quote:

---

Originally posted by tedack:
Devarim (Deuteronomy) 6:4-9
"Hear, O Yisra'El, YHWH your Elohim, YHWH is one!
And you shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, and
with all your being, and with all your might.
And these Words which I am commanding you today shall be in
your heart, and you shall impress them upon your children, and
shall speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you
walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up,
and shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be
as frontlets between your eyes."
It seems possible that frontlets are figurative like having words
in your heart is. I don't know how literal the translation you
used is so I don't know how much can be known from the words,
"And they shall be AS frontlets between your eyes." And really,
there isn't much room for anything between the eyes. The
binding as a sign on your hand sounds literal, but "impressing
them on your children" is figurative. I like the idea of wearing
the Word (Torah) literally but the whole passage to me indicates
that the Word should be in our hearts, minds, actions, and words
continually.

---

Shalom,

the English version i posted was from The Scriptures, which is for the most part a literal translation (there is no such thing as a truly literal translation in existence).

and yes you are right, there really isn't room for anything between the eyes, but i would assume that is a reference to the forehead area. and this is exactly how Hebrews the world over took it to mean by wearing some sort of band or box on their foreheads covered in Scripture.

the "Hebrew" used in this verse for frontlets is Totaphot, really being an Egyptian word in its beginning, and having the meaning of "hard leather/hand-head" in that language.

as for "impress", it comes from the word Shanan, meaning literally to "sharpen/teach/pierce", so the idea being conveyed is entirely literal. the word used by The Scriptures seems to obviously convey a figurative application. but we are to literally teach our children the Words.

Chayim b'Moshiach (Life in Messiah)

You wrote:

quote:

---

and yes you are right, there really isn't room for anything between the eyes, but i would assume that is a reference to the forehead area. and this is exactly how Hebrews the world over took it to mean by wearing some sort of band or box on their foreheads covered in Scripture.

---

I reply: It seems that lots of assumptions are required to be made about the "frontlets." You seem to believe the command is literal, but where they are to be worn is not literal.

Also, when do you believe "Hebrews the world over" began wearing these frontlets?

You wrote:

quote:

---

the "Hebrew" used in this verse for frontlets is Totaphot, really being an Egyptian word in its beginning, and having the meaning of "hard leather/hand-head" in that language.

---

I reply: Why do you believe it was necessary to borrow an Egyptian word to use as a name for these "frontlets"? Why wasn't there already a Hebrew word in existence to use as the name?

Also, if something is indeed literally meant to be worn "AS" frontlets, does this mean the article worn is the "frontlets"?

You wrote:

quote:

---

as for "impress", it comes from the word Shanan, meaning literally to "sharpen/teach/pierce", so the idea being conveyed is entirely literal. the word used by The Scriptures seems to obviously convey a figurative application. but we are to literally teach our children the Words.

---

I reply: Since you recognize that there are figurative applications outlined in Scripture, are you willing to recognize that the application of the "frontlets," as in the application of binding "mercy and truth" (Prov. 3:3) and YHWH's commandments (Prov. 7:2-3), may also be understood as being figurative?

Take care and may YHWH bless!

Love in Messiah,
Larry

_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

i'll respond to each of your questions immediately below them (under my response), to make things easy.

Larry wrote:[b/]
Shalom, Burning One:
You wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and yes you are right, there really isn't room for anything between the eyes, but i would assume that is a reference to the forehead area. and this is exactly how Hebrews the world over took it to mean by wearing some sort of band or box on their foreheads covered in Scripture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I reply: It seems that lots of assumptions are required to be made about the "frontlets." You seem to believe the command is literal, but where they are to be worn is not literal.

[b]my response: there will be some assumptions in every application of the commands of Scripture. but this is not truly one of those assumptions, actually. even though i said i assume, you will see what i meant after reading below. or perhaps "infer" should have been the correct term in that instance.

if you check out the Hebrew of Devarim (Deuteronomy) 14:1 you might be surprised as to what you find there. the phrase "bain aneikhem" is literally translated as "between your eyes". The Scriptures version gives the phrase as "the front of your head", and the KJV reads literally as "between your eyes". the verse in The Scriptures tells us what we are talking about:
"You are the children of YHWH your Elohim. Do not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead."

if we are honest with the way Scripture is written, then the phrase "bain aniekhem" most applicably is meant to be understood as the place where hair grows at the top of the forehead (amazingly, this is exactly how Rabbinic Judaism employs their version of the frontlets -- and we both know how often they seem to screw up the commands in favor of a tradition of man). or else, if we take this entirely literal, then we are forced to conclude that we are not to shave off unibrows in mourning. not that many people i know actually "suffer" from unibrows, and i would find that hard to believe to be the actual intention of the phrase anyway (and i would hope that would not be your conclusion either). so it is that we find that Scripture confirms this aspect of the commandment to be literal, although in a figurative sort of way (thus my comment on a previous thread that there is no truly literal Scripture version in existence, as it would make for a crazy reading). there is just no other way to read it if we wish to remain honest with the reading of Scripture. the binding on the hand is just about as literal as it can get, and the phraseology used for the forehead is entirely understandable, as long as we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Also, when do you believe "Hebrews the world over" began wearing these frontlets?

my response: obviously, i believe they were wearing them before this, but the only time that "Hebrews the world over" could have been wearing the frontlets was after the Assyrian dispersion.
i am not sure how much you know of ancient Japan, but the Shindai have extremely similar customs and ceremonies of the ancient Hebrews, like depictions of an ark-like box with winged figures resting atop being carried by poles attached to either side, an Avraham/Yitschaq sacrifice reinactment, among many other very intriguing correlations (if you are not aware of these people, i would strongly suggest a study of them regardless of what you believe about frontlets, it truly is astonishing). one of the many customs are frontlets worn at the top of the forehead by a certain class of priests, called yamabushi. sort of humorously, they call their frontlet a "tokin", which of course sounds like the aramaic title given to frontlets, being "tefillin". they are buddhists priests nowadays, but Japanese history tells us that these particular priests were around there before Buddhism ever even arrived, and is supported by the fact that no other buddhist sects wear these things. also interesting, is that the shape of their frontlets is a round flower, and the golden plate carrying the Name YHWH which the high priest in Torah is commanded to wear (directly linked to frontlets, by the way) is called in Hebrew the "Tzitz", which literally means "flower". of course, Rabbinic Judaism tells us that it was a gold band, but the literal definition of the word seems to entail something perhaps shaped differently, as i don't know any flowers that look like "bands".
then we have the "lost" Hebrews of Afghan, who call themselves "Benai Yisra'El", and who as well wear frontlets.
and then the Bukaharan (i think i spelled that right, it is late and i'm trying to go off of memory) Hebrews, who also wear tefillin.

You wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the "Hebrew" used in this verse for frontlets is Totaphot, really being an Egyptian word in its beginning, and having the meaning of "hard leather/hand-head" in that language.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I reply: Why do you believe it was necessary to borrow an Egyptian word to use as a name for these "frontlets"? Why wasn't there already a Hebrew word in existence to use as the name?

my response: i do believe Scripture gives us this Hebrew word, and i do believe there is an entirely plausible reason for it not being used.
before the Torah was given at Sinai, Yehudah (Judah) the son of Ya'aqov is seen wearing something called an "etsadah", and a "chotham", being literally read as a "cord/thread" and a "seal". you will find the word "etsadah" used again, "coincidentally", when describing the golden plate/"tzitz" which was on the high priest's forehead.

as to why it was "necessary" to borrow an Egyptian word, i present this for your approval: the people coming out of that nation were not exactly what we would call "saints" or "separatists" or anything like that. they were people who had been infiltrated with the doctrines of Egypt and the ways and customs of that nation. the Father used a twisting of the Egyptian word "tataph" (forehead ornament) to get the point across vividly. they knew exactly what was being spoken of, but a subtle twist was thrown into it, and this leads me to the response of your below reply:

Also, if something is indeed literally meant to be worn "AS" frontlets, does this mean the article worn is the "frontlets"?

my response: the "AS" issue is resolved in understanding that the frontlets worn were to be "as" or "like" the ornaments which the Hebrews surely saw daily in their interaction with the Egyptians, but these frontlets would not be the "tataph" -- in other words, their function was not exactly the same, for they would be meant to point the wearer continuously back to the Word and the One whom they served, not unlike tassles. thus although the manner of wearing was the same, the function would be different. the Egyptian ornaments were for occult-polytheistic / beautificatory reasons, and the Hebrew frontlets would not serve that perverse purpose.

You wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as for "impress", it comes from the word Shanan, meaning literally to "sharpen/teach/pierce", so the idea being conveyed is entirely literal. the word used by The Scriptures seems to obviously convey a figurative application. but we are to literally teach our children the Words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I reply: Since you recognize that there are figurative applications outlined in Scripture, are you willing to recognize that the application of the "frontlets," as in the application of binding "mercy and truth" (Prov. 3:3) and YHWH's commandments (Prov. 7:2-3), may also be understood as being figurative?

my response: when you write "figurative", i assume you mean in a spiritual application. if my assumption is true, then i most certainly do believe that the command of frontlets must (not "may") be understood spiritually/figuratively first. the intention behind the commands has to be grasped if they are to be of any value to us. they can remain ungrasped by us and still be of value to others, but in order to be of any value to the doer, the spiritual intention must be comprehended. as with all commands, i personally believe there is a spiritual and a physical application/performance that needs to be grasped. we fulfill them truly when we perform them spiritually and physically. those who perform this command spiritually/figuratively are in fact performing it, but there is the physical realization of it as well. i loved my Father in heaven spiritually before i ever understood the importance of actually doing the Torah, and that love was sincere, but now i can literally show my love in the obedience of doing!

wow i just realized what time it was and i should probably end this at this stopping point. i will be off the forum for awhile, so you can digest what i've presented and take it before the Father in prayer. there is much more of course, and if it is a big enough issue for you then maybe your source which had the book can let you borrow their's to read over the more in-depth look for yourself. if you don't desire to pursue it any more then that is totally fine with me. like i said, i'm not pushing any agenda. i've tried to answer your particular questions as best i can with the limited time i have at the moment. i hope they will suffice as answers, at least, even if you do not agree with them. anyhow, i've got to get prepared to go under the knife tomorrow morning, so i will bid you and anyone else who may be reading this farewell and thanks again for any and all prayers sent up for my safe surgery!

Listen and remember, read and remember more, wear and remember more, speak and remember more, sing and remember more, write and remember more.

There is actually alot of good in that, if it's inspired Word being taught.

I also recall certain people saying that it was wearing the armor of Elohim, but I disagree with that. That has everything to do with laying it to heart and walking in his Love of the truth, and it does start with faith.

It believe the purpose behind it was so that "mostly children" will learn to know and hopefully abide in the WORD. Now if they could only stop throwing those stones at their neighbors and learn to love outsiders too.

It seems the most important teachings are not being understood by many, and those are spiritual things. We should be eating the Word of YHWH, and again speaking spiritual and for offering up spiritual sacrifices.

They pick up stones to throw, they pick up stones to build temples, and put their prayers in stone walls.

Do they not understand living stones and the cornerstone of the true temple unto YHWH?

Do they not know faith, grace and how to put on the real armor?

How can they establish a personal relationship with YHWH if they don't lay them to heart and walk in his Love?

The only answer is Yahshua.

Mat 23:37 Yerushalayim, Yerushalayim, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her! How often I wished to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, but you would not! 38 See! your house has left to you desolate, 39 for I say to you, from now on you shall by no means see Me, until you say, [Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of YHWH].

When will they cry out and pick up the stone they rejected?
When will we be one?

Shalom in YHWH,

You wrote, concerning the use of the word "AS": 

quote:

my response: the "AS" issue is resolved in understanding
that the frontlets worn were to be "as" or "like" the
ornaments which the Hebrews surely saw daily in their interaction with the
Egyptians, but these frontlets would not be the "tataph" -- in other
words, their function was not exactly the same, for they would be meant to
point the wearer continuously back to the Word and the One whom they served,
not unlike tassles. thus although the manner of wearing was the same, the
function would be different. the Egyptian ornaments were for
occult-polytheistic / beautificatory reasons, and the Hebrew frontlets would
not serve that perverse purpose.

I recall that in the past you had stated that the lamed preposition
[which is where we get "as" or "like"] could not be used to
make a comparison, therefore it could not be translated "as" or
"like".  Can I assume that you have since changed your views on
this?

Now your explanation as given here is interesting, but is lacking in
documentation.  I agree that the Hebrews would have known about the
"occult" "Egyptian ornaments" and therefore such a statement
may be an allusion to the same.  But it could just as easily be a
comparison for the purpose of pointing the hearer (not the "wearer"
to a metaphorical lesson.  The Hebrew language is full of metaphorical
expressions--should we not consider this as the most likely
explanation?  

Shalom,

Glenn

------------------
======= Time is Running Out =======

You wrote, concerning the wearing of the Japanese "tokin" by the
Yamabushi priests of the Buddist Shindai sect: 

quote:

"also interesting, is that the shape of their frontlets is a round flower, and the golden plate carrying the Name YHWH which the high priest in Torah is commanded to wear (directly linked to frontlets, by the way) is called in Hebrew the
'Tzitz', which literally means 'flower'. of course, Rabbinic Judaism tells us that it was a gold band, but the literal definition of the word seems to entail something perhaps shaped differently, as i don't know any flowers that look like
'bands'."

First of all, this is a connection between what the High Priest wore on his
forehead--not the tefillin.  You are comparing "apples" to
"oranges".  I see no "link" between what the High
Priest wore and the so-called "tefillin".

Next, we need to address the question of why we need to go to an ancient
Japanese sect of Buddism to find answers to a strictly Hebrew question? 
Not that it is wrong to compare one culture to another to see how they may have
"borrowed" ideas, but being so far "removed" from that
culture and that history makes us a very weak authority on the question of
"who borrowed what from whom"!!

quote: 

Originally posted by Burning one:

my response: obviously, i believe they were wearing them before this, but the only time that "Hebrews the world over" could have been wearing the frontlets was after the Assyrian dispersion.
i am not sure how much you know of ancient Japan, but the Shindai have extremely similar customs and ceremonies of the ancient Hebrews, like depictions of an ark-like box with winged figures resting atop being carried by poles attached to either side, an Avraham/Yitschaq sacrifice reinactment, among many other very intriguing correlations (if you are not aware of these people, i would strongly suggest a study of them regardless of what you believe about frontlets, it truly is astonishing). one of the many customs are frontlets worn at the top of the forehead by a certain class of priests, called yamabushi. sort of humorously, they call their frontlet a "tokin", which of course sounds like the aramaic title given to frontlets, being "tefillin". they are buddhists priests nowadays, but Japanese history tells us that these particular priests were around there before Buddhism ever even arrived, and is supported by the fact that no other buddhist sects wear these things. 
. . .  then we have the "lost" Hebrews of Afghan, who call themselves "Benai Yisra'El", and who as well wear frontlets.
and then the Bukaharan (i think i spelled that right, it is late and i'm trying to go off of memory) Hebrews, who also wear tefillin.

The problem with this answer is that it pre-supposes several things which cannot be firmly established. Did the wearing of head ornaments by certain Japanese sects (as well as the others mentioned here) come from Moses or from their own occultic traditions?
And how can you separate the two?  Wikepidia seems to suggests that it came from the later, since they were known for their "occult knowledge". It talks about the Yamabushi and says that the

 "Yamabushi began as yamahoshi, isolated clusters (or individuals) of mountain hermits, ascetics, and 'holy men,' who followed the path of
shugendo, a search for spiritual, mystical, or supernatural powers gained through asceticism. . . . These mountain mystics came to be renowned for their magical abilities and occult knowledge, and were sought out as healers or mediums, known as miko."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamabushi

Regardless of whether or not this particular Japanese sect of Buddism obtained some of their traditions from the Hebrews, the point is that they made use of the occult. To draw from this as "evidence" that the wearing of tefillin is "ancient" and therefore "scriptural" is without foundation. And even the Jews religion itself became perverted soon after they made their covenant with Yahweh on Mt. Sinai, so appealing to how the Jews did things before and during the time of Messiah even is also without
foundation (unless it can be backed up with Scripture--for example, the 7th day
Sabbath was clearly being kept by Yahshua and His disciples at that time). 
Remember, at least the leadership of the Jews had already (by His day) apostacized from the true faith of Israel. 

One of the practices which all societies (including the Jews) have become involved with is the wearing of magical amulets. As such, it would not be unusual at all to find that the Egyptians,
the Canaanites, the Phoenicians, the Assyrians, the Jews (and maybe we can add
to that the Japanese) wore similar types of amulets:

Rabbi Geoffrey W. Dennis writes in his article entitled "Amulet" that:

"The use of amulets and charms is virtually universal across human cultures and across time, and Jews are no exception. Jewish amulets have been used to ward off a variety of ills: disease, mishap, sorcery, and/or malevolent spirits. . . .
The use of amulets to ward off evil spirits and/or disease was pervasive in the cultures that surrounded ancient Israel, and numerous examples of Canaanite, Phoenician, Assyrian, and Egyptian origin have been recovered. The use of amulets by Biblical Israelites is specifically criticized in Is. 3:18-20. . . ."
(Amulet, by Rabbi Geoffrey W. Dennis. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/amulet.html) 

If we accept the fact that the Messiah spoke out against the way the Pharisees were wearing their "sign" on their
head (Matthew 23)--the fact that He calls them "Phylacteries" (a Greek term which indicates "magical amulets") would seem to indicate that wearing such items is not consistent with a life of
true faith and obedience to Torah. It suggests that their "tradition"
was founded upon the occult.  Evidently, the history of the Yamabushi
priests of the Shindai (which you suggest we should study, at least in regard to
the amulets they wore on their forehead) has a clear and direct connection with
the occult.

Shalom to all,

Glenn

Anything we do with the desire to be seen by man (or praised by man) is wrong and done with the wrong intent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JD Tyler:

Although I do not see where we are commanded to wear phylacteries I must admit that Yahshua was not speaking against the wearing of these any more than He would against tzitzit (which He wore). What was being spoken against was that the Pharisees were wearing these with the INTENT of being seen by man.
Anything we do with the desire to be seen by man (or praised by man) is wrong and done with the wrong intent.
J

---

Hello
JD.

I
generally agree with your statement, but with some explanation.  First, regarding the tzit-tzits, these are clearly commanded in
Numbers 15:37-39 and Deuteronomy 22:12.  However, the wearing of Tefillin
is a Rabbinic tradition which is based upon the "oral torah". 
The Rabbis suppose that it comes from 4 texts:  Exodus 13:9, Exodus 13:16,
Deuteronomy 6:8, and Deuteronomy 11:18.  However, these texts do not
support the literal wearing of tefillin.  Instead, they are using the
common custom of wearing jewels as a metaphor to teach them how to obey His
commandments.

The Messiah's statement we are refering to is in Matthew
23, as found in the KJV:

"But all their works they do for to be seen of men:
they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their
garments,"  (Mat 23:5)

The Messiah is mainly concerned here in this text
with the "attitudes" of those who claim to be the spiritual leaders of
Israel.  He is concerned with how they are doing works "to be
seen".  He does not condemn the wearing of tassles, only the enlarging
of the same for show.  Likewise, He does not appear (in this translation)
to condemn the wearing of phylacteries (only the enlargement of the same for
show).  However, the fact that most manuscripts call them
"phylacteries" (which is a Greek term which means a forbidden
"magical amulet"--something used in the occult) does bring into doubt
whether such articles can rightfully recieve His endorsement.  And the Old Syriac is the only one which uses the
Rabbinic term “straps of tefillin”.  The DuTillet says
"frontlets", and the Hebrew Matthew leaves out the term completely.

Regardless, there is plenty of evidence in the
Messianic Writings that tassels were both known of and worn.  5 times the
greek word for tassels is used, and 4 out of the 5 are mentioned in a positive
light (Matthew 9:20-22, Matthew 14:36, Matthew 23:5, Mark 6:56, and Luke
8:44).  Other places in the gospels and the letters strongly imply that
tallits were being made and used by the apostles (Matthew 6:6--closet
implies a tallit with tassels on the 4 corners; Acts 18:3--tent implies a
"tabernacle", and may be a reference to the tallit also). 
However, not so with the tefillin.  The only passage which mentions phylacteries
(which the Rabbis call tefillin) is Matthew 23:5--and it is mentioned in
a negative light.

Shalom,

Glenn

I pray you are recovering well. I will only give a brief response to your commentary, mainly because I believe Glenn has sufficiently addressed some of the more serious concerns regarding your understanding of Scripture.

Here's one item I will respond to. You wrote:

quote:

---

my response: when you write "figurative", i assume you mean in a spiritual application. if my assumption is true, then i most certainly do believe that the command of frontlets must (not "may") be understood spiritually/figuratively first.

---

I reply: When I say "figurative," I do indeed mean a spiritual application. What other meaning is there that "figurative" could imply in this discussion? Philo of Alexandria was a first-century Jew who only made reference to the tefillin in a figurative sense. Philo, who was well-known for elaborating on all sorts of topics, would most certainly have made reference to a "literal" application of the tefillin if he had shared such an understanding with you. Here is what he wrote in "The Special Laws, IV," ch. XXVI, sec. 137-138:

The law says, it is proper to lay up justice in one's heart, and to fasten it as a sign upon one's head, and as frontlets before one's eyes, figuratively intimating by the former expression that one ought to commit the precepts of justice, not to one's ears, which are not trustworthy, for there is no credit due to the ears, but to that most important and dominant part, stamping and impressing them on the most excellent of all offerings, a well approved seal; and by the second expression, that it is necessary not only to form proper conceptions of what is right, but also to do what one has decided upon as proper without delay. For the hand is the symbol of actions, to which Moses here commands the people to attach and fasten justice, saying, that it shall be a sign, of what indeed he has not expressly stated, because it is not a sign as I conceive of one particular thing, but of many, and, I may almost say, of everything with which the life of man is concerned.

As we read from Philo, who can be shown as having represented normative Judaism of that time period, the application of what you refer to as tefillin was purely figurative, and what was "bound" to the hand was not some box, but "justice" ... because the hand is the symbol of actions.

Next, you wrote the following:

quote:

---

then we have the "lost" Hebrews of Afghan, who call themselves "Benai Yisra'El", and who as well wear frontlets.
and then the Bukaharan (i think i spelled that right, it is late and i'm trying to go off of memory) Hebrews, who also wear tefillin.

---

1) I am not aware of the "Benai Yisra'El" from Afghanistan, but I am aware of the Bene Israel from India. Those Jews were accidentally discovered in the 1700's, and they claimed to have descended from seven families of Jews who had fled persecution, and later shipwrecked, over 2,000 years ago. Those Jews retained the observance of the weekly Sabbath on the same day practiced by Judaism, as well as observance of circumcision and the dietary laws ... but I am not aware of it being discovered that they wore tefillin, so I would appreciate your documentation of this claim (not that it would necessarily prove anything). Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the Bene Israel, and the tefillin are not mentioned:

Notice that what the Bene Israel practice today was taught to them by mainstream Judaism in the 18th and 19th centuries CE. Something tells me this is when they were taught about wearing tefillin. The above information is excerpted from the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Israel

Again, if you can demonstrate that pre-18th century Bene Israel Jews wore tefillin, I would like to see your documentation.

2) Who are the Bukaharan Hebrews that you mentioned above? Again, this was a lack of documentation on your part, which does nothing to solidify the case you attempt to make for wearing tefillin. I need to see evidence showing who those people were, where they lived, and the earliest date that anyone can establish that they wore tefillin. As I have previously mentioned, I do not question as to whether or not certain individuals wore the tefillin, and even Josephus wrote about them, so I'm certain the literal vs. spiritual understanding is not limited to our generation of believers.

Here is what Josephus wrote, found in Antiquities of the Jews, Book IV, ch. 8, sec. 13:

13. Let every one commemorate before God the benefits which he bestowed upon them at their deliverance out of the land of Egypt, and this twice every day, both when the day begins and when the hour of sleep comes on, gratitude being in its own nature a just thing, and serving not only by way of return for past, but also by way of invitation of future favors. They are also to inscribe the principal blessings they have received from God upon their doors, and show the same remembrance of them upon their arms; as also they are to bear on their forehead and their arm those wonders which declare the power of God, and his good-will towards them, that God's readiness to bless them may appear every where conspicuous about them.

Thus, while Philo makes no allusion to any literal understanding pertaining to the wearing of tefillin (or phylacteries), Josephus does. However, since wearing tefillin was obviously a pharisaical custom during Yeshua's day, it is not surprising that it would have been even more widespread during the next generation of Jews, during which time Josephus (a Pharisee) lived.

In the translation of Josephus' works that we have, which was done by William Whiston, there is a footnote corresponding to the above quotation. Here is what the translator wrote:

Whether these phylacteries, and other Jewish memorials of the law here mentioned by Josephus, and by Moses, (besides the fringes on the borders of their garments, Numbers 15:37,) were literally meant by God, I much question. That they have been long observed by the Pharisees and Rabbinical Jews is certain; however, the Karaites, who receive not the unwritten traditions of the elders, but keep close to the written law, with Jerome and Grotius, think they were not literally to be understood; as Bernard and Reland here take notice. Nor indeed do I remember that, either in the ancienter books of the Old Testament, or in the books we call Apocrypha, there are any signs of such literal observations appearing among the Jews, though their real or mystical signification, i.e. the constant remembrance and observation of the laws of God by Moses, be frequently inculcated in all the sacred writings.

I am inclined to agree with William Whiston's footnote.

There are just so many questions looming about the tefillin, such as how often (or how long) is a person supposed to wear them, what purpose do they serve, etc. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I really would not object to anyone wishing to wear tefillin, so long as they don't impose it upon others. However, since the opposition has pretty much come out with [at best] an indirect allusion that those who reject wearing tefillin have taken on the mark of the beast, I cannot help but express disagreement and objection. But this is enough for now.

May YHWH bless!

Love in Messiah,
Larry

_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

quote:

---

Originally posted by gmoore44:
Hello Burning one:

You wrote, concerning the use of the word "AS":�

quote:

[b]my response: the "AS" issue is resolved in understanding
that the frontlets worn were to be "as" or "like" the
ornaments which the Hebrews surely saw daily in their interaction with the
Egyptians, but these frontlets would not be the "tataph" -- in other
words, their function was not exactly the same, for they would be meant to
point the wearer continuously back to the Word and the One whom they served,
not unlike tassles. thus although the manner of wearing was the same, the
function would be different. the Egyptian ornaments were for
occult-polytheistic / beautificatory reasons, and the Hebrew frontlets would
not serve that perverse purpose.

I recall that in the past you had stated that the lamed preposition
[which is where we get "as" or "like"] could not be used to
make a comparison, therefore it could not be translated "as" or
"like".� Can I assume that you have since changed your views on
this?

Now your explanation as given here is interesting, but is lacking in
documentation.� I agree that the Hebrews would have known about the
"occult" "Egyptian ornaments" and therefore such a statement
may be an allusion to the same.� But it could just as easily be a
comparison for the purpose of pointing the hearer (not the "wearer"
to a metaphorical lesson.� The Hebrew language is full of metaphorical
expressions--should we not consider this as the most likely
explanation?��

Shalom,

Glenn

�

[/B]

---

Glenn,

as before, my responses will follow your replies:

-------------------------------------------------
Hi, Burning one:
I pray you are recovering well. I will only give a brief response to your commentary, mainly because I believe Glenn has sufficiently addressed some of the more serious concerns regarding your understanding of Scripture.

Here's one item I will respond to. You wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
my response: when you write "figurative", i assume you mean in a spiritual application. if my assumption is true, then i most certainly do believe that the command of frontlets must (not "may") be understood spiritually/figuratively first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I reply: When I say "figurative," I do indeed mean a spiritual application. What other meaning is there that "figurative" could imply in this discussion? Philo of Alexandria was a first-century Jew who only made reference to the tefillin in a figurative sense. Philo, who was well-known for elaborating on all sorts of topics, would most certainly have made reference to a "literal" application of the tefillin if he had shared such an understanding with you. Here is what he wrote in "The Special Laws, IV," ch. XXVI, sec. 137-138:

The law says, it is proper to lay up justice in one's heart, and to fasten it as a sign upon one's head, and as frontlets before one's eyes, figuratively intimating by the former expression that one ought to commit the precepts of justice, not to one's ears, which are not trustworthy, for there is no credit due to the ears, but to that most important and dominant part, stamping and impressing them on the most excellent of all offerings, a well approved seal; and by the second expression, that it is necessary not only to form proper conceptions of what is right, but also to do what one has decided upon as proper without delay. For the hand is the symbol of actions, to which Moses here commands the people to attach and fasten justice, saying, that it shall be a sign, of what indeed he has not expressly stated, because it is not a sign as I conceive of one particular thing, but of many, and, I may almost say, of everything with which the life of man is concerned.

As we read from Philo, who can be shown as having represented normative Judaism of that time period, the application of what you refer to as tefillin was purely figurative, and what was "bound" to the hand was not some box, but "justice" ... because the hand is the symbol of actions.

my response: i think Philo's credibility as an observant follower of Torah is severely questionable, even though he does have some interesting insights from time to time. rather, i find the historical case to be that those who were not so very Hellenized were the ones who literally performed what was written in the Hebrew texts, and disregarded the Septuagintal influence. this i think is an important factor in all of this.

Next, you wrote the following:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
then we have the "lost" Hebrews of Afghan, who call themselves "Benai Yisra'El", and who as well wear frontlets.
and then the Bukaharan (i think i spelled that right, it is late and i'm trying to go off of memory) Hebrews, who also wear tefillin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) I am not aware of the "Benai Yisra'El" from Afghanistan, but I am aware of the Bene Israel from India. Those Jews were accidentally discovered in the 1700's, and they claimed to have descended from seven families of Jews who had fled persecution, and later shipwrecked, over 2,000 years ago. Those Jews retained the observance of the weekly Sabbath on the same day practiced by Judaism, as well as observance of circumcision and the dietary laws ... but I am not aware of it being discovered that they wore tefillin, so I would appreciate your documentation of this claim (not that it would necessarily prove anything). Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the Bene Israel, and the tefillin are not mentioned:

The Bene Israel claim to be descended from Jews who escaped persecution in Galilee in the 2nd century B.C.E. The Bene Israel resemble the non-Jewish Maratha people in appearance and customs, which indicates intermarriage between Jews and Indians. The Bene Israel, however, maintained the practices of Jewish dietary laws, circumcision and observation of Sabbath as a day of rest.

The Bene Israel believe their ancestors were oil pressers in the Galilee and that they are descended from survivors of a shipwreck. In the 18th Century they were "discovered" by traders from Baghdad. At that time the Bene Israel were practicing just a few outward forms of Judaism (which is how they were recognized) but had no scholars of their own. Teachers from Baghdad and Cochin taught them mainstream Judaism in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Notice that what the Bene Israel practice today was taught to them by mainstream Judaism in the 18th and 19th centuries CE. Something tells me this is when they were taught about wearing tefillin. The above information is excerpted from the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Israel

Again, if you can demonstrate that pre-18th century Bene Israel Jews wore tefillin, I would like to see your documentation.

my response: the "Bene Israel" you mentioned are not the same in any way as to those i was speaking of, that just happens to be a coincidence that you found a corresponding group . the ones i am speaking of are not "Jews", but come from ancient tribal families of some of the scattered tribes, collectively, they are called the Pathans or the Pashtuns, and have been recognized by modern Israel as descendants of the lost tribes. you can find them on the internet, and following is from one of the sites about them:

"The Afghan people seem to keep memory of the secession of the Northern Tribes, as they themselves declare to be "Bani-Israil but not Yehudi", obviously meaning "Children of Israel, but not Jews". Two branches of the Pashtun people, called Durrani and Galzay, are credited as "Ibrani" (Hebrews), and are divided in tribes having names very similar to some of the Israelite Tribes: the Yusufzai (Yusuf-Si, Yusufzad), are the "Children of Yosef"; the Efridi or Afridi may be related to Ephrayim; the Rabbani to Reuven, the Shinwari to Shim'on, the Lewani to Levi, the Daftani to Naphtali, and the Jaji or Gaji to Gad. Following this pattern, it would be also possible to identify the Ashurai tribe with Asher, though other sources suggest they are descendents of ancient Assyrians (who exiled the Israelites). Indeed, the term "Ashura" in the Indian sub-continent is applied not only to Assyrians but also to Jews, Gypsies and other peoples coming from Mesopotamia. In this context it is likely that Asher became Ashurai in the same way as Yosef became Yusufzai, by changing "e" into "u"....* The Pashtun call themselves "Bani-Israel", and they believe to have been carried away from their original homeland.
* Jewish names such as "Israel" - never found among the Muslims - as well as Shmuel and the names of the Northern Tribes, are frequent among Afghans.
* Besides the oral tradition, there are also scrolls of genealogy that have been kept among the tribes, reaching back to the ancestors of the Jewish nation. These scrolls are well preserved and some are written in gold on doe skins.
* Their legal system, called Pashtunwali, (the Pashtu Law), has many resemblances with Torah. They have in great esteem the "Tavrad El Sharif" (meaning "Torah of Mosheh"), and they rise at the mention of Mosheh's name.
* The Pashtun practise circumcision on the 8th day like Jews, while Muslims perform circumcision usually at the age of 12, because of Yishmael, the father of the Arabs.
* They rest on Shabbath day, not working and not cooking either. On 'Erev Shabbath they prepare twelve "hallot" -traditional Jewish bread- (1), and an elder woman lights a candle in honour of the Shabbath. After lighting, the candle is usually covered by a large basket - perhaps, this might have been done in the origin to hide their Jewishness.
* They are careful about not shaving their side-locks, keeping curled hair before the ears in a similar way as Orthodox Jews do, in accordance to the commandment (2).
* They use to wear a sort of small "tallit", a four-cornered garment to which they sometimes tie strings or fringes similar to the "tzitzit", which is a Torah commandment. Some of them even wear a small box that recall the "tefillin" (phylactery).
* Many Pashtun people pray facing Yerushalaym.
* They also keep "kosher", dietary laws like those observed by Jews. Some of them do not eat meat and milk together, and make difference between pure and impure birds.
* Pashtun women keep laws regarding their period of impurity. During this time and for a week after, no contact is allowed with the husband. After this period, she immerses in a river or in a bathhouse if a natural spring is not available. This is exactly like the Israeli "mikveh".
* The "Magen David" is widely used as their symbol. A Pashtun property, either house or vehicle, may be recognized for this emblem shown somewhere.
* There is also the practice of sprinkling blood on doorposts and lintels, and offering sacrifices during pestilence.
* Some customs related to marriage: endogamous, the wedding is done at the bride's family. There is also the law of levirate.
* Honour laws require the avenger of blood, as well as stoning for blasphemy.
2) Historical records:
* The Islam Encyclopaedia, published by the Turkish Ministry of Education, considered to be among the most authoritative sources, states: "The Durrani and the Galzay tribes originate from the Ibrani (the Hebrew people)...And it is asserted that many others of the Afghan composition are originally of the Ibrani as well."
* The most reliable Persian historians said that the Afghans are descended from the Jews, and that since they embraced Islam, they cautiously conceal their origin.
* The Pashtun language shows evidences of a Chaldaic influence.
It is however clear that not all Pashtun tribes are of Israelite origin. The Pashtun are a complex ethnic group, resulting from different migratory flows. Nevertheless, the tribes mentioned above have enough characteristics to be considered partially descendants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel."
http://www.imninalu.net/tribes1.htm

2) Who are the Bukaharan Hebrews that you mentioned above? Again, this was a lack of documentation on your part, which does nothing to solidify the case you attempt to make for wearing tefillin. I need to see evidence showing who those people were, where they lived, and the earliest date that anyone can establish that they wore tefillin. As I have previously mentioned, I do not question as to whether or not certain individuals wore the tefillin, and even Josephus wrote about them, so I'm certain the literal vs. spiritual understanding is not limited to our generation of believers.

my response: the Bukaharan Hebrews are well-documented in history, and their antiquited presence in the diaspora is established. again, here are words from a site about them.

"As it was already stated, most of Israelites did not return to their homeland but chose remain in exile, or else, having engaged commercial activities, they followed the most natural route in those times in search for a better future: the Silk Road, that led them to the east, reaching lands as far as the Chinese shores of the Pacific Ocean.
In very early times, probably after the fall of Nineveh and before the fall of Yerushalaym under Nebukhadnetzar, some Northern Israelites took advantage of the short transition period in which the Neo-Babylonian Empire consolidated, to emigrate eastwards. This is the most credited hypothesis supported by the Bukharian Jews regarding their own origins. They even identify 'Habor' and 'Halah' with Bukhara and Balkh - the places where Assyrians resettled the Northern Israelites, mentioned in 2Melakhim 17:6. Indeed, the Jewish presence in Central Asia dates back to that period. Many of those from Judah joined them about a century later. Jewish Culture flourished in important cities like Samarkand, Bukhara, Ferghana, Termez, Tashkent, Kokand, etc. The history of Bukharian Jews is very interesting; they developed an autonomous Jewish culture and in general they had peaceful relationships with the local population, so that many times along history the Turkestan area was a safe haven for Jews persecuted elsewhere. Their contribution to the cultural and social life in Central Asia until the Soviet period has been of great value."
http://www.imninalu.net/2history02.htm

also unlike "Rabbinic Judaism", they do not have a bar mitzvah for their sons, but a giving of frontlets. this also shows that their separation from popular Judaism as influenced by the much later rabbis brought them into different applications of the commands. what does this tell us? that "Rabbinic Tefillin" is a merely a way of performing the command, and not the essential command itself. there is no precise fashion in which they are to be configured, just like the tassles i mentioned so long ago in the orginal post. the command for tassles tells us to wear them with a blue/or purple/ orred thread on the 4 corners of our garments. the tassles themselves are not described in Scripture, in that the material used is not specified. thus beads could be legitimately used, or leather or silk or whatever, so long as they form tassles and the prescribed blue/purple/red thread is present. and then there is the issue of the "four corners" -- does it literally mean in 4 places or could the phrase be interpreted "from all sides", as it seems to imply in its usage at other points in Scripture? you see, there are grey areas there, and they exist the same with frontlets. we know that they were commanded to be worn on the head and hand, and the original word denotes something out of leather, but other than that it is up in the air, just like tassles. others throughout time have performed the command of frontlets quite differently, including the early followers of Messiah Himself --

Mishnah Megillah 4.8,9 �And he that makes his tefillin round, it is danger, there is no commandment in it...this is the way of Minuth.�

The "Minuth" spoken of here is a plural word that means �heretics� (frequently rendered also in the plural as "Minim", and in the singular, "Min"), and is used in ancient Hebrew writings in reference to the actual few Torah-observant followers of Yehoshua. They originally were spoken of in those writings as the Netzarim, but as time passed, they began to be called instead the Minuth. so here we also find that even the early followers of Messiah performed the command literally, and in opposition to the "Rabbinic" version.

Here is what Josephus wrote, found in Antiquities of the Jews, Book IV, ch. 8, sec. 13:

13. Let every one commemorate before God the benefits which he bestowed upon them at their deliverance out of the land of Egypt, and this twice every day, both when the day begins and when the hour of sleep comes on, gratitude being in its own nature a just thing, and serving not only by way of return for past, but also by way of invitation of future favors. They are also to inscribe the principal blessings they have received from God upon their doors, and show the same remembrance of them upon their arms; as also they are to bear on their forehead and their arm those wonders which declare the power of God, and his good-will towards them, that God's readiness to bless them may appear every where conspicuous about them.

Thus, while Philo makes no allusion to any literal understanding pertaining to the wearing of tefillin (or phylacteries), Josephus does. However, since wearing tefillin was obviously a pharisaical custom during Yeshua's day, it is not surprising that it would have been even more widespread during the next generation of Jews, during which time Josephus (a Pharisee) lived.

In the translation of Josephus' works that we have, which was done by William Whiston, there is a footnote corresponding to the above quotation. Here is what the translator wrote:

Whether these phylacteries, and other Jewish memorials of the law here mentioned by Josephus, and by Moses, (besides the fringes on the borders of their garments, Numbers 15:37,) were literally meant by God, I much question. That they have been long observed by the Pharisees and Rabbinical Jews is certain; however, the Karaites, who receive not the unwritten traditions of the elders, but keep close to the written law, with Jerome and Grotius, think they were not literally to be understood; as Bernard and Reland here take notice. Nor indeed do I remember that, either in the ancienter books of the Old Testament, or in the books we call Apocrypha, there are any signs of such literal observations appearing among the Jews, though their real or mystical signification, i.e. the constant remembrance and observation of the laws of God by Moses, be frequently inculcated in all the sacred writings.

I am inclined to agree with William Whiston's footnote.

There are just so many questions looming about the tefillin, such as how often (or how long) is a person supposed to wear them, what purpose do they serve, etc. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I really would not object to anyone wishing to wear tefillin, so long as they don't impose it upon others. However, since the opposition has pretty much come out with [at best] an indirect allusion that those who reject wearing tefillin have taken on the mark of the beast, I cannot help but express disagreement and objection. But this is enough for now.

my response: i think that frontlets have just about the same questions regarding them that tassles do. we are not told how long to wear them either. altho the purpose of both is quite clear -- to remember the Torah and do it at all times! as for the rest of the comment you made, i dealt with it in the other thread i believe in a way that hopefully you will no longer present my teaching of it as you do here. in my book i don't condemn anybody for not wearing frontlets. the main purpose of the book, as i state in it, is to perceive the spiritual meaning of the command. cause if that is not grasped, then any physical performance of it would not matter. if you can grasp the spiritual meanings behind it, then awesome! that is the starting point of all observance of Torah. but there is the living of it as well, and living Torah only brings more blessing and intimacy to our lives. i'm sure you can attest to that fact. the book was meant to serve to illuminate the spiritual reasons which exist in the command. the physical aspects of the command were present, but i think if you were to read it all the way throught you would see how minimal of text they truly take up. the physical was not my direct intention in writing the book.

anyhow, i suppose that if you don't agree with me on this issue, then there is not much more to write about it. i have strived to answer your questions since you first brought them up the best i could. if you still disagree with this position, i have no qualms with you. we are all at differing levels in our walk of Torah. your level may be more advanced in the following out of some commands than mine, or vice versa. and this is only one command. i am sure we could find many minute things about the other commands that we disagree upon. but like i posted before in the post that started all this -- these types of discussions (civil) serve the body in looking at the various ways at which we can approach the commands which seem somewhat grey, and taken in that light, are profitable. i do not desire to continue debating something so "minor" in relation to fellowship if it could possibly damage ours. i've been down that road already, and regretted allowing myself to be pulled into debate to the point that it became unedifying and destructive for fellowship. i am trying to grow and mature, and i don't want that to happen any further, so i sincerely try not to respond to posts that i disagree with in the mere minor aspects. this topic sort of got out of hand in that i originally was desiring to post only according to what i wrote about the menstruation aspect. but some "fires" arose that i am sure you can understand had to be dealt with concerning what i was or was not teaching. frontlets are a part of my life, just as tassles are a part of my life, and so on and so forth. the issue is "huge" for me in the sense that i unintentionally ended up writing a book about it while studying it out, but other than that, it is not a big deal. my personal teaching site, which contains about 20 or so teachings, has i think 1 sentence concerning frontlets that is buried deep in a teaching. if it were truly a monumentous issue for me, i certainly would have devoted much more time to it on my site which the public can in fact see. rather, the focus of my site is on the Messiah, and perceiving Him soley from the TaNaK, as our early brothers were limited with. Messiah is my focus, not frontlets, and i hope that is the focus of everyone in the body.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Burning one:

 

Glenn, 
as much as i would like to respond to your observations, you also know why i have chosen to remove myself from fellowship with you, and thus also why i will not respond. i hope you can understand my position.

---

When I read this, I thought of something that the Messiah Yahushua said once:

"Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets."  (Luke 6:26)

While I would never encourage animosity against myself by forcing a confrontation and by playing the "martyr", there have been times in which I felt compelled to take a stand for truth, even when doing so places me at odds with others.  If by doing so it has caused me to be rejected by men, then so be it!  All I can say is Praise Yahweh!!

You said that because you had chosen to remove yourself from "fellowship" with me, therefore you do not have to respond to my observations.  Of course, you are certainly free to ignore my posts..  However, I don't believe that those who are reading this forum will understand.  There will be questions:  If his testimony is false, why not just answer the questions?  Who committed the wrong?  What was the nature of it?   Was there "slander" involved?    And why would someone be "disfellowshipped" without due process?

Well, time will tell.

Shalom,

Glenn

------------------
======= Time is Running Out =======

quote:

---

Originally posted by gmoore44:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Burning one:

[b]�

Glenn,�
as much as i would like to respond to your observations, you also know why i have chosen to remove myself from fellowship with you, and thus also why i will not respond. i hope you can understand my position.

---

�

When I read this, I thought of something that the Messiah Yahushua said once:

�

"Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets."� (Luke 6:26)

�

While I would never encourage animosity against myself by forcing a confrontation and by playing the "martyr", there have been times in which I felt compelled to take a stand for truth, even when doing so places me at odds with others.� If by doing so it has caused me to be rejected by men, then so be it!� All I can say is Praise Yahweh!!

You said that because you had chosen to remove yourself from "fellowship" with me, therefore you do not have to respond to my observations.� Of course, you are certainly free to ignore my posts..� However, I don't believe that those who are reading this forum will understand.� There will be questions:� If his testimony is false, why not just answer the questions?� Who committed the wrong?� What was the nature of it?�� Was there "slander" involved?��� And why would someone be "disfellowshipped" without due process?

Well, time will tell.

�

Shalom,

�

Glenn

[/B][/QUOTE]

i do not bring up the reasons here because they do not apply to anyone here but you and i. the matter was between you and i, and in respect to us both, i will not bring it up here. you and i know the reasons, and that is enough. for those who want to play the guessing game or surmise in reasons that do not apply to them, they can surely go ahead, but i would rather hope that they would understand that the nature of our current separation does not involve them, and so refrain from digging into matters they are not a part of. if you choose to pursue the matter on this forum, i am just letting you know that i will not respond to, defend, correct, or clarify anything you state. whatever you may wish to write will be met with by my silence, out of courtesy to our own private matters.