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?

[brianbbs67]

[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.

Its mysterious that no one can define it. What are the tenants of this law? What are we to follow now?

[brianbbs67]

[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.

Ok, so what's the "new " law? God surely spelled it out so we wouldn't have to look here or there , or cross a sea to find it?

[brianbbs67]

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

Biblically, Hebraically, OT style, can a person remarry someone they divorced and have it be holy before God? This covenant was not between 2 parties, but God and man , multitudes. Short biblical answer is no. This is what the priests and pharisees wondered about for millennia. How could Israel be brought back into covenant and not defy the law?! One of them had to die. Christ played this role for God. How he did it, is amazing. I can only hope to have such faith.

Also, why would you terminate your contract if you were in the right? Are you saying God capitulated to man?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 83 by brianbbs67]

So in what sense did you speak of a divorce?

Irael was divorced for adultery for going after other gods.

What is a divorce? A divorce is ....?

[JehovahsWitness]

Give me God's quote on this?

• If it's "a new car", is it the same car?
• If it's "a new house", is it the same house?
• If it's "a new contract", is it the same contract ?
• If it's "a new covenant", is it the same covenant ?

HEBREWS 8:13 - NWT

In his saying “a new covenant,� he has made the former one obsolete

If it's "not like the former covenant can it *be* the former covenant?

JW

[PinSeeker]

The Noahic covenant of life was new compared to God's covenant of life with Adam and Eve; it was a renewing of the covenant of life, in the short run life on earth, in the long run eternal life in Christ (Romans 6:23).

The Abrahamic Covenant was new in that it contained all the promises of Adamic and Noahic covenants, and promises regarding how big it would be (numbering as the stars of heaven and a land to dwell in (in the short run the land of Israel, in the long run the whole earth -- "The meek shall inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5), we are co-heirs with Christ (Ephesians 3:6, Galatians 3:29).

The Mosaic covenant was new in that it contained all the promises of the older covenants and the gave the people a Law to live by (in the short run the Ceremonial, Civil, and Moral law, in the long run having the law written on our hearts and summed up by loving God and loving our neighbor, the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2)

The Davidic covenant was new in that it contained all the promises of the older covenants and gave Israel a king, in the short run David himself, in the long run a Forever King, Jesus (1 Timothy 1:17, Revelation 19:16).

Finally, the Jesus covenant is new not in the sense that it's something that's never been given before, but new in that it encompasses all the lesser covenants that came before -- life, people, land, government, and a king -- and is a final, perfect, new manifestation of all the lesser covenants and that has no end.

This is the one everlasting Covenant. There are not two different covenants (or many different covenants), bur rather one, finally manifested in a new, perfect Way. This is Covenant Theology (and Biblical), as opposed to Dispensationalism, which not Biblical. This is the unfolding story of the Bible, starting with the seed planted in Genesis 3:15 in the Garden and finally blooming full in the perfect Rose, Christ Jesus, who:

* was born in a lowly stable in humble estate
* fulfilled the law, leading a life without sin
* suffered under Pontius Pilate and was crucified
* died and paid the wages of sin on our behalf
* rose again on the third day
* ascended into heaven, sitting at the right hand of God the Father
* and will come again to make all things brand new.

Ah, the Gospel! It is such a wondrous and glorious thing!

Grace and peace to you all.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 86 by PinSeeker]

If I understand you correctly, you have discovered that the covenants build upon the prior? That is correct. They include the previous and encompass it fully. And then they add to it.

[brianbbs67]

Give me God's quote on this?

• If it's "a new car", is it the same car?
• If it's "a new house", is it the same house?
• If it's "a new contract", is it the same contract ?
• If it's "a new covenant", is it the same covenant ?

HEBREWS 8:13 - NWT

In his saying “a new covenant,� he has made the former one obsolete

If it's "not like the former covenant can it *be* the former covenant?

JW

Its different but the same.

Verse 33 I will write my law upon their hearts. I will be there God and they will be my people. (if it was different, God would have spelled it out with His prophets before He announced it) So, welcome to the New covenant as it is written on our hearts.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 83 by brianbbs67]

So in what sense did you speak of a divorce?

Irael was divorced for adultery for going after other gods.

What is a divorce? A divorce is ....?

God's divorce of Israel is spelled out. He kept His side of the covenant and Israel did not and committed adultery so egregiously that He divorced their marriage(covenant). Yet, interestingly, He says they will come back and He will put them back in covenant. This can not happen unless one partner of the marriage dies. Then the other partner can remarry legally. The Hebrews debated endlessly how God would accomplish this without breaking His law. See, God never breaks His word. He follows His covenant even when we don't. He is blameless. Enter Yehoshua bin Yakov(or a very close equivalent), fully embodying the spirit of God, after John's baptism. The rest is written done for the most part for all to see. We don't have to travel across a sea, or search here and there. The word of God is with us. It can literally be in our eyes and therefore in our minds and hearts and living being. All we have to do is look.

[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.

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.

Why do you say that JWs insist that everyone say "Jehovah"?? Didn't I say, above, that it doesn't really matter if we say "Jehovah," "Iehovah," "Yaveh," or any of the dozens of renderings of the Divine Name according to whatever language someone speaks"?

You say JWs are wrong, about something that we don't even do!

We haven't forgotten God's name. The Tetragrammaton is in the Bible around 7,000 times, and is translated in various ways, "Jehovah" being the most common translation in the English language.