Original intent and the Sh'ma..

[Elijah John]

The Jewish Sh'ma (their statement of faith) reads:

"Hear O Israel, YHVH is God, YHVH is one".

Some Evangelicals read the Trinity into this affirmation of God's oneness.

For debate. Was it the ancient Hebrews' original intent to convey the doctrine of the Trinity when they formulated the Sh'ma? What is the evidence for this?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 44 by brianbbs67]

God DID abolish the Law because of what Christ did. Jesus was doing what Jehovah (God) told him to do, and because of Jesus' obedience Jehovah did what He said He would do and set forth a NEW covenant.

[JehovahsWitness]

How does a marriage end? Biblically. One of the partners has to die. Then they can remarry. Irael was divorced for adultery for going after other gods. Yet, YHVH said they would come back into covenant.

If one party in a marriage dies the contract between them ENDS/ is terminated/finishes. In Israel's case, you are correct, neither parties died but due to spiritual "adultery" the parties were divorced. What is a divorce but a termination of the marriage contract?

Is that what you are saying that the Mosaic covenant was terminated due to one of the parties breaking their agreement? Because that is exactly what a divorce is.

When a couple remarry after a divorce it's a new contract, it isn't a "renewed". A NEW marriage would be a completely different marriage (albeit with the same parties), A REnewed one would be the first one repaired of damage. If they were never legally divorced then they do not need to get remarried, but as you say, this was not to be the case with Isarael, as you said they were divorced!

A couple that remarry after a divorce cannot say they have been married "since the days of Moses" they have to say "we have just remarried", they may add that they have been married twice. They did not renew their first marriage contract, They got another one.AFTER THE FIRST ONE ENDED

So is that what you are saying with the nation of Israel, that the first (Mosaic ) covenant finished/was terminated/ended (like a divorce) . And then after that they they got another a "new covenant" to replace it.

If that is your point, you are correct.





JW

[onewithhim]

You use a retranslated RCC bible.

I'm curious. Do you mean "a retranslated RCC Bible" in the sense that the NWT is a translation of the Septuagint or Vulgate, or do you mean in the KJV-only, conspiracy theory, Westcott and Hort were agents of both the Catholic Church and the literal Satan sense?

The first one. The cannon is the same, 66 books. Just tweaked to their liking.

"Tweaked" to whose liking? Have you taken the time to compare versions of the Bible, including Interlinear versions? Can you say with certainty that the NWT is the result of someone trying to distort scriptures to match someone's wayward ideas?

How about you showing us some SPECIFIC examples of scriptures that have been "tweaked."

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 36 by JehovahsWitness]

To brianb---Jesus said to obey the Torah because he hadn't fulfilled it yet. When he died on the stake, that is when he fulfilled the Law, as I brought out in POST #32. After that, the Law became obsolete.

"In this saying 'a new covenant,' he made the former one OBSOLETE." (Hebrews 8:13)

Would you comment on my post #32 please?

Christ never claimed to end the law. Just the opposite. What is waxing and waning is not finished. It is still in affect until heaven and earth and all the prophets come to pass. So, yes apparently the 613 laws of Moses will end some day. They just haven't yet.

You have to remember, that Yeshua didn't start a new religeon. He called the hebrews back to following the Torah without the man made traditions which prevented God's instruction(torah) from happening.

I complete my duties every day as a medical professional. I have fulfilled them. I will not stop fulfilling them tomorrow or the day after.

Or more simply, I am a full believing christian today. So, tommorow I can do as I please?? Because i fulfilled it yesterday? Fulfilling every day is what we are supposed to be doing.

[JehovahsWitness]

So, yes apparently the 613 laws of Moses will end some day. They just haven't yet.

So you recognise the Mosaic Law contract was never intended to be eternal?

So, yes apparently the 613 laws of Moses will end some day. They just haven't yet.

So what will mark the end of this covenant*?


* Remember a covenant is like an agreement or a contract between at least two parties)

[onewithhim]

I'm curious. Do you mean "a retranslated RCC Bible" in the sense that the NWT is a translation of the Septuagint or Vulgate, or do you mean in the KJV-only, conspiracy theory, Westcott and Hort were agents of both the Catholic Church and the literal Satan sense?

The first one. The cannon is the same, 66 books. Just tweaked to their liking.

What's "Catholic" about the New World Translation? The source text is apparently a custom text, but so is the NIV. It's based on the Biblia Hebraica for the Hebrew and Westcott and Hort for the Greek, neither of which is a Catholic text.

It's got enough dodgy translation decisions based on theology rather than linguistics that I wouldn't trust it for a Bible study, but once again, I'd say the same thing about the NIV.

First thing would be Jehovah. They rail against the RCC but use the english vowels for Adonai placed into YHVH created by a 12th century RCC monk. Of all the posible names for God this is the least likely. The original(RCC) was Yahovah as the J didn't exist until after the first KJ. Today the RCC says Yahweh/Yaveh is most likely correct. They are probably right or close. But we will never know until it would be revealed. Seventh day Adventists also come from the meeting of minds that formed the JW movement.

My biggest point of disagreement in its accuracy is, they came up with a doctrine and then translated the same documents as the Catholics and tweaked them for years to match what they had established as their truth. I believe the RCC did the same for much longer. Makes neither right or honest.

Coming up with a belief system and writing a book about it is fine. To make an existing book match your belief is not. The book says what it says. Not what you can bend it to say.

It's interesting that you just can't stand the name "Jehovah." We know that "J" didn't exist for the King James original translation in 1611. It was, to them, "Iehovah," and Jesus was "Iesus." It really doesn't matter if we say "Jehovah," "Iehovah," "Yahveh" or any of the dozens of renderings of the Divine Name according to whatever language someone speaks. Please show us just how JWs "tweaked" the scriptures to uphold their own doctrine. Just how did they "bend" the Bible to say what they wanted it to say. You made the accusation, now show us SPECIFICALLY exactly how you can defend your accusation.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 74 by brianbbs67]

Christ never claimed to end the law.

Christ didn't end the law, his Father YHWH Jehovah did!

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 62 by brianbbs67]

What is mysterious about the New Covenant? It has been outlined for you several times. It is very clear, and anyone who bothers to make even a cursory examination of JehovahsWitness's arguments and links should be able to get a pretty good idea of what the New Covenant is all about.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 74 by brianbbs67]

Christ never claimed to end the law.

Christ didn't end the law, his Father YHWH Jehovah did!

Give me God's quote on this?

[brianbbs67]

I'm curious. Do you mean "a retranslated RCC Bible" in the sense that the NWT is a translation of the Septuagint or Vulgate, or do you mean in the KJV-only, conspiracy theory, Westcott and Hort were agents of both the Catholic Church and the literal Satan sense?

The first one. The cannon is the same, 66 books. Just tweaked to their liking.

What's "Catholic" about the New World Translation? The source text is apparently a custom text, but so is the NIV. It's based on the Biblia Hebraica for the Hebrew and Westcott and Hort for the Greek, neither of which is a Catholic text.

It's got enough dodgy translation decisions based on theology rather than linguistics that I wouldn't trust it for a Bible study, but once again, I'd say the same thing about the NIV.

First thing would be Jehovah. They rail against the RCC but use the english vowels for Adonai placed into YHVH created by a 12th century RCC monk. Of all the posible names for God this is the least likely. The original(RCC) was Yahovah as the J didn't exist until after the first KJ. Today the RCC says Yahweh/Yaveh is most likely correct. They are probably right or close. But we will never know until it would be revealed. Seventh day Adventists also come from the meeting of minds that formed the JW movement.

My biggest point of disagreement in its accuracy is, they came up with a doctrine and then translated the same documents as the Catholics and tweaked them for years to match what they had established as their truth. I believe the RCC did the same for much longer. Makes neither right or honest.

Coming up with a belief system and writing a book about it is fine. To make an existing book match your belief is not. The book says what it says. Not what you can bend it to say.

It's interesting that you just can't stand the name "Jehovah." We know that "J" didn't exist for the King James original translation in 1611. It was, to them, "Iehovah," and Jesus was "Iesus." It really doesn't matter if we say "Jehovah," "Iehovah," "Yahveh" or any of the dozens of renderings of the Divine Name according to whatever language someone speaks. Please show us just how JWs "tweaked" the scriptures to uphold their own doctrine. Just how did they "bend" the Bible to say what they wanted it to say. You made the accusation, now show us SPECIFICALLY exactly how you can defend your accusation.

I have no problem with Yehovah, except to claim its correct, 100%, is wrong. We have forgotten His name, Hashem, as He said we would.