Featured Discussion.

G'day 37181, USAF? If so, as was I.

The emphasis upon confession and repentance and the condition was again stated. Consider Ezekiel 36 emphasis
Ezekiel 36:22-38 every time "I" and "I will" was heard and from whom and to who the Prophet was and is addressing. Like Ezekiel, Jeremiah had not contradicted a thing the Prophets before him stated. The Prophet could not speak from himself, but was a mouthpiece of the L-rd and since the L-rd could never contradict himself any of the Prophets could not contradict any prior prophet used as the mouthpiece of the L-rd. And anything the Prophet had spoken in Prophesying had to pass (true).

My view cannot attest to everyone else. Of Israel was the faithful remnant, but not limited to, and sometimes the faithful remnant increased. The Covenant message through Peter was spoken to not only the house of Israel in his day but to their children and those far off. Really, was the message new? And perhaps, that's why the Bereans were considered noble Jews. For they searched these things throughout the OT scriptures. The language was very familiar as you conveyed from Jeremiah, thank you.

Perhaps everybody can attest to the cyclic behavior of the people of the L-rd. And perhaps that's why the promise made by Peter was to the generations far off, whether addressing forefathers or our children and children's children after us.

Anything you might share?

Shalom

 

Early 90s here.

The writer of the NT Hebrews also states a recurring theme not to those who have fallen away but rather again obviously to the "faithful remnant." For what good to address those who have fallen away and cannot be reconciled?

And if I might add all the Prophets pointed back to the Law which was the means of grace, that is, the written Law was addressed to the people of G-d.

What is it to, "know?" So much emphasis these days upon the intellect of man, the light of man, the reason of man., etc. What good to make anything known to them? Was just considering what Peter addressed in his letters after having stated to be prepared if asked for a reasonable response about faith.

Shalom

 

Thank you,
That was what the faithful remnant always believed apart from typology and Christology.
My point, what was it to know? I read things every day, whether or not I believe whatever was written or said.
Was the genealogy of Jesus enough to believe he was the Messiah? After all, Solomon was a type and shadow through typology pointing forward to the coming of the "new" Messiah or of the generations to come. What is meant by bodily? The question was rhetorical. Despite a lot of confusion in the days of Jesus.

I am not a literalistic fundamentalist per say, but rather believe what was written was true at various levels of comprehension.

"The purpose of the written gospel account, John 20:31, But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

Some point to Jesus, ignore what he like the prophets before him pointed to, and then are done with it. On another note, Messianic genealogy suggest James was next in line to the throne. As in Jeremiah, the house of David had not wanted a man on their throne. Neither do I want "a man on the cross."

Shalom

 

And, a stumbling block to Christians, whether Jew or Gentiles, if their martydom and the martyrdom of their children was considered.

Jesus had not raised himself. Jesus pointed to the glory of the Father. As in Jeremiah, G-d desired his children to call him Father.

The whole ordo salutis is essential soteriology. And, the resurrection had not occurred in the OT. The faithful remnant were faithful apart from post or historical faith in the crucifixion and resurrection.

 

Concerning Genesis 1:26, I no longer read the OT interpreted by the NT or trinitarian doctrine or the economical subordination of trinitarian theology. I also do not prefer from the Greek translation/manuscripts.

The verses throughout John are difficult to wrap the non Greek mindset around whether or not everybody believes that.

Shalom

 

As somebody who served in the armed forces you are probably well aware the Commander and Chief speaks, at times for example in such way, "I cannot confirm or deny," his "I" is not first person singular at all times. Not difficult? First, Second, Third person singular or first, second, third person plural? On behalf of who? My question was whether the author had in mind Trinitarian doctrine when writing, "Let us?" If Trinitarian doctrine was not correct, then, such an interpretation could be considered at the least dishonest. Sometimes, letting alone a mystery avoids possible blasphemy. I studied Trinitarian doctrine for decades. A lot of times Trinitarians IMO handle ancient text dishonestly, for example again, Isaiah, Holy, holy, holy... . Was each of the Persons of the Godhead addressed? Was the Genesis account about the perfect image of the Godhead, expressed by the Father in his image the Son Jesus Christ? to bear witness? Is the Trinitarian subordination correct implying the Father and Son send the Spirit but the Son and Spirit never send the Son though all are equal, yet, Jesus was conceived by the Spirit? Was the Spirit of God in Genesis, as the authors intended throughout the OT intended the same as the Holy Spirit? These questions are rhetorical.

Translations require interpretation from Hebrew. Not so difficult to believe translators or teams of translators? My reluctance today was to understand the Hebrew from a Greek perspective. For example, the concrete and abstract are very different according to both. Likewise, the Logos was not defined the same throughout all schools of thought, John was different than the Hebrews in the Hellenistic time period. The Scripture you provided pertaining to foolishness to Greeks... . I am content being considered a fool by Greeks. No need to expound in not only their preferred language, process of thinking, but also the worldly wisdom so emphasized to make them smarter (dogs are smart).

Shalom.

 

Hope you enjoy the material as I have. There's an overall sense of familiarity especially if studied in both Systematic theology and Apologetics. Yet, a unique but familiarity exists in the material, for me personally, it was a time years ago when I picked up the volumes of Rashi (I was warned about Rabbinical teaching). Christian for decades and well educated in every area of Christian study and hesitant to express my views among Protestants, then, a whole other area opened up. When my church bible study began to start another book in Systematic theology by Berkoff I was facing a major decision. To continue theology or ... . to explore Judaism and the Hebrew language. I walked away from the church because... . I was opposed whenever talking about my personal studies in Judaism. Synagogues are scarce, but I have been to one and hope to attend regularly though the commute is undesirable.

What I understood very personally was verified by Rashi. What I understood by faith alone but had not dared spoken about. Rashi is not the author of Understanding Judaism by Katz, there is a level of devotion and sincerity in his handling of holy text unparalleled by personal experience. My intent was not to pick up volumes in Judaism to refute them, but to dive deeply into the word of G-d which was considered by most Christians in reality and experience improper among a general Christian audience.

My greatest exercise today is not only learning Hebrew but the Hebraic languages such as Aramaic and Arabic. To me, what a beautiful notion, to understand the heavenly language without translating in mind into another language and then using reason to interpret. So much emphasis on reason today. Truly, I can appreciate what James said more today, faith without works is dead as a theological Calvinist. What works when the heart was altogether after G-d? To love G-d with my whole heart, soul, and strength.

Hebrew is beautiful. On a personal note, one of my preferences today is not actually writing a transliteration which is more difficult for correct pronunciation. Hashem to me is more difficult to learn and pronounce without verification than הַשֵּׁם with the consonant and vowel pattern. Comprehension, however, is another story, I can read Hebrew but struggle in comprehension without translators. What a wonderful goal though, agree? That is, to not be distracted from devotion to provide reasonable faith to others if somebody asks as Peter suggested? To read in the Hebrew tongue without translation and reasonable interpretation. Likewise, I am learned in Ancient Hebrew such as this, another book I read:



37818, my time here has been a pleasure.
Thank you for these last days. I have enjoyed our engagement.

Shalom,
William

 

Yes, and thank you for inspiring this short writeup I made a moment ago: Degreed – Self learned – The school of Isaiah

The ancient text was so amazing I remembered questioning whether or not Jeff Benner's material was a hoax. A fruitful study, and if I may, I too will pass something off to you said to me as a warning, caution about Rabbinical studies and ancient expression or literature. My entire reality (Western) was obliterated. It if wasn't for my prior interest in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics I might of rejected Benner's works.

If you note, nothing is said about Benner's degrees or whether he too was self learned.

Shalom,
William

 

When will your copy of the book arrive? The author Rabbi Katz touches upon the subject of Intelligent Design in his book. I was writing about other things in which came to mind after further consideration: Intelligent Design by Men in Black – The school of Isaiah

Please let me know when the book arrives. Maybe we can start a new thread and discuss the content. Hope you're enjoying this Friday 37818.

Shalom