- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2011,10:51) Quote (t8 @ June 16 2011,19:43) I think we can all agree that it is a fulfillment WJ.
But as being YHWH. Absolutely not.There is one God the Father WJ and the verse quoted is not saying that YHWH will hang on a tree.
How absurd. When does the madness end?
t8There is no madness in the fact that when the OT scriptures speak of YHWH that it can be speaking of the Father or Jesus since Jesus is the “visible image of the invisible God”, and the patriots claimed to talk to YHWH face to face as to a man.
The inspired writer John took a Hebrew scripture that says “YHWH will be pierced” and applied it to Jesus…
And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. John 19:37
This same John in his prologue stated he was the Word that was with God and was God.
As Paul has pointed out the scripture could not be fulfilled by anyone but YHWH himself. This is another one of those thorns in the crawl of the anti-Jesus is God crowd.
WJ
WJyou have a low esteem for God the father ,and a higher esteem for you as men that believe that God almighty comes himself to serve his creation and die for it so that it could be or would be possible that they may take the time to understand him and so find the time in there busy live to listen and change to his proposal,this is insane thinking.
God came to this planet ones when men where on it and that is at mount Sinai when Moses receive the tablets ,and the people say enough we will deal with Moses to scare to die ,
That is were it says MEN CAN NOT SEE GOD AND LIVE
you may not believe this but it is true,if you do not believe it you become irrelevant to the truth.
Pierre
Quote (david @ June 18 2011,14:16) 1. Later, in the same verse, we are told it is “him.”
2. John clearly understood it to be “him.”
3. Other manuscripts translate it as “him.”
Good post David.I remember a long time ago thinking this was a quite strong trinitarian argument, one of the strongest ones in fact. (zech 12:10)
Is 1:18's Argument seemed quite solid. I guess that was because it was based on a false premise, and not having spent any time considering the verse, upon reading his post, there was no obvious defense (without research) other than the fact that later in the verse it says “him” rather than me, which of course seemed odd to all of us. That should have been our first clue that something was wrong.
Quote (david @ June 19 2011,14:41) I remember a long time ago thinking this was a quite strong trinitarian argument, one of the strongest ones in fact. (zech 12:10)
Perhaps a thread could be started with select membership where we quote the verses that we think are the strongest verses that Trinitarians use to support their doctrine.Probably doesn't relate to what you are saying david, but I would like to add this to the topic.
Quotes in the New Testament are often that, quotes. They speak a part and then you recite the rest of scripture that the quote was taken from.
e.g., when Jesus said “My God my God, was hast thou forsaken me”, it would have made the hearers who were familiar with scripture think of the Psalm that starts off with that line and then goes into the prophetic verses that speak of the messiah being crucified and casting of lots, wild dogs surround me, not a bone broken etc. Perhaps the reason why we hear, “truly he was the son of God”.
I was once told that this practice was a Jewish custom and its purpose was to memorize scripture. I quote the first part and you recite the rest. I have however never verified if this was indeed a Jewish custom. Perhaps someone here knows about this.
Another occurrence was Jesus saying “ye are gods”. Notice that he never quoted the next part of the scripture that said, “you are all sons of the Most High God”. Yet his message relies on the next part because he goes onto say something like, why accuse me of being God when I actually said that I was the son of God. So he either said it and it wasn't recorded that he said that part too in the NT, or he relied on their knowledge of scripture by quoting the first part only and expecting them to know the rest and even sat his message on the rest of that verse/text.
My point is this. When we see a quote, it is only part of the text and hence we truly need to know the rest in order to understand it's meaning, whereas the quote in the NT may not be enough to understand the message.
If I said to you for example, “In the beginning God”, you could probably recite the rest. But what if I said, “The Word and God were with each other”. Then you could still probably think of John 1:1. But what if 2000 years later someone quoted my words and made the argument in the 21st century, John 1:1b was literally worded as God and the Word were together, rather the Word was With God.
Of course, my point may have no correlation to this topic at all, but I think what I am going to say next is probably true.
The source should be more reliable than a quote from the source unless the translation of the source became corrupted and the quote wasn't corrupt.
Quote (t8 @ June 19 2011,20:30) when Jesus said “My God my God, was hast thou forsaken me”, it would have made the hearers who were familiar with scripture think of the Psalm that starts off with that line and then goes into the prophetic verses that speak of the messiah being crucified and casting of lots, wild dogs surround me, not a bone broken etc. Perhaps the reason why we hear, “truly he was the son of God”. I was once told that this practice was a Jewish custom and its purpose was to memorize scripture. I quote the first part and you recite the rest. I have however never verified if this was indeed a Jewish custom. Perhaps someone here knows about this.
Hi T8,That's the exact reason why Jesus spoke Psalm 22:1,
it was to draw the readers attention to all of Psalm 22!
The bible was not numbered into chapters until 1228 A.D.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEDJ and t8 are both correct.
And it is the same as I do: how many have demand that I quote chapter and verse for them when expressing a view on a scriptural matter: why, because they do not know the Scriptures enough to track it's source.
Did not even Jesus say, 'It is written…'? Did he quote chapter and verse – yet they knew – or went away to search it out?Do likewise…!
To All,
I did read the entire bible a number of times,
so if you need help finding a verse: “JustAsk“.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Istari @ June 20 2011,06:23) EDJ and t8 are both correct. And it is the same as I do: how many have demand that I quote chapter and verse for them when expressing a view on a scriptural matter: why, because they do not know the Scriptures enough to track it's source.
Did not even Jesus say, 'It is written…'? Did he quote chapter and verse – yet they knew – or went away to search it out?Do likewise…!
istari
did not Jesus latter explain to his disciples ?
and is that what you do to?
or you use confusion?
Pierre
Quote (Istari @ June 19 2011,06:23) EDJ and t8 are both correct. And it is the same as I do: how many have demand that I quote chapter and verse for them when expressing a view on a scriptural matter: why, because they do not know the Scriptures enough to track it's source.
Did not even Jesus say, 'It is written…'? Did he quote chapter and verse – yet they knew – or went away to search it out?Do likewise…!
There are two main differences, Istari. One, you often quote words that you remember being in scripture, when in fact they are not.And two, if you ARE going to quote scripture, then it is YOU who must be prepared to tell an unknowing one exactly what scripture you gleened that quote from.
I'm quite sure that when Jesus quoted scripture, he was well aware of where that scripture was just in case someone DID ask.
Quote uotes in the New Testament are often that, quotes. They speak a part and then you recite the rest of scripture that the quote was taken from. e.g., when Jesus said “My God my God, was hast thou forsaken me”, it would have made the hearers who were familiar with scripture think of the Psalm that starts off with that line and then goes into the prophetic verses that speak of the messiah being crucified and casting of lots, wild dogs surround me, not a bone broken etc. Perhaps the reason why we hear, “truly he was the son of God”.
Although this is a completely separate topic, I found it quite interesting and would like to study it further. Someone should start this topic and provide more examples.
Quote (david @ June 18 2011,15:16) SO, is it “me” or is it “him”?
Hi DavidTake your pick. I believe it is “me” because the prologue of John starts with “the Word was with God and the Word was God” and near the end of Johns testimony we see Thomas calling Jesus his Lord and God without rebuke or correction by John or Jesus, then John said concerning Jesus that the world could not contain the books of the things that Jesus did.
Anyone that is honest should see that John is not speaking of 3/12 years of ministry, but John is speaking of Jesus works from before the foundation of the world. This means that the Patriarchs saw his works also, in fact they claim to have seen YHWH face to face in the form of a man and we know they did not see the Father.
John attributes everything coming from Jesus to all creation and clearly states that “not one thing came into being without Jesus”. John 1:1-3
There goes the “Jesus” is just a puppet or a funnel that the Father works through” argument.
Col 1:17 tells us “Jesus” is before all things, and by him all things consist.
So no David this topic is not dead since Moses, and others claimed to talk to YHWH face to face and again we know they did not see the Father.
WJ
Quote So no David this topic is not dead since Moses, and others claimed to talk to YHWH face to face and again we know they did not see the Father. Perhaps this topic is dead and perhaps it isn't. But the above (other possible trinitarian evidence) has nothing to do with whether this possible evidence (of Zech 12:10) is actually evidence in itself. All you are doing here is opening another argument and discussion, which I would be happy to discuss in the appropriate threads. But the claim was made that this Zech 12:10 is evidence for the trinity.
(I will comment on what you actually said about Zech 12:10, but I am just working on posting a new thread now.)
It says “…They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child,…”
Grammatically, the “Me” and the “him” cannot refer to the same individual can it?
I find it in line with reality that the false doctrine of the Trinity relies heavily on grammatically incorrect English.
Another example is three persons being God, and yet THEY are not THEY, but for some strange illogical reason are HIM.
Bad bad English.
Yet scriptures that talk about God as HIM and also as being the only true God, who also happened to send HIS son into the world, are not only correct, but are all grammatically correct too. So true doctrine is also true grammatically and this particular false doctrine relies heavily on incorrect grammar.
In fact these are so blatantly wrong grammatically, that it is amazing that people have not scrutinized this earlier. But I guess that is the power of tradition. It makes no sense, but people follow it religiously regardless. And for those who dig deep and find the inconsistencies, then proponents of this false doctrine resort to the argument, that God is beyond our understanding so of course these things are illogical to us.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 22 2011,08:25) Quote (david @ June 18 2011,15:16) SO, is it “me” or is it “him”?
Hi DavidTake your pick. I believe it is “me” because the prologue of John starts with “the Word was with God and the Word was God” and near the end of Johns testimony we see Thomas calling Jesus his Lord and God without rebuke or correction by John or Jesus, then John said concerning Jesus that the world could not contain the books of the things that Jesus did.
Anyone that is honest should see that John is not speaking of 3/12 years of ministry, but John is speaking of Jesus works from before the foundation of the world. This means that the Patriarchs saw his works also, in fact they claim to have seen YHWH face to face in the form of a man and we know they did not see the Father.
John attributes everything coming from Jesus to all creation and clearly states that “not one thing came into being without Jesus”. John 1:1-3
There goes the “Jesus” is just a puppet or a funnel that the Father works through” argument.
Col 1:17 tells us “Jesus” is before all things, and by him all things consist.
So no David this topic is not dead since Moses, and others claimed to talk to YHWH face to face and again we know they did not see the Father.
WJ
Hi WJ.The question I asked was actually about Zechariah, the scripture in question.
We are discussing John, because he quoted it. But my question was about Zechariah.
Anyway, if this subject isn't dead, perhaps you could actually discuss this subject, rather than introduce other possibly trinity scriptures?
And, since you never actually answered my question about Zechariah, but thought I was speaking of John (which makes no sense) perhaps now you could answer that question.
It's not a “take your pick” kind of answer.
It was originally translated one way or the other, not both. Which is correct?
All you do in your post is throw several other trinitarian arguments out there.
Perhaps this Zech 12:10 argument actually is DEAD.
Quote Hi All I suppose that they know more about the correct meaning of Zech 12:10 than the inspired Apostle John who aproximately 2000 years ago quoted the verse in John 19:37….
and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.” John 19:37
–wj
You are right in that this does seem to point in the direction you believe, when referring to the argument from the video.
However, something else I found interesting about Zech 12:10 is that some translation (even trinitarian ones) translate it like this:
“… when they look upon him whom they have pierced” – RSV.
See Also:
NRSV; GNB; MLB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); LB; Mo; AT; JB; NJB; NLV; BBE; and Byington. (The ASV says in a footnote for “me” in Zech. 12:10: “According to some MSS [manuscripts], `him'.” Also see Rotherham footnote.)
http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2010/11/zech-1210-john-1937.htmlSo, WHICH TRANSLATION MATCHES THE CONTEXT?
AFTER SAYING THAT THEY WILL LOOK UPON ME (OR HIM) God continues with “they shall mourn for HIM.”
It seems many Bibles contradict themselves here.
The “me” in the first half does not agree with the “him” of the second half.If we looked at all manuscripts and translated with CONTEXT in mind, the disputed word of the first half (which has manuscript evidence for both renderings) must be translated as “him” or “the one.”
Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (repeatedly) rendered Zech. 12:10 as “him whom they pierced”!
The septuagint of course uses “me” in the existing copies. (4th cent. CE)
BUT, the Hebrew is significantly different.
“The [Hebrew] text of Zech. 12:10 is corrupt. The LXX [Greek Septuagint] text reads:… (`they shall look upon me whom they have treated spitefully') …. The text in [Jn 19:37] does not follow the LXX; but it has also avoided the impossible [`me'] of the Hebrew text.” – p. 195, John 2, Ernst Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.
JOHN 19:37 (LET'S ASK AN INSPIRED BIBLE WRITER [JOHN] HOW IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED: “ME” OR “HIM”??)
But most important of all, closely examine John 19:37 (even in the KJV) where this scripture has been quoted by John! All translations show John here translating Zech. 12:10 as “They shall look upon him [or `the one'] whom they pierced.” So we have this Apostle and inspired Bible writer telling us plainly (and undisputed even by trinitarian scholars) that Zechariah 12:10 should read: “They shall look upon him” (not `me'). (Same source as above)
SO, is it “me” or is it “him” in Zech 12:10?
1. Later, in the same verse, we are told it is “him.”
2. John clearly understood it to be “him.”
3. Other manuscripts translate it as “him.”So, things that disagree with the most common translation are: (other manuscripts; the context of the rest of the verse; John's inspired writing)
WJ, your argument is definitely a valid one as far as arguing against the video I presented. But, how would you address the above.
Quote (david @ June 21 2011,17:40) WJ, your argument is definitely a valid one as far as arguing against the video I presented. But, how would you address the above.
DavidI already have. Since you think Zech 12:10 could be “me or him” then that means to you it is “ambiguous”.
I choose to interpret the verse based on Johns entire prologue (which I have already explained) and his use of the verse in light of the rest of his writings.
What else do you want from me?
WJ
Quote (t8 @ June 21 2011,17:08) Another example is three persons being God, and yet THEY are not THEY, but for some strange illogical reason are HIM.
t8This is a logical fallacy since their are many pliral unities we refer to as “them or they”.
If I refer to my government I can say “they or them”.
If we say God is our Savour then we may refer to “them” as “they” are our Savour since the Father is not exclusively our Savour for without “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19) there is no salvation.
Remember you said…
Quote (t8 @ June 14 2011,20:10) Yes I cannot have God without the mediator that is true.
How many Savours do you have?”How do these scriptures fit in your theology?…
Thou shalt have “no other gods” (elohiym) before me. Exod 20:3
And…
“But I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt. “You shall acknowledge no God ('elohiym) but me, no Savior except me”. Hosea 13:4
And…
…and that “there is none other God (theos) but one”. 1 Cor 8:4
Your theology places another god (theos) before YHWH. You can’t say this is not true because you have admitted you cannot have YHWH without Jesus. Your own words are deceiving when you say things like…
Quote (t8 @ June 14 2011,17:49) Actually I believe that Jesus is theos/god.
You can use the God/god argument all you want but as you know in Hebrew and Greek there are no “caps” or distinction in the words and that the context distinguishes between the “one true theos/god” and all others who are not the “one true theos/god”.So based on your statement above, how many theos/gods do you have and serve?
Since you say…
Quote (t8 @ June 14 2011,17:49) Actually I believe that Jesus is theos/god.
Is Jesus “your” Savour and your god/theos?WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
