- This topic is empty.
- Posts
david look at all your hard earn sales of magezines and books go to. i bet they really like you. i bet your a gifted sales man. Over a BILLION $$$$$mackaronies!!!!!!!!!!!holy cow!!!!
Quote Yes, I have resorted to looking at a similar scripture that talks about the an extremely similar thing thus proving without a shadow of a doubt that in the Bible it is not unusual to use the word 'piercing' in that way with reference to others invovling Jesus' death. Is that scripture related? It is THE MOST related scripture. Of course, in this case, you could only attack my methods of proving you wrong and not the actual argument itself.
I understand your agitation at what I pointed out as it is detrimental to your argument
Hey David,
Sorry, not offense mate – I can be blunt at times. Just a quick one on John 19:37 before I cart 2 tonnes of stuff from one house to another.
In Johns mind it was a literal piercing, because he RELATED IT TO THE CRUCIFIXION (v 34 is the context). Jesus fulfilled the prophecy when the soldiers looked upon HIM on the cross, with a wound in his side. It is unreasonable to assume that the piercing in vs 39 was not the same as that written of in vs 34. No one would argue that the previous verse should be allegorised, would they?Satan, remember when you spent a month swearing at people showing your anti-Christian spirit saying the trinity was so obvious, yet couldn't provide a single scripture? Then, your first proof of the trinity after so much rambling about nothing was the spurious text known as the comma Johanneuma–a text that most everyone understands has no right in any Bible–and then I can only imagine out of embarassment, you stopped speaking for a while. Those were the good old days.
ah ddd avid, thats not nice, betcha u have a big nose, pinocchio ! remember how i waited and let u guys ridicule me, and allowed u guys to prove yourselves fools. remember pinnnnnnnnnnhead? and to think a loud mouth such as yourself debating others on scholarly matters still uphold to a flawed and unethical translation! pinhead! big-nose! go get a nose reduction!
Quote (soxan @ Jan. 20 2006,07:02) ah ddd avid, thats not nice, betcha u have a big nose, pinocchio ! remember how i waited and let u guys ridicule me, and allowed u guys to prove yourselves fools. remember pinnnnnnnnnnhead? and to think a loud mouth such as yourself debating others on scholarly matters still uphold to a flawed and unethical translation! pinhead! big-nose! go get a nose reduction!
I hadn't read this when I wrote about your arrested development in the other forum. This proves my point.This is lovely, really, keep up the good work.
thanks… i`ve seen your work, clown!
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 16 2006,08:00) Nick and Wautlaw,
Thanks for the input but I think you both have both missed my point entirely. The issue is one of IDENTITY. In Zech 12:10 YHWH made a prediction about himself:“and they shall look upon me [YHWH] whom they have pierced
YHWH is speaking and uses the word “me” in conjunction to being the one that will be pierced. The prophecy was made by YHWH of YHWH, AND Jesus the Nazarene fulfilled it on the cross, John tells us so. This cannot be fulfilled on behalf of YHWH. That is not a legitimate explaination. Neither is “they were one in purpose”. It's an issue of identity. YHWH would be identified by the piercing.
Hi Is .1.18,
I agree that context matters as far as the reading of scripture goes. But many of the the prophecies about Jesus are deliberately hidden by God among those relating to Himself. One verse can apply to Jesus among a lot applying to God.
God never had a human body. It was Jesus who came in the flesh. If it was the flesh of God that was pieced then God died, which is impossible.ps God is Spirit and invisible to men.
If this verse in Zechariah applied to God Himself then
how is it that God is as small as a human body
and could be seen by men?Hi Is 1.18
You said
“——————————————————————————–
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 16 2006,08:00)
Nick and Wautlaw,
Thanks for the input but I think you both have both missed my point entirely. The issue is one of IDENTITY. In Zech 12:10 YHWH made a prediction about himself:“and they shall look upon me [YHWH] whom they have pierced
YHWH is speaking and uses the word “me” in conjunction to being the one that will be pierced. The prophecy was made by YHWH of YHWH, AND Jesus the Nazarene fulfilled it on the cross, John tells us so. This cannot be fulfilled on behalf of YHWH. That is not a legitimate explaination. Neither is “they were one in purpose”. It's an issue of identity. YHWH would be identified by the piercing. “
If it is a matter of identity
and you decide that scripture says that God is going to stand on one tiny spot on the tiny earth
as well as scripture saying Jesus will return to do the same
and from this you decide Jesus must be God the Father
then something is not right with your approach to scripture.If you hold to this facile view then you have decreed against the Word of God that God is not a father and does not have a son after all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
