Chat about Hebrews/Judaism

[rosends]

Well we see Him creating living plants and animals. Genesis says all the things He was being pleased to create. "It was good" ... Sure he could have created them but that is adding to the text not taking from it. Clothing for the first sinners isn't exactly good either, eh?

Regarding the word translation yes you are correct - however I still see the connection. After that we see Adam and Eve apparently teaching children what a sacrifice to the Lord is - Abel's was a slaughtered lamb and it pleased the Lord.

Gen 4:3 says "choicest of his flock" -- it doesn't mention lamb. You are adding that in, in the same way that you added in that God sacrificed anything.

 

[rosends]

It's rhetorical - but every line regarding Who God is/what He does is still literal/true. Are you saying the last lines about a Name are then a type of fantasy?

No, every line is a true question by the speaker. But if I wrote "then the guy asked me, 'what color is God's hat?'" That doesn't mean that God is wearing a hat.

 

[CLee421]

Gen 4:3 says "choicest of his flock" -- it doesn't mention lamb. You are adding that in, in the same way that you added in that God sacrificed anything.

Ok. Flock is u

No, every line is a true question by the speaker. But if I wrote "then the guy asked me, 'what color is God's hat?'" That doesn't mean that God is wearing a hat.

I'm not sure I see the connection you're trying to make

 

[CLee421]

Gen 4:3 says "choicest of his flock" -- it doesn't mention lamb. You are adding that in, in the same way that you added in that God sacrificed anything.

Ok a minor detail. Flock, I think of sheep. It is the normal reference correct? So. Animal.

 

[rosends]

Ok a minor detail. Flock, I think of sheep. It is the normal reference correct? So. Animal.

If there is no significance to the specific animal (more clothing is made of leather than lambskin) then I would not recommend adding something extra textual there.

 

[CLee421]

If there is no significance to the specific animal (more clothing is made of leather than lambskin) then I would not recommend adding something extra textual there.

Nor would I. Thank you for pointing that out. I do the same thing when people call the fruit they are an apple.

 

[CLee421]

Nor would I. Thank you for pointing that out. I do the same thing when people call the fruit they are an apple.

Hang on. I realized it says Abel was a keeper of sheep. Within that context can we not see part of the flock he sacrificed was then - a sheep/lamb?

This also is derailing a bit from my intent here but I've slept and am not able to get back on track at the moment

 

[rosends]

Hang on. I realized it says Abel was a keeper of sheep. Within that context can we not see part of the flock he sacrificed was then - a sheep/lamb?

It doesn't say that:
וַֽיְהִי־הֶ֨בֶל֙ רֹ֣עֵה צֹ֔אן
a shepherd of flocks. No mention of the specific animal. Could have been goats.

 

[CLee421]

Ok. Sheep or goat.

My point doesn't change based on the animal.

 

[rosends]

Ok. Sheep or goat.

My point doesn't change based on the animal.

But your point is also based on something not in the text -- "After that we see Adam and Eve apparently teaching children what a sacrifice to the Lord is " No, we don't. In fact, we see the opposite. Adam and Eve don't teach heir children anything of the sort -- the value of Abel's offering is that it is totally self motivated and untaught, a spontaneous and sincere wish to give something up to God. This is the truest worship, unprompted and untaught, without precedent.

 

[Shaul]

What do you make of this please?

Proverbs 30:4
Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Who has cupped the wind in the palms of His hands?
Who has wrapped up the waters in His cloak?
Who established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is his Son’s name?
Surely you know!

Um, you do realize the person speaking those words was not HaShem, right? It was Agur. This passage uses him (and the other “friends” of Job (Iyov)) as a foil to show the ignorance of humanity’s misconceptions.

 

[Shaul]

Paul was an apostate because He began to follow Who he came to believe as the Messiah. Gave up all his comforts for it. That does say something. I'm not familiar with Matthew's errors. One reason I'm here- to get any input possible.

There are so many errors in the Gospel of Matthew vis-a-vis the Tanakh. For example there is that author’s confusion about the prophecy of the messiah riding into Jerusalem. The author of Matthew misunderstands the prophecy as requiring the messiah riding on two animals, a colt and its foal. So Matthew has Jesus riding two animals into Jerusalem at the same time, like some peculiar circus performer. The prophecy really is talking about one animal. Compare that to Luke who got it right, one animal.

 

[ChanaR]

I love both the Old and New Testaments. I do think the OT must be read in light of the NT because God progressively gave more revelation to humanity concerning the Messiah, culminating in the Person of Jesus/Yeshua.

But what exactly do you mean by this? I have found that different Christians mean different things. Some Christians approach the Tanakh objectively, understanding that it was written by Jews for Jews. They make good scholars (and many of them ARE scholars). Other Christians, when they say this, mean that they have a carte blanche to make the Tanakh say whatever they want it to say, regardless of its obvious intent. It becomes a kind of Rorschach inkblot series for them, in which they see Jesus all over the place. Last month I spoke to a Christian who believed every time the Tanakh used the word Salvation it was naming Jesus.

My personal opinion is that it is the New Testament which should be read in the context of the Tanakh, since the Tanakh is the foundation for what came later. But that's just me. To each their own.

 

[InChrist]

But what exactly do you mean by this? I have found that different Christians mean different things. Some Christians approach the Tanakh objectively, understanding that it was written by Jews for Jews. They make good scholars (and many of them ARE scholars). Other Christians, when they say this, mean that they have a carte blanche to make the Tanakh say whatever they want it to say, regardless of its obvious intent. It becomes a kind of Rorschach inkblot series for them, in which they see Jesus all over the place. Last month I spoke to a Christian who believed every time the Tanakh used the word Salvation it was naming Jesus.

My personal opinion is that it is the New Testament which should be read in the context of the Tanakh, since the Tanakh is the foundation for what came later. But that's just me. To each their own.

I'm sure there are various perspectives among Christians. I mean that I believe the Tanakh is God's initial revelation to humanity and He specifically choose the Jews/nation of Israel through whom to do so. The NT is fulfilled prophecy and further revelation. Clearly, even stated within the Tanakh the purpose of such revelation and the blessings promised, though coming through Israel, were not only for the Jews, but the entire world. I believe the light spoken of and promised to come through Israel is the promised Messiah/Savior of the world Jesus Christ.


I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness,
And will hold Your hand;
I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the Gentiles Isaiah 42:8

...I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth. Isaiah 49:6

The reason I think the OT should be read in the light of the NT is simply because God has provided more information which makes the past information more understandable. Just like in a courtroom when new evidence sheds further light on the old information and the entire case.