|
|
Post by John on May 2, 2009 20:59:08 GMT -5
i am really interested in the Yetser hara and yetzer hatov now. i am now forming a theology on hebrews especially, but romans also, as well as other books. by looking at them and applying the concept of the two yetzers, i have realized that the yetzers could have been an ABSOLUTELY VITAL doctrine to 1st century messianic judaism.
iso i was wondering if any of you could help me on the rabbinical doctrine and give me what you think the messianic doctrine is.
any other infformation or such would help
shalom- john
PS- i noticed that there hasnt been alot of posting lately. i urge people to come up with some new topics.
shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by pioneer on May 2, 2009 22:04:13 GMT -5
i am really interested in the Yetser hara and yetzer hatov now. i am now forming a theology on hebrews especially, but romans also, as well as other books. by looking at them and applying the concept of the two yetzers, i have realized that the yetzers could have been an ABSOLUTELY VITAL doctrine to 1st century messianic judaism. iso i was wondering if any of you could help me on the rabbinical doctrine and give me what you think the messianic doctrine is. any other infformation or such would help shalom- john PS- i noticed that there hasnt been alot of posting lately. i urge people to come up with some new topics. shalom You are too young to remember the cartoons of old where they depicted an Angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. These Jewish writers knew the Christian audience did not understand the concept, so an easy way to show it. |
|
|
|
Post by John on May 3, 2009 19:22:03 GMT -5
i remember those cartoons.
does not the 'sin' of romans refer to the Yetzer hara? and the righteousness refers to the Yetzer hatov?
|
|
|
|
Post by pioneer on May 3, 2009 20:40:16 GMT -5
i remember those cartoons. does not the 'sin' of romans refer to the Yetzer hara? and the righteousness refers to the Yetzer hatov? LOL if you have seen those cartoons I am speaking about, you have dug into the archives, because I was about thirteen when I was reading them. On Sha'uls Romans flesh characterization could be yetzer harah, but the spirtitual reference is deffinately not the yetzer hatov, this is the RHK that may in his mind replaced the yetzer hatov. I don't think this is equated to the yetzers, but saying the old man has died and the new creature where-in the RHK dwells. If one is looking for a parallel, proably will see one, but when he reads about the spirit of God in us it seems rather clear that He, Sha'ul is not speaking about inclinations, but the indwelling of Gods' spirit. |
|
