- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote n the below passage Zechariah records a quite amazing prophecy: Zechariah 12:10
“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.Trinitarian Translation Inconsistency
Let us also review some major translations translated by Trinitarian Greek scholars:
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born. (RSV).
I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and petition; and they shall look on him whom they have thrust through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only son, and they shall grieve over him as one grieves over a first-born. (NAB).
http://www.angelfire.com/space….10.htmlNow if Trinitarian Greek scholars themselves have seen fit to translate the passage in this manner, it is rather obvious there is a serious problem in using this passage as evidence in support of Trinitarian doctrine. Just as John understood the passage, (John 19:37) neither of the above two Trinitarian translations indicate Yahweh is the one being pierced.
“They shall look upon him [Jesus] whom they [the Romans] pierced.” (John 19:37).
I found this comment also interesting:
Let us first simply consider just what the Trinitarian translation actually says. It says “they shall look upon me whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him.” It doesn't even make sense. The people are looking at the pierced person but mourning for someone else altogether.There are some interesting arguments on that site.
Quote (david @ Oct. 24 2009,17:24) Quote n the below passage Zechariah records a quite amazing prophecy: Zechariah 12:10
“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.Trinitarian Translation Inconsistency
Let us also review some major translations translated by Trinitarian Greek scholars:
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born. (RSV).
I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and petition; and they shall look on him whom they have thrust through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only son, and they shall grieve over him as one grieves over a first-born. (NAB).
http://www.angelfire.com/space….10.htmlNow if Trinitarian Greek scholars themselves have seen fit to translate the passage in this manner, it is rather obvious there is a serious problem in using this passage as evidence in support of Trinitarian doctrine. Just as John understood the passage, (John 19:37) neither of the above two Trinitarian translations indicate Yahweh is the one being pierced.
“They shall look upon him [Jesus] whom they [the Romans] pierced.” (John 19:37).
I found this comment also interesting:
Let us first simply consider just what the Trinitarian translation actually says. It says “they shall look upon me whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him.” It doesn't even make sense. The people are looking at the pierced person but mourning for someone else altogether.There are some interesting arguments on that site.
David,
I am sorry to have to pop your balloon and tell you that your argument against trinitarianism above is inconclusive. You are correct that it is YHWH who is speaking and is distinguished from the one who was pierced. There is no “trinitarian” translation I am aware of that denies this. The problem comes when some trinitarians misinterpret the text. But not all trinitarians misinterpret the text as both you and your source have suggested.Your argument against trinitarianism above is inconclusive because of what is said in 13:7. I will give the ESV which is the closest to the original idea. It says this,
“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd,
against the man who stands next to Me,”declares the LORD of hosts.
“Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered;
I will turn my hand against the little ones.”The original indicates that the Shepherd is the man who is YHWH's EQUAL COMPANION. The ESV translates by using the colloquial expression , “the mans who STANDS NEXT to Me.” The smitten Shepherd is the Man who stands next to YHWH in an EQUAL position.
Therefore, the distinction between YHWH and the one who is pierced in 12:10 is not a contra-distinction.
I will give you credit for pointing out the correct rendering of 12:10 and for finally coming up with a valid point though inconclusive. This was your best attempt since I have been here.
BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTEXT DUDE!
thinker
Hi TT,
I thought you only had one God?
We know Jesus is a man who is at the right hand of God.
But that tells nobody that there are three gods rolled into one does it?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 25 2009,16:27) Hi TT,
I thought you only had one God?
We know Jesus is a man who is at the right hand of God.
But that tells nobody that there are three gods rolled into one does it?
What about my word standing next to God in “EQUALITY” do you not understand?thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Oct. 25 2009,21:58) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 25 2009,16:27) Hi TT,
I thought you only had one God?
We know Jesus is a man who is at the right hand of God.
But that tells nobody that there are three gods rolled into one does it?
What about my word standing next to God in “EQUALITY” do you not understand?thinker
What are you trying to say here? Nobody is equal to God the Father Jehovah. Not even Jesus. And the Holy Spirit is God the Fathers Spirit. I said this before, thinker. If you think that the Holy Spirit is a Person, then He is the Father of Jesus. And we know that is not so.
I know that there is one verse or two in John that makes it sounds like it is, but there are other Scriptures that make the trinity void. The most important to me is in
Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and in us all.
Thinker come on and learn, I know how hard that is, I was there one time, when we left the Catholic Church. Get yourself a book named “The two Babylonians.” That is the Book that convinced me to leave.
Peace and Love to you, IreneIrene said:
Quote What are you trying to say here? Nobody is equal to God the Father Jehovah. Not even Jesus. Paul said that the Son “WILL BE” subject to the Father. This means that the Son is EQUAL to the Father or else it makes no sense that He “WILL BE” subject.
thinker
Hi TT,
The Son is given the Kingdom and Jesus gives it to his brothers too.
Of course the one who gives is greater than the one given to[Heb7]
Are you saying Jesus is another equal god? how many do you have?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 26 2009,13:04) Hi TT,
The Son is given the Kingdom and Jesus gives it to his brothers too.
Of course the one who gives is greater than the one given to[Heb7]
Are you saying Jesus is another equal god? how many do you have?
In a contractual relationship the one who gives is NOT greater. The worker in the vineyard is servant to the land owner. But at the end of the day it is the laborer that is greater. The land owner becomes under the laborer to pay what he owes. Christ as servant carried out the terms of the covenant of redemption. At the end of the day the Father was under Christ to carry out His end of the agreement and “give” Him the Kingdom.The Father gave the kingdom to Christ in the sense that the landowner gives the laborer his wages. At the end of the day it was the Son who was greater. Just as the laborer is not required to yield his wages likewise the Son is under no obligation to yield His kingdom. He yields it of His own free-will. The Son will NOT be subject to the Father until then.
When I was 10 years old my father and I entered into an agreement. We agreed that if I wash the car he would give me a brand new baseball bat. I was under my father to wash the car and I washed the car. When I was done he looked it over and saw I missed something and so I took care of it. After completing the job to my father's satisfaction he was under me by agreement to pay up. It was not as one “greater” that my father gave me the bat? He gave me the baseball bat as one who was under me through covenant. It was MY baseball bat. If I would have yielded the bat back to my father I would have done so of my own free volition.
Again, Christ fulfilled the agreement. The Father did not give Him the kingdom as one greater but as one who was under a contract. Paul said that the Son will yield the kingdom. He did NOT say that He is obligated to yield it. He clearly is not obligated. If you infer obligation then you infer too much.
The Father and the Son entered into a covenantal relationship with each other for the sake of YOUR salvation. Each met his respective terms of the contract and so each is EQUALLY Savior in His own right.
Christ was servant by covenant and was justly rewarded for His service and is therefore worthy of your praise. Grow up so that you may comprehend these basic principles.
thinker
Hi TT,
So the Son of God gives back the Kingdom to His father God.
By his work the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 27 2009,06:24) Hi TT,
So the Son of God gives back the Kingdom to His father God.
By his work the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
In the meantime the kingdom belongs to the Son and He rules it according to His own will.thinker
Hi TT,
God is in him and working through him.
That is how all of God's servants should be.We follow him
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 27 2009,09:19) Hi TT,
God is in him and working through him.
That is how all of God's servants should be.We follow him
The scriptures do not say that God is working in Him and through Him since He has been exalted. He is not subject while at the right hand of God. The Son reveals the Father to whomosoever He wills.Quote 27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him (Matthew 11:27) Does this sound like servitude to you? None of you anti-trinitarians have been able to explain why Paul said that the Son “will be” made subject. You all just keep dancing around Paul's statement.
thinker
Hi TT,
If you understand Jesus at all you would know he was anointed by the God Who was with him, with the Holy Spirit and power and God worked and spoke through him.
Acts 10 38Anyone who walked with him and saw him also saw God in him as he explained to Thomas in Jn14.
The Abiding faithful Spirit of God remained in the Son of God after his death and raised him and eternlly lives in him uniting him to God forever in that Spirit.
You need to forget your intellectual theories about WHAT God is as this is the same hope you have been offered and your trinity ideas will cause you to stumble.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 27 2009,10:06) Hi TT,
If you understand Jesus at all you would know he was anointed by the God Who was with him, with the Holy Spirit and power and God worked and spoke through him.
Acts 10 38Anyone who walked with him and saw him also saw God in him as he explained to Thomas in Jn14.
The Abiding faithful Spirit of God remained in the Son of God after his death and raised him and eternlly lives in him uniting him to God forever in that Spirit.
You need to forget your intellectual theories about WHAT God is as this is the same hope you have been offered and your trinity ideas will cause you to stumble.
Nick,
First, the key word is “was.” You correctly said that God “was” in Him. There is no scripture which says that God is in Him now. Produce a scripture which says that God is in Him now. He has been glorified and He is sharing the glory He had with His Father before the world began.Second, the Son willingly subjected Himself to the Father because He was Himself in God's form. Paul is so clear about this (Philippians 2). If Jesus was forced to be subject then it is meaningless to us. The whole thrust of Paul's argument about Christ's humility is that He made Himself nothing. The Father did not make Christ nothing. Christ made Himself nothing.
Christ was subserviant to the Father by covenant and not as a creature. It is you who does not understand Jesus. You are disobedient Nick. The Father has committed ALL judgment to the Son so that ALL men should honor Him EVEN AS they honor the Father. Your words betray that you do not honor the Son EVEN AS the Father. You are therefore disobedient and in danger of the judgment.
You say that I am just touting “intellectual” theories. What in hades is so “intellectual” about the principles of contract relationships I expounded. I served my father by washing his car. He rewarded me and payed me what he OWED me. I fulfilled my end of the agreement and my father fulfilled his end. You call this “intellectual” when it is basic principles of righteousness. Did you catch that Nick? What I speak are basic principles of righteousness.
You call it “intellectual” because you are an enemy of the truth! The Father and the Son had a covenant agreement in reference to our salvation. The Son fulfilled His end of it and the Father rewarded Him according to righteousness. At the end of the day the landowner is UNDER the laborer to pay up according to the principles of righteousness. After Christ fulfilled the terms of the agreement the Father was under Him according to the basic principles of righteousness to “give” Him the kingdom.
You attribute all that Christ did to the power of God within Him. If your understanding of this is true then why does the Father REWARD Him and not take the credit for Himself? Why does the Father exalt the name of Jesus Christ instead of exalting His own name? You make no sense.
It is clear that you have no inkling whatsoever of the expression “God was IN Christ.” It means “God BY AGENCY of Christ.” It means that Christ was the NECESSARY agent in the plan of redemption. If your view of “God IN Christ” was correct then the Father would be taking all the credit. But instead He exalts the name of Jesus.
You say of those who possess the common sense you lack that they are “intellectual.” Well, I would like how you would do in business and in carrying on meaningful relationships when operating according to your philosophies.
Heck Nick, my relationship with my father was better than Chrit's relationship with your God. My father was righteous and “gave” me what was rightfully mine after I finished the work. My father did not say, “Your works account for nothing and I give you this baseball bat because I am greater than you.”
I speak common sense and basic principles of righteousness. But this would appear “intellectual” to one who lacks common sense.
thinker
Hi TT,
The Spirit of eternal life never forsakes.[Heb 13.5]
Jesus is for us the channel of the Living Spirit [Jn7] but you think that source has dried up?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 27 2009,11:32) Hi TT,
The Spirit of eternal life never forsakes.[Heb 13.5]
Jesus is for us the channel of the Living Spirit [Jn7] but you think that source has dried up?
Hi TT,
So while God was in heaven where Jesus prayed to Him God was on earth praying… to Himself??
Confusion reigns among the decieved but you judge us?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 27 2009,14:26) Hi TT,
So while God was in heaven where Jesus prayed to Him God was on earth praying… to Himself??
Confusion reigns among the decieved but you judge us?
We know your question is intended to misrepresent.thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
