Featured Discussion.

One day or the first day?
A seemingly trivia question emphasizing translation, but one day could of taken longer in duration to complete the first day. Note the various translations and the use of one or first: Genesis 1:5 Parallel: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

Yes, and oftentimes I am reluctant to open the door and usher in advocates for schools of thought
I do not agree with the gap theory or Darwinian evolutionist nor want to make their objectives easier. My emphasis remains on personal understanding of and of what the original author conveyed. Of course in science paradigm shifts occur. For example Newtonian law was more than adequate and not necessarily incorrect, however, Einstein and his theory of relativity was better equipped interpreting the universe.

 

G-d spoke from out of eternity. If the light which I do not believe was electromagnetic radiation in verse 1:3 then the measurement of time by light could be made the ruler which doesn't occur until the fourth day.

G-d said, and the light of G-d shone and when completed "there was evening" followed by "morning", when G-d began the continuation of the creation account.

From a Trinitarian perspective, I'd emphasize the perfect communion in the G-dhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, unique enough in Persons, but not individual enough for eternal communion to not exists. However, the singularity of G-d from out of eternity reconciles what was before the Big Bang.

Shalom

 

This discussion has been wonderfully useful. Thanks @JonC @37818 for your engagements.
Thanks for helping me articulate some through things I had written on my blog a moment ago: בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים rhetorical questions for they in which asked – The school of Isaiah

I used a url shortener because the url does a number in the url format.

Shalom

 

@JonC @37818 are either or both of you Calvinist or consistent in soteriology? 37818, if so I was curious about any reservations on the topic of free will while reading Understanding Judaism. I do not want to be seen as promoting my site, but is easier sometimes to include a link if interested: The prompt origin of conscience vs. free will - The school of Isaiah

The mention of free will at times causing a firestorm of debate whenever Calvinist are present. Not so from my perspective as I care enough to understand what was meant by free will.

Hope you're enjoying this day,
Shalom

 

Agreed, our strength is limited by our nature. Whether Calvinist or not monergism separates Protestants from synergism or back sliding to Catholicism. "Total inability," is another descriptive title for the first point of Calvinism Total Depravity. John 6:44

No man can come to me (Total depravity)
Unless the Father (Unconditional Election)
Draw him (Irresistible Grace)
Then I will raise them (Limited Atonement)
On the last day (Perseverance of the saints)

The acronym is of course out of order but nonetheless apparent in John 6:44, the basis for the TULIP which wasn't developed until after the Synod of Dort.

I tend to consider the understanding of Calvinist theology as deep deeper than necessary. If many struggles on the surface what good was it to teach him the deep? The answer from my perspective was acknowledgment that all salvation was and is from G-d and not man. I'm sure we both do not want to dive into Calvinist doctrine because oftentimes such discussions become rather uncivil. Interesting, I have retained my Calvinist soteriology though pursuing Judaism. The familiarity is striking perhaps because our common Christian beliefs and understanding are rooted in the tradition of Jesus Christ, and because Christianity was a Sect of Judaism.

Shalom

 

I do not see your point, the scriptural verse from Peter addresses the Elect according to the foreknowledge of the Father which substantiates Election. The difference between Conditional vs Unconditional election presents two different options whether election from eternity was based upon the performance and works of man or by Grace. Grace by definition cannot be merited or Grace ceases to be grace becoming the reward for righteousness of man. The Ordo salutis then needs rearrangement for regeneration precedes faith if by Grace. That is, faith is the gift of G-d. Conditional election implies there are conditions of salvation and the elect can lose salvation.

On another note, usually Protestants disagree on the topic of Atonement, limited rather than unconditional which doesn't necessarily imply Arminian. For example, Lutherans (Protestant) in the strictest most consistent sense pause after Unconditional Election and say pertaining to who was atoned for or the vastness of the sacrificial blood, well, they leave it mystery. Personally, I respect yielding back at times and suggesting things are mystery. However, I do not believe one drop of the blood of Jesus was wasted for who the blood was not intended, that is the reprobate rather than the elect.

Shalom

 

Not a condition of man. The condition solely rests upon the shoulders of G-d. And who He elects I am content leaving it as the mysterious will of G-d.

Shalom

 

I can most appreciate your reservations, Calvinism imposed problems exclusive to itself and the symptoms were theological fatalism as well "head entrapment." Too much detached intellectualism (mindful), and not enough application by which most of what was emphasized in Calvinism offered little. Though, and I emphasize though, Calvinism emphasized the Grace of G-d worthy off all Glory. Imagine sitting back as a fan and as a member of the fan club being reduced on the sidelines - I found myself frozen yet chosen. Judaism ignited a flame which melted the iced over mindfulness.

Yes, post Judaism surprisingly makes allusions constantly to the Messiah Yeshua in reservation. Regardless, I have discovered most Judaic members surprisingly acknowledge Jesus as the most important figure in the last millenniums. I suppose to most, this will not do because in contrast Muslims might indicate the same by saying Jesus was the Last Prophet. Though recognizable, not paramount according to the standards of Christians. For me personally, Moses was foundational, not only the instrument of Grace, the giver of Law by the Giver of Law, but obviously because all of the Prophets pointed back to the Law. While Jesus is the answer for the unhinged door in reconciliation Jesus followed his tradition and the Law of Moses and demonstrated the faith of Abraham.

Yeshua = the L-rd will save
YeOshua = the L-rd saved

Regardless of my now delineation from Christianity to Judaism I'd be as John said a liar if I denied Jesus was not my savior as a lost sheep of Israel. Messianic Jew? I was not raised Jewish therefore the traditions of Jews seemingly suit me not well, however, from a religious perspective quite the tailored made three piece equivalent. Oral tradition rather than westernized institutions of academia for example, I have not attended universities; therefore, oral tradition seemingly better describes the knowledge received today.

Shalom