jewish

[rosends]

I didn't know the terms "Orthodox" and "Chasid" were interchangeable. And you really must refer these nearly 50 other Orthodox Jewish forum hangers to RF.

and I find it funny that the only Jews in the world who say it is Hezekiah are on RF and none is in any of the Jewish communities in the world.

 

[Kenny]

Hi Kenny, Thanks for your help. There's still something missing; can we look at it together?

We're talking about John 3. Specifically verses 3, 5, and 6.

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
​

I propose that these verses introduce new laws which did not exist in Tanach. I appreciate the verses you brought, but none of them speak about the "Kingdom of God". That's required, but missing. There's also no mention of being born of water. That's required and missing. Also, "Being born of The Spirit" is an important element. The Ezekiel quotes support an indwelling, but not birth.

These are great questions. I suppose we might find ourselves discussing like a Jewish family, arguing about anything and everything.

I say "argue" because there is much that could have different meanings, imagery, analogies et al but this is what I found:

Ezekiel 36: 25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

We stand on that it is the breath of God gives life. The very Spirit of God.

As I view it, to have a new heart and a new spirit denotes a spiritual birth, a new beginning a new life. Interestingly enough, it also mentions the water that cleans.

The flesh is circumcised (that which is flesh is flesh) - but it is the spiritual heart that is circumcised by God (that which is spirit is spirit)

Deuteronomy 30:6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

I view it as becoming part of the Kingdom of God. I am a citizen of the US because I was born in the US. If you were born in Eswatini, you are in its Kingdom. So when one is born by the Spirit of God, having received a new heart and a new spirit, you have entered into God's Kingdom where He is now the King of your life.

That's my two cents.

 

[dybmh]

These are great questions. I suppose we might find ourselves discussing like a Jewish family, arguing about anything and everything.

I say "argue" because there is much that could have different meanings, imagery, analogies et al but this is what I found:

Ezekiel 36: 25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

We stand on that it is the breath of God gives life. The very Spirit of God.

As I view it, to have a new heart and a new spirit denotes a spiritual birth, a new beginning a new life. Interestingly enough, it also mentions the water that cleans.

The flesh is circumcised (that which is flesh is flesh) - but it is the spiritual heart that is circumcised by God (that which is spirit is spirit)

Deuteronomy 30:6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

I view it as becoming part of the Kingdom of God. I am a citizen of the US because I was born in the US. If you were born in Eswatini, you are in its Kingdom. So when one is born by the Spirit of God, having received a new heart and a new spirit, you have entered into God's Kingdom where He is now the King of your life.

That's my two cents.

Thanks for getting back to me on this. I guess the follow up question is, if in Tanach Ezekiel is talking about a spiritual rebirth ( including the water imagery ), how do we know that this is a law and not a prophecy? Meaning in Ezekiel and Deuteronomy the verses are phrased in the form of "this will happen". Saying what will happen is prophecy, yes? The verses in John say "Truly, unless you do this, then". Saying 'if not, then not' is describing divine consequences, action-reaction, that's a law, yes?

So, how did it go from prophecy to law? Could that be described as a Christian innovation?

 

[Kenny]

Thanks for getting back to me on this. I guess the follow up question is, if in Tanach Ezekiel is talking about a spiritual rebirth ( including the water imagery ), how do we know that this is a law and not a prophecy? Meaning in Ezekiel and Deuteronomy the verses are phrased in the form of "this will happen". Saying what will happen is prophecy, yes? The verses in John say "Truly, unless you do this, then". Saying 'if not, then not' is describing divine consequences, action-reaction, that's a law, yes?

So, how did it go from prophecy to law? Could that be described as a Christian innovation?

Great thoughts... had to think on this one. Maybe we can unpack this together.

Let me go back, for a minute, to a scripture in Deuteronomy chapter 11:

13 And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the Lord your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, 14 That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil. 15 And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full. 16 Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them; 17 And then the Lord's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the Lord giveth you. 18 Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.

1) Is it referencing the future? Yes
2) It is talking about the promised land, prophetic? Yes
3) Is there a commandment to love the Lord your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul? Yes
4) is there a divine consequence if you don't? Yes.

But I wonder if you can really "command" someone to love. Is it really a law as we understand a law? Or is it a spiritual principle that governs relationship.

I know I am commanded to love my wife--but I can't see it as a law in and of itself but rather a spiritual principle that governs relationship. It still is a commandment, but is it a law as we understand laws? Or a direction that fulfills God principles?

EDIT:

This would be a precursor to completely answering great questions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which "millions of atheists"?
Which "prophecy"?

Isaiah says Messiah will be Prince of Peace.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you admit that there was peace during Hezekiah's time thus fulfilling his role as a prince of peace. Thank you. Pity there wasn't peace anywere around Jesus's time, just the diaspora in which we still languish. You seem to have forgotten that.

The diaspora was likewise prophesied to occur following the Jewish people's rejection of Messiah!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Isaiah says Messiah will be Prince of Peace.

'Isaiah' says any number of things. Therefore? To offer this as evidence that ...

...... --even millions of atheists--see JESUS has fulfilled the prophecy ... !

is simply absurd. It is also either really dishonest or really dumb. Just who are these millions of atheists who see Jesus as Isaiah's Prince of Peace?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The diaspora was likewise prophesied to occur following the Jewish people's rejection of Messiah!

The author of Luke was really good in predicting the past.

 

[rosends]

The diaspora was likewise prophesied to occur following the Jewish people's rejection of Messiah!

oooh, coupla problems -- the first is that the diaspora was prophesied to occur after the rejection of God. The second is that by shifting your focus on this, you have completely ignored (dare I say conceded) the point I made about Jesus's not being, by your own standard, a prince of peace.

 

[dybmh]

Great thoughts... had to think on this one. Maybe we can unpack this together.

It's good brain food Thanks for the discussion.

Let me go back, for a minute, to a scripture in Deuteronomy chapter 11:

OK.

1) Is it referencing the future? Yes

I vote: no. I think I see what you're saying, but the directives aren't in the future. They are to be carried out immediately.

2) It is talking about the promised land, prophetic? Yes

IF the Jewish people do not take heed, are deceived, and follow other gods THEN they will persish from the good land. Even if possessing "the good land" is in the future, it's still if then, and to me that's a law not prophecy.

3) Is there a commandment to love the Lord your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul? Yes
4) is there a divine consequence if you don't? Yes.

I agree to both.

So, for me, my opinion, I don't see Deuteronomy 11 helping to clarify whether or not the verses in John 3 are innovations.

But I wonder if you can really "command" someone to love. Is it really a law as we understand a law? Or is it a spiritual principle that governs relationship.

I know I am commanded to love my wife--but I can't see it as a law in and of itself but rather a spiritual principle that governs relationship. It still is a commandment, but is it a law as we understand laws? Or a direction that fulfills God principles?

It's a great question. It's discussed in Chassidus, how can one be commanded to love? The answer given by Rabbi Schnuer Zalman of Liadi is that there are two types of love. One that is only achievable by a few, and one that is achievable by everyone ( a natural or rational love ) which comes from meditation and contemplation of God and creation. According to the Rabbi, it is appropriate to command to love of the second type.

The love you're describing as a principle of a relationship, I think falls under the 2nd catagory. It could be tested by meditating on your wife, her aspects, your experiences together, kids, grandkids, etc... If it's a natural rational love, contemplating on these ideas should light up the furnace, so to speak.

Maybe what you're observing is that without a relationship, even a rational/natural love is not possible?

 

[Kenny]

I vote: no. I think I see what you're saying, but the directives aren't in the future. They are to be carried out immediately.

Ok...

It might be getting a little dicey here. IMV. They hadn't entered into the promised land yet. (the first generation didn't even enter in). Could go either way. Sounded futuristic to me. It was prophesied and, yes, it does have a connotation of "go do it" type of a law but hadn't done it as of that moment... Shades that intersect?

IF the Jewish people do not take heed, are deceived, and follow other gods THEN they will persish from the good land. Even if possessing "the good land" is in the future, it's still if then, and to me that's a law not prophecy.

It seem like much of prophecies do carry a "do this or suffer the consequences". Like Jonah speaking to Ninevah, "If you don't repent, you will die". Prophetic in utterance and yet there is a shade of law.

I would say it is still a love issue. If you love God with all of your heart, would you follow other gods? Sounds more like a spiritual issue (if love is spiritual) and spiritual principles.

In essence "love" says "if you don't... then"; "if you do then" - shades that intersect?

I agree to both.

So, for me, my opinion, I don't see Deuteronomy 11 helping to clarify whether or not the verses in John 3 are innovations.

ok

Personally, I don't see it as innovation - but that is what we are discussing. (I am thankful that you are making my brain work)

It's a great question. It's discussed in Chassidus, how can one be commanded to love? The answer given by Rabbi Schnuer Zalman of Liadi is that there are two types of love. One that is only achievable by a few, and one that is achievable by everyone ( a natural or rational love ) which comes from meditation and contemplation of God and creation. According to the Rabbi, it is appropriate to command to love of the second type.

The love you're describing as a principle of a relationship, I think falls under the 2nd catagory. It could be tested by meditating on your wife, her aspects, your experiences together, kids, grandkids, etc... If it's a natural rational love, contemplating on these ideas should light up the furnace, so to speak.

Maybe what you're observing is that without a relationship, even a rational/natural love is not possible?

And maybe that is the Kingdom that God is talking about? Not a natural love but a supernatural love? A love that is for all (a new heart where I will write the laws on them myself) and no longer a few that can achieve the works of love through Joshua 1:8?

Maybe the key is in the parable of the prodigal son.

The Father gave the free will to his son - he went off and did his thing. You could say he left his fathers kingdom (like Adam (mythologically speaking or real - it doesn't matter). The prodigal, as well as Adam, left his father's domain. The father for the prodigal (And Father God for His creation) just waited to see if he would come back to His kingdom.

The son came back. The brother acted out the law (I served you and what did I get?) The son received the Kingdom back - full rights and privileges... back to the Garden of Eden. This is a love that is not rational or naturally achievable because it goes beyond and eye for an eye law mentality.

Let me summarize: (although, quite frankly, I'm not sure it is any clearer than mud)

I don't see it as an innovation as much as I see it as a fulfillment of Ezekiel and other verses. A New Covenant and not a new law, a new priesthood with a different bar of requirements or expressions thereof.

My brain is spinning - not sure if I am making sense.

 

[dybmh]

My brain is spinning - not sure if I am making sense.

Yes, you're making sense. It's a heady topic. I'm going to let what you said ... marinate for a bit. I really liked the Jonah reference. That's really helpful.

If I come up with something pertenent, question or comment, I'll reply further. Thanks Ken.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The author of Luke was really good in predicting the past.

Scholars agree Luke's author wrote before 70 AD. The main diaspora was in the 2nd century.

 

[BilliardsBall]

'Isaiah' says any number of things. Therefore? To offer this as evidence that ...

​

is simply absurd. It is also either really dishonest or really dumb. Just who are these millions of atheists who see Jesus as Isaiah's Prince of Peace?

WHY is it absurd. I believe the Tanakh is God's Word including prophecies vital to all people.

 

[BilliardsBall]

oooh, coupla problems -- the first is that the diaspora was prophesied to occur after the rejection of God. The second is that by shifting your focus on this, you have completely ignored (dare I say conceded) the point I made about Jesus's not being, by your own standard, a prince of peace.

Yes, Jesus is God and was rejected, then the diaspora.

Jesus is the Prince of Peace in two ways--individuals receive peace trusting Him for salvation; He will usher in the Millennium as a Messianic age of peace according to Tanakh.

 

[rosends]

Yes, Jesus is God and was rejected, then the diaspora.

There was also a disapora after the first temple, because of a rejection of God, well before Jesus was born, so stating that as the cause and effect makes no sense.

Jesus is the Prince of Peace in two ways--individuals receive peace trusting Him for salvation; He will usher in the Millennium as a Messianic age of peace according to Tanakh.

So you have redefined "prince of peace" and your critique of Hezekiah is no longer relevant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Scholars agree Luke's author wrote before 70 AD. The main diaspora was in the 2nd century.

From Wikipedia: Gospel of Luke:

Most modern scholars agree that the main sources used for Luke were a), the Gospel of Mark, b), a hypothetical sayings collection called the Q source, and c), material found in no other gospels, often referred to as the L (for Luke) source.[7] The author is anonymous;[8] the traditional view that it was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of Paul, is still occasionally put forward, but the scholarly consensus emphasises the many contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.[9][10] The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80–110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.[11]​

So, were you being deceitful or sloppy?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

WHY is it absurd. I believe the Tanakh is God's Word including prophecies vital to all people.

Yet again: Just who are these millions of atheists who see Jesus as Isaiah's Prince of Peace?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Scholars agree Luke's author wrote before 70 AD. The main diaspora was in the 2nd century.

The Gospel According to Luke, written in roughly 85 C.E. (± five to ten years)
Historical Context for Luke/John by Unknown | The Core Curriculum.

In other words, decades after the events, quite long enough for legend and myth to slip into the account. Certainly after the destruction of the temple.

 

[metis]

The Gospel According to Luke, written in roughly 85 C.E. (± five to ten years)
Historical Context for Luke/John by Unknown | The Core Curriculum.

In other words, decades after the events, quite long enough for legend and myth to slip into the account. Certainly after the destruction of the temple.

A great many of the Judeo-Christian scriptures fall into this category, and of course we can pretty much assume a great many of the narratives are twisted to express beliefs.