Who was called "God"(Heb. 'elohim) or "the LORD"(Heb. YHVH) who appeared in the O.T?

[Paultoo]

Re: Who was called "God"(Heb. 'elohim) or "the LORD"(Heb. YHVH) who appeared in the O

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Clearly the plan was in place at the time of creation.
Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

That act showed us that blood offerings were what covered sin not just any offerings. The story of Cain and Abel and all later teaching emphasizes that to offer to God gifts of fruit, money or other things is of no value unless we have first had our sins put away by a blood sacrifice. [

God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac for us. Because Abraham obeyed God, when we hear this story we can just begin to understand what it must have been like for God when he sent HIS only son Jesus to die on the cross for us. How hard that must have been for God.

When Jesus died on the cross, he took the punishment for our sins. He took the punishment for all the bad things we will ever do. God sent Jesus to take our place just like he sent the ram to take Isaac’s place.

Of course I believe it was Jesus(or whatever you want to call him before his incarnation as a man) who taught Adam and Abel, and tested Abraham, and spoke to Moses.

Yes a bit beyond comprehension but was his plan from the very beginning. God's way is perfect even if somewhat baffling at times.

Dor...if what you say in the above is true; then are you also saying that He taught the ancient Israelites to offer blood sacrifices to atone for sins, as He taught Adam and His family; and as He tauight Abraham and his family?
And aren't you then by extenxion also saying that since salvation was not limited to Adam and his family; nor to Abraham and his family; that salvation then was never limited to the Israelites; And if salvation was never limited to the Israelites; that then the Israelites were only chosen by Elohim as a specific people through whom He could unveil to all humanity by the sacrificial ceremonies; the plan He had formulated even before He created humans-the Plan of salvation- the Plan in which His Only Son would be killed as THE LAMB SACRIFCED FOR THE SINS OF ALL MANKIND?

And if you are saying as I believe you are saying; then aren't you also saying that any lessons taught to the Israelites are in fact lessons that are not only meant for the Israelites; but meant for all of humanity? And if such is the case why is Christianity as practiced by the majority of persons wearing this title, relegating the old testament as being just for the Jews of Judaism?

And if they are wrong in relegating the old testament as "just for the Jews of Judaism" wouldn't they then be also wrong; and in being wrong would also have misinterpreted the intent of God in His Plan of salvation as written in the old testament?

And if they have misinterpreted the plan of God in the old testament; wouldn't they then have also misinterpreted His Plan in the new testament as well?
How could you misinterpret the old testament, in which God's entire plan to save humanity from sin is given; but yet correctly interpret the new testament in which the plan is fulfilled?


Please answer if you can!



Paultoo

 

[adriyel]

Re: Who was called "God"(Heb. 'elohim) or "the LORD"(Heb. YHVH) who appeared in the O

Hello again, its been awhile since I've posted. (I am a Christian who is studying Messanic Judaism/Hebrew, although I will always consider myself a Christian.)

Elohim is hebrew for plural strong ones, which I believe to hint at the triune nature of God and therefore refer to the whole trinity of God (it?)self.

Yahweh is God's true name, and could be interpreted to refer to either the trinity or the Father. I lean towards it referring to the Father personally due to the fact that Elohim is used (seemingly) specifically for the trinity.

God has many other names, 10-20 to my knowledge at least as far as how he is referred to. Adonai means Lord, and is the only name for God that should be translated as "Lord" IMO. Mind you this title is ***only*** applied to Jesus in the NT, so I disagree with KJV's prolific use of the term "The LORD".

On a side note, in the OT, when the KJV specifically refers to an "Angel of the LORD", I believe it is referring to a preincarnate Christ.

I hope I touched on what you wanted me to. I think the other names for God should be fairly obvious in denotation.

May God's love consume me and spill over to all,

Adriyel (Of God's Flock/Congregation)

 

[bananabrain]

Re: Who was called "God"(Heb. 'elohim) or "the LORD"(Heb. YHVH) who appeared in the O

i am trying to understand why some people are so sure that jesus is the messiah while others are equally sure he is not.

because for both camps getting an answer that matches their beliefs is really, really important! if jesus *was* the jewish messiah, then christians would be right and we would have a whole raft of stuff to deal with. equally, if we are right and he wasn't, then christians have to completely rework their theology. being jewish, we were the people to originally define the category messiahship, as it were, so we just use our texts and our interpretations with the results already noted. so, basically, the argument goes, "these are the criteria, jesus doesn't fulfil them, end of argument." because christians do not accept the same criteria (for whatever reason) they don't accept the result of the process driven by those criteria and categories.
from somewhere else....

i have heard jewish complaints that the christians have tampered with translations of the jewish scriptures, for example using capital letters for Lord where there are no capitals in hebrew, so i wanted to ask someone who is christian but specifically jewish christian who can understand the hebrew scriptures why they have decided to accept the christian viewpoint.

oh, i see. well, they might be convinced by the arguments put forward to link the figure of jesus both linguistically and metaphorically to all the references that are said to be to him. this thread is arguing somehow that certain Divine Names in genesis are in fact prophetic visions of jesus appearing to abraham and so on. needless to say, from my PoV these have absolutely no credibility and their persuasiveness is entirely rhetorical, or belief-based if you prefer.

is it a question of interpretation? how much of the problem is down to interpretation and how much is specific tampering. as i cannot read hebrew myself it is very difficult for me to try to make sense of the differences.

this is quite a big issue, you see, because it is impossible to actually make sense of what a given verse means without some knowledge of hebrew and its context. otherwise, you're at the mercy of the spin of the translator. in fact, we would say that without a knowledge of the oral tradition that goes with the written text you're really still nowhere at all. christians in general are unaware of the oral tradition and what it says, even such basic commentaries as that of rashi (france, C12th). in a way, it really comes down to who you trust - you always end up having to either trust a tradition, a translator or an interpreter at some point. and, obviously, i am more likely to trust people who have the same values as myself. hence..

It was Jesus who was there...before the world knew Him...

the Text does not support this in any way.

When G!D visited Abraham; He showed himself as a human, who sat with Abraham and literally ate baked cakes and ate a meat dinner provided by Abraham.

not G!D but a messenger of G!D. in other words an angel. there is nothing in the Text to indicate that jesus was involved.

If we look at the Jerusalem Targum we see a further identification of who came to him: GENESIS 18:1 Therefore was there a word of prophecy from before the Lord unto Abraham the Just, and the Word of the Lord was revealed to him in the valley of vision; and he sat in the door of the tabernacle, comforting himself from his circumcision in the fervour (or strength) of the day. (Jerusalem Targum, translated by J.W. Etheridge)

"targum" is aramaic for "translation". so any interpretation of this rests on an identification of the aramaic phrase "the word of the Lord" with jesus - which rests in turn upon the first verse in the gospel of john. in the hebrew original, no mention is made of "the word of the Lord". in the aramaic, the word "memra" is used, which is indeed identified with speech, but this does not have the same connotation. it just means that G!D Spoke. in a jewish context this is usually an allusion to the Divine Presence/Shechinah - in other words, nothing to do with jesus. the same thing goes for every time you see the phrase "the word of the Lord" - in hebrew, this could be connected to the phrase "vayomer HaShem" - "and G!D spoke...." but likewise, this is still to do with the Shechinah, not Jesus. i agree that if you believe that connection between the targums and john 1:1, it looks like him, but if you don't, it's just an opinion. the targumim do not have religious authority for us, apart from the targum onkelos, really.

1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

again, i would answer: says paul. there's no actual indication from the Text that this has anything to do with jesus. one might possibly make a better argument from peter, but nobody does.

'Elohim knew that He was going to die for the sins of Adam; then it must have been Elohim that taught Adam and consequently Abel to offer an animal sacrifice to atone for the sin committed by Abel.

ahem. this is quite simply not supported by the Text. there is nothing to indicate that animal sacrifices are related to the sin of adam, or even the sin of abel. it is simply that that was the normal mode of worship. in fact, the crucial episode here is the mock-sacrifice of isaac - which doesn't actually occur. one might even say that the idea that someone actually has to die by sacrifice is exactly where the difference between judaism and the original cultural context occurs. if jesus had been executed by knife and fire this might hold up a bit better - but he wasn't. method of sacrifice is incredibly important in the Temple cultus. nowhere in the Torah is any mention made of hanging or crucifixion - because it's a roman method of execution, not a jewish one.

it must stand to reason that the sacrificial system was developed and designed to teach humans that ultimately Our Elohim would present himself as our sacrifice to atone for our sins.

not if you understand either that particular name (nothing to do with the trinity - show me the connection!) or the sacrificial system.

Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
That act showed us that blood offerings were what covered sin not just any offerings.

at no point are these described in the original Text as "sin-offerings" - just offerings. there's an important difference.

Y--- is G!D's true name, and could be interpreted to refer to either the trinity or the Father. I lean towards it referring to the Father personally due to the fact that Elohim is used (seemingly) specifically for the trinity.

absolute nonsense. show me one piece of evidence. the plural has no connection to the number three.

the Y-name (or Tetragrammaton) is not known to anyone (apart from maybe a select group). it was known only to the high priest and pronounced correctly only once a year on the day of atonement (yom kippur) in the Temple. the idea that we know the correct pronounciation (that which is commonly incorrectly rendered as "yah-weh" is completely without foundation and a 19th-century idea.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Bandit]

for the 'criteria' for Moshiac- hogwash! Jesus fulfilled it all & will continue to fulfill it all.

for the sacrificial animal system for atonement of sin see Lev. 4 & 17

as for Paul- absolutely a man of God and an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ

1Cor 10- most definately speaking of Jesus & not Peter.

as for the theology, i will give that much, however it is not a salvation issue so it does not matter to me, how one sees that.

 

[bananabrain]

for the 'criteria' for Moshiach - hogwash! Jesus fulfilled it all & will continue to fulfill it all.

sorry, bandit, it's not 'hogwash'. the only body that is qualified to recognise the jewish Moshiach is the "supreme court" of jewish religious law, a full sanhedrin of 71 members. for christians to insist that they can confer a halachic status upon someone is like a group of british barristers insisting that they can overrule the US supreme court. it's a matter of jurisdiction. of course, you are entitled to believe what you like and to apply your own set of criteria, but they have no standing within judaism. similarly, as has been made abundantly clear over the last two thousand years (and, just for completeness, here's a clear statement of them: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/handbook/s_messiah.html ) by even the most generous interpretation, jesus, though undoubtedly a great teacher, a great man and a major spiritual figure, does not meet them. the only way that this can be resolved is for us to agree that christians and jews mean different things by messiahship. christians cannot redefine jewish criteria that apply to jews - it's simply a nonsense.

for the sacrificial animal system for atonement of sin see Lev. 4 & 17

the sacrificial system is *very* specific. of course there is such a thing as a "sin-offering" - in fact there are various different types for various different sins. what i am saying is that there are also many *other* types of offerings, including "wave-offerings", "heave-offerings", "burnt-offerings", "meal-offerings", all of which have different rules and are used in different ways. there's no one type of sacrifice that atones for everything, as it were. the sacrifice of cain and abel is well established as being "bikkurim" - the bringing of "first fruits". just show me one bit of source Text (ie Torah or even Tanach) that links a sacrifice with something that can be recognisably related to jesus. so far, the original Text itself does not support your arguments. if you want to take the sacrifice argument itself over to the "comparative religion", feel free.

1Cor 10- most definitely speaking of Jesus & not Peter.

i know that. what i was saying is that there is no apparent connection between jesus and the concept of a rock, as opposed to peter, whose name is etymologically linked. G!D is called "Rock of israel" upon occasion, but again, i can't see what this has to do with jesus.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Bandit]

sorry, bandit, it's not 'hogwash'. - it's simply a nonsense.


b'shalom

bananabrain

sorry bb, i know all about the different sacrifices & the 'criteria'. i stick with what i already said. hogwash. you can pick it apart, reject it, slander it, mock Jesus & the Apostles but you will never sink it.
Jesus is the rock & chief cornerstone-Peter is the rock that was set 'in stone' right next to Jesus. TWO different rocks, one building.

the christians here do not put your beliefs down, (as in the jewish beliefs are nonsense) it would be appreciated if you would do the same.

& one more thing- while there may be a time when the jewish oral tradition may be of some help, i see nothing in there that obligates the gentile to any such tradition. IOW, the jew is not the only source who can interpret scripture. The Holy Ghost will lead & teach & guide into all truth.

you keep waiting & waiting & i will stay with the man Christ Jesus is Moshiach.
from here, you will be arguing with yourself.

maybe one day we can do a another study on the different sacrifices but right now, i have nothing else to add.

 

[Quahom1]

You two remind me of the Rabbi, the Pope and sign language...

Understood signing, but different meanings.

v/r

Q

 

[InLove]

Hi, and Peace to All Here--

What an interesting discussion. I realize no one has posted for a while, and so I am a bit late in joining. Seems it pretty much came "full circle" anyway.

And I don't even know how relative this is to the heart of the conversation, but I just want to say it. I have always loved the name, "I Am." The great I Am. It resonates in the depths of my very being.

Anyway, just wanted to say that, and that this is a very cool study thread. Thanks for starting it, Dor.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Dor]

Re: Who was called "God"(Heb. 'elohim) or "the LORD"(Heb. YHVH) who appeared in the O

Im hoping to see what some of the new people on the boards respond to this.

 

[Bandit]

Re: Who was called "God"(Heb. 'elohim) or "the LORD"(Heb. YHVH) who appeared in the O

Im hoping to see what some of the new people on the boards respond to this.

oh, i remember this as well Dor. i dont think too many are going to understand this. i remember arguing with BB too, but we kissed & made up.

if we aint seeing Jesus somewhere in the OT, then we aint seeing it right. *wink wink*

 

[Dor]

Re: Who was called "God"(Heb. 'elohim) or "the LORD"(Heb. YHVH) who appeared in the O

Isnt BB great you can disagree and go toe to toe and he can decide you are crazy and then never hold it against you again )