And those who belong to Christ Jesus have put to death their human nature, with all its passions and desires~Gal 5:24
Death To Self being the title of this blog means exactly what Gal 5:24 says to put to death your old human nature, all its passions, and all its desires. As Christians we often forget that while our physical body stays the same our spiritual body changes. You see there was this guy named Jesus and he loved us so much that he made the ultimate sacrifice and died for you and me. Now I don't know about you but I don't know what I did to deserve that kind of love. We as human beings are dirty inside and out and it is our nature to lie, cheat, and steal yet Christ chose us. He chose us to be given a chance at Salvation to have the slate wiped clean to literally be new....So you see we must embrace this "Death To Self" attitude in order to really understand how to walk by faith, how to live for God, and to seek HIS desires instead of our own.
Amazing post! Coming straight from the mouth of a Godly leader.
ReplyDeleteBen James:
ReplyDeleteTo the one who reads the Bible but told me that I needed someone else to die for my sins, I answered:
“Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons, and sons will not be put to death because of fathers, a man will be put to death for his own sins,”[i] and “The son will not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son, the righteousness of the righteous will be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon him,”[ii]and “Everyone will die for his own iniquity.”[iii]
[i] Deuteronomy 24:16
[ii] Ezekiel 18:20
[iii] Jeremiah 31:29.
Tidbits of Torah:
ReplyDeleteI never asked Christ to die for me....his answer: Love
Isaiah 7:14
Micah 5:2
Isaiah 53:5
Psalms 22:1-31
John 3:16
****John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
P.S. Thanks for checking out the blog..God Bless
Ben James: Isaiah 7:14 in loshon kodesh does NOT have the word "virgin" - the hebrew word is הָעַלְמָה which translates "young woman". Many xtian translators reject Matthew's mistranslation of Is 7:14 and accurately rendered the hebrew word ALMAH as a "young woman
ReplyDeleteIsaiah 53:5 The identity of the "servant" in Isaiah 53, the prophet's fourth Servant Song, appears christological to those who are unfamiliar with the context of this most-debated chapter. The "servant" is thoroughly established at the nation of Israel throughout the first 3 Servant songs, which begin in chapter 41. Moreover, the prophet identifies the "servant" as many people rather than a single individual in 43:10
check out Is 41:8-9, 44:1-2, Is 44:21, Is 45:4, Is 48:20, Is 49:3 Psalms 136:22, Jeremiah 30:10, t
Psalms 22 Ben James? Why would Jesus, the man/god of xtianity, be complaining that "God is so far from helping me?" How could God, the first Person of the Trinity not hear the cries of God, the second Person of the Trinity? To whom is this supposed "God" complaining? The speaker here is moaning that God is not listening to him day and night, and questions his feelings of abandonment when enumerating in the next few verses the times that God did listen and intervene for his ancestors. How can God not understand his own predicament? Applying the words of Psalm 22 to Jesus challenges even the most fertile imagination, and places an enormous strain on Church teachings.
The nagging question that comes to mind Ben James, is: Why did KJV translate the Hebrew word כָּאֲרִי in Is 38:13 correctly, "like a lion," yet deliberately mistranslate this same word as "pierced" in Ps 22:17? These xtian translators were clearly aware of the correct meaning of the word kaari, as evidenced by their translation of Is 38:13. Why then did they specifically tamper with Psalm 22?
Michah 5:2 Christian missionaries contend that the birthplace of Jesus was foretold by the Jewish prophet Micah. Is this assertion true? Does the fifth chapter of the Book of Micah indeed foretell that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem?
In this exciting lecture, Rabbi Singer carefully examines this claim and surveys the evolution of Christian systematic theology. http://www.outreachjudaism.org/Audio/Bethlehem.aspx
Tidbits of Torah:
ReplyDelete1-When it comes toIsa 7:14 this verse is important since Matthew 1:22-23 explains that Jesus’ birth by the Virgin Mary is a fulfillment of this prophecy.While The original Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 uses the word almah, which really does mean “young woman” rather than “virgin.” On the other hand, the Septuagint version of Isaiah, the Greek translation that was used by Jews (The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a "virgin birth," translated "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin," not "young woman." This gives evidence that "virgin" is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.) uses the more specific parthenos, which does mean virgin. At that time an unmarried Jewish almah would be assumed to be a parthenos, so the Septuagint translation was completely reasonable. Although Matthew probably knew the Hebrew original, since he was writing in Greek (like the other authors of the New Testament), he naturally quotes the Greek Septuagint and says “the virgin [parthenos] shall be with child.”
2-While my grasp on the Hebrew language is not as studied as yours I do know that the original Hebrew of Isaiah 53:4 reads as follows: Ochain chalooyenu hu nasah, which literally translated means:Therefore our grief he carried. oomachoveinoo sevalom, which literally translated means:And our sorrow he suffered. Vaanachnu chashavnoo nogua mookeh Elohim umooneh, which literally translated means:And we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.The next verse, Isaiah 53:5, reads as follows in the Hebrew: Veehu mecholul meepshaenoo, which literally translated means:And he was wounded for our sins. Medooka meavonoteinoo, which literally translated means:bruised for our transgression.moosar shlomeinoo alloy, which literally translated means:The chastisement of our peace was upon him. Ooyachavoorato neerpa lahnoo, which literally translated means:and with his stripes we are healed. Since Isaiah was a Jew, the "we" referred to in his Chapter 53 means the Jews. The distinction is made between "we" (us, our) the Jews, and "he" who bore our sins. The "he" is an individual, someone other than the Jewish nation as a whole.
3-While some believe Christ was proving tht he was both Man and Human in that moment clearly He was consciously quoting this Psalm as an illustration to all that would come after, that He was fulfilling this Old Testament prophecy. This is the key to understanding why the Lord would say this. Jesus Christ, as the living "Word of God" in the flesh, is the application of God's revealed will concerning the atonement for sin by the wrath of God poured out upon man. And His question in Psalms 22:1 of, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me," is answered in Psalms 22:3. That is why God had forsaken Him. Because to a holy God, that sin is abhorrent to, this is a great offense. And as Christ hung on the cross, He was laden with our sins. So in Christ quoting this Psalm, He was revealing that it prophesied of Him and how He would atone for the sins of man against a holy God.
4-The problem with that translation is that it is not a complete sentence. There is no verb, no infinitive, and no participle! That makes the phrase ambiguous. For example, technically it could mean “My hands and feet are like a lion.” However, this would make no sense. Here, the sufferer is in a weakened condition. He is not in any condition to attack like a lion.The passage makes it clear that he is a passive victim—not an aggressive lion. Technically, it could also mean, “a lion is like my hands and my feet.” However, this also makes no sense in the context of this passage. The sufferer’s hands and feet are not swift, strong, and ready to pounce like a lion.
5-As for Michah 5:2 one of the most common misconceptions about this passage is that some think that Bethlehem Ephrathah is a name not a place. So why don’t we take a look at few other verses….
ReplyDelete1Chr. 2:50 These were the descendants of Caleb. The sons of Hur the firstborn of Ephrathah: Shobal the father of Kiriath Jearim,
1Chr. 2:51 Salma the father of Bethlehem, and Hareph the father of Beth Gader.
1Chr. 2:52 The descendants of Shobal the father of Kiriath Jearim were: Haroeh, half the Manahathites,
1Chr. 2:53 and the clans of Kiriath Jearim: the Ithrites, Puthites, Shumathites and Mishraites. From these descended the Zorathites and Eshtaolites.
1Chr. 2:54 The descendants of Salma: Bethlehem, the Netophathites, Atroth Beth Joab, half the Manahathites, the Zorites,
1Chr. 2:55 and the clans of scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, Shimeathites and Sucathites.
Could the Bethlehem of verses 51 and 54 have been a PERSON instead of a CITY? What data do we have from the passage? Ephrathah was an alternate spelling of Ephrath (v. 19)--the WIFE of Caleb. Bethlehem (vs. 51) is in the middle of the following literary structure:
Shobal the father of Kiriath Jearim (a city name)
Salma the father of Bethlehem (a ? name)
Hareph the father of Beth Gader (a city name)
This literary structure argues STRONGLY that Bethlehem in this verse is a CITY NAME as well. The word for 'father' in these passages, in light of the numerous place names, is generally understood as 'chief' or 'ruler' in verses 24,42,45,49-52. Bethlehem itself is understood as a place name in ALL OT REFERENCES and NEVER as a person. in verse 54, Bethlehem is in parallel to Atroth Beth Joab--a Place name. in verse 4.4 the phrase 'father of Bethlehem' is paralleled in verse 5 with 'father of Tekoa'--a known place name (and not a person). Additional data that supports the position that IT COULD NOT BE A PERSON'S name: "Beth" compound words occur hundreds and hundreds of times in the OT Hebrew, and they NEVER refer to human beings. [The two 'exceptions' are foreign loan-words: Abraham's brother in Mesopotamia (e.g. Gen 22.22) and a foreign deity (e.g. Zech 7.2)] If 'Bethlehem Ephratah' was referring to a 'Bethlehem SON of', the Hebrew form would have typically been "Bethlehem BEN-Ephratah" which of course is NOT what the passage says. (cf. Ben-Hadad, Ben-Hur, Ben-Hail). I know that early Hebrew lineage descriptions ALWAYS used the FATHER's name as surname--NOT the MOTHER'S (esp. with a living father). So a person would have been referred to as "Bethlehem Ben-Salma" (father); "Bethlehem Ben-Hur" (grandfather); or "Bethlehem Ben-Caleb" (great-grandfather) correct me if im wrong. Finally, the 1st century Jews all understood the reference to be the town of Bethlehem.So...the data is rather conclusive that the phrase in Micah 5.2 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN referring to a PERSON….. Now this is just a tidbit of one of the many discussion’s that can be had over Micah but we could be on our computers all night long. Which is why I would like to respectfully remind you that this blog is not for debate. Im not saying that those are your goals at all but I do want to be clear on that and I also want you to know that I respect you as a person (and your religion) and would expect the same mutuality’s.
God Bless
Point taken Ben James - a debate is not needed as you have your faith and I have mine. I am merely pointing out to you the Jewish teachings. After all the Torah was given to the Jewish nation and who but the Jewish sages would know better their own Torah?
Deletehttp://thejewishhome.org/counter/Micah5_1.pdf
Shalom
Thank you for responding Ben James. Let me first start of this reply by stating that instead of addressing my posting of God's word that no man can die for another's sin, you gave all the supposed prophecies. May I ask why you did this?
ReplyDeleteLet me now reply to point 1.
The Greek word Παρθένου (parthenos) can mean either a young woman or a virgin. Therefore, Παρθένου can be found in the Septuagint to describe a woman who is clearly not a virgin. For example, in Genesis 34:2-4, Shechem raped Dinah, the daughter of the patriarch Jacob, yet the Septuagint refers to her as a parthenos after she had been defiled. The Bible reports that after Shechem had violated her, “his heart desired Dinah, and he loved the damsel (Sept. parthenos) and he spoke tenderly to the damsel (Sept. parthenos).” Clearly, Dinah was not a virgin after having been raped, and yet she was referred to as a parthenos, the very same word the Septuagint used to translate the Hebrew word alma in Isaiah 7:14.
Moreover, the Septuagint in our hands is not a Jewish document, but rather a Christian recension. The original Septuagint, translated some 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish scholars, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone, and is no longer in our hands. It therefore did not contain the Books of the Prophets or Writings of the Hebrew Bible such as Isaiah. The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the Church, not the Jewish people. In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, which are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint.
I will address other points in another posting. Shalom to you.
regarding #2 Ben James, the opening segment of the Fourth Servant Song, Isaiah 52:13-15, was in the "voice" of God. As Chapter 53 opens, an abrupt change occurs in the "voice", and now the prophet conveys the words of the (Gentile)
ReplyDeletenations. In this segment, the (Gentile) nations are still "speaking" and, as they begin to recognize Israel's proper place and role in history, they confess their guilt and admit the unjust mistreatment Israel at their hands.
The correct Jewish translation is:
But he was pained because
of our (the gentile nation's) transgressions,
crushed because of our
(the gentile nation's)iniquities; the chastisement of
our (gentile nation)welfare was upon him,
and with his (Israel) wounds we were
healed.
Israel is described elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible as being despised:
Isaiah 49:7 – Thus said the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to him who is
despised of men, to him who is abhorred by nations, to him who is a slave of rulers, …
Nehemiah 3:36 – Hearken, our God, for we have been despised, and return their reproach upon their head, and make them despised in a land of captivity.
Israel is also described as being forsaken:
Isaiah 60:15 – Instead of your being forsaken and hated without a passerby, I will make
you an everlasting pride, the joy of every generation.
Israel is described as being afflicted, with the adversities often likened to injuries and diseases:
Isaiah 1:5-6 – (5) Why are you beaten when you continue to rebel? Every head is
[afflicted] with illness and every heart with malaise. (6) From the sole of the foot to the
head, nothing in him is whole; only wounds and contusions and fresh sores; they have
not been treated, and they have not been bandaged, and [the wound] has not been
softened with oil.
Jeremiah 10:19 – Woe is to me for my hurt; my wound is acute, and I said [to myself],
"This is but an illness, I will bear it".
#3 I refer you to my initial post. “Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons, and sons will not be put to death because of fathers, a man will be put to death for his own sins,”[i] and “The son will not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son, the righteousness of the righteous will be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon him,”[ii]and “Everyone will die for his own iniquity.”[iii] [i] Deuteronomy 24:16 [ii] Ezekiel 18:20 [iii] Jeremiah 31:29.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Ben James - you should know that G-d abhors human sacrifice. We are taught this lesson when Avraham offered his son Yitzchak and yet another place when G-d warned us not to pass our children through the fires as the goyish nations were doing.
G-d's Word does not change - He abhors human sacrifice and He has taught us that we are responsible for our sins.
Well that is very interesting I must say and I am glad that we both have a mutual respect for each other. I have enjoyed this conversation and while I am christian and you are Jewish it is nice to have a "civil" conversation.
ReplyDeleteP.S. May God watch over you in all that you do.John 20:29