Hebrews

Heber · Jul 21, 2009

Hi JD - there was a criminal who was released by Pilate, as the Bible says, but he was called Bar Abba, an Aramaic name, not Barrabas. Barabbas is a perversion of that name, coming to us from the translation into Greek (Βαραββᾶ&#962. The "s" ending on Abbas is a common Greek pattern of adapting Hebrew names that end in the vowels "-a" or "-ah," as in:

Yeshua (Hebrew) –Yesous (Greek) – Jesus (English)
Yehudah – Youdas – Judas
Kefa (Kepha) – Kefas – Cephas
Hannan – Hannas – Annas
Kayafa – Kaiaphas – Caiaphas

Thus there was never a Barabbas - using that name hides hasatan's deception quite well. There is no reason why hasatan could not have two people at work in Yeshua's death, is there? He managed to infiltrate lots of people to try and destroy G_d.

johnd · Jul 21, 2009

The possession of a human body is also a knock-off imitation of the Spirit indwelling. And in the case of Judas Iscariot, a counterfeit of the incarnation.

Jesus' body was prepared for him. He became that man.

Satan took over a body, the one who he would be sure that the crucifixion would take place. He was a Sanhedrin insider. I am convinced this is a back handed reference and back handed response to Judas Iscariot:

Matthew 8:
19 And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

And the next one to come along Jesus answers more cordially / welcoming...

It would explain much that he was a spy in their midst.

johnd · Jul 21, 2009

Heber said:
Hi JD - there was a criminal who was released by Pilate, as the Bible says, but he was called Bar Abba, an Aramaic name, not Barrabas. Barabbas is a perversion of that name, coming to us from the translation into Greek (Βαραββᾶ&#962. The "s" ending on Abbas is a common Greek pattern of adapting Hebrew names that end in the vowels "-a" or "-ah," as in:
Yeshua (Hebrew) Yesous (Greek) Jesus (English)
Yehudah Youdas Judas
Kefa (Kepha) Kefas Cephas
Hannan Hannas Annas
Kayafa Kaiaphas Caiaphas

Thus there was never a Barabbas - using that name hides hasatan's deception quite well. There is no reason why hasatan could not have two people at work in Yeshua's death, is there? He managed to infiltrate lots of people to try and destroy G_d.

Um, I am not questioning you that... I was only asking which... you were subscribing to in your meaning, friend.

I am quite familiar with the Anglicanized, Greco-Latin, Hebraic aramaic filters through which we have our English Bibles.

Andrew - 'adam (andropos)
Matthew - Mattatyahu / Netanyahu etc.

Heber · Jul 21, 2009

No problem JD

It was a good question that allowed me to see the need to spell it out for others, if they were unsure.

Heber · Jul 21, 2009

johnd said:
Um, I am not questioning you that... I was only asking which... you were subscribing to in your meaning, friend.

I am quite familiar with the Anglicanized, Greco-Latin, Hebraic aramaic filters through which we have our English Bibles.

Andrew - 'adam (andropos)
Matthew - Mattatyahu / Netanyahu etc.

You mean the Bible wasn't written in olde worlde English, my son? Cor, well I never...

Tanakh · Jul 21, 2009

Heber said:
Ah, so you prefer to take the word of mere man above the word of G_d. That's fine - I know not to take your responses too seriously.

On to sound Biblical matters. You say that man was created on the 6th day and G_d rested on the 7th - that is Biblical fact. Then you say that this conversation with the Council of angels that supposedly took place on the 7th day, the day of rest, the Shabbat, had to be so because man had not yet been created! If G_d created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th did he not create man within those 6 days, or did he do it on the 8th, 9th, 10th - 100th, 10000th day? You really are stretching the truth of Tanakh to breaking point (and this is supposed to be your own faith you are defending!)

You then imply that the world was not seen by G_d as being 'good' at that point, so he must have come back and finished it after the 7th day. Therefore the world was not, according to your extra-Biblical man-made sources, completed in 6 days!

Regarding your comment about Yeshua. Yeshua did not become 'as man' until 2000 years ago when he gave up his G_dly powers and status and came to earth (read Philippians). More than 5769 years ago Yeshua existed - that is why 'Elohim' and 'let us' are there, in the plural. At least this can be proven using the Tanakh, rather than your extra-Biblical resources that seem to be floundering. You really should study the latter testament because your understanding of the Messianic movement and/or Christianity is flawed in the extreme.

You obviously did not read what I said carefully! I said G-d had councel with the angels on the sixth day of creation, just before man was created and that G-d rested on the seventh day when He completed His work. Once His work had been finished He stated "it was very good". Creation was completed in 7 days so I don't know why you think I said it took more then that.

In regard to Jesus being the plural in Elohim, as you claim, then how can the trinity be defined in the context of Father, Son and Holy Spirit? If prior to the death of Jesus on the cross when he was "in the flesh", what was Jesus within the trinity then if he was not human prior to the "Virgin birth"? I have already made very clear in this thread that G-d, in His essence, cannot have any part added to Him, such as Jesus the son, becasue if G-d is G-d why on earth would He need to be plural, after all He is G-d? The trinity could not have been possible until the birth of Jesus because if Jesus was the second plurality in Elohim then there can be no trinity. It makes no sense to me to say that G-d's attributes somehow constitute a plurality in His essence by saying that G-d must have a trinitarian concept in order that He can function with His creation. G-d does not and cannot suffer for what His creation does in sin because to say so means that G-d is not G-d!

Tanakh · Jul 21, 2009

Heber said:
When Yeshua walked this earth he was subordinate to his father because Yeshua, although still G_d, was by his own choice as a man and so, to experience what we experience, he had to submit to being subordinate, as we are. The Spirit always searches the things of G_d because his job is to point us to the Word, to enable us to pray effectively, and to give us the gifts that G_d wants us to have etc etc. He must therefore always be looking to G_d although he is an integral part of the G_d-head, as is Yeshua; he is the gift that resides within us to enable all these things, because he is Spirit. All this would explain why Yeshua did not know everything - he was living under the same restrictions as us.

That makes no sense whatsoever!

You say that Jesus was under the will of the Father but yet he was G-d! Why, if Jeus was G-d, would he need to be under Himself? And if Jesus did not know everything then how can he be G-d and why would he need to suffer as we suffer in order to safe us from ourselves! This is why the concept of the trinity is idiotic!

Heber said:
This has major implications for those who see, for example, that he knew exactly who would betray him well in advance, because he was G_d.

We can relate directly to the father - that was the whole point of the Temple curtain being torn in two from the top to the bottom - we do not need a middle man (priest, minister, rabbi etc etc). Sadly the father often gets missed out but we pray to the father, in the name of Yeshua, by the power of the Ruach HaKodesh who, when we do not know what to say, speaks for us by looking in our hearts.

Heber said:
The son can do only what the father says because the son is still G_d; even though he was 'as' man in every way except that he could not sin, neither could he go against what G_d required (see the Garden of Gethsemane experience - it's about subordination whilst he was as one of us). Therefore, being subordinate to the father, he says and does only what the father says and does.

visionary · Jul 21, 2009

Tanakh said:
You obviously did not read what I said carefully! I said G-d had councel with the angels on the sixth day of creation, just before man was created and that G-d rested on the seventh day when He completed His work. Once His work had been finished He stated "it was very good". Creation was completed in 7 days so I don't know why you think I said it took more then that.

In regard to Jesus being the plural in Elohim, as you claim, then how can the trinity be defined in the context of Father, Son and Holy Spirit? If prior to the death of Jesus on the cross when he was "in the flesh", what was Jesus within the trinity then if he was not human prior to the "Virgin birth"? I have already made very clear in this thread that G-d, in His essence, cannot have any part added to Him, such as Jesus the son, becasue if G-d is G-d why on earth would He need to be plural, after all He is G-d? The trinity could not have been possible until the birth of Jesus because if Jesus was the second plurality in Elohim then there can be no trinity. It makes no sense to me to say that G-d's attributes somehow constitute a plurality in His essence by saying that G-d must have a trinitarian concept in order that He can function with His creation. G-d does not and cannot suffer for what His creation does in sin because to say so means that G-d is not G-d!

Prior to Yeshua's existence in a body made for Him, was He not still God's Son? Prior to His bodily on earth existence, did He not come as Lord and was one of those who came to visit Abraham whom Abraham addressed. Abraham did not need to repeat himself,.. He could have said Lord... instead he said Lord Lord, and adressed them both... Who was the Captain of the Lord's Host that Joshua met with? .. what is veiled but has been revealed is that the Lord who is your Redeemer and Creator is the same one whom we worship.

Acts 7:38
This is He, [Yeshua] that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

visionary · Jul 21, 2009

Job even knew something about God, the Redeemer,

Job 19:25
For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

He knew that He liveth... faith in Him who is able to resurrected from the dead.
He also knew that He will be standing upon this earth in the latter days.

His faith in God to do these things for him just as David believed that the Redeemer would stand before God to plead our cases..

Proverbs 23:11
For their redeemer is mighty; he shall plead their cause with thee.

Isaiah said He is the Holy One of Israel, whom you know as your God.

Isaiah 43:14
Thus saith the LORD, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships.

Why is it so difficult to believe that God would enter into human flesh to redeem mankind?

Isaiah 44:6
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 49:7
Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.

Tanakh · Jul 21, 2009

visionary said:
Prior to Yeshua's existence in a body made for Him, was He not still God's Son? Prior to His bodily on earth existence, did He not come as Lord and was one of those who came to visit Abraham whom Abraham addressed. Abraham did not need to repeat himself,.. He could have said Lord... instead he said Lord Lord, and adressed them both... Who was the Captain of the Lord's Host that Joshua met with? .. what is veiled but has been revealed is that the Lord who is your Redeemer and Creator is the same one whom we worship.

Acts 7:38
This is He, [Yeshua] that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Why would G-d need a "son" and if Jesus is part of the trinity in the context of Father, Son and Holy Spirit what was he before his birth in "the flesh"? If G-d is truly One, then why seperate His essence but then claim they are connected?

You see, my point with all this is to find out why and how Jesus is who he says he was and who Christianity says he was and is and in so doing I hopefully will find a true rationale in why Christians believe what they believe so these questions are not meant as an interegation.

visionary · Jul 21, 2009

Tanakh said:
Why would G-d need a "son" and if Jesus is part of the trinity in the context of Father, Son and Holy Spirit what was he before his birth in "the flesh"? If G-d is truly One, then why seperate His essence but then claim they are connected?

You see, my point with all this is to find out why and how Jesus is who he says he was and who Christianity says he was and is and in so doing I hopefully will find a true rationale in why Christians believe what they believe so these questions are not meant as an interegation.

While I am not able to explain God and the "need"?? nor am I going to try. .. I will say that this mystery... Of God dwelling in the flesh and then dying in our place taking the penalty so that we may live, is more love than I can comprehend. But before the foundation of this world, God had this plan.

There is this story of a girl born so that she would be the one to donate the needed kidney. It was her parent's plan to save their older daughter. When the girl got old enough, she did it not because her parent's planned it but because she loved her sister enough to do it of her own free will. Now this no way explains God's rational for what He did. But it does explain why His Son did, because He was just like His Father. He loved us so much that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall live.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

yonah_mishael · Jul 21, 2009

johnd said:
Andrew - 'adam (andropos)
Matthew - Mattatyahu / Netanyahu etc.

Andrew isn't the Greek version of "Adam." The name "Adam" in Greek is transliterated as ΑΔΑΜ (adam). The name Andrew is ΑΝΔΡΕΑΣ (andreas). It's related to the Greek word ΑΝΗΡ (anēr) meaning "man, male" (as opposed to "female" ΓΥΝ&#919. The word ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ is not masculine in intention but generic, "person" or "people" (in the plural).

The Hebrew term that would correspond to ΑΝΗΡ (aner) is either זכר (zachar) or גבר (gever). ΑΝΗΡ doesn't correspond to אדם (adam) and isn't connected to it in any way.

Thus, the name "Andrew" is not some kind of conversion from the name "Adam." They aren't related.

Heber · Jul 21, 2009

Tanakh - I am not going to continue our circular debate(s).

yonah_mishael · Jul 21, 2009

Tishri1 said:
I think its the PriestHood that changed

and thats all.

I read all those chapters different I guess

How do you get the antecedent of the substantival adjective ΚΑΙΝΗΝ (feminine singular accusative) in Hebrews 8:13 to refer all the way back to the word ΙΕΡΩΣΥΝΗ ("priesthood") in Hebrews 7:12? The antecedent is in the quotation from Jeremiah. He quotes the verse from Jeremiah, which includes the phrase "ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗΝ ΚΑΙΝΗΝ" ("a new covenant"). This appears in verse 8 of chapter 8 and is the subject of the discussion in the chapter. Then, in verse 13 it says ΕΝ ΤΩ ΛΕΓΕΙΝ ΚΑΙΝΗΝ ("when it says 'New'") when what says "new"? The quote from Jeremiah says "new"! The only antecedent to which "new" refers can be "covenant."

How can you really understand it otherwise? Are you just making it up because it fits your theology better?

Tanakh · Jul 21, 2009

visionary said:
While I am not able to explain God and the "need"?? nor am I going to try. .. I will say that this mystery... Of God dwelling in the flesh and then dying in our place taking the penalty so that we may live, is more love than I can comprehend. But before the foundation of this world, God had this plan.

There is this story of a girl born so that she would be the one to donate the needed kidney. It was her parent's plan to save their older daughter. When the girl got old enough, she did it not because her parent's planned it but because she loved her sister enough to do it of her own free will. Now this no way explains God's rational for what He did. But it does explain why His Son did, because He was just like His Father. He loved us so much that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall live.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 9:5-6 is not talking about Jesus, in fact it is not in reference to the Messiah at all.

"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the wonderous Advisor, Mighty G-d, Eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom [Prince of Peace]; upon the one with the greatness in dominion and the boundless peace that will prevail on the throne of David and on his kingdom, to establish it and sustain it through justice and righteousness, from now to eternity. The zealousness of HASHEM, Master of Legions, will accomplish this!"

The salvation of Jerusalem, hence the reference to "David and his kingdom", will come from the son of Ahaz. The child is to become King Hezekiah and it is G-d, the wonderous Advisor, Mighty G-d, Eternal Father who refers to Hezekiah as Sar-shalom, Prince of Peace.

johnd · Jul 21, 2009

yonah_mishael said:
Andrew isn't the Greek version of "Adam." The name "Adam" in Greek is transliterated as ΑΔΑΜ (adam). The name Andrew is ΑΝΔΡΕΑΣ (andreas). It's related to the Greek word ΑΝΗΡ (anēr) meaning "man, male" (as opposed to "female" ΓΥΝ&#919. The word ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ is not masculine in intention but generic, "person" or "people" (in the plural).

The Hebrew term that would correspond to ΑΝΗΡ (aner) is either זכר (zachar) or גבר (gever). ΑΝΗΡ doesn't correspond to אדם (adam) and isn't connected to it in any way.

Thus, the name "Andrew" is not some kind of conversion from the name "Adam." They aren't related.

Man either way you arrive at it is still 'dom 'dam 'adam in Hebrew is it not?

This andropos / andropoi word root was from a study I did two computers ago, so to find that extra Strong's Lexicon source will take some searching in my hard copy files (if I still have them) It was about five moves ago.

This got into the nooks and crannies of linguistics in both Hebrew and Greek... the interchangeable consonants etc. P-B D-TH etc. essentially it showed in the first century there was not much difference in anthropoi and andropoi / antropoi...

sorry so sketchy... let that be a lesson to me not to bring up something I am so rusty on and am unable to produce my research on.

ContraMundum · Jul 21, 2009

Tanakh said:
HASHEM is the word used in place of the pronounced YHVH and so it means "The Name". There is only ONE HASHEM and that is G-d and G-d alone, without any help from the "son". So refering to G-d as HASHEM is hardly "disrespectful" as you put it.

We know, we know already. Sigh.

"The Name"....do you call your own Father "the name"? He loves you and you call him "the name". I wouldn;t do it to my dad, and I certainly wouldn't do it to my Redeemer.

Besides, your argument that there is only one "HaShem" falls flat on its backside when you realise that for centuries "HaShem" was not used to speak of God. Similarly, it's ambiguous. It could mean the Devil for some people. There is nothing wrong with saying God. If you choose HaShem, that's fine too.

ContraMundum · Jul 21, 2009

Tanakh said:
Why would G-d need a "son"

Why does God need anything? Why create?

You miss the point, and I suppose it's not hard to. God doesn't need a son...we're not talking about a Son created later. We're talking about Divine essence, nature etc.

Anyway- Israel is called God's son (Ex 4:22, 23), Kings are called God's son (2 Sam 7:14) individuals are called God's son (Hos. 1:10), even angels are referred to as sons of God- so, why not let the Messiah, who is the ultimate embodiment of Israel becalled God's son?

and if Jesus is part of the trinity in the context of Father, Son and Holy Spirit what was he before his birth in "the flesh"? If G-d is truly One, then why seperate His essence but then claim they are connected?

You appear to have problems understanding this here, which is understandable. Put it this way- Jesus is like a walking, talking, breathing shekhinah.

You see, my point with all this is to find out why and how Jesus is who he says he was and who Christianity says he was and is and in so doing I hopefully will find a true rationale in why Christians believe what they believe so these questions are not meant as an interegation.

OK...good luck!

ContraMundum · Jul 21, 2009

yonah_mishael said:
How do you get the antecedent of the substantival adjective ΚΑΙΝΗΝ (feminine singular accusative) in Hebrews 8:13 to refer all the way back to the word ΙΕΡΩΣΥΝΗ ("priesthood") in Hebrews 7:12? The antecedent is in the quotation from Jeremiah. He quotes the verse from Jeremiah, which includes the phrase "ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗΝ ΚΑΙΝΗΝ" ("a new covenant"). This appears in verse 8 of chapter 8 and is the subject of the discussion in the chapter. Then, in verse 13 it says ΕΝ ΤΩ ΛΕΓΕΙΝ ΚΑΙΝΗΝ ("when it says 'New'") when what says "new"? The quote from Jeremiah says "new"! The only antecedent to which "new" refers can be "covenant."

How can you really understand it otherwise? Are you just making it up because it fits your theology better?

While I can't speak for Tish, I'm not sure the context of her post is being regarded.

The point of the book of Hebrews on this locus is simple: Priesthoods change. Covenants change. There is more than one kind of both species.

We don't need to overcomplicate things, because that's what the author intends to say.

ContraMundum · Jul 22, 2009

Tanakh said:
Isaiah 9:5-6 is not talking about Jesus, in fact it is not in reference to the Messiah at all.

According to a very contemporary apologetic. You had better read the Targum on this! It calls this child Messiah.

The salvation of Jerusalem, hence the reference to "David and his kingdom", will come from the son of Ahaz. The child is to become King Hezekiah and it is G-d, the wonderous Advisor, Mighty G-d, Eternal Father who refers to Hezekiah as Sar-shalom, Prince of Peace.

Ahh..the old "Hezekiah is the mighty God, the Eternal Father" line.

First of all, the Talmud says that Hezekiah was unworthy of this title (San 94a), furthermore his reign did not fulfill this prophecy, his son was Mannaseh (!), and a few generations later the nation is destroyed and in exile! We could discuss many other reasons here too- some rather deep.

How about this: it is not hard to demonstrate that any King in the line of David was a possible Messiah. Perhaps this prophecy led many Jews to think that Hezekiah could be a candidate for Messiah, but time showed otherwise, as the Talmud says.

I would put this to you- the Psalmists and the Prophets spoke of Davidic kings as pictures of the Messiah. The Messiah is the ultimate manifestation of Kings. He is ultimate manifestation of sons. He is the ultimate manifestation of Israel.

No King has ever fulfilled the title "El Gibbor". This title Isaiah keeps for God alone (Isa. 10:21) How could a King be more than human yet human at the same time? Answer: Yeshua HaMoshiach.

Hebrews

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Defender of Zion

Defender of Zion

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Defender of Zion

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם

Senior Veteran

הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם

Defender of Zion

Well-Known Member

Messianic Jewish Christian

Messianic Jewish Christian

Messianic Jewish Christian

Messianic Jewish Christian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency