- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 06 2009,05:18) Quote (martian @ Feb. 01 2009,17:29) Quote (meerkat @ Feb. 02 2009,07:29) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 01 2009,18:17) Marty,
I do not think you know the “I” and “me” that I am asking you to identify. Let me try to make it clearer. Who is the “I” and the “me” referred to in verse 16?Isa 48:12-16
“Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
13 “Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand together.
14 ” Assemble, all of you, and listen!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm will be against the Chaldeans.
15 “I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him,
I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
16 ” Come near to Me, listen to this:
From the first I have not spoken in secret,
From the time it took place, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.”
NASULU
I think the “I” being referenced here – the one who was sent to tell Israel of their impending destruction if they did not keep Gods commandments was Isaiah. He has been saying the words of the Lord God up to that point – when Isaiah say “and now The Lord God has sent me ………. (and continuing in verse 17 “Thus saith the Lord ………..” isn't it Isaiah referring to himself?
Here is web page that has an ineresting point about Isa 48.
Hi all,
I just want to point out something here. In the quote here Martian is suggesting I look at this website, a commentary on Isaiah 48 which ,by the way, does not back up the recent ideas of others on here which Martian comments as “all good points.” And then when I quote 3 sources that are all saying what I have thought even before I read their commentaries, Martian's rebuttal is that commentaries are no proof but opinion and stem from a bias. So he uses a commentary and suggest it will help us get the answer but dismisses three other commentaries because they can not help us since they are tainted with the roots of evil doctrine. Well, Martian, there is no end in sight here with coming to agreement with you and your bias but I have observed that all these commentaries agree that the one sent is the promised Servant, the Son and not Isaiah. Sorry if that disappoints you. The Son laid the foundation of the earth and God, the Father agrees in Hebrews 1. This is proof of pre-existence for those with open hearts, imo.LU
Are you grasping at straws again. Had you bothered to take any look at all at the site I suggested you would have seen that no where on the site is a commentary. I did not quote any commentary nor suggest any commentary.
I did suggest the importance in knowing the Hebrew perspective on scripture. This site has many articles on that subject. these articles are based on the etimology of ancient Hebrew words as understood within their Hebrew culture and derived from the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon. You do know the difference between a lexicon and a commentary don’t you?
In addition this lexicon is different then any that have been published before.
To quote the site —
All previous Biblical Hebrew lexicons have provided a modern western definition and perspective to Hebrew roots and words. This prevents the reader of the Bible from seeing the ancient authors original intent of the passages. This is the first Biblical Hebrew lexicon that defines each Hebrew word within its original Ancient Hebrew cultural meaning. One of the major differences between the Modern Western mind and the Ancient Hebrew's is that their mind related all words and their meanings to a concrete concept. For instance, the Hebrew word “chai” is normally translated as “life”, a western abstract meaning, but the original Hebrew concrete meaning of this word is the “stomach”. In the Ancient Hebrew mind, a full stomach is a sign of a full “life”. The Hebrew language is a root system oriented language and the lexicon is divided into sections reflecting this root system. Each word of the Hebrew Bible is grouped within its roots and is defined according to its original ancient cultural meaning. Also included in each word entry is its alternative spellings, King James translations of the word and Strong's number. Indexes are included to assist with finding a word within the lexicon according to its spelling, definition, King James translation or Strong's number.Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 06 2009,05:18) Quote (martian @ Feb. 01 2009,17:29) Quote (meerkat @ Feb. 02 2009,07:29) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 01 2009,18:17) Marty,
I do not think you know the “I” and “me” that I am asking you to identify. Let me try to make it clearer. Who is the “I” and the “me” referred to in verse 16?Isa 48:12-16
“Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
13 “Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand together.
14 ” Assemble, all of you, and listen!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm will be against the Chaldeans.
15 “I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him,
I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
16 ” Come near to Me, listen to this:
From the first I have not spoken in secret,
From the time it took place, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.”
NASULU
I think the “I” being referenced here – the one who was sent to tell Israel of their impending destruction if they did not keep Gods commandments was Isaiah. He has been saying the words of the Lord God up to that point – when Isaiah say “and now The Lord God has sent me ………. (and continuing in verse 17 “Thus saith the Lord ………..” isn't it Isaiah referring to himself?
Here is web page that has an ineresting point about Isa 48.
Hi all,
I just want to point out something here. In the quote here Martian is suggesting I look at this website, a commentary on Isaiah 48 which ,by the way, does not back up the recent ideas of others on here which Martian comments as “all good points.” And then when I quote 3 sources that are all saying what I have thought even before I read their commentaries, Martian's rebuttal is that commentaries are no proof but opinion and stem from a bias. So he uses a commentary and suggest it will help us get the answer but dismisses three other commentaries because they can not help us since they are tainted with the roots of evil doctrine. Well, Martian, there is no end in sight here with coming to agreement with you and your bias but I have observed that all these commentaries agree that the one sent is the promised Servant, the Son and not Isaiah. Sorry if that disappoints you. The Son laid the foundation of the earth and God, the Father agrees in Hebrews 1. This is proof of pre-existence for those with open hearts, imo.LU
Sorry I missunderstood your post. I thought you were refering to my post on the Ancient Hebrew. I did post that web page but if you will read further I also agreed with those that say the I and Me is refering to Isaiah. I only pointed out an interesting twist within that site. Did not say I ageed or dissagreed. I was still researching it at that time.Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 06 2009,05:18) Quote (martian @ Feb. 01 2009,17:29) Quote (meerkat @ Feb. 02 2009,07:29) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 01 2009,18:17) Marty,
I do not think you know the “I” and “me” that I am asking you to identify. Let me try to make it clearer. Who is the “I” and the “me” referred to in verse 16?Isa 48:12-16
“Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
13 “Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand together.
14 ” Assemble, all of you, and listen!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm will be against the Chaldeans.
15 “I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him,
I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
16 ” Come near to Me, listen to this:
From the first I have not spoken in secret,
From the time it took place, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.”
NASULU
I think the “I” being referenced here – the one who was sent to tell Israel of their impending destruction if they did not keep Gods commandments was Isaiah. He has been saying the words of the Lord God up to that point – when Isaiah say “and now The Lord God has sent me ………. (and continuing in verse 17 “Thus saith the Lord ………..” isn't it Isaiah referring to himself?
Here is web page that has an ineresting point about Isa 48.
Hi all,
I just want to point out something here. In the quote here Martian is suggesting I look at this website, a commentary on Isaiah 48 which ,by the way, does not back up the recent ideas of others on here which Martian comments as “all good points.” And then when I quote 3 sources that are all saying what I have thought even before I read their commentaries, Martian's rebuttal is that commentaries are no proof but opinion and stem from a bias. So he uses a commentary and suggest it will help us get the answer but dismisses three other commentaries because they can not help us since they are tainted with the roots of evil doctrine. Well, Martian, there is no end in sight here with coming to agreement with you and your bias but I have observed that all these commentaries agree that the one sent is the promised Servant, the Son and not Isaiah. Sorry if that disappoints you. The Son laid the foundation of the earth and God, the Father agrees in Hebrews 1. This is proof of pre-existence for those with open hearts, imo.LU
You are correct that i posted a commentary. I did not agree or dissagree with it in my post. It was simply one of the things I discovered in my research on that verse. I still do not accept commentaries as definitive proof on a given subject.
You can find commentaries that will swera that baptism is in the name of Jesus and those that will swear that it must be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and still others that will argue if it must be immersion while others say sprinkling.I also noticed how fast you were willing to jump on what you believed to be a lack of integrety on my part. As far as I am aware, I have never made a personal attack on you. I have endeavored to restrict my comments toward your doctrine. I ask in all honesty, do you think your debate with Jodi has embittered you against anyone that might agree with her?
Quote (martian @ Feb. 05 2009,15:39) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 06 2009,05:18) Quote (martian @ Feb. 01 2009,17:29) Quote (meerkat @ Feb. 02 2009,07:29) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 01 2009,18:17) Marty,
I do not think you know the “I” and “me” that I am asking you to identify. Let me try to make it clearer. Who is the “I” and the “me” referred to in verse 16?Isa 48:12-16
“Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
13 “Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand together.
14 ” Assemble, all of you, and listen!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm will be against the Chaldeans.
15 “I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him,
I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
16 ” Come near to Me, listen to this:
From the first I have not spoken in secret,
From the time it took place, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.”
NASULU
I think the “I” being referenced here – the one who was sent to tell Israel of their impending destruction if they did not keep Gods commandments was Isaiah. He has been saying the words of the Lord God up to that point – when Isaiah say “and now The Lord God has sent me ………. (and continuing in verse 17 “Thus saith the Lord ………..” isn't it Isaiah referring to himself?
Here is web page that has an ineresting point about Isa 48.
Hi all,
I just want to point out something here. In the quote here Martian is suggesting I look at this website, a commentary on Isaiah 48 which ,by the way, does not back up the recent ideas of others on here which Martian comments as “all good points.” And then when I quote 3 sources that are all saying what I have thought even before I read their commentaries, Martian's rebuttal is that commentaries are no proof but opinion and stem from a bias. So he uses a commentary and suggest it will help us get the answer but dismisses three other commentaries because they can not help us since they are tainted with the roots of evil doctrine. Well, Martian, there is no end in sight here with coming to agreement with you and your bias but I have observed that all these commentaries agree that the one sent is the promised Servant, the Son and not Isaiah. Sorry if that disappoints you. The Son laid the foundation of the earth and God, the Father agrees in Hebrews 1. This is proof of pre-existence for those with open hearts, imo.LU
You are correct that i posted a commentary. I did not agree or dissagree with it in my post. It was simply one of the things I discovered in my research on that verse. I still do not accept commentaries as definitive proof on a given subject.
You can find commentaries that will swera that baptism is in the name of Jesus and those that will swear that it must be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and still others that will argue if it must be immersion while others say sprinkling.I also noticed how fast you were willing to jump on what you believed to be a lack of integrety on my part. As far as I am aware, I have never made a personal attack on you. I have endeavored to restrict my comments toward your doctrine. I ask in all honesty, do you think your debate with Jodi has embittered you against anyone that might agree with her?
Martian,
Again, I am concerned about your reading comprehension. I haven't spoke to Jodi for months and I have never been embittered with her. Maybe you are confusing me with Irene. I am sorry but I do question your integrity but maybe it is more a problem stemming with reading comprehension. And I am sure I can find several personal “slams” that you have written against me if you would really like to go there. Your “slams” I do not take personal because I do not see you as one that has an open heart toward others that show you things that go against your personal doctrine.I recently questioned your integrity when you made a huge exageration of my use of the word “light” in some instances referring to the Son of God and then you treated it like I use the term “light” ALWAYS to refer to the Son of God which I have never done. Just like this bit that you just wrote about Jodi and I, you are obviously in error. You haven't apologized for your derogatory posts that you have made towards me when you realize that you are wrong (even as recently as the past 24 hours). You say that I am correct without apologizing for your previous degradation towards me. So therefore, I do hold your integrity at question as well as your reading comprehension. Because of this your “slams” do not mean much to me. Don't worry.
BTW, I look at commentaries to consider them not to just accept all that is said so in that I agree with you. I do think they can be useful though.
Also, you posted a commentary but didn't say anything about it. You didn't point out the interesting twist at all. So next time when you point out a commentary maybe you should state that you have not agreed with it or disagreed with it so that we know further why you are sending us there.
LUQuote (Lightenup @ Feb. 06 2009,10:52) Quote (martian @ Feb. 05 2009,15:39) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 06 2009,05:18) Quote (martian @ Feb. 01 2009,17:29) Quote (meerkat @ Feb. 02 2009,07:29) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 01 2009,18:17) Marty,
I do not think you know the “I” and “me” that I am asking you to identify. Let me try to make it clearer. Who is the “I” and the “me” referred to in verse 16?Isa 48:12-16
“Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
13 “Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand together.
14 ” Assemble, all of you, and listen!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm will be against the Chaldeans.
15 “I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him,
I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
16 ” Come near to Me, listen to this:
From the first I have not spoken in secret,
From the time it took place, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.”
NASULU
I think the “I” being referenced here – the one who was sent to tell Israel of their impending destruction if they did not keep Gods commandments was Isaiah. He has been saying the words of the Lord God up to that point – when Isaiah say “and now The Lord God has sent me ………. (and continuing in verse 17 “Thus saith the Lord ………..” isn't it Isaiah referring to himself?
Here is web page that has an ineresting point about Isa 48.
Hi all,
I just want to point out something here. In the quote here Martian is suggesting I look at this website, a commentary on Isaiah 48 which ,by the way, does not back up the recent ideas of others on here which Martian comments as “all good points.” And then when I quote 3 sources that are all saying what I have thought even before I read their commentaries, Martian's rebuttal is that commentaries are no proof but opinion and stem from a bias. So he uses a commentary and suggest it will help us get the answer but dismisses three other commentaries because they can not help us since they are tainted with the roots of evil doctrine. Well, Martian, there is no end in sight here with coming to agreement with you and your bias but I have observed that all these commentaries agree that the one sent is the promised Servant, the Son and not Isaiah. Sorry if that disappoints you. The Son laid the foundation of the earth and God, the Father agrees in Hebrews 1. This is proof of pre-existence for those with open hearts, imo.LU
You are correct that i posted a commentary. I did not agree or dissagree with it in my post. It was simply one of the things I discovered in my research on that verse. I still do not accept commentaries as definitive proof on a given subject.
You can find commentaries that will swera that baptism is in the name of Jesus and those that will swear that it must be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and still others that will argue if it must be immersion while others say sprinkling.I also noticed how fast you were willing to jump on what you believed to be a lack of integrety on my part. As far as I am aware, I have never made a personal attack on you. I have endeavored to restrict my comments toward your doctrine. I ask in all honesty, do you think your debate with Jodi has embittered you against anyone that might agree with her?
Martian,
Again, I am concerned about your reading comprehension. I haven't spoke to Jodi for months and I have never been embittered with her. Maybe you are confusing me with Irene. I am sorry but I do question your integrity but maybe it is more a problem stemming with reading comprehension. And I am sure I can find several personal “slams” that you have written against me if you would really like to go there. Your “slams” I do not take personal because I do not see you as one that has an open heart toward others that show you things that go against your personal doctrine.I recently questioned your integrity when you made a huge exageration of my use of the word “light” in some instances referring to the Son of God and then you treated it like I use the term “light” ALWAYS to refer to the Son of God which I have never done. Just like this bit that you just wrote about Jodi and I, you are obviously in error. You haven't apologized for your derogatory posts that you have made towards me when you realize that you are wrong (even as recently as the past 24 hours). You say that I am correct without apologizing for your previous degradation towards me. So therefore, I do hold your integrity at question as well as your reading comprehension. Because of this your “slams” do not mean much to me. Don't worry.
BTW, I look at commentaries to consider them not to just accept all that is said so in that I agree with you. I do think they can be useful though.
Also, you posted a commentary but didn't say anything about it. You didn't point out the interesting twist at all. So next time when you point out a commentary maybe you should state that you have not agreed with it or disagreed with it so that we know further why you are sending us there.
LU
Hi LUHope you are well!
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 06 2009,10:52)
Your “slams” I do not take personal because I do not see you as one that has an open heart toward others that show you things that go against your personal doctrine.I agree. But I think this applies to everyone on this sight.
I have been here a long time and the only ones that I have seen make a major change in their doctrine are those who have fallen away from the faith altogether.
Preexistence, satan, baptism, Henotheism, Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, and Jesus is God, Jesus is a mere man, Atheism, Etc, Etc, Etc are beliefs that have been expressed as well as hundreds of others on this sight.
Can anyone name a major doctrine that they have given up since being on this sight?
Please before you make a post about changing your opinion about Trinitarianism, look at the que
stion, “since being on this sight”?Everyone here is convinced in his own mind that what he believes is scriptural and that God has shown him such.
Obviously the second part of my above statement cannot be true, because if everything that we all believe was shown to us by God then there would be no disagreement, which means that not all are listening to the Spirit of God.
I tell you all now, THAT I AM COMPLETELY CONVINCED OF WHAT I BELIEVE. I do not claim that God came to me and said in a verbal voice “thus saith the Lord this is my truth”, however I believe what I believe because of the witness of the Spirit and the years of study of the scriptures. This has brought me to the understanding that I have and my beliefs by taking “All” scriptural data together without denying any or casting shadow on the translators or making the excuse that the scriptures are corrupt and written by biased men.
To me that is prideful and just an excuse to justify their own doctrine because they place themselves above the many scholars that are far more qualified and have put far more time and research in the languages to bring us the translations and the scriptures that we have.
After all, the discussions on this sight are about the scriptures that we have. Do scholars disagree, of course they do, but there is very “little” variation in the translations and the variations surely do not affect major doctrine.
I will be the first to admit that I will never give up on what I believe. Why?
Because…
“…I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. 2 Tim 1:12
Some may say that is prideful. Then I suppose Paul was prideful. The Jesus I know and serve in my heart and mind is the Jesus of the Bible. God will be my judge in that day.
Those who say they are open to change are pretty much saying they are not sure of what they believe or they are just not being honest with themselves, because if you are sure that what you believe is God then why would you be open to change?
If you hold on to what you believe with all your might and a sincere heart, is the Lord not powerful enough to change you? Therefore the attitude that I have is without wavering, I will hold on to the truth I have with all my heart.
Martian has taken the attitude that if ones doctrine does not agree with his then they are deceived and following paganistic concepts as others here also do.
I believe the same about him, however I think the difference is in judging ones heart and not their doctrine, and only God knows the sincerity or insincerity of ones heart.
God alone knows if one is being true to themselves and what they see in scriptures or if their conscience speaks to them that they are twisting scripture or denying scriptures to fit their belief or unbelief of a particular concept.
For instance, accusing the brethren like saying that they worship satan by believing a certain way is a judgment on the heart and not their belief. For how can someone be following and worshipping both God and satan? God himself sees the heart. So such a judgment on someone who denies worshipping satan is wrong.
Patronizing attitudes toward the character or heart of a believer is not from the Spirit of God.
Endeavoring to keep the Unity of the Spirit is. Eph 4.
Blessings WJ
Hi Keith,
Nice to hear form you. I have to agree with much of what you wrote in the last post here but I would like to challenge this comment that you made:Quote Those who say they are open to change are pretty much saying they are not sure of what they believe or they are just not being honest with themselves, because if you are sure that what you believe is God then why would you be open to change? Would you agree that now we see dimly compared to our view of things after resurrection? I would think that if one was not open to change then they are not teachable and know all like God. No use for learning anything more. I don't think that you are saying that you are a “know it all” so why do you think that you can't learn anything new that could lead to change? You did indicate that God is strong enough to change you so I guess that you think that you are changeable. Learning something new causes change of even a small bit. If we are not open to change we are hard clay for the potter. Are you the perfected pot Keith? I really don't think that you want to come across like that, do you?
I had changed a good bit before I came here and not afterward except in developing my thoughts and reasoning. I however want to welcome change for the better, for a fuller knowledge of God and His Son and His ways. It would take a very convincing piece of evidence for me to give up my understanding but I would hope that I will continue to seek fuller truth and change accordingly. I admit that I see dimly now but I also believe that I see clearer than I used to.
Change to me is equal to growing in the knowledge and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. If we learn, we change and we grow closer to truth. If we don't believe that we need to learn then we won't change and apparently believe that we hold the complete truth.
Paul says this;
1 Cor 13:12-13
12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
NASUEven Paul admitted that he knows in part.
You ask if God is powerful enough to change those who think they do not need to change. Yes, He definetly is and sometimes He uses the persuasion of other believers. That is what I believe.
You are correct about God knowing our hearts and we shouldn't judge each others hearts.
Do you think that we can attain unity with our attitudes that reflect the attitudes of Christ, or can we attain unity towards the purposes of God, or can we attain a unity of love? The scriptures tell us to and so it must be possible. Can we attain unity on those things without agreeing on basic doctrines? I think that we can have better attitudes towards each other, serve the purposes of God better and grow in love for one another in spite of our doctrinal differences. Let's press on.
LU
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 06 2009,10:52) Quote (martian @ Feb. 05 2009,15:39) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 06 2009,05:18) Quote (martian @ Feb. 01 2009,17:29) Quote (meerkat @ Feb. 02 2009,07:29) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 01 2009,18:17) Marty,
I do not think you know the “I” and “me” that I am asking you to identify. Let me try to make it clearer. Who is the “I” and the “me” referred to in verse 16?Isa 48:12-16
“Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
13 “Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand together.
14 ” Assemble, all of you, and listen!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm will be against the Chaldeans.
15 “I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him,
I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
16 ” Come near to Me, listen to this:
From the first I have not spoken in secret,
From the time it took place, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.”
NASULU
I think the “I” being referenced here – the one who was sent to tell Israel of their impending destruction if they did not keep Gods commandments was Isaiah. He has been saying the words of the Lord God up to that point – when Isaiah say “and now The Lord God has sent me ………. (and continuing in verse 17 “Thus saith the Lord ………..” isn't it Isaiah referring to himself?
Here is web page that has an ineresting point about Isa 48.
Hi all,
I just want to point out something here. In the quote here Martian is suggesting I look at this website, a commentary on Isaiah 48 which ,by the way, does not back up the recent ideas of others on here which Martian comments as “all good points.” And then when I quote 3 sources that are all saying what I have thought even before I read their commentaries, Martian's rebuttal is that commentaries are no proof but opinion and stem from a bias. So he uses a commentary and suggest it will help us get the answer but dismisses three other commentaries because they can not help us since they are tainted with the roots of evil doctrine. Well, Martian, there is no end in sight here with coming to agreement with you and your bias but I have observed that all these commentaries agree that the one sent is the promised Servant, the Son and not Isaiah. Sorry if that disappoints you. The Son laid the foundation of the earth and God, the Father agrees in Hebrews 1. This is proof of pre-existence for those with open hearts, imo.LU
You are correct that i posted a commentary. I did not agree or dissagree with it in my post. It was simply one of the things I discovered in my research on that verse. I still do not accept commentaries as definitive proof on a given subject.
You can find commentaries that will swera that baptism is in the name of Jesus and those that will swear that it must be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and still others that will argue if it must be immersion while others say sprinkling.I also noticed how fast you were willing to jump on what you believed to be a lack of integrety on my part. As far as I am aware, I have never made a personal attack on you. I have endeavored to restrict my comments toward your doctrine. I ask in all honesty, do you think your debate with Jodi has embittered you against anyone that might agree with her?
Martian,
Again, I am concerned about your reading comprehension. I haven't spoke to Jodi for months and I have never been embittered with her. Maybe you are confusing me with Irene. I am sorry but I do question your integrity but maybe it is more a problem stemming with reading comprehension. And I am sure I can find several personal “slams” that you have written against me if you would really like to go there. Your “slams” I do not take personal because I do not see you as one that has an open heart toward others that show you things that go against your personal doctrine.I recently questioned your integrity when you made a huge exageration of my use of the word “light” in some instances referring to the Son of God and then you treated it like I use the term “light” ALWAYS to refer to the Son of God which I have never done. Just like this bit that you just wrote about Jodi and I, you are obviously in error. You haven't apologized for your derogatory posts that you have made towards me when you realize that you are wrong (even as recently as the past 24 hours). You say that I am correct without apologizing for your previous degradation towards me. So therefore, I do hold your integrity at question as well as your reading comprehension. Because of this your “slams” do not mean much to me. Don't worry.
BTW, I look at commentaries to consider them not to just accept all that is said so in that I agree with you. I do think they can be useful though.
Also, you posted a commentary but didn't say anything about it. You didn't point out the interesting twist at all. So next time when you point out a commentary maybe you should state that you have not agreed with it or disagreed with it so that we know further why you are sending us there.
LU
You say –
Martian,
Again, I am concerned about your reading comprehension. I haven't spoke to Jodi for months and I have never been embittered with her. Maybe you are confusing me with Irene.Reply –
That is very possible. Pre-existence is being discussed on two different threads and I did get you and Irene confused. You have my sincere apology for that.You say –
I am sorry but I do question your integrity but maybe it is more a problem stemming with reading comprehension. And I am sure I can find several personal “slams” that you have written against me if you would really like to go there. Your “slams” I do not take personal because I do not see you as one that has an open heart toward others that show you things that go against your personal doctrine.Reply –
Actually my reading comprehension is fine. As far as being open to new truth, I do believe I am open. The problem is I have not found anything valuable or honest on this site to warrant my change. There are several reasons for this
1.This is not a teaching venue or a ministry. I
t is really little more then a computer game.
2.I have found very few that are willing to discuss doctrine (mine our theirs) within the guidelines of proper interpretation processes.
3.I do not consider what I believe to be without error. I am sure I am mistaken in one area or another. However, until someone shows me with sound principles I cannot take them very seriously.You say –
I recently questioned your integrity when you made a huge exageration of my use of the word “light” in some instances referring to the Son of God and then you treated it like I use the term “light” ALWAYS to refer to the Son of God which I have never done.Reply-
It was not a matter of questioning your personal integrity, it was questioning your method of deciding when the term light would be applicable to Jesus an when it would not. On what basis do you choose? I was not saying that you use light as Jesus in every incident. That was my point. I was questioning your method of deciding when it did refer to Jesus. I was questioning your basis for choosing when “light” applied to Jesus and when it did not.
I question if your choice is based on your doctrine or on sound principles of interpretation. I can see no sound reason to tie “light” in Gen 1 with “light” as describing Jesus. I have known others that have made such leaps and later admitted that they made that leap based on what they had already decided was truth. Without an assumption that Jesus pre-existed and/or He created the heavens and the Earth, there would be no reason to go there. There would be no reason to assume Jesus is being spoken of in Gen 1. If your reason for going there is the use of the term “light” then should that not bring into question every time light is used in scripture?
My next statement is an assumption. I mean no disrespect in this and if I am wrong please correct me and you have my apology in advance.
Do you you read light as applied to Jesus and then read light in Genesis and the reason you say the Genesis “light” is Jesus is because of your doctrine? Do you believe this because you believe that Jesus pre-existed and created the heavens and the Earth? Is your doctrine the basis or principle that you use to determine what the scriptures in Genesis mean. Isn’t this what some on here have said is reading scripture through a predetermined doctrinal filter?
Again if I am wrong then please correct me.
I have posted several times on several threads a desire to mutually agree on a system of interpretation that we could all agree on, no one is interested. It seems that no one wants to have their personal doctrines subject to any real honest biblical principles of interpretation. I am more then willing to discuss with anyone their system they use to interpret what a scripture means or to investigate their doctrine within the scope of good hermaneutics but I get no takers.You say –
Just like this bit that you just wrote about Jodi and I, you are obviously in error. You haven't apologized for your derogatory posts that you have made towards me when you realize that you are wrong (even as recently as the past 24 hours). You say that I am correct without apologizing for your previous degradation towards me.Reply –
Actually if you will read my first word in my post was “sorry” perhaps that was not enough for you. I posted twice and the first one did include the saying “sorry”. If that is not enough please tell me what will suffice. As far as the Jody incident, I was only aware of that mistake this morning and have apologized now for that.You say –
So therefore, I do hold your integrity at question as well as your reading comprehension. Because of this your “slams” do not mean much to me. Don't worry.Reply-
Well I do not know you at all so I cannot and have not judged your integrity. I have attempted to live by the belief that only God can judge anyone’s character or integrity. I do challenge the integrity of your interpretation process.
It is curious that you say my “slams” do not mean much to you and yet you felt it necessary to bring them up and to point out that I have not yet apologized ect.You say-
BTW, I look at commentaries to consider them not to just accept all that is said so in that I agree with you. I do think they can be useful though.You say –
Also, you posted a commentary but didn't say anything about it. You didn't point out the interesting twist at all. So next time when you point out a commentary maybe you should state that you have not agreed with it or disagreed with it so that we know further why you are sending us there.Reply –
I would have thought it obvious. The purpose of this venue is to discuss different takes on various subjects. You posted a meaning for Isa 48. You posted it (I assume) to solicit discussion on the subject. The site/commentary had a take on it I had not seen before. That is what I found interesting and that is why I posted it to bring about more discussion on that particular interpretation.Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 06 2009,05:18) Quote (martian @ Feb. 01 2009,17:29) Quote (meerkat @ Feb. 02 2009,07:29) Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 01 2009,18:17) Marty,
I do not think you know the “I” and “me” that I am asking you to identify. Let me try to make it clearer. Who is the “I” and the “me” referred to in verse 16?Isa 48:12-16
“Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
13 “Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand together.
14 ” Assemble, all of you, and listen!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm will be against the Chaldeans.
15 “I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him,
I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
16 ” Come near to Me, listen to this:
From the first I have not spoken in secret,
From the time it took place, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.”
NASULU
I think the “I” being referenced here – the one who was sent to tell Israel of their impending destruction if they did not keep Gods commandments was Isaiah. He has been saying the words of the Lord God up to that point – when Isaiah say “and now The Lord God has sent me ………. (and continuing in verse 17 “Thus saith the Lord ………..” isn't it Isaiah referring to himself?
Here is web page that has an ineresting point about Isa 48.
Hi all,
I just want to point out something here. In the quote here Martian is suggesting I look at this website, a commentary on Isaiah 48 which ,by the way, does not back up the recent ideas of others on here which Martian comments as “all good points.” And then when I quote 3 sources that are all saying what I have thought even before I read their commentaries, Martian's rebuttal is that commentaries are no proof but opinion and stem from a bias. So he uses a commentary and suggest it will help us get the answer but dismisses three other commentaries because they can not help us since they are tainted with the roots of evil doctrine. Well, Martian, there is no end in sight here with coming to agreement with you and your bias but I have observed that all these commentaries agree that the one sent is the promised Servant, the Son and not Isaiah. Sorry if that disappoints you. The Son laid the foundation of the earth and God, the Father agrees in Hebrews 1. This is proof of pre-existence for those with open hearts, imo.LU
Acouple of additional things –
You say-
So he uses a commentary and suggest it will help us get the answer but dismisses three other commentaries because they can not help us since they are tainted with the roots of evil doctrine.
Rep[ly – I no whee suggested that the comentary I posted would help find the answer. You read that into my post. I simply said it was interesting. That is all I said. You are making many assumptions both about me and scripture.Now back to Isa 48
Isaiah begins prophecy concerning Israel’s release from Babylonian captivity. Here YHWH points out that He will use Cyrus to effect that release.
Isaiah 4421″Remember these things, O Jacob,
And Israel, for you are My servant;
I have formed you, you are My servant,
O Israel, you will not be forgotten by Me.
22″I have wiped out your transgressions like a thick cloud
And your sins like a heavy mist
Return to Me, for I have redeemed you.”
23Shout for joy, O heavens, for the LORD has done it!
Shout joyfully, you lower parts of the earth;
Break forth into a shout of joy, you mountains,
O forest, and every tree in it;
For the LORD has redeemed Jacob
And in Israel He shows forth His glory.
24Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb,?
“I, the LORD, am the maker of all things,?
Stretching out the heavens by Myself?
And spreading out the earth all alone,( interesting point by YHWH. He says He created everything alone. Leaves that pre-existent Christ out does it not?)
? 25Causing the omens of boasters to fail,?
Making fools out of diviners,?
Causing wise men to draw back?
And turning their knowledge into foolishness, ? 26Confirming the word of His servant?
And performing the purpose of His messengers(God confirms the word of His servant and His messengers. These refer to Isaiah and the other prophets.)
? It is I who says of Jerusalem, 'She shall be inhabited!'?
And of the cities of Judah, 'They shall be built.'?
And I will raise up her ruins again. ? 27″It is I who says to the depth of the sea, 'Be dried up!'?
And I will make your rivers dry. ?
28″It is I who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd!?
And he will perform all My desire '?
And he declares of Jerusalem, 'She will be built,'?
And of the temple, 'Your foundation will be laid.'”. This is prophecy. 150 years before it actually takes place.
Chapter 45
God again speaks prophetically to Cyrus.The LORD, the God of Israel, who calls you by your name.
4″For the sake of Jacob My servant,
And Israel My chosen one,
I have also called you by your name;
I have given you a title of honor
Though you have not known Me.
5″I am the LORD, and there is no other;
Besides Me there is no God
I will gird you, though you have not known Me;
6That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun
That there is no one besides Me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other,
7The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.Chapter 46
God condemns the idols of BabylonChapter 47
God condemns Babylon for it’s treatment of Israel.
Notice God calls the people of Babylon Chaldeans.
1″Come down and sit in the dust,
O virgin daughter of Babylon;
Sit on the ground without a throne,
O daughter of the Chaldeans!Chapter 48
1 through 11
God points out the stubbornness of Israel and yet proclaims he will redeem His chosen people.12″Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
13″Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand together.
14″Assemble
, all of you, and listen!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm will be against the Chaldeans.
15″I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him,
I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.(Who comes against the Chaldeans? Cyrus does. God uses him to free Israel and makes his ways succesfull.)
16″Come near to Me, listen to this:
From the first I have not spoken in secret,
From the time it took place, I was there
And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.”This entire book is a prophecy about Israel with some places applying to the coming Messiah. Cyrus is a type of the Messiah. Who is speaking? Who is the me? In verse 16. There are only 4 possibilities
1.Cyrus – It is not Cyrus because He was not yet born (unless someone wants to claim pre-existence for him)
2.It is not the Lord God.
3.Jesus – Why would it be Jesus. Thee is no reason linguistically to insert Jesus in this verse. The only way to read Jesus into this verse it to read it through a doctrinal filter of Pre-existence. There is no proper interpretation principle that would allow a rendering of Jesus for the me. The only “authority” a person might attempt is their doctrine. In other words it become doctrine interpreting scripture instead of scripture interpreting scripture.
4.Isaiah – He is the one speaking forth this prophecy and was sent by the Lord GOD to Israel to proclaim it.My authority for saying it is Isaiah is —
1. He is the one speaking
2 He is sent by God
3 He is sent to IsraelSo fa the only authority you have shown is your doctrine. You are using your doctrine to prove your doctrine. A little like circular reasoning don't you think?
Hi Martian,
I accept you apologies. I too am sorry that I thought your website was intended to be helpful, you are right I assumed that you wanted us to benefit from it when you just wanted us to consider it. My mistake.You have written in quite length.
My response to that written about Isaiah 48:16 is that I have read differing commentaries and they do not all agree with who is sent. One will say it is Isaiah, while another will say the Messiah and then they disagree whether the Spirit sends or is sent. What I did find interesting was the point that Keil and Delitzsch have and that is the prophet hasn't yet spoken of himself in the first person but only indirectly.Isa 48:12-16
Up to this point Jehovah is speaking; but who is it that now proceeds to say, “And now-namely, now that the redemption of Israel is about to appear (wª`ataah (OT:6258) being here, as in many other instances, e.g., Isa 33:10, the turning-point of salvation) – now that the Lord Jehovah sent me and His Spirit?” The majority of the commentators assume that the prophet comes forward here in his own person, behind Him whom he has introduced, and interrupts Him. But although it is perfectly true, that in all prophecy, from Deuteronomy onwards, words of Jehovah through the prophet and words of the prophet of Jehovah alternate in constant, and often harsh transitions, and that our prophet has this mark of divine inspiration in common with all the other prophets (cf., Isa 62:5-6), it must also be borne in mind, that hitherto he has not spoken once objectively of himself, except quite indirectly (vid., Isa 40:6; 44:26), to say nothing of actually coming forward in his own person.
(from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright  1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)That is all I have time for right now.
LUQuote (Lightenup @ Feb. 06 2009,13:26) Hi Keith,
Nice to hear form you. I have to agree with much of what you wrote in the last post here but I would like to challenge this comment that you made:Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 06 2009,12:18) Those who say they are open to change are pretty much saying they are not sure of what they believe or they are just not being honest with themselves, because if you are sure that what you believe is God then why would you be open to change? Would you agree that now we see dimly compared to our view of things after resurrection?
Hi Kathi
Thanks for challenging me, however I think you misunderstand what I am saying.
I agree with you that we see dimly and that we do not have all knowledge. For even Paul says “if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 1 Cor 8:2
Surely this sight will challenge anyone that thinks they know anything about scripture.
But let me ask you, do you 'see dimly” that Jesus lived, shed his blood for your sins on Calvary, and rose again? I would hope that you see clearly those truths, and if you were to receive any knew revelation on his life, death, and resurrection, it would only support what you already know without a doubt is the truth of God, right?
The last part of my quote should clarify this…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 06 2009,12:18) …BECAUSE IF YOU ARE SURE THAT WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS GOD THEN WHY WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO CHANGE? If I ask you Kathi, “are you 100% convinced in your own heart and mind that Jesus is the light that the Father spoke into existence and this Jesus became the one who created all things’, by his hands, could you without a doubt say Yes?
If not then in my opinion you are not convinced. So if you are convinced that God spoke to you and showed you this, are you open to changing your mind on what God said to you?
So as I have said, I know of no one on this sight that has changed their basic beliefs or major doctrine, preexistence, Etc.
Being open to change does not have to mean I am open to change what I am thoroughly convinced is God. However I am open for new and additional truth that would add to or solidify what I already know is truth. That is exactly what this sight has done for me.
You see if someone came to me and said you must deny Jesus is “The True God” or I will kill you, then I am going to heaven. That is how convinced I am that scripturally the Bible teaches he is “God” and not a “god”.
But does this mean that I know all things or believe that God cannot change me?
Absolutely not.
I hope this clarifies my post.
Blessings!
Keith
Hi Kathi
I would also like to add that the many differences in beliefs really have their roots in not sharing the same foundation.
If you build a building and the foundation is not right then as you build the structure it will begin to lean and have problems. It will not be plumb or level meaning that it would also be out of square making it much harder to build and also making it very weak and not looking so good.
If I was to ask everyone on this sight individually “who is the source of your faith”?
The Father, Hearing the word, The Spirit, or Jesus? I am sure there would be all kinds of answers.
But what is the scriptural truth?
So who is the source of our faith?
I am gonna leave for a while and hope many will give me the answer and lets see what many say!
Blessings!
Keith
BTW please be honest and give me your first answer without researching it, for surely this is a basic truth that we should already know.
Hi WJ:
I was raised by Catholic parents who taught me that God was a reality and taught me about Jesus and what he had done for me, and so, I suppose that this is the source my initial faith. I can't say that I totally believed it then and I had actually become an agnostic before my conversion experience, but the seed had been sown in my heart, and that flicker of perhaps it was true, made me turn to God for help in a moment of desperation, and having received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, my faith now is in this an many personal experiences that leaves no doubt that the Word of God is true.
Love in Christ,
MartyThanks Keith for clarifying your stance, I didn't think that you actually thought that you could not learn from this site.
You asked some thoughtful questions and I appreciate that.
You asked:
Quote But let me ask you, do you 'see dimly” that Jesus lived, shed his blood for your sins on Calvary, and rose again? I would hope that you see clearly those truths, and if you were to receive any knew revelation on his life, death, and resurrection, it would only support what you already know without a doubt is the truth of God, right? I see that teaching clearly in the scriptures, not dimly. I believe the teachings in the Bible to be inspired by God Himself. I trust what the scriptures say about that to be truth. I think that most of us here believe that.
Quote If I ask you Kathi, “are you 100% convinced in your own heart and mind that Jesus is the light that the Father spoke into existence and this Jesus became the one who created all things’, by his hands, could you without a doubt say Yes? I can say that I am 100% convinced that it is entirely possible for the Son of God to have a beginning on day one of creation and that the term “firstborn of all creation” is quite likely a reference to that light. I also do believe that the scriptures indicate that the Son (not called Jesus at that point) was actively involved in laying the foundation of the earth and filling it, also in filling the heavens. How He did that I do not claim to know except He did all by the power from His Father. I am also 100% convinced that this line of thought has given me greater understanding of the Godhead, the message of the gospel and several different verses. It replaced the lack of understanding that I had under the trinity doctrine.
Quote If I was to ask everyone on this sight individually “who is the source of your faith”? God is the source of the “word of God” and faith comes by hearing the word of God. God is the source of my faith.
BTW, if someone asked me to agree that the trinity was the true doctrine of God or die, I would be in heaven. I do not agree with the use of “coequal” or “coeternal” between the Father and the Son. I do see the true saving God as a unity between the Father and the Son by the Spirit however.
Thanks for the questions, Keith. I hope that I have answered all that you wanted me to.
LU
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 07 2009,17:35)
I can say that I am 100% convinced that it is entirely possible for the Son of God to have a beginning on day one of creation and that the term “firstborn of all creation” is quite likely a reference to that light.Hi Kathi
Entirely possible? Quite Likely?
I thought you said God spoke to you and told you that Jesus was the light that God spoke in Genesis and the one who laid the foundation of the earth with his hands according to Heb 1:10?
Sorry if I missunderstand you, but “Entirely possible” and “Quite Likely” does not sound like you are 100% convinced!
Blessings!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 07 2009,12:07) You see if someone came to me and said you must deny Jesus is “The True God” or I will kill you, then I am going to heaven. That is how convinced I am that scripturally the Bible teaches he is “God” and not a “god”.
Hi Keith,It's interesting that you would write this now. I was thinking today that if I had to confess that Jesus was the One true God or die….what would I do? My answer was that I would die.
I believe Jesus is the Son of the One true God.
Funny how we both would die for the opposite belief.
Love,
MandyQuote (Lightenup @ Feb. 07 2009,17:35)
BTW, if someone asked me to agree that the trinity was the true doctrine of God or die, I would be in heaven.Hi Kathi
BTW I find it interesting that you would die for what you “don't believe” rather than for what you do.
How about this…
If someone was to ask you to deny that Jesus was “a god” or die, would you go to heaven?
Blessings!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 07 2009,12:31) If I was to ask everyone on this sight individually “who is the source of your faith”?
1 Peter 1:21
Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.While our faith is in God (the Father), it originates in Christ. Would this make Christ our “source” of faith?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 07 2009,12:33) Hi WJ,
God is the source by means of His Spirit through Christ Jesus.
Well said, Nick. That is exactly what I was trying to say!
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 07 2009,11:03) Hi Martian,
I accept you apologies. I too am sorry that I thought your website was intended to be helpful, you are right I assumed that you wanted us to benefit from it when you just wanted us to consider it. My mistake.You have written in quite length.
My response to that written about Isaiah 48:16 is that I have read differing commentaries and they do not all agree with who is sent. One will say it is Isaiah, while another will say the Messiah and then they disagree whether the Spirit sends or is sent. What I did find interesting was the point that Keil and Delitzsch have and that is the prophet hasn't yet spoken of himself in the first person but only indirectly.Isa 48:12-16
Up to this point Jehovah is speaking; but who is it that now proceeds to say, “And now-namely, now that the redemption of Israel is about to appear (wª`ataah (OT:6258) being here, as in many other instances, e.g., Isa 33:10, the turning-point of salvation) – now that the Lord Jehovah sent me and His Spirit?” The majority of the commentators assume that the prophet comes forward here in his own person, behind Him whom he has introduced, and interrupts Him. But although it is perfectly true, that in all prophecy, from Deuteronomy onwards, words of Jehovah through the prophet and words of the prophet of Jehovah alternate in constant, and often harsh transitions, and that our prophet has this mark of divine inspiration in common with all the other prophets (cf., Isa 62:5-6), it must also be borne in mind, that hitherto he has not spoken once objectively of himself, except quite indirectly (vid., Isa 40:6; 44:26), to say nothing of actually coming forward in his own person.
(from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)That is all I have time for right now.
LU
Apology accepted without reservation.I understand what you are sayong about Isaiah not mentioning himself previously, however, I do not think that is strong enough argument to be conclusive proof that the “me” in verse 16 refers to Christ. It is opinion and speculation on the part of the commentators.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
