Results 1 - 8 of 8
|Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes
Author: Eliyahu Ordered by Date
|1||So be it, and so be it.||1 Pet 3:15||Eliyahu||163636|
|Omein v' Omein|
|2||Let me explain:||1 Pet 3:15||Eliyahu||163216|
|Oops! I'm sorry. My friend was logged on the computer, and I forgot to hit "log off" before I posted. Sorry.
|3||Good explanation. Here's what I believe:||1 Pet 3:15||Eliyahu||163189|
|Good post, Brad.
This is a good explanation of both belief systems. I was once a member of a church that endorsed Oneness Pentecostalism, but now I have come to see the heresy in it, and at the same time I still see the heresy of Trinitarian doctrine. I now see things from a Jewish perspective (One Devine Being with two attributes: the Father, the Word and the Breath). I see B'rit Chadasha (NT) as a continuation of TaNaKh (OT), which means I still hold the view that Yahweh is still unseen, and there is none beside him that we are to worship; we worship only the Father. It's still not according to orthodox teachings that the churches hold to, but orthodoxy according to men's judgment has never meant much to me, to be quite frank.
Love in Yahweh,
|Does anyone have any feedback on this note?|
|5||What's bothering Rashi?: Vayeira||Gen 22:1||Eliyahu||162282|
|This week's parsha records several dramatic events: the birth of Isaac; Abraham's unsuccessful plea to save Sodom; the destruction of Sodom and Lot's rescue; and finally the binding of Isaac. The meaning of Abraham's binding and intended sacrifice of his beloved son, has been interpreted in various ways. We will compare Rashi's thinking with that of his grandson, Rashbam. Genesis 22:1 "And it was after these events that Yahweh tested Abraham and He said to him, 'Abraham,' and he said, 'Here I am.'"
RASHI: There are those of our Rabbis who say the meaning is: After the words of the Satan who accused (Abraham) and said, "Of the banquet which Abraham made he did not sacrifice even one bull or ram (in thanks to Yahweh)." Then (Yahweh) said to him "Did he not do all this only for his son, and if I would say to him 'Offer your son for Me,' he would not refuse!" Others say, "After the words of Ishmael, who boasted to Isaac, that he allowed himself to be circumcised at the age of 13 and did not protest. Isaac said to him 'With one part of your body are you boasting to me! If Yahweh would ask me to sacrifice my life I would not refuse.' " Rashi is clearly relating to the Torah's words "After these devarim." The Hebrew word "devarim" can mean either "events" or "words." The fact that the Torah begins this section of the binding with the word "After" implies that there is some kind of connection with previous verses. Which verses? This question lead to the two opinions of the Rabbis that Rashi cites. The first opinion refers back to verse 21:8 where Abraham's feast for Isaac's being weaned at two years old is described. The second opinion refers further back to verse 21:4 where Isaac's circumcision at eight days is mentioned. That Ishmael was circumcised at age 13 is mentioned even earlier, in verse 17:25. The Torah's use of the word "nisa" is usually taken to mean "tested"; that is, Yahweh was testing Abraham to see if his faith was steadfast and his obedience would stand up to this difficult test. Also, after Abraham showed his willingness to do anything for his Authority, the Torah testifies to this. Verse 22:12 says: "...for now I know that you are Yahweh-fearing, for you have not withheld your only son from Me." All the commentaries follow this line. A question: Why does the All Knowing Yahweh need to test Abraham to know the extent of his faith in Yahweh? He certainly knows each man's heart, so why the need for a test? Ramban's explanation:
Ramban explains that in this case the test served the purpose of allowing Abraham to actualize his inner potential. Although Yahweh knew that Abraham was obedient to perform the painful act of offering his dearly beloved son, even so, once a person acts on his inner belief, he has given that belief more validity. Rashbam (Rashi's grandson) offers an original view of this "test." He says: "...After Abraham made a treaty with Avimelech, between him, their sons, their grandsons and their great grandsons, then Yahweh was angry with him because the land of the Philistines was part of the Land of Israel and the Holy One commanded 'You shall not let live any soul'; therefore, Yahweh 'provoked'" Abraham, and caused him pain." Rashbam continues: "This is to say that he (Abraham) was proud of the son that Yahweh had given him and made a covenant for this son and Avimelech's son. Now (says Yahweh) bring him as an offering on the altar and we will see what becomes of your brit." The Rashbam continues by quoting a Midrash, that Yahweh made an oath: "since you offered seven sheep (in the covenant ceremony) the Philistines will kill seven of your Righteous and destroy seven of your temples: Ohel Moed, Gilgal, Nov, Shilo, Givon, and the two Temples." This is really a startling interpretation (and of timely relevance!). Can you find textual validity for Rashbam's interpretation over Rashi's?An Answer: Both Rashi and Rashbam are connecting the chapter of the Akaida with a previous event. The two interpretations that Rashi offers are both based on drash not p'shat. The Torah does not record Ishmael's conversation with Isaac nor the conversation between the Satan and Yahweh. Rashbam's interpretation, on the other hand, is very close to p'shat, because the Akaida does come after the covenant which was explicitly made between Abraham's son and Avimelech's son. And we also know that Israel was commanded not to make a treaty with the inhabitants of the Land and instead to destroy them. Abraham had gone against this command. The terrifying provocation of Yahweh to kill his son was his punishment! A LESSON:I find the lesson from this interpretation both startling and eye-opening! Living in Jerusalem at this point in time of our vicissitude-filled history, I am wondering if the Torah (according to Rashbam) is not speaking to us. Are such thoughts "merely" political or are they p'shat?!Love in Yahweh,
|6||Yes, I agree. Here's what I understand:||Prov 28:9||Eliyahu||161997|
|The way I understand these verses is a little differently.
The verse in Romans that is often translated as "Messiah is the end of the law", often appears in the interlinears to mean, "Messiah is the end goal of the Law". This not saying that he is bringing it to an end, becuase, otherwise, how could that be possible if He were writing it upon our hearts (see, Jeremiah 31:33)? If he writes it upon our hearts, then it should be our new nature to walk in righteousness, just as he did (I John 2:6). We received the righteousness of the Messiah when he died for us. What that means is, the righteous nature of Torah observance of this devout Torah observant Rebbe was transfered to us to replace our carnal nature, so that we would be changed from within, instead of trying to depend on our own works for our salvation. He was the only one who was righteous on this earth and he was sinless, meaning he never did anything to transgress the Torah (I John 3:4), and so when he died, and lives in us, it is his righteousness that is transfered to us. I John 3:8-10 makes it clear.
So what is missing in the church today? Why aren't they walking in the righteousness of our promised King of Yisrael? Rather, it seems that they rebel against it. What's your opinion on this? Peace be upon you.
|7||Agreed, but on that note....||Prov 28:9||Eliyahu||161994|
|I agree to these verses you have posted. But there's something else in my spirit that is calling out to me about walking in righteousness. In Yeremyahu (Jeremiah) 31:33, it says that the Covenant that is coming, being mediated by the Meshiach, would write the Torah upon our hearts. It will not be as before where the Torah is written on parchment for us to read and try to measure ourselves up to, but it will be a new nature within us, replacing our carnal nature. Hence, in walking by the Spirit given to us (I John 3:24), we keep the Torah by nature. So that leaves me with this question:
If the Messiah writes the Torah upon our hearts, that we keep it because it is our new nature, why don't I see this in our modern churches? Is something missing in today's church? I'm not trying to preach legalism, but at the same time, I'm certainly not going to promote "illegalism" (or lawlessness) either. Any thoughts? Shalom.
|8||Torah observance in the church??||Prov 28:9||Eliyahu||161968|
|If those who turn away their ear from hearing the Torah are an abominable noise in Yahweh's ears when they pray, how come the Church doesn't keep the Torah?|