|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 21, 2010 19:22:34 GMT -8
I have often heard of the Covenant as being "Renewed", however, it doesn't fit with the translation of the Hebrew from Yir'm'yahu (Jeremiah). Yir'm'yahu 31:31-34 uses the phrase: B'rith Chadashah. however, if this were to be "Renewed" Covenant, then it wouldn't be B'rith Chadashah; it would be B'rith ha Chidushah, or simply B'rith Chidushah, which would be the proper sense in Hebrew. That's not necessarily true. One such example is in Yeshayahu 66:22 where we read that HaShem will make a chadash heavens, and a chadash earth. This connotes a change in quality , or renewal, rather than an entirely new and separate thing. Just as HaShem brought up the tohu, and vohu (waters of the deep) in the mobul (flood). There was a definite change in the quality of the earth, but it was still the same land mass. The same idea can be found in phrases such as chadash [new] moon, and chadash [new] wine. Both of these demonstrate a change in quality, not a seperate and entirely new thing. |
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 21, 2010 20:41:33 GMT -8
Hi to all,
I will prefece this by saying, I seek God's truth as He means for us to understand Him (i.e., "You have heard it said...").
I hate to say it, but I thought Melville defended his position very well, with valid points. I did not see antignomianism in his position.
Which I would like to comment on (if that is okay).
So that you won't have to guess about my position (or assume), I believe 100% that God's word teaches that His Law is perfect, converting the soul (that is not just a scripture quote, that is what I believe. And while I do not believe that perfect obedience to God's law is possible (I only know One Who was tempted in all points without sin), I believe that the born-again believer will (in the process of being made holy by the cleansing of His word) walk in His statutes.
I ask you this (and this was the reason I joined this forum): Do you or don't you see the blessings of Ezekial 36 as blessings of the New Covenant?
If so, what does the New Testament define as characteristic of the new birth? Strikingly similiar, if you ask me.
I would greatly appreciate your (Jewish) viewpoint in this matter.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 22, 2010 3:22:56 GMT -8
If so, what does the New Testament define as characteristic of the new birth? The birth from above is the resurrection from the dead. You are born again when resurrected (new birth: Yeshayahu 66:7-9). Nicodemus should have known huh, (John 3:10)? Yeshua HaMashiackh, the firstborn from among the dead, was the first of a new creation. Glorified flesh. Mikveh pictures this process. Any questions? |
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 22, 2010 14:40:12 GMT -8
Hi David Ben Judah,
Hmmm, asking me if I have questions is like asking if the sea has moisture (thats supposed to be humor).
So, your view is that the new birth is at the time of resurrection. That is interesting.
Not sure about the reference to 3:10, this I would consider to be Messiah stating that Nicodemus should have understood His speech in light of his (Nicodemus') knowledge of scripture. Almost an, "I shouldn't have to explain this toyou" kind of thing.
Just one question for now, trying to stay on topic.
Paul states in 2 Corinthians 3:6 that the Lord "has made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter..."
The question is really twofold (and remember, I only ask because I seek the Jewish mind on this):
1)-What does he refer to as "new testament"?;
2)-What is it he is referring to as the "letter"
Look forward to your reply.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jan 23, 2010 7:18:25 GMT -8
Hi Darrell, I'd like to invite you to take a look at a couple of other threads, theloveofgod.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=842theloveofgod.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1657These discussions take straight on some of the understandings that it seems you might be skirting. I also would encourage you/caution you, to include in the loop of these discussions whatever pastoral or theological tutorage you are currently under- it is not our intention to create confusion or dissention; yet these things fly very strongly in the face of mainstream Christian thinking. What is likely to happen is that you may be convinced one way, then confronted with another perspective, and end up bantered back and forth by scholarship from differing perspectives. Take it slowly and prayerfully, not looking for quick theological answers but with the goal of a better understanding of the relationship we offered by the Father through Messiah and by the power of the Holy Spirit. |
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 23, 2010 16:56:17 GMT -8
So, your view is that the new birth is at the time of resurrection. That is interesting. Not sure about the reference to 3:10, this I would consider to be Messiah stating that Nicodemus should have understood His speech in light of his (Nicodemus') knowledge of scripture. Almost an, "I shouldn't have to explain this to you" kind of thing. I agree, and quoted John 3:10 for that very reason. Yeshua is surprised that Nicodemus did not know that the resurrection is spoken of as a birth. Which is why I quoted Yeshayahu 66:7-9 which clearly teaches that concept. If we continue to read that text, Yeshayahu goes on to liken Jerusalem to a nursing mother (vs. 10-13). This is why Rav Sha'ul calls the renewed Jerusalem the mother of us all (Gal 4:26). I reject the current teaching of Christianity that one is 'born again' at first faith in Mashiakh. The Scriptures simply do not teach that. Teshuva (repentance) is not the birth from above. I don't think it can be any clearer in John chapter 3 that Yeshua is contrasting a literal physical birth, through the agency of ones mother, with a literal spiritual birth, through the agency of the Ruach at the resurrection. I believe the confusion that takes place in this text is because of the differing world views between the Hebraic concept of what is spiritual, and the Greek Platonic world view that Christianity has adopted concerning what is spiritual. These are two entirely different views. The blessed hope of Israel is the resurrection from the dead, not the Greek Platonic concept of our spirits being disembodied and whisked off to heaven. Unfortunately, the whole Christian concept of the gospel bears no resemblance to that of the gospel of the Kingdom that Yeshua, and Sha'ul taught. The questions you raised concerning my understanding of the new covenant, and what Sha'ul is referring to when he uses the phrase 'letter of the  ' should be discussed in the appropriate thread (if one already exists). That's too far off topic, and I can see that it irritates Mark when we get too far off topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jan 24, 2010 5:56:24 GMT -8
grumble, grumble, snarl, snarl.
|
|
' should be discussed in the appropriate thread (if one already exists). That's too far off topic, and I can see that it irritates Mark when we get too far off topic.
