JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES, Books I-V, Adam to Samson (SOLVED)

[rakovsky]

If you are going to say that the TaNaKh predicted Christ, then I am having uncertainty about how closely the elements in the ancient verses prefigured the fulfillment. For example, I can clearly see that the rejection of the prophets would point to the same thing with the Messiah, ie that He would have to deal with the Messiah. But I am having a tougher time when it comes to things like Sisera's temples and Jotham's lone escape from the large stone where Abimelech tried to kill him.

[rakovsky]

For Question 11, Moe in his article "God Visits Mr and Mrs Manoah" on the Christ My Covenant article gives arguments that the angel was God.

[alon]

Nov 1, 2019 0:32:11 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

May 8, 2019 19:31:22 GMT -8 alon said:

I’d be careful of calling Josephus works prophecy. He’d know of the Hebraic symbolism, and he knew Yeshua wore a crown of thorns. Looking back and spinnimg a yarn is not prophecy, and Jo was no more a prophet than he was a historian.

Dan,
Let me be clearer about Question 10.
Josephus was retelling the Biblical stories of Jotham and of Jotham's parable, so I was considering whether Jotham or Jotham's parable prefigured Christ.

Ernest Hello, a modern RC theologian, in his book Studies in Saintship, finds it "remarkable" that the bramble, the Rhamnum in Latin, in Jotham's parable in Judges 9 was the same plant used in the crown of thorns. Whereas the bramble became king in Judges 9, the bramble wrote Christ's sovereignty in the Passion, Hello says.

The website "End Times: Darkness Descending" has a page about the crown of thorns, where it sees Jotham's parable as a prefigurement of the crown of thorns. It notes that in the parable, the bramble represented Abimelech, the bad ruler, so it theorizes that the bramble also represents the Antichrist, and that the crown of thorns will be replaced by a benevolent crown on Christ in the End Times. The page says in part:

The bramble bush is made into a crown of thorns and sits upon the head of Jesus Christ. In Jotham’s parable, the bramble was asked to become king over all the trees in the forest. At Calvary, that bramble bush was made into a crown to be worn by the King. Looking at it in perspective as it sat on the head of Christ in all of it’s , piercing the flesh, bringing the blood, it was indeed a lowly bramble bush. It was not a crown made out of olive wood, it was a crown made from a bramble bush. It was not a crown made of fig wood, it was made from a bramble bush. It was not a crown made out of grape vine, it was indeed a lowly bramble bush. In Jotham’s parable, when the bramble was invited to be their king, it replied, “If in truth, ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow…” (Judges 9:15). In prophetic fulfillment, one can see the savior of the souls of humanity hanging their in utter humility beneath the shadow of the bramble bush. One can see it exalted upon his head. One can watch as it draws his blood and one can hear his declarative agonizing question of … “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). It looked as if the bramble bush was triumphant and that the olive tree, the fig tree and the vine will be forever defeated. It looks as if that “Root of David,” that “Rod out of the stem of Jesse,” that great “Branch” was to be forever humiliated by that crown of a bramble bush. When the bramble bush answered the request of the other trees, it said, “… put your trust in my shadow, and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.” It did not say, “I will devour the olive tree.” It did not say that it will burn the fig tree, or the vine. It said, “I will devour the cedars of Lebanon.” Forty years later, a fire devoured the great cedars of Lebanon, just like the parable said it would. The fulfillment of that prophecy came when the Romans burned the Jewish Temple to the ground. The doors of the Temple were made out of cedar wood from Lebanon. The prophet Zechariah also predicted it …

“Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars” (Zechariah 11:1).

It looks like depending on how closely you see the TaNaKh prefiguring Christ, you could also see the parable as prefiguring the crown of thorns.

Alvin Johnson, in his essay "GREENSIGHT: THE ATAD - THE JUJUBE OR CHRIST'S THORN" cites Jotham's parable,

Finally all the trees said to the atad (thornbush), ‘Come and be our king.’
The atad (thornbush) said to the trees, ‘If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the atad (thornbush) and consume the cedars of Lebanon!’"

He notes that the atad appears again

in Psalm 58:9 where it was used as a tree for firewood in the home: "Before your pots can feel the heat of the atad (thorns) - whether they be green or dry - the wicked will be swept away."

He theorizes that the plant was the Jujube, an evergreen that catches fire quickly.

The Bible Plants site run by Old Dominion University theorizes that the plant in the parable was not actually the same as the one in the crown of thorns:

the thornbush in the parable of Jotham (Judges 9:15) is more likely to be Zizyphus spini-christi simply because of the setting in the hills near Shechem where this plant occurs and because of the stature of the plant as a "ruler."
...
Despite its Latin name, Z. spini-christi (literally, spine of Christ) is probably not the plant used in making the crown of thorns. Rather, the low growing very common shrub Sarcopoterium spinosum is a better choice. This shrub is abundant around Jerusalem because it is one of the most conspicuous elements of the degraded Mediterranean ecosystem in the mountains along the Rift Valley. Zizyphus spini-christi, on the other hand, is more frequent in drier sites and at lower elevations.

But anyway, since we are talking about typology, they don't have to literally be the same plant species for the prefigurement to work.

"ONE FOR ISRAEL (Messianic Jews In Israel)" has an article seeing an indirect relationship between the parable and the crown of thorns, in that thorns were part of the curse after the Fall in Genesis. It cites Isaiah 55,

“Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress;
instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle;
and it shall make a name for the LORD,
an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.”

It takes the view that God would transform people who were like thorns into being like cypresses, although I read the verse in Isaiah as more likely teaching replacement instead of transformation.

William Gifford, in the Quarterly Review, however, noted that Gretser theorized that the Passion consecrated the thorn as a noble plant that others could take shade under. This is like the idea that the Passion consecrated the Cross.

The Carpenter's View website has an article that shares the view of One for Israel that there was an indirect link, in that Jotham's parable was a curse in that it used a thorn, which was a curse under Genesis 3, and:

After being mocked, beaten and spat upon by the Roman soldiers, Jesus was crowned with thorns and this highlighted that His suffering and death were a curse. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.” (Hebrews 3:13) When our Lord was crowned with a crown of thorns, His torturers unknowingly punished Him with a symbol fitting of the suffering Messiah.

Julian Evans writes in "The Cross and the Crown",

If it is this plant the soldiers twisted to inflict pain and bleeding, then we have a twist indeed.

Did the Romans collude with the Jews so that the only earthly crown Jesus wore was the very symbol of bad kingship in Judges? And was that yet another humiliation and insult heaped on Christ?

So it's a common idea that Jotham's parable was prefiguring the crown of thorns.
To me, Jotham being the only one of his full siblings to escape being killed at Joshua's large stone by Abimelech, and the preaching his parable from Mount Gerizim reminds me of Christ at Golgotha and maybe at the Sermon on the Mount. Specifically I saw it in his escape, especially because he later gave a Christological prophecy about the thorns. But I can't find anyone else who writes of Jotham as being a prefigurement of Christ. So I am not sure about this. Maybe they would see him as one only in the sense that the rejected prophets served as prefigurements of Messiah.

You'll drive yourself crazy trying to untangle the arguments of scholars! This thorn, that thorn- the operative term here is "thorn," or "bramble." And are all these things connected? It will help if you look at time as the authors of the Bible did: not as a straight line, but as a spiral on which events tend to repeat, and all can be connected if they have even one common thread.

The second rule of Hillel for biblical exegesis is Gezerah shawah: Argument from analagy. (Comparing similar words in different passages). An analogy is made between two separate texts on the basis of a similar phrase, word or root – i.e., where the same words are applied to two separate cases, it follows that the same considerations apply to both.

So you may draw analogies between the texts you cite. You are right to be cautious in doing so, as you can take things too far. Common sense and your knowledge along with the Spirit should guide you. But this is how the ancient Rabbis parsed out scripture, digging more understanding from it.

I don't have a lot of time to really dig into it myself right now, so I'm afraid all I can offer is this advice, and hope it helps your efforts.


Dan C

 

[alon]

Nov 1, 2019 0:41:48 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

If you are going to say that the TaNaKh predicted Christ, then I am having uncertainty about how closely the elements in the ancient verses prefigured the fulfillment. For example, I can clearly see that the rejection of the prophets would point to the same thing with the Messiah, ie that He would have to deal with the Messiah. But I am having a tougher time when it comes to things like Sisera's temples and Jotham's lone escape from the large stone where Abimelech tried to kill him.

Some predictions were obvious, like Isaiah 53. Some are types, Like Joshua; whose name in Hebrew is Yehoshua, and Yeshua is a shortened version of that. Some, like in your post above are far more subtle. But everything in the TNK obviously doesn't point directly to Yeshua. We can say the whole thing does because primarily, it does! But some things are instructions, laws, examples, etc; all directed at us.

2 Timothy 3:15-16 (ESV) and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 

When that was written, all they had were the ancient writings, primarily the TNK. Everything you needed to know Yeshua was there, in those writings they had known from childhood. It "all" pointed towards Him. There is nothing new in the "New Testament." It is all a better explanation of the "Old." The "Old Testament," writings of the apocryphal tradition, Jewish throne room theology; all the library of the Temple, many copies of which were preserved at Qumran. An Assemblies pastor once told me, and I find he is right, the Bible is God's salvation history for man. And in whom is that salvation invested? Yeshua HaMoshiach! The OT points forward to Him, and the NT looks back on Him; and in both we accept God's grace through Him, by faith, and are saved. That's the entire Bible summarized in one sentence.

So if you find a thread, follow it. And if it leads you to Yeshua it is probably true. If it leads you to a godly truth or principle, it is probably true. If not, either your knowledge is not yet sufficient to follow it, or it may be false. Just don't put it in your truth column until you can follow it to a satisfactory conclusion.

Dan C

[alon]

Nov 1, 2019 8:33:20 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 11, Moe in his article "God Visits Mr and Mrs Manoah" on the Christ My Covenant article gives arguments that the angel was God.

I believe I said that was a Christophany. Therefore it would (in my opinion at least) have been God.  The Christ (the Messiah) was in fact God, therefore any time He appeared in the OT it was God.

Dan C 

[jimmie]

That is my under standing as well.

[rakovsky]

Nov 1, 2019 13:02:49 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 1, 2019 8:33:20 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 11, Moe in his article "God Visits Mr and Mrs Manoah" on the Christ My Covenant article gives arguments that the angel was God.

I believe I said that was a Christophany. Therefore it would (in my opinion at least) have been God.  The Christ (the Messiah) was in fact God, therefore any time He appeared in the OT it was God.

Dan C 

I understand, sure.

[rakovsky]

Nov 1, 2019 8:33:20 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 11, Moe in his article "God Visits Mr and Mrs Manoah" on the Christ My Covenant article gives arguments that the angel was God.

In the essay, Moe (Justin Esposito) writes about Judges 13,

Manoah asks Him

Are you the man who spoke to this woman? (v. 11)

And the angel-man replies… and get this:

“I am.”

The answer "I am" reminds me of the name YHWH. It is theorized that YHWH mean something like "I am". In Hebrew, here the Angel's answer is 'ā-nî. However, I read an argument that when Yeshua was interrogated by the Sanhedrin whether He was the Messiah, He replied, "I am", and that in his native language, this would have been Ehyeh, one of the words making up "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh Asher". Doesn't that mean that the I am in Judges 13 show that Yeshua didn't answer with Ehyeh?

Moe notes that Manoah

asks
“What is your name, so that, when your words come true, we may honor you?”

"And the angel of YHWH said to him, 'Why do you ask my name, seeing it is Wonderful?'"
This sounds like more than just an angel, because angels gave people their names like Michael. The couple were in awe of the angel and so he knew that they saw his name as wonderful.

Moe notes that Wonderful is one of the seemingly Messianic divine names in Isaiah 9:

6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of YHWH of hosts will perform this. (NKJV)

About a year ago I got into a discussion or nonheated debate with a nonMessianic Israeli who was also a professed Skeptic and took the view that the TaNaKh never actually predicts the Messiah and she asked me to show her a passage that does. I showed her this passage, which is one of the main ones that rabbis use to say that the Messiah is in the TaNaKh. Unlike my interlocutor, the rabbis perceive the Messiah concept to be Biblical. She replied that the title giving of Isaiah 9 is in the past tense and is about the birth of a historical Israelite noble who did not live up to his subjects' high hopes for him. I don't know if you have any light to shed on this that would prove definitively that the Messiah concept is Biblical.

It strikes me that even if the passage in Isaiah 9 is at face value about a known historical Jewish royal, then Almighty God is too high a title for him and besides, since the author Isaiah or his students would have known that the literal noble did not live up to expectations, then they wouldn't have included such accolades for the historical noble in their final version of their prophetic Book.

Next, Moe writes:

Once He has answered Manoah with His title-name “Wonderful,” something else happens in order to clinch His identity for us:

19 So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it on the rock to YHWH, to the one who works wonders, and Manoah and his wife were watching.
20 And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of YHWH went up in the flame of the altar. Now Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground.
21 The angel of YHWH appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of Yahweh22 And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.”

That Judges 13 notes that YHWH works wonders, that the angel's name is Wonderful. as well as Manoah's assertion that he saw God suggests to me that YHWH was the angel.

The article "Manoah's Wife" says:

But the angel answered, “Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret,” or “wonderful,” as the margin expresses it, where the same term is used of the promised Messiah. “His name shall be called Wonderful” (Isaiah 9:6). The same word is used in the phrase, “the angel did wonderously” (Judges 13:19). As angels do not receive worship, the supernatural person the over-awed couple saw was no ordinary angel, for they fell on their faces and said, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God” (Exodus 33:20). It is clearly evident, therefore, that Manoah and his wife had witnessed one of those Old Testament theophanic appearances of Christ.

The couple had asked the angel's name to honor him, and they fell on their faces when he went up, suggesting worship, and the Bible doesn't counter their statement that they saw God, so it suggests that the man was God.

As to how they could see God and live, my answer is that God came in the form of a man.
The woman and the chapter itself repeatedly referred to the angel as a man, like when she said: “A Man of God came to me, and His countenance was like the countenance of the Angel of God, very awesome".
The wife of Manoah gave a good explanation: “If the Lord had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands, nor would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have told us such things as these at this time.”
So God wanted to appear to them without killing them, so He must have done so in a way that they could handle.

The teaching that one cannot see God and live, given in Exodus 33, must mean that a normal person in a physical body cannot look at God in His divine essence and live because of how powerful it is.

Natalya Budur in the book Orthodox Faith reasons that since we would go blind from staring at the sun, then this would be even true if we looked at God, who is stronger than the sun.

In Orthodox Prayer Life, Matta Al-Maskeen notes that St Irenaeus took the view that man cannot see God of his own power, but that God can reveal Himself to man, like in visions. (Against Heresies, 4.20.5)

In 1 Timothy 6, Paul notes that God "alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power."

[alon]

Nov 2, 2019 21:55:30 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Nov 1, 2019 8:33:20 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 11, Moe in his article "God Visits Mr and Mrs Manoah" on the Christ My Covenant article gives arguments that the angel was God.

In the essay, Moe (Justin Esposito) writes about Judges 13,

Manoah asks Him

Are you the man who spoke to this woman? (v. 11)

And the angel-man replies… and get this:

“I am.”

According to my interlinear, the terms used for "I AM" here and in Ex 13 are different. Here it simply says אני "Ani." In Ex 13:11 it says אהיה "Ehyeh." So your next statement is correct:

The answer "I am" reminds me of the name YHWH. It is theorized that YHWH mean something like "I am". In Hebrew, here the Angel's answer is 'ā-nî. However, I read an argument that when Yeshua was interrogated by the Sanhedrin whether He was the Messiah, He replied, "I am", and that in his native language, That too is probably correct, since Yeshua was a Jew and Hebrew was His native tongue. And the NT was originally written in Hebrew as well. However we must consider He was before what amounted to a Roman court, so there is the outside possibility He actually answered in a different tongue.  

this would have been Ehyeh, one of the words making up "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh Asher". Doesn't that mean that the I am in Judges 13 show that Yeshua didn't answer with Ehyeh? I don't know we can say it means that, as we must make the assumption the messenger (angel) speaking to Manoah was indeed Yeshua. I believe it was, but I can't really prove it. Since the entire NT was translated into Greek we cannot know for sure what Yeshua said before Pilate. My best guess though would be He said "Ehyeh."

Moe notes that Manoah

asks
“What is your name, so that, when your words come true, we may honor you?”

"And the angel of YHWH said to him, 'Why do you ask my name, seeing it is Wonderful?'"
This sounds like more than just an angel, because angels gave people their names like Michael. The couple were in awe of the angel and so he knew that they saw his name as wonderful.

Moe notes that Wonderful is one of the seemingly Messianic divine names in Isaiah 9:

6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of YHWH of hosts will perform this. (NKJV)

"Wonderful" is a title given the Messiah. Titles and names seemed to be a little more closely related in the Bible than what we see them. But that phrase "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God" would, for example, be accepted here as a name/title for Yeshua, protected under all the rules for speaking of Almighty God. 

About a year ago I got into a discussion or nonheated debate with a nonMessianic Israeli who was also a professed Skeptic and took the view that the TaNaKh never actually predicts the Messiah and she asked me to show her a passage that does. I showed her this passage, which is one of the main ones that rabbis use to say that the Messiah is in the TaNaKh. Unlike my interlocutor, the rabbis perceive the Messiah concept to be Biblical. She replied that the title giving of Isaiah 9 is in the past tense and is about the birth of a historical Israelite noble who did not live up to his subjects' high hopes for him. I don't know if you have any light to shed on this that would prove definitively that the Messiah concept is Biblical. Some people are just determined to say the Messiah is not in the TNK, or that the Messiah is actually Israel (the most common argument against Isaihah 53 is it talks about Israel), or anything at all other than admitting Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah. This is born mostly of 2000 yrs of church persecution in the name of Jesus. You can do a search for all the prophecies and pick out some of the more obvious ones He fulfilled. But be ready for the argument that Yeshua cannot be HaMoshiach because He didn't fulfill all the prophecies. Here is where a really good understanding of the feasts would be helpful. 

It strikes me that even if the passage in Isaiah 9 is at face value about a known historical Jewish royal, then Almighty God is too high a title for him and besides, since the author Isaiah or his students would have known that the literal noble did not live up to expectations, then they wouldn't have included such accolades for the historical noble in their final version of their prophetic Book. Agree.

Next, Moe writes:

Once He has answered Manoah with His title-name “Wonderful,” something else happens in order to clinch His identity for us:

19 So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it on the rock to YHWH, to the one who works wonders, and Manoah and his wife were watching.
20 And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of YHWH went up in the flame of the altar. Now Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground.
21 The angel of YHWH appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of Yahweh22 And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.”

Manoah was not all that bright. Seeing God you'd instantly die, but in his fear he didn't think. However as Yeshua said "And whoever sees me sees him who sent me." (John 12:45). So if the messenger was a Christophany he'd still see God and not die. I believe the anciets had some understanding that God could appear to them as a man, because as with Ya'akov wrestling with the messenger, he knew it was God.

That Judges 13 notes that YHWH works wonders, that the angel's name is Wonderful. as well as Manoah's assertion that he saw God suggests to me that YHWH was the angel. I agree. However there is the slightest bit of ambiguity there. 

The article "Manoah's Wife" says:

But the angel answered, “Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret,” or “wonderful,” as the margin expresses it, where the same term is used of the promised Messiah. “His name shall be called Wonderful” (Isaiah 9:6). The same word is used in the phrase, “the angel did wonderously” (Judges 13:19). As angels do not receive worship, the supernatural person the over-awed couple saw was no ordinary angel, for they fell on their faces and said, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God” (Exodus 33:20). It is clearly evident, therefore, that Manoah and his wife had witnessed one of those Old Testament theophanic appearances of Christ. And that to me is the most important evidence of all. Angels never accepted worship, which was due only to God. However this messenger had left when they fell on their faces. Still, I have to believe the messenger would have poked his head in the door and at least whispered "Get up, I'm just an angel" had this not been a Christophany. That or another angel would have appeared and told them. Something. This is not a thing (I at least believe) that God would have allowed had they not indeed been in the presence of God manifest as a spirit being in human form. Which I again believe to be Yeshua, just because God's character is consistent. 

The couple had asked the angel's name to honor him, and they fell on their faces when he went up, suggesting worship, and the Bible doesn't counter their statement that they saw God, so it suggests that the man was God. Again, I agree.

As to how they could see God and live, my answer is that God came in the form of a man. And again, I agree.

The woman and the chapter itself repeatedly referred to the angel as a man, like when she said: “A Man of God came to me, and His countenance was like the countenance of the Angel of God, very awesome".
The wife of Manoah gave a good explanation: “If the Lord had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands, nor would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have told us such things as these at this time.” So God wanted to appear to them without killing them, so He must have done so in a way that they could handle. Yep. 

The teaching that one cannot see God and live, given in Exodus 33, must mean that a normal person in a physical body cannot look at God in His divine essence and live because of how powerful it is. And how holy, righteous; man cannot live in this incarnation in the presence of pure goodness and truth. I say we seek the truth here, but the truth we receive, while it can be overwhelming is still seen "as through a mirror dimly." (1 Cor 13:12) We couldn't handle the whole truth. I suspect if we even knew the full effect some of our actions have had, we'd die of and horror. How much more devastating to compare ourselves to absolute Good. 

Natalya Budur in the book Orthodox Faith reasons that since we would go blind from staring at the sun, then this would be even true if we looked at God, who is stronger than the sun. Simple blindness would be a mercy.

In Orthodox Prayer Life, Matta Al-Maskeen notes that St Irenaeus took the view that man cannot see God of his own power, but that God can reveal Himself to man, like in visions. (Against Heresies, 4.20.5) LROL, I often wonder if any of these church fathers actually read their Bibles. Moshe saw God and lived, however special provision was made for this to happen. And did they even read (and believe) heir "New" Testament? Was Yeshua/Jesus not God made manifest to man? Even as a Trinitarian you believe Jesus is God, right? 

In 1 Timothy 6, Paul notes that God "alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power."

1 Timothy 6:11-16 (ESV) But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

As I said, even when God chose to reveal Himself to Moshe, special provisions were made. And Moshe's face shone from the experience so that he had to cover it for the sake of others.

What commandment was he referencing?

STRONGS NT 1785: ἐντολή the Sept. often for מִצְוָה, in the Psalms the plural ἐντολαί also for פִּקְּוּדִים; an order, command, charge, precept;
1. universally, a charge, injunction: 
2. a commandment, i. e. a prescribed rule in accordance with which a thing is done;
a. universally, ἐντολή σαρκικῇ (σαρκίνη G L T Tr WH), a precept relating to lineage, Hebrews 7:16; of the Mosaic precept concerning the priesthood, Hebrews 7:18; of a magistrate's order or edict: ἐντολήν διδόναι, ἵνα, John 11:57.
b. ethically;
α. used of the commandments of the Mosaic law: ἡ ἐντολή τοῦ Θεοῦ, what God prescribes in the law of Moses, 

 So technically, he could have been just saying "Do what I just told you," or he could have been saying "Keep ye ." I would argue that "flee these things [bad, unrighteousness]. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith" kind of sums up . At any rate, God's instructions in holy living are found in . If all the Bible either points forward or back to Yeshua, then I'd also posit Yeshua and His apostles pointed back to also. Truth is universal, interrelated and closely bound. Destroy one part of it and you destroy it all. The same with God's Word. To nullify any part of it would be to diminish God's Light, as though any man could do that. The church fathers tried to change the Word, and they managed to do so AFTER Yeshua and His apostles were gone. Paul apposed the earliest ones vigorously, but after him their teachings took hold. They "[wore] out the saints of the Most High [Nazarenes], and [thought] to change the times and the law;" (Daniel 7:25b) The times were Shabbat and the feasts, and the law is . They did the work of ha'satan, effectively diminishing the light of the Word on earth, but God's light still could not be hidden completely. They changed His Word (over 5800 Greek source documents for the NT which almost all disagree), and that they even translated it into pagan Greek and said it was original. But the truth, God's truth is still there if we look for it apart from church (or any other) dogma. 

You want God's Light? Look for it. Try to uncover it. Learn to think like the original authors, all of whom were Jews. Learn to read everything in context: context of the passage a verse is in, context of everything this writer said, historical and cultural context, and finally context of the entire Bible. Because the Word of God can never contradict itself.

Dan C 

[rakovsky]

Nov 3, 2019 11:51:12 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 2, 2019 21:55:30 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

In Orthodox Prayer Life, Matta Al-Maskeen notes that St Irenaeus took the view that man cannot see God of his own power, but that God can reveal Himself to man, like in visions. (Against Heresies, 4.20.5) LROL, I often wonder if any of these church fathers actually read their Bibles. Moshe saw God and lived, however special provision was made for this to happen. And did they even read (and believe) heir "New" Testament? Was Yeshua/Jesus not God made manifest to man? Even as a Trinitarian you believe Jesus is God, right? 

Sure, Dan.
I read that St. Irenaeus was the first Church father to say that there were four gospels. This would have a been about 177-185 AD. He knew potential students of the apostles like Papias and Polycarp.

So he must not have meant that people could not see the divine Yeshua, but rather that normally people could not see God, but they could when God chose to reveal Himself, like with visions or when he chose to reveal Himself in the incarnation.

The passage in Irenaeus' Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 20 includes:

The prophets, then, indicated beforehand that God should be seen by men; as the Lord also says, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Matthew 5:8 But in respect to His greatness, and His wonderful glory, no man shall see God and live, Exodus 33:20 for the Father is incomprehensible; but in regard to His love, and kindness, and as to His infinite power, even this He grants to those who love Him, that is, to see God, which thing the prophets did also predict. For those things that are impossible with men, are possible with God. Luke 18:27 For man does not see God by his own powers; but when He pleases He is seen by men, by whom He wills, and when He wills, and as He wills.

You also asked which commandment Paul was referencing in 1 Timothy 6. My impression is that he was in general referencing the totality of what he was charging Timothy to observe in his epistle, and that he wasn't specifying a single command alone. Biblehub links the verse you asked about with verse 20, which sounds similar:
20. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

In verse 20, he is charging Timothy to keep what Paul entrusted to him, which could be seen as a whole set of multiple instructions. "That which is committed" is something, but it is made up of multiple things.

Maybe I am wrong, and somewhere else in the epistle he specified some specific commandment, but my take from reading the chapter is that he actually means a set of instructions.

[alon]

Nov 3, 2019 15:51:31 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Nov 3, 2019 11:51:12 GMT -8 alon said:

You also asked which commandment Paul was referencing in 1 Timothy 6. My impression is that he was in general referencing the totality of what he was charging Timothy to observe in his epistle, and that he wasn't specifying a single command alone.
That is the church's impression, and how they render it.

Biblehub links the verse you asked about with verse 20, which sounds similar:
20. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Fair enough.

In verse 20, he is charging Timothy to keep what Paul entrusted to him, which could be seen as a whole set of multiple instructions. Oh, it was!

"That which is committed" is something, but it is made up of multiple things. And it is!

Maybe I am wrong, and somewhere else in the epistle he specified some specific commandment, but my take from reading the chapter is that he actually means a set of instructions. A very well delineated se of instructions, to be sure! Let's look at that entie passage and parse it out:

1 Timothy 6:11-21  (ESV) 11 But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Contextually, Paul had just been speaking to Timothy about all manner of false doctrine. Since there are over 5800 source documents for the NT not in agreement, I once asked someone who'd been on staff at Wycliff how they chose which was the right one. The answer, they went back and compared it to the Pentateuch (). So if you want a baseline for what is right and what is false, I too might suggest you go back to .

Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. As I said, this is a pretty fair summation of .

12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. And just where was this calling from? God, you say; then I ask "Who gave the to Moses?" And if you say the NT says Jesus did away with the hated "Law," I'd say to you there was no NT when this was written. The NT is precisely what was being written here! The only writings they had were basically the TNK. And what they studied there the most by far was . THAT is where Timothy got his calling (not from who, but where), and THAT is where he'd go to find what is false and what is right. Timothy, like Paul and like Jesus before him was an Old Testament, keeping Jew:

Acts 24:14 (NKJV) - "But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the Elohim of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

Romans 3:20 - Therefore by the deeds of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the Law [is] the knowledge of sin.

Romans 7:7a - What shall we say then? [Is] the Law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the Law.

Romans 3:31 - Do we then make void the Law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Romans 7:12 - Therefore the Law [is] holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. 

Romans 7:22  For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
 
How many more would you like? Rav Shaul loved the "Law," . And Yeshua Himsef said the Law would not be altered by even one stroke until when? (Hint- the end of this age). So it would be no stretch to find he is charging Timothy to keep here. Let's see: 

13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, Wait just one cotton-pickin' moment! We need to think about what this is saying here: Rav Shaul did not charge Yeshua what testimony to make to P Pilate! So this takes the discussion away from whatever Paul is saying to Timothy and right back to ! , the one consistent in Jewish faith from the outset. , the base to which, from Joshua to Wycliff men (and women) of the most High God have always gone when asked "What is truth?" And where Yeshua went when asked "What is truth?" by Pilate. He had no "New" Testament. But He did have the Writings, the Prophets, and the base for it all, . HIS !

14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, According to Thayer's, the Greek term entole here translated "commandment" can mean "used of the commandments of the Mosaic law." In this case, that is what makes the most sense. You can't say it means just one commandment, because Paul had just listed a whole bunch of stuff. And you can't say it was plural, meaning that stuff Paul had said, because it wasn't plural. When used here singularly it can only refer to the totality of . Using it to mean just any list would be wrong.

15-17 ... 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, All found in . And I find most Jews to be like this, even today.

19 thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life. Again, true life comes from , which points us to Yeshua. Moreover, it is HaShem's instructions in how to walk with Him as did Adam and Yeshua. Also again, there was no NT to instruct anyone then. Just the TNK, of which Rav Shaul was a scholar!

20 O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” The deposit entrusted to Timothy was God's word:

Romans 3:1-2  (ESV) Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?  Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

The "oracles of God" is His word, at that time the TNK (OT). 

21 for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Already men were trying to twist the word, to do away with all or part of that onerous "Law." To substitute in or mix in pagan worship whee they should have been concerned with worshiping as God said. And how do we know what is true and what is false?

Acts 17:10-11 (ESV) The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Jews, in synagogue, receiving and checking the word brought by Paul and Silas to see if it was true. And how did they know it was? They went where Jews always go to see if something is true; the same place Wycliff translators go: to ! If you read on there you'll see many believed, but the Thesolonicans sent early anti-missionaries to Berea to agitate and keep as many as possible from the truth. 

Grace be with you [all]. And grace starts in . It is an OT concept, not just NT. It is in fact based. So, "HaShems be with ya'l!" (That's a blessing from Southern Israel ...  )

Dan ( ) C

[rakovsky]

Dan,

Thanks for nice correspondence. You asked about Paul/Shaul, "How many more would you like?" You did a good job showing that he was -observant.

You asked: "And Yeshua Himsef said the Law would not be altered by even one stroke until when?
"
He said:
"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
It seems to mean that until the earth passes away, the jots won't pass from the Law until "all is fulfilled". ie. As long as (A) the heaven and earth remain and (B) something is unfulfilled, then nothing will pass from the Law.
The statement implies that if the heaven and earth passed away OR everything was fulfilled, then something could pass from the Law.
I'm not sure, but maybe what basically needs to be "fulfilled" is the Atonement requirements of the Law, and then Yeshua's death would fulfill everything, like when He said on the Cross, "It is accomplished." But maybe this is ambiguous and you could say that things remained to be fulfilled of some kind or for something after Yeshua's death. It seems like an ambiguous statement when taken by itself (ie. ....Until all REGARDING WHAT is fulfilled? Until all of the duties on the Israelite side are fulfilled? Until all Hashem's promises are fulfilled?) and this is getting into a broader issue of the ongoing status of the ritual rules. An important issue, one maybe worth its own thread.

You asked: "And how do we know what is true and what is false?
" It seems like there are different ways, like Divine Revelation, Inspiration, Conscience, Prior Knowledge, Logic.

[rakovsky]

Out of the questions in Books I-V from Adam through the Judges' period, the toughest questions left are in 7. The issue of divine Mercy. OK, I get the idea that God doesn't HAVE to show mercy, but the excuses about killing the innocents like thee kids and animals don't sound great. The excuses that I found are that God can terminate anyone whom He wants to, plus this way the innocents don't get degraded and perverted by Canaanite sinfulness. OK, but couldn't the Israelites have raised the kids? I guess the kids could have grown up resentful, but the killing of the innocents still seems like a tough issue.

And in 9-10, how much prefigurement is there of Yeshua - ie. whether Sisera's temples represent anything and whether Jotham's escape represents anything, such as Yeshua's resurrection (in the vein of Joseph leaving the pit). I know you did a good job trying to give your best answers about that though.

[alon]

Nov 3, 2019 19:17:07 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Thanks for nice correspondence. You asked about Paul/Shaul, "How many more would you like?" You did a good job showing that he was -observant. You're welcome.

You asked: "And Yeshua Himsef said the Law would not be altered by even one stroke until when?"
He said:
"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
It seems to mean that until the earth passes away, the jots won't pass from the Law until "all is fulfilled". ie.
“The jots” are the smallest brush strokes when writing. So Yeshua is saying “Not the smallest thing will pass from the Law until ALL is fulfilled.” We still have the earth as always since the flood, and much is left to be fulfilled; therefore remains in effect.

As long as (A) the heaven and earth remain and (B) something is unfulfilled, then nothing will pass from the Law.
The statement implies that if the heaven and earth passed away OR everything was fulfilled, then something could pass from the Law.
Nay-nay! You cannot replace an “and” with an “OR.” That statement doesn’t imply anything! It clearly says 2 things must happen for to pass: heaven and earth must not remain, AND “ALL” must be fulfilled.

I'm not sure, but maybe what basically needs to be "fulfilled" is the Atonement requirements of the Law,
That’s because you don’t keep the feasts of the Lord. The fall feasts are mostly what is left to be fulfilled. There are some other prophecies not yet fulfilled, like:

Malachi 4:6 (ESV) And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.

This is one you’ll get thrown at you when Jews who deny Yeshua say He cannot be the Messiah. Of course, we know it can be because He gets another chance to fulfill things. But they are right that not all things Messiah is supposed to do have been done … yet.

and then Yeshua's death would fulfill everything, like when He said on the Cross, "It is accomplished."
What was accomplished on the Cross was victory over sin and death. It is HaShem’s plan to restore the covenant, to allow us as sinful men (but trying to follow so we can do better) to walk with Him and share in eternal life. It was ouur sins under the law which were nailed to the cross; the penalty paid by God’s own blood. NOT !

But maybe this is ambiguous and you could say that things remained to be fulfilled of some kind or for something after Yeshua's death. It seems like an ambiguous statement when taken by itself (ie. ....Until all REGARDING WHAT is fulfilled? Until all of the duties on the Israelite side are fulfilled? Until all Hashem's promises are fulfilled? Until all prophecy, including (especially) the feasts of the Lord are fulfilled. Until all requirements of are fulfilled. 
and this is getting into a broader issue of the ongoing status of the ritual rules.
Still in effect. They will have to be done when the Temple is rebuilt (except when that AC jerk is there). But since most of was meant for the priests, you won’t have to worry about it much unless your last name is on this list:

English: Cohen, Cowen, Cahn, Cahan, Carne, Cohn, Cone, Conn, Conway, Cohan, Cohaner, Cahanman, Chaplan, Keohan, Kaplan (Cohan is also an Irish surname and Conway is also a surname of Welsh origin; Cowen is often a variant of the Scottish surname Cowan.)
German: Kohn, Cohn, Kogen, Korn, Kuhn, Kahn, Kane, Konel, Cön/Coen, Katz (a Hebrew abbreviation for kohen zedek(כהן צדק) i.e. "righteous priest"), Jachmann, Jachmann-Kohn, Jachkone, Kogenmann, Kogenman, Kogner, Kogener, Kagen, Cohner, Kohner, Kahnmann, Kahaneman, Cahnmann
Dutch: Cohen, Käin, Kohn, Kon, Cogen
French: Cahen, Cohen, Caen, Cahun, Kahane
Greek: Kots, Kotais, Kotatis, Kothanis (Romaniote Jews)
Hungarian: Kohen, Káhán, Konel
Russian: Kogan, Kogen, Kokhen (Kochen), Pop (Priest) Brevda, Kagedan/Kagidan (in Hebrew, this name is spelled "kaf-shin-daled-nun" and is an acronym for "Kohanei Shluchei DeShmaya Ninhu," which is Aramaic for "priests are the messengers of heaven").Kazhdan/Kazdan/Kasdan/Kasdin/Kasden/Kogan/Kogon/Kozen/Kozer/Kogensohn/Kagan/Kaganovich/Kaganovskyare also possible variations of this name
Georgian: Kotais, Kotatis, Kutatisi, Kutaïssi
Serbian: Koen, Kon, Kojen
Polish: Kon, Kochan, Jach, Kaplan, Caplan, Kaplin, Kaplon, Kaç
Italian: Coen, Cohen, Prohen, Sacerdote (Italian for "priest"), Sacerdoti, Sacerdoti Coen
Spanish: Coen, Cohen, Koen, Cannoh, Canno, Canoh, Coy, Cano, Cao, Correa
Basque: Apeztegui "priestly house", in basque "apaiz" (priestly) and "tegi" (house). Also Apéstegui, Apesteguia, Apaestegui, Aphesteguy
Portuguese: Cão, Cunha, Correia, Coelho
Persian: Kohan, Kâhen, Kohanzâd, Kohanci, Kohani, Kohanqâdoš
Turkish: Kohen
Romanian: Cozer
Arabic: al-Kohen, al-Kahen, al-Kahin
Hebrew: Kohen, HaKohen, ben-Kohen, bar-Kohen, Koheni, Kahana, Kohanim, Kohen-Tzedek/Kohen-Tzadik (Katz)
Others: Maze/Mazo, Mazer (acronym of mi zera Aharon, i.e. "from the seed of Aaron"), Azoulai (acronym from ishah zonah ve'challelah lo yikachu, meaning "a foreign or divorced woman he shall not take": prohibition binding on kohanim), Rappaport, Kahane

Disclaimer: I don’t know about some of those, but they are on the list so I leave them for you

An important issue, one maybe worth its own thread. If you like.

You asked: "And how do we know what is true and what is false?
" It seems like there are different ways, like Divine Revelation, Inspiration, Conscience, Prior Knowledge, Logic.

Divine Revelation- that would make you a prophet, the standard for which is that when speaking of the things of God you are never wrong.

Inspiration- can come from many sources, including demonic; must be checked against the Word to be believed, and all older Word is superior in that anything newer must agree with it. And is the oldest.

Conscience- that can varry greatly depending on culture, how you were raised, and events in your own life; must be checked against a standard to be valid, and God’s standard is .

Prior Knowledge- Japanese Cmndr Mitsuo Fuchida said it best, “, , !” Interesting side note, possibly because he read so much (and I’m being facetious) he became a Christian evangelist after the war (that part is true). But if your “prior knowledge” is not based in , false doctrine is right around the corner (and I’m not kidding at all there).

Logic- I took Logic in college, and was one of only about 7 to get an “A” (out of over 40 students). It’s tough if you really want to get into it. Look at it to determine if there are any of about 5 pages worth of logical fallacies present. Then reduce the whole passage to a series of formulas, work them with every possible variable, and if even one comes up wrong, the entire thing is wrong. Those proofs can go on for pages. I don’t even remember all the things we had to do to prove a passage true or false. Even the simplest statement can be a lot of work! I wouldn’t recommend that path, unless you really want to work out your salvation! Anything less and idiocy awaits in the next dark alley. Better to take the advice in scripture:

Proverbs 3:5-7 (ESV)
Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
    and do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge him,
    and he will make straight your paths.
Be not wise in your own eyes;
    fear the Lord, and turn away from evil.

Evil is sin, and what sin is?

1 John 3:4 (NASB) Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

Sin is lawlessness. What is the Law? “, , !”

Dan ( ) C

[alon]

Nov 3, 2019 19:36:56 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Out of the questions in Books I-V from Adam through the Judges' period, the toughest questions left are in 7. The issue of divine Mercy. OK, I get the idea that God doesn't HAVE to show mercy, but the excuses about killing the innocents like thee kids and animals don't sound great. The excuses that I found are that God can terminate anyone whom He wants to, plus this way the innocents don't get degraded and perverted by Canaanite sinfulness. OK, but couldn't the Israelites have raised the kids? I guess the kids could have grown up resentful, but the killing of the innocents still seems like a tough issue.

And in 9-10, how much prefigurement is there of Yeshua - ie. whether Sisera's temples represent anything and whether Jotham's escape represents anything, such as Yeshua's resurrection (in the vein of Joseph leaving the pit). I know you did a good job trying to give your best answers about that though.

Animals have no eternal soul. They are even given into our hands to kill: for food, for game management, for pest control, ... . When they die, and all must, it is as if they were never here. So killing an animal is no sin unless done cruelly or wantonly. 

Killing the innocent children with everyone else is a tough question, and one which has bothered Christians reared on "God is love" without the opposing side, God can hate. I guess the first consideration is there'd be no room on the Ark for all those children, and there'd be far too many for the family of Noach to care for even if there were the room. But moreover these children were probably genetically inclined to ruthlessness. Some people are just born broken. And once again, God probably did not want the line of that next generation polluted, just as when the Hebrews were told to kill all the inhabitants of the land, even infants. Regardless what all His reasons, we must rest in the fact He is sovereign over all! Otherwise, believe me, it will take you places you never want to go! And I am dead serious about that!

Dan (been there) C