cgpb
New Member
Posts: 48 
|
Post by cgpb on Sept 22, 2014 2:29:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Sept 22, 2014 11:50:18 GMT -8
That was pretty good, illustrating the difference in true, pure violence and what Yeshua did in the Temple motivated by righteouse indignation. What Yeshua did was violent, but not the type of violence described in Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
H2555 חמס châmâs khaw-mawce' violence
From H2554; violence; by implication wrong; by metonymy unjust gain: - cruel (-ty), damage, false, injustice, X oppressor, unrighteous, violence (against, done), violent (dealing), wrong.
Overturning tables and driving people off is by its' nature violent, however there was no gain for Yeshua other than cleansing the Temple. Read in context we can see what He did was just, righteous and liberating. And had Yeshua been cruel or out of control, the animals would have scattered instead of leaving by the gates. He'd have had a stampede in a very small place. So what is described in Mat 21 and Mark 11 is not chamas. Since we have no words that indicate degrees of violence, its use to describe what happened when Yeshua cleansed the Temple is a little bit deceptive. Stating that it was controlled violence acting from righteous indignation is probably a better way to put it.
Thanks.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Questor on Sept 22, 2014 17:24:08 GMT -8
That was pretty good, illustrating the difference in true, pure violence and what Yeshua did in the Temple motivated by righteouse indignation. What Yeshua did was violent, but not the type of violence described in Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.H2555 חמס châmâs khaw-mawce' violence
From H2554; violence; by implication wrong; by metonymy unjust gain: - cruel (-ty), damage, false, injustice, X oppressor, unrighteous, violence (against, done), violent (dealing), wrong.Overturning tables and driving people off is by its' nature violent, however there was no gain for Yeshua other than cleansing the Temple. Read in context we can see what He did was just, righteous and liberating. And had Yeshua been cruel or out of control, the animals would have scattered instead of leaving by the gates. He'd have had a stampede in a very small place. So what is described in Mat 21 and Mark 11 is not chamas. Since we have no words that indicate degrees of violence, its use to describe what happened when Yeshua cleansed the Temple is a little bit deceptive. Stating that it was controlled violence acting from righteous indignation is probably a better way to put it.
Thanks.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Sept 22, 2014 18:05:58 GMT -8
Actually, I believe that was one of Lucifer's jobs prior to his fall. Yeshua and the Father being One, I would imagine He delegates the actual chores. However I can't think of scripture that backs either position, so we should probably label both as speculation and not worry too much about it.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Questor on Sept 23, 2014 0:17:07 GMT -8
Actually, I believe that was one of Lucifer's jobs prior to his fall. Yeshua and the Father being One, I would imagine He delegates the actual chores. However I can't think of scripture that backs either position, so we should probably label both as speculation and not worry too much about it.
Dan C
Unless of course, the Serpent in the garden was just a pushy serpent, and not a high power or principality. I always presumed that was Lucifer, from the imagery in Eden |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Sept 23, 2014 0:28:15 GMT -8
He had already fallen long before man ever set foot on the earth.
Elohim still has Cherubim He can delegate to.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Sept 23, 2014 0:32:33 GMT -8
Back to the OP, this is one of the few times Yeshua, Himself a Hillelite, showed definite Shamaimimite characteristics. Yet Shammai was not a violent man in terms of chamas either.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Questor on Sept 23, 2014 1:13:22 GMT -8
Back to the OP, this is one of the few times Yeshua, Himself a Hillelite, showed definite Shamaimimite characteristics. Yet Shammai was not a violent man in terms of chamas either.
Dan C
In fact, one could say that on the Big Ten, Yehoshua was only interpreting Shabbat generously, as the injury was primarily to G-d (Himself), and G-d understood the necessities of human existence.
These days, the way the Rabbinical Jews make new halacha to go around every inconvenience of Shabbat, or Shmittah is downright sickening, and one does not know what school they claim to follow. |
|
|
|
Post by Questor on Sept 24, 2014 16:09:50 GMT -8
He had already fallen long before man ever set foot on the earth.
Elohim still has Cherubim He can delegate to. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Sept 24, 2014 20:55:39 GMT -8
He had already fallen long before man ever set foot on the earth.
Elohim still has Cherubim He can delegate to.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 14, 2015 6:51:10 GMT -8
I like this distinction, and given Salvation History, there is a lot of support for it.
I don't feel we have much to explain based on our belief that Yeshua is G-d. G-d has provided multiple examples of justice in His wrath, and this was His dwelling place that was being used corruptly.
I also think the timing and setting of this incident is important.
Right before this passage, Yeshua had rode into Jerusalem being hailed the Son of David.
"And a very great multitude spread their clothes on the road; others cut down branches from the trees and spread them on the road. Then the Multitudes who went before and those who followed cried out saying, Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the L-RD! Hosanna in the highest!"
I have heard mention and read a couple of times, likely on this forum, about Messiah being both Son of David and Son of Joseph. As I understand it, Messiah as Conquering King and Suffering Servant used to be a more common idea in Judaism. However, people expected the roles to be performed by two different people. Meanwhile, the Suffering Servant role has now been dismissed. Anyway, I think Yeshua the Suffering Servant gives us a glimpse of Yeshua the Conquering King in the Temple incident. It is made all the more interesting by the timing and setting.
The verse he references while overthrowing the moneychangers, "My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves!" Isaiah 56:7, goes on to say
"For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations." Then it elaborates in Isaiah 56:8 "The L-rd G-d who gathers the outcasts of Israel says, Yet I will gather to him others besides those who are gathered to him."
He points us to the fullness of prophecy as it relates to the nations while Israel was looking for their Conquering King. He also directs Israel right back to his message to, "repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" as he reacts to their corruption.
I feel like Yeshua the Suffering Servant was giving us some context to better understand his suffering and death by giving us a glimpse of the gravity of what they were asking for. We weren't ready for His Kingdom.
|
|
|
|
Post by maranguape on Aug 19, 2018 13:50:28 GMT -8
So, you believe that Yeshua is G-d! What happened to Monotheism? Yeshua was a Law observant Jew and we are sure he would not have broken the Law so blatantly. (Deuteronomy 6:4) IMHO, if Yeshua was sure that the moneychangers were making corrupting use of HaShem's dwelling place, he could simply have gone to the Jewish authorities or the High-Priest to inquire what was going on that they were making business in front of the Temple, and not arm himself of a whip and start causing financial and physical damages to the men who, no doubt had permission from the High-Priest to help the Jews coming from abroad to change their foreign money by the Temple money and be able to achieve a cosher sacrifice. Right, "and being hailed the Son of David" was the same as king of the Jews. This, for the Romans was an attempt at sedition for Jesus to allow his own disciples to acclaim him king of the Jews in Jerusalem which was a Roman province at the time. And Jesus was not alone; many other Jews according to Josephus were crucified by the Romans on similar kinds of sedition on the First Century. At least, Pilate, tried to explain himself with Jesus' verdict INRI he commanded to be nailed on the top of Jesus' cross why he Pilate had to crucify Jesus. Now, to convince who, I am not too sure because then and even up to this day, all Christians prefer the slander that the Jews had killed Jesus and not the Romans. Regarding Messiah being both Son of David and Son of Joseph, that's not what is adopted in Judaism. The Suffering Servant was Messiah ben Joseph until HaShem rejected the Tabernacle of Joseph aka Ephraim and confirmed Judah to remain as a lamp promised to David in Jerusalem forever. (Psalm 78:67-69; I Kings 11:36) That's when Samaria fell when conquered by the Assyrians. (Amos 5:2) And the Triumphant Servant is Judah aka Messiah ben David which remains as the only Messiah to this day. And to remain as the only one Messiah before the Lord is possible only under the collective concept of Messiah. If you read Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People, to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel, the Son of God. (Exodus 4:22,23) Individually, the Messiah is impossible to exist because, the individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we supposed to expect a different Messiah in every generation? Obviously not! The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jeremiah 31:35-37)
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 19, 2018 15:38:39 GMT -8
So, you believe that Yeshua is G-d! What happened to Monotheism? Yeshua was a Law observant Jew and we are sure he would not have broken the Law so blatantly. (Deuteronomy 6:4)
We believe in monotheism, and reject the idea of a "Trinity." However we also believe that an omnipotent God can invest a part of Himself in human form for any time and purpose He desires. And this is scriptural. Think back to the many times He manifest Himself in the TNK. He sat on the Mercy Seat, and His presence filled the Holy of Holies, yet He still held the universe together from His place in heaven. He manifest as a column of smoke and fire to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt and in the wilderness. Again as fire and smoke, as well as thunder and voices from Sinai. Right from the start He was with Adam in the Garden. So it is entirely conceivable that HaShem could have invested a part of Himself in the form of a man, Messiah ben Yoseph.
IMHO, if Yeshua was sure that the moneychangers were making corrupting use of HaShem's dwelling place, he could simply have gone to the Jewish authorities or the High-Priest to inquire what was going on that they were making business in front of the Temple, and not arm himself of a whip and start causing financial and physical damages to the men who, no doubt had permission from the High-Priest to help the Jews coming from abroad to change their foreign money by the Temple money and be able to achieve a cosher sacrifice.
The Cohen Hagadol and much of the Sanhedrin were corrupt at the time. As you yourself point out, they had permission to be there. What Yeshua did was clean the leaven out of His Fathers house. Those people could have provided that service outside the confines of the Temple grounds. The Temple was to be a place of worship, not commerce.
Right, "and being hailed the Son of David" was the same as king of the Jews. This, for the Romans was an attempt at sedition for Jesus to allow his own disciples to acclaim him king of the Jews in Jerusalem which was a Roman province at the time. And Jesus was not alone; many other Jews according to Josephus were crucified by the Romans on similar kinds of sedition on the First Century. At least, Pilate, tried to explain himself with Jesus' verdict INRI he commanded to be nailed on the top of Jesus' cross why he Pilate had to crucify Jesus. Now, to convince who, I am not too sure because then and even up to this day, all Christians prefer the slander that the Jews had killed Jesus and not the Romans.
Yeshua was the Crown Prince of Israel, the one next in line to be king had the Romans been thrown out. And the people knew it, as did the Romans. And you are correct, this made the Romans very uneasy. We reject the idea that "the Jews killed Jesus." Pilate washed his hands and tried to explain away his part in the execution because he did not want a riot on his hands. But he was implicit. There was a lot of unrest at the time, and Yeshua had a very large following. However, rest assured that if the Romans had not wanted Him dead, He would not have been executed. No, the death of Yeshua cannot be blamed on one people. It was a collaborative effort between Jews (most of the Sadducees in the Sanhedrin) and the Gentiles (Roman rulers). He died for the sins of all, and all had a hand in His death. And by all I mean everyone, past, present, and future.
Romans 3:23 (KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
We all had a hand in His death. And this is taught in many more churches than you might think. I learned this, along with who the chosen people of God were and are sitting on those hard, Baptist pews as a kid. But the slanderous and even murderous charge that "the Jews killed Jesus" is a black mark on much of church history, and one that many Christians will answer for at the judgement.
Regarding Messiah being both Son of David and Son of Joseph, that's not what is adopted in Judaism. The Suffering Servant was Messiah ben Joseph until HaShem rejected the Tabernacle of Joseph aka Ephraim and confirmed Judah to remain as a lamp promised to David in Jerusalem forever. (Psalm 78:67-69; I Kings 11:36) That's when Samaria fell when conquered by the Assyrians. (Amos 5:2) And the Triumphant Servant is Judah aka Messiah ben David which remains as the only Messiah to this day. And to remain as the only one Messiah before the Lord is possible only under the collective concept of Messiah. If you read Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People, to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel, the Son of God. (Exodus 4:22,23) Individually, the Messiah is impossible to exist because, the individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we supposed to expect a different Messiah in every generation? Obviously not! The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jeremiah 31:35-37)
That's not what is adopted in Rabbinical Judaism today. However it was a hotly debated topic in the times before Yeshua. How could He be both Moshiach ben Yoseph and Moshiach ben Dovid? We believe this was answered in the person of Yeshua. As a manifestation of the Most High He can be both, and can come twice, which was a sticking point in many discussions. A mere man can, as you point out, only come once. But as a manifestation of HaShem He can come again, this time to conquer and reclaim what is His. So we have a very singular concept of the Messiah. He is Eternal God, and He is, as you say, One. But He is One and He is all powerful, having the ability to appear as man to interact with men; as He did with Avraham and the other two malachim/messengers (in this case heavenly messengers, or angels if you will). He also wrestled with Yitzkach as a heavenly messenger, yet scripture clearly states it was HaShem. (Gen 32:28).
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 19, 2018 17:27:59 GMT -8
Yes I believe Yeshua is G-d, and so He can defend His dwelling place. I also believe G-d can do and be whatever He wants, and for our sake, He wanted to be a man to achieve for mankind what we can't achieve for ourselves; salvation. This is my faith so I can't explain it anymore than someone who lives waiting for a Messiah to come. Some Jews had Yeshua killed by some Romans historically. However, anyone who claims to be a sinner needing Yeshua must acknowledge that it is the fault of all mankind if they are in true faith, and further it was ultimately G-d who sacrificed Himself as Yeshua. So Yeshus wasn't killed, He offered Himself up a sacrifice for sin. Yes, some Christians blame Jews for His death, but I don't feel the need to defend myself cause I'm not one of them.
The term "monotheism" is a reactive term to what came about after the fall of mankind, polytheism. In the beginning there was G-d, with a Spirit that hovered over the deep, and Who spoke a word into physical being. Who can really explain that? It's words that kind of grasp something we can't describe let alone understand. But we accept it in faith.
That's the best illustration I can give you of how I understand G-d and how He relates to me. It is is stated in John 1 that Yeshua was there in the beginning, G-d. I don't know words to describe the experience I have of G-d. This is how He reaches out to us, and I do say as Father, Son, and Spirit - not because I think it sums Him up but simply because that's the best I can do to physically describe something I can only spiritual accept and understand. This is my understanding based on His word and what I can spiritually know. Who we are is limited so it's His grace that is depicted in His becoming man. It's not polytheism. It's G-d reaching out to His Creation. He has done that numerous ways throughout the scriptures, but because of polytheism we are stuck trying to explain something spiritual based on limited physical understanding. It's simply a spiritual truth we believe based on faith and experiencing G-d.
Basicslly, I believe what you can read in the Old and New Covenant, but I'm confused by what you believe. Please, explain who the "we" is that you refer to as believing He broke the law by doing what is recorded in the New Covenant; overturning the tables of the money changers. Are you saying He broke the law, because this is simply scripture. Do you believe what is recorded in the New Covenant, and if not what do you reference for your understanding of what Yeshua did and Who He is?
There are plenty of people in Judsism waiting for a man who is Messiah, and I've never heard of this idea of a collective Messiah so I would like some understanding about what you believe. Bottom line, we won't agree in much of anything if you don't agree with the scriptures I believe, and nothing I said was inconsistent with the those scriptures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 25, 2018 11:21:39 GMT -8
Our context for the overthrowing of the money changers tables is Isaiah 1:12-14
"When you come to appear before Me, who has required it of your hand, to trample my courts?....I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting...."
Then the next verse is an ironically perfect picture of our choice in Yeshua.
"When you spread out your hands, I will hide My face from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood."
Isaiah 1:15
That verse amazes me in the picture of the choice it presents. We're all thieves and murderers. Can we even account for our own blood and life? No, we can't even save our own life to be able to hand even that back to G-d. I can't even imagine then how much more are we accountable for - all the people before us, after us, and around us who sin and die? And yes, we are responsible for them because we can't save them and have chased off the One Who can with our sin.
When my kids stumble or get hurt or sneeze, I started noticing they immediately say, "I'm alright." to me - like they've hurt me in hurting themselves cause I guess I'm that much of an over-reactive worrier. But the point is, can anyone seriously look at G-d and tell Him, "I'm alright."? No, because you suffer and ultimately, you die. But that's what we're like if we refuse Yeshua; desperate children limping off bleeding profusely or come down with tuberculosis waving Him off like you're alright. You are not alright, without Yeshua, you are going to die. So just your existance hurts G-d. That's the truth, and no one can get out of it. Even if we could live perfectly, Enoch and Elijah come to mind, you would still have to depend on G-d to deliver you from death. They didn't wave Him off. People who refuse Yeshua are basically waving G-d off when they lift up their hands to G-d.
Even the sacrifices in the sacrificial system and the Moeds are a witness against us if you think about it. We can't do them. What can I hand Him when I can't even save my own life to give it back to Him? At our best, it was His Own destroyed creation whether it be animals or Joshua conquering Canaan. Now what, the Temple isn't even standing. I always feel nervous cause I'm not familiar with Judaudm, but it seems we're all just in deep because even that is a testimony against us. Yeshua lived, died, and resurrected from the dead because we needed Him to. That's the offering we can hand to G-d that pleads eternal life. I would be really frustrated in Judaism I think because it feels like you would always be trying to do something on your own that you can't. You can't be a good enough person to save your own life, never mind your own family before and after you and the rest.
|
|
- there are 70 faces to 
