In the first hour Dr. Brown will speak with Jacob Fronzak about his two new books on why the Church needs to rightly understand Yeshua and Israel; in the second hour, he’ll catch up on Israel-related news and take your Jewish-related calls. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
As part of this week’s book/dvd combo, we are making available to you Dr. Brown’s book The Real Kosher Jesus: Revealing the mysteries of the Hidden Messiah and Dr. Brown’s personal testimony on DVD, LSD to PhD (not available through our online store). Order Online Here!
“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
The root of your theology, nay the cornerstone is built on Revelation being written AFTER the extinction of Judaism in 70 AD. If it was written before, then all of the bible is fulfilled. How about the promises? All the promises are in Jesus and they are yes and amen. Zechariah 13 shows God and the Jews agreeing to officially END the mosaic covenant. Can’t see the truth around you? Put off your worldly way of thinking and open your spiritual eyes. Dozens of bible characters had too. Maybe you think you’re stuck in an everlasting covenant (that doesn’t exist; Zechariah). Well that’s where all the “dying” language comes from. Jesus died for you, you’re no longer obligated to Moses. It’s ok to stop ramanticizing about your transJudaism. You have a new identity in Jesus, you’ve put off the old Jewish man and are a new creation.
John, what terribly unfortunate, misplaced comments. They’re not really worthy of being posted, but since they so expose the wrong spirit of anti-Israel preterism, they’ll be allowed to stand. However, if you post again, it must be without the insults and rhetoric.
How is Zechariah 11 (specifically 9-14) not God annulling the covenant He made with the Jewish people?
Keep reading John- go down to verse 16. Again it is crystal clear God will Save all Israel. Thanks John for using your arguement to bolster mine!
Zachariah is also very insightful (the whole chapter) Do not cherry pick your theology John. The bible is a big book- even whole chapter’s have to be read as the whole and not picked to support a bad theology.
I do believe all of Israel & the world have access to salvation at no cost. As with God saying He wants to annul the mosaic covenant at a cost of 30 silver pieces, which the high priest paid. How is believing scripture cherry picking? Not even Michael brown has an answer for Zechariah 11 9-14.
You sound quite haughty. I assume that you are a young man that knows not how to entreat an elder as a father.
If you would read Zachariah in Hebrew, you would see that it is YHWH’s covenant with the nations (The Hebrew says peoples/nations not people singular.) that He brakes. Zachariah breaks the stick favor/beauty when He quits being their shepherd and stops protecting and feeding them. So in this prophecy/parable, YHWH takes away His favor and protection so that Israel can be judged by the nations. This in no way negates the Sinai covenant just like when YHWH sent Judah into captivity and scattered Israel to the nations it did not nullify YHWH’s covenant with Israel.
The 30 pieces of silver is an insult and it is sarcastically called a “goodly price.” It is the same value as a slave that is accidentally gored or of a woman instead of a free man. The price is such and insult that it is thrown down to a potter in the sight of all in the temple. This insult prompts the breaking of the stick bands, which separates Judah from Israel so that any loyalty left to the tribes of Israel does not come upon Judah.
Since Matthew makes reference to this passage concerning Messiah’s betrayal, it becomes obvious that the nature of this parable/prophecy is Messianic. Shortly after Messiah’s betrayal and insult of 30 pieces of silver, Judah is separated from Israel and the nations have been allowed to persecuted Judah since.
The “Mosaic covenant” was not annulled for 30 silver coins. The agreement to shepherd Judah was broken because the under shepherds were grieved to have Y’shua as the main shepherd and wanted to continue to devour the flock. The sheep chose the worthless shepherds over Messiah. The 30 silver coins was the price of the betrayal of Messiah and an insult that brought on Judah’s destruction.
To sum it up. It is not at all correct to assume that when you see the word covenant in a passage that it is speaking of what you call, but scripture does not call, the “Mosaic covenant.” A little time studying and a bit of reflection would have saved you this blunder.
What in the world do you mean that “even” I don’t have an answer to the Zechariah 11 passage? Surely you jest.
Bo, the 12 tribes in this book are also 12 nations. The peoples are peoples because of the mosaic covenant. I know it’s mosaic covenant because of the use of LORD. There’s also the appearance of the sword that protected the tree of life. When God killed himself (which is something you do when you break covenant) on the cross, all of Israel was saved. That was the last sacrifice right? To me, in my eyes, it’s clear what Zechariah 11 means. I think it’s a land of lollipops and unicorns to think an entire nation and all the scattered in unison will fulfill all the “ifs” of the mosaic covenant so God can keep His end of the deal. I’ll stick with repentance towards God and faith towards Jesus.
No jesting here Michael. It’s obviously a prophecy that Jesus fulfilled. You wouldn’t expect God to go back on His word once He’s fulfilled the annulment. Otherwise we can’t trust a God who goes back on His word right?
You make Judas out as YHWH’s representative instead of a traitor. He has no authority to make a deal for YHWH to the priest. Also the high priest has no authority to break the covenant for Israel with YHWH…nor buy Him off with 30 pieces of silver.
“I know it’s mosaic covenant because of the use of LORD.”
Brilliant!…not. The covenant being spoken of is the agreement to Shepherd (feed and protect) the flock. That is the context. The appearance of the word “LORD” somewhere in the text does not prove that the covenant being spoken of is the “Mosaic covenant”…whatever that is.
Speaking of Messiah’s death, You wrote:
“That was the last sacrifice right?”
Wrong. Paul even participated in temple sacrifices some 20 to 30 years later. (Acts 21) Ezekiel surely states that there will be sacrifices in the millennial temple while Messiah is reigning. Messiah’s death was not the last sacrifice, but the only sacrifice that can atone for purposeful sin. He is the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” So really, He is the first sacrifice.
“I’ll stick with repentance towards God and faith towards Jesus.”
Nobody here is sticking to anything else. So your statement is just rhetoric and an insinuation that we are not.
“I think it’s a land of lollipops and unicorns to think an entire nation and all the scattered in unison will fulfill all the “ifs” of the mosaic covenant so God can keep His end of the deal.”
Who ever said anything about such a possibility. This is just rhetoric. We are discussing the meaning of the words in Zechariah which say nothing about this made up idea of some “mosaic covenant” that you have invented. YHWH does not need anyone or everyone to fulfill their part of a covenant so that He can keep His end of the deal. That idea is where we embark on fairy tales.
You really need to take a few years and read the Bible to get a bigger and better idea of what it says.
“To me, in my eyes, it’s clear what Zechariah 11 means.”
Therefore no one else knows, you say…”not even Michael [B]rown.” Hmmmm…when someone is the only one seeing pink elephants and flying horses, maybe the rest of us should wait a while until the effects of the tainted Kool-Aid have worn off before we converse with him.
Does this site condone bigotry Michael brown? Are you the alias Bo?
Dr. Brown and Bo are not even close to the same…I have been rebuked on occasion by Dr. Brown. And there has been no bigotry going on here. Some very prideful statements and lack of respect for elders on your part, but no bigotry.
That you do not answer the points, but only post rhetoric and accusation proves that you have very little going for your stance. Just thought you would like to know.
Comments are closed.