Hebrews?

[anochria]

So, where does one discuss the book of Hebrews?

[pioneer]

Apr 27, 2009 23:22:02 GMT -5 anochria said:

So, where does one discuss the book of Hebrews?

On this subject my teacher says to a Christian, "Why are you opening other peoples mail?"

[John]

you can discuss it under shaul, because it is attributed to him. however, i think here would be a more proper place to put it.

if you compare the epistle of barnabas and the epistle of hebrews, they are almost exact in format. however, the theology is obviously changed and far frfom the truth. also, bar-nabba seems to have gooten into gnosticism from his common reference to 'gnosis'... in the NT it is said that bar-nabba fell away from the truth. it is implied that he came back to the truth after wards. this indicates that the epistle of bar-nabba was either

(a) written when bar-nabba fell away (which is unlikely since he fell into the gospel of circumcision and his epistle expresses anti-semetic beliefs) or

(b) writtten after bar-nabba came back to the truth. but he fell away again (which is likely since he fell away a first time) and wrote the epistle ith his name attributed to it.

(c) he fell away to the gospel of circumcision, but something happened that made him go a 180 and proclaim that the chosen people are chosen no more.


another ommon theory is that the letter was written by priscilla.

many of the 'church fathers' atributred hebrews to barnabas, and i agree with this becase of its closeness in format. they are almost identical. you will see when you read them (if you do). now, barnabba has SOME truth to it, but he is lead away esily be fanciful stories.s


shalom-john

[John]

i thought that i might put this down from anochria's board. i posted this and thought it would be a good thing to start discussing the book. ignore the parts not having to do with verses from hebrews.

well, firstly i DO think shauls epistles are authorative. however, they have just as much authority as the rabbinical commentaries. the only idfference is that shaul was following a different, messianic line of thought. he is like the oral law of messianic judaism. not literally, but i hope you get my pint.

secondly, the law that hebrews speaks about is the 'law of works'--- the rabbis teach something similar (actually, almost identical) to the teaching in hebrews. they teach that the law BEFORE the tablets of stone were broken was one of freedom. but after the tablets were broken, it became a law of bondage. it is the same Torah, but with something added. this is the 'law of works' or 'the old testemant' or 'the curse of Torah.' it is what theologicans teach is 'the palestinian cov't.' it is found in dt 28-30 where it lists all the curses for breaking the law. it says that a person is cursed if he doesnt follow all of the law. Yeshua took upon himself thesse curses. NOT that they arte abolished, but that Yeshua took our penalty.

in other words, YHVH's standard is perfection, and adam (man in general at that) could not fill that standard. so Yeshua came down as the second adam. he fulfilled that standard of perfection. Now, the penalty that we should have gootten, YHVH allowed us not to have because Yeshua took the penalty for us (not the sin, the penalty for the sin) as an inoocent person who fulfilled YHVH's standard. If Yeshua was to sin, he could not have taken the curses because only a person who fulfilled YHVH's standard of perfection could offer to take the penalty instead of the guilty.

[quick question: if Torah is the shadow of Yeshua, than how much greater will the commandments of Yeshua be as th eperson who casts the shadow? ]


also, Yeshua NEVER broke the sabbath. even the talmud says that you can heal on the sabbath. also, the TORAH says that a poor man can eat the edge of corn-feilds, barley feilds, etc on the sabbath and NOT BE BREAKING TORAH.


lastly, you are speaking of the sacrificaial system altogether correct? i dont know if i can explain everything to you. however, i will try. i will only explain my perspective on the bolded parts of your post (if this is okay):

there are three views within messianic judaism.the first is held by david stern that not all the sacrificaial system is abrogated, but the part about sin offerings is. (for information purposes: he also says that gentiles do not have to follow kashrut or jewish holidays... i disagree, but i love what he did for messianic judaism, and most of his theology is good.)

i dont think i will have to try to explain this verse by verse, but i will if you want.

the second responds to these verses like this:

1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.

this is NOT said to belittle Torah- rather, it is put here to explain the role of Torah. the fact that there are heavenly thihngs for earthly things is established by the Torah and by the rabbis. there is an earthly temple, heavenly temple, earthly ark, heavenly ark, earthly kingdoms, spiritual kingdoms, etc. however, this draws more off of platos philosophy of 'platos caves.' where the real thing is casting a shadow and on the basis of the shadow alone we cannot understand fully what the creature is that is casting this shadow.

He sets aside the first to establish the second.

sets aside what? not the first sacrificial system. rather, the sacrifices of those before Yeshua could only offer up the blood of animals. so YHVH replaced their sin offereing with another one. however, we shouuld still offer sin offereings, NOT for the forgiveness of sins, rather, for a memory of what Yeshua did. just as shaul himself offered sacrifices, we are to do so also. but again, these are NOT for sins, for if they were, they would be put aside anyway for the blood of Yeshua which can cleanse. these again, are for remembering and acknoweledging that Yeshua is the one who casts the shadow of these sacrifices.

12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God

here bar-nabba (author of hebrews) is explaining that Yeshua is a higher preist with a higher sacrifice that the lower preist and the lower sacrifice is a picture of (not that they are ABOLISHED, but that they are to be seen as a PICTURE OF YESHUA now, not as an instument for forgiveness of sins). He shows the superiority of the melki-tzedekan(melkizidekan) preisthood of HaMashiach (the messiah) by proving that Yeshua did what no cohen hagadol (high preist) ever did... ascend to the right hand of the father by his own will.

there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

here, members of this school of thought would say that there is no longer any need for sacrifice of SIN, but the same sacrifices are now to be viewed as being a shadow of the sacrifice of sin. it reminds us now NOT of our sins anymore, but for our FORGIVENESS of sins. the law hasnt been abolished, but the meaning of this law has changed.

Now, for the school of thought that I personally lean towards more. I DO NOT like the first school of thought, the second one i can deal with, but this one resembles my theology more.

but let me explain this theology as a whole before i go verse by verse: i think that the sacrifices are still to be offered as sin offerings. HOWEVER, i do not think that they will be needed because Yeshuas perfect sacrifice makes them not needed at all. We naturally have a yetzer hara (evil inclination) in our nature because of Ha'Adam. so when we offer the blood of goats and bulls, YHVH is not pleased. why? because he knows that without the blood of Yeshua, we are going to have to offer the sacrifices again. they cant make us perfect. they can incline YHVH to forgive our sins, but they do not take the sins away, because they do not take the Yetzer hara away.

i have proclaimed in earlier posts that our evil inclination is circumcised off as the foreskin of our human nature.So through Yeshua, we are cleansed of our fleshly nature, and given a better nature for our flesh (later in the ressurection actually). without the Yetzer hara, we are not inclined to sin, so it makes it VERY easy not to sin. it makes every sin an intentional act if we were cleansed from it. so Yeshua's sacrifice makes it so that we can 'go and sin no more' AND if we do not sin, we do not have to offer sin sacrifices. he takes our sins away by making it an able thing for us not to sin. we are to be 'perfect even as [our] father in heaven is perfect.' how are we supposed to co this with a Yetzer hara? we cant really.

but Yeshua makes it so that we can be sinless after accepting him. shaul himself offered sacrifices however, and did purification ceremonies- in which case proves that all the ceremonial laws are to be offered if not to do with sin. this might also sugest that after sinning, even as a child of light, you are to offer sacrifices. 1 Yochanon (1 john) speaks extensively on how a child of light ought to live as Yeshua and not sin, but if the child of light does he has Yeshua as a intercessor to be like mosheh- convince YHVH not to destroy the sinners. read 1 Yochanon for more on how a child of light is not to sin.

so basically, it says that the sacrifices of sin are not needed after you offer the sacrifice of Yeshua, in which you should not sin afterwards.

1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.

i agree with the second school of thought's interpretation of this.


let me go through some parts not bolded:

For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' " 8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will."

in other words, the blood of goats and bulls cannot cleanse a person of sin by taking away the Yetzer Hara. they can cause YHVH to forgive the sin, but he is not satisfied with it because the people are going to sin again. but Yeshua says that he will offer his body as a oerfect sacrifice that will make it so that not only the people are forgiven, but it can be made easier for them not to sin as well. they can become perfect and sin no more after offereing this sacrifice. therefore, the sin offereings wont be needed because the people of THE WAY wont sin.

they will be holy.

they will be perfect.

He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

so he sets aside the first what? this is open to interpretation, so it would be foolish to claim any one thing. the context can give this 'first' thing a number of different possibilities of meaning. but it does not suggest the law is abolished as every other verse proves contrary. but i gave one possible meaning in the second interpretation. another one might be that he does not literally sets aside the first, but that he the second sacrificial system is inferior to the first. just like the verse 'Yaakov i loved but Esav i hated.' it does not mean that he hated Esav, but that the older was to serve the younger just as Shaul himself explains in Romans.

another possible (but unlikely) meaning is that the second refers to the second adam, to establish the race of the chosen people.

12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.

this verse again shows that the first is inferior to the last... not that it is abolished, but that it is inferior. Just as Esav was inferior. (as you can see, i favor this interpretation of the previous verse, but i cant be for sure).

I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds."17Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

so when the yetzer hara is replaced with this spiritual nature of the TORAH (the whole torah) being written in their minds, we have no need for sin offerings; the sins in the past have been forgiven AND we have been given the means to go and sin no more.


shalom- john

hope it helps, shalom

john

[John]

so- what do you guys think of my interpretation of hebrews (y'hudi)?

[anochria]

Didn't notice this was here. Okay, I'll get started on some replies.

Apr 28, 2009 13:57:32 GMT -5 John said:

in the NT it is said that bar-nabba fell away from the truth. it is implied that he came back to the truth after wards.
shalom-john

Where do you get this idea that he fell away? That's not how I read the account of Barnabas.

[John]

in galatians bar-nabba was taken by tdhe gospel of circcumcision... we dont know how long this was, but paul makes it seem it was a least for a while. (gal 3)

[anochria]

ah yes. gotcha. I guess I've always just viewed this as a very temporary lapse, akin to Peter's.

Okay, then, next question: why do assume that Barnabas wrote the epistle of Barnabas? Last I checked that was seriously doubted.

Oh, wait, so you think it's because of linguistic similarities, I see.

Okay, perhaps I can look into that someday.

[John]

it may not be Bar-nabba itself, but i am almost absolutely certain the writer of hebrews and the epistle of barnabas has the same writer. plus, alot of church fathers also said barnabba wrote the epistle to the hebrews.