full sabbath in him at this time.

In Christ,

StephenThanks for the input, Stephen, but that's not really what the verse says, which is why I asked Souled Out about any verse that says, Jesus is the Sabbath. It's more an interpretation, correct?

Friend of I AM
Mar 20th 2008, 07:13 PM
Thanks for the input, Stephen, but that's not really what the verse says, which is why I asked Souled Out about any verse that says, Jesus is the Sabbath. It's more an interpretation, correct?

This verse essentially states that Christ is the Sabbath:

The son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.

Being that the sabbath day is a resting day, and that Christ is Lord over it - one could say that Christ or God is indeed the rest or Sabbath many of us seek within our lives. Remember, Christ did state the following:

Come to me all you weary burdened, and I will give you rest

Our true rest and/or salvation is in Christ, not in anything that we do or ordinance that we observe within this world on a particular day. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't observe some form of regular worship regarding God and continue spreading the word/fellowship with the saints, just that Christ is our only true rest that we have to look forward to, in these appointed years under God's wrath that we live under.

In Christ,

Stephen

Studyin'2Show
Mar 20th 2008, 07:59 PM
This verse essentially states that Christ is the Sabbath:

The son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.

Being that the sabbath day is a resting day, and that Christ is Lord over it - one could say that Christ or God is indeed the rest or Sabbath many of us seek within our lives. Remember, Christ did state the following:

Come to me all you weary burdened, and I will give you rest

Our true rest and/or salvation is in Christ, not in anything that we do or ordinance that we observe within this world on a particular day. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't observe some form of regular worship regarding God and continue spreading the word/fellowship with the saints, just that Christ is our only true rest that we have to look forward to, in these appointed years under God's wrath that we live under.

In Christ,

StephenSo, basically you're saying that there is no specific verse that SAYS Messiah replaced the Sabbath 'day' with Himself but that is what you infer because the Sabbath is considered a day of rest and Messiah says He will give us rest. :hmm: In that case, if Sabbath and rest are interchangeable, did Yeshua say that He will give us Sabbath. Isn't that interesting when considering that when questioned about the Sabbath 'day' He said that the Sabbath (day) was made FOR man? Doesn't that mean God made it FOR us; a gift from God? Well, I accept everything He gives to me, including the Sabbath 'day' and my rest in Yeshua! :pp
God Bless!

Friend of I AM
Apr 14th 2008, 05:29 PM
So, basically you're saying that there is no specific verse that SAYS Messiah replaced the Sabbath 'day' with Himself but that is what you infer because the Sabbath is considered a day of rest and Messiah says He will give us rest.

No actually there is..took me a while to find it though.

Hebrews 4

A Sabbath-Rest for the People of God

Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
"So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.' "And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest." It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts." For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.



The promise of entering God's rest was fulfilled by Christ Jesus. Christ is the sabbath, as he is Lord of the sabbath.

In Christ,

Stephen

Studyin'2Show
Apr 14th 2008, 06:55 PM
No actually there is..took me a while to find it though.

Hebrews 4

A Sabbath-Rest for the People of God

Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
"So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.' "And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest." It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts." For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.



The promise of entering God's rest was fulfilled by Christ Jesus. Christ is the sabbath, as he is Lord of the sabbath.

In Christ,

StephenSo, basically you're saying that there is no specific verse that SAYS Messiah replaced the Sabbath 'day' with Himself but that is what you infer because Paul writes about a Sabbath-rest and Yeshua says He is Lord of the Sabbath? I'd like to point out that Paul says in this passage that we are to 'make every EFFORT' to get into that rest, and seems to imply that if we follow their 'example of disobedience' we may not. Is Yeshua or His blood something we must 'make every EFFORT' to be in or are we in Him through our belief and profession? This passage does not say that Yeshua has replaced the Sabbath 'day' with Himself. There are no scriptures that say this, yet many infer this which is fine if that's what you choose to believe, as long as you understand that this is an inference and not an absolute. ;)

God Bless!

CoveredInHisBlood
Apr 16th 2008, 05:19 AM
And I think that you and most others here are pleasing in God's eyes.
In your zeal to perpetuate the idea that you are our friend, you have made an interesting statement here.

How can we, as open idolaters, be pleasing to God? If Jesus is not the messiah and God in the flesh, then are we not openly and blatantly worshiping a false god? This is ok with God is it?