- This topic is empty.
- Posts
WJ
Quote Col 1:17 tells us “Jesus” is before all things, and by him all things consist. Jesus is before all thing after himself,and so it is true that all things consist by him or in him,
Pierre
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 22 2011,11:59) 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.
Sorry WJ.You are referring to an organisation of many people.
You don't call the Government HIM do you?
And if you refer to the president, then it is HIM.Adam and Eve are 2 persons that make up man.
You call them THEY when referring to them both and HIM when referring to Adam.Similarly, a husband and wife (although are one), are not HIM.
You are HIM because you are one person.
God is HIM too.For US he is HIM and for US there is one God the Father.
It appears that you oppose this strongly, so you are clearly in the wrong.Back to the drawing board WJ.
PS, a reply to this could be posted in the debate we are having on that subject rather than here in order to not diverge from the topic too much.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 22 2011,11:36) 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
I have never implied that the verse is ambiguous, that both “me” and “him” make sense. They are two very different words. One of them fits the context, the other doesn't. Both of them are found in manuscripts. And then we have johns quote.The majority of the evidence and logic dictates that it be “him.”
So, you can't just look at the verse and where the verse is quoted by a bible writer, but to make your understanding work you must consider all of John and all the scriptures you believe point to trinitarianism?
Well then, this topic is dead. It is dead in that it can't be used of proof of anything. You only use other scriptures to interpret this verse the way you want. How did this verse ever make it into one of is 1:18's debates?
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.”Some manuscripts have “him” where the “me” is.
WHICH IS CORRECT?
Speaking of zech 12:10 JESUS said: “another scripture [zech 12:10] says: 'they shall look on HIM whom they pierced.'”
And finally we have the second half of that sentence in zech 12:10
“…me/him whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for HIM.”Which manuscripts agree with the rest of the sentence? The answer is obvious.
Zech 12:10 as a trinitarian proof is extremely weak.
Quote (david @ June 22 2011,22:05) 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.”Some manuscripts have “him” where the “me” is.
WHICH IS CORRECT?
Speaking of zech 12:10 JESUS said: “another scripture [zech 12:10] says: 'they shall look on HIM whom they pierced.'”
And finally we have the second half of that sentence in zech 12:10
“…me/him whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for HIM.”Which manuscripts agree with the rest of the sentence? The answer is obvious.
Zech 12:10 as a trinitarian proof is extremely weak.
Davidi would like to know the ME in the sentence in verse 10 ,is a representation of what in the sentence ,
Pierre
The ASV says in a footnote for “me” in Zech. 12:10: “According to some MSS [manuscripts], `him'.”
For a list of some of the bibles that translate it “him” see last post on page 44 of this thread.
Pierre, I don't think it should be “me.”. Do you?
Quote (t8 @ June 21 2011,20:18) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 22 2011,11:59) 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.
Sorry WJ.You are referring to an organisation of many people.
You don't call the Government HIM do you?
And if you refer to the president, then it is HIM.Adam and Eve are 2 persons that make up man.
You call them THEY when referring to them both and HIM when referring to Adam.Similarly, a husband and wife (although are one), are not HIM.
You are HIM because you are one person.
God is HIM too.For US he is HIM and for US there is one God the Father.
It appears that you oppose this strongly, so you are clearly in the wrong.Back to the drawing board WJ.
PS, a reply to this could be posted in the debate we are having on that subject rather than here in order to not diverge from the topic too much.
t8Stick your head in the sand if you like.
Why can't you answer my questions?
Do you ever say God is my rock and “HE” is my Savour?
Then be sure to say “they” are my Savour because the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is our Savour for you cannot have one without the others.
You continue with you straw man if you like but an honest man who is a true follower of God will admit that without the three you have “no true god” but serve a false one.
Also if Jesus is not one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit then you violate the scriptures that says…
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.
WJ
Quote (david @ June 21 2011,23:05) Zech 12:10 as a trinitarian proof is extremely weak.
Not at all when you see the big picture of scripture and especially Johns testimony. The big picture in scriptures reveals Jesus is the originator and sustainer of all things including life.The scriptures reveal to those who have ears to hear that Jesus is YHVH!
Have a nice life! Thanks for listeneing!
WJ
Quote (david @ June 22 2011,17:54) The ASV says in a footnote for “me” in Zech. 12:10: “According to some MSS [manuscripts], `him'.” For a list of some of the bibles that translate it “him” see last post on page 44 of this thread.
Pierre, I don't think it should be “me.”. Do you?
David,I go with the “him” translation in 12:10 myself and I do believe that trinitarians present a weak argument from Zechariah 12:10. Throughout Zechariah the functional distinction between Jehovah and Jesus is maintained. Note that I said “functional” distinction.
However, your argument against Trinitarianism on the basis of the “him” reading is erroneous because (1) the JW's have argued that Jehovah frequently referred to Himself in both in the first and third persons in the same breath and (2) Christ is presented as EQUAL to Jehovah in 13:7:
Quote 7″Awake, O sword, against my shepherd,
against the man who STANDS NEXT to me,”declares the Jehovah of hosts. ESV
Jehovah's Shepherd is the “Man who STANDS NEXT to Him. This is a CLEAR indication of the Shepherd's EQUALITY with Jehovah.Supporting verse: “I am the Good Shepherd.” Jesus spoke blasphemy if He was not Jehovah or equal with Jehovah.
KJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 23 2011,04:21) Hey Jack Very Good and welcome back!
WJ
Just droppin in Keith. I am not back.Love,
Jack
Quote (david @ June 23 2011,00:54) The ASV says in a footnote for “me” in Zech. 12:10: “According to some MSS [manuscripts], `him'.” For a list of some of the bibles that translate it “him” see last post on page 44 of this thread.
Pierre, I don't think it should be “me.”. Do you?
David10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and compassion: and they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved friend, and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn son.
LXXversion;this is the way i see it;
10 And I (GOD)will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, (the spirit of grace and compassion:)(Jesus Gospel) and they shall look upon me (God), because they have mocked me(God), and they shall make lamentation for him(Jesus), as for a beloved friend, and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn son(Jesus Christ)
understand that the Jews have mocked there God by refusing Gods son,
Ps 74:10 How long will the enemy mock you, O God?
Will the foe revile your name forever?as for the piercing;Pr 12:18 Reckless words pierce like a sword,
this is what the Jews did to God.Pierre
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 23 2011,02:41) t8 Stick your head in the sand if you like.
That is your strategy right there WJ. Accuse the other person of doing what you are doing.I have noticed that sometimes people's pet hate is the very thing they do but because they can't face up to it themselves, they decide to pin it on others.
I stumped you once again, and then you decide to bring out the big guns. i.e., comments like “get your head out of the sand” with no rebuttal to go with it.
If that is a big gun, then I have nothing to worry about do I?
Quote (t8 @ June 22 2011,17:02) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 23 2011,02:41) t8 Stick your head in the sand if you like.
That is your strategy right there WJ. Accuse the other person of doing what you are doing.I have noticed that sometimes people's pet hate is the very thing they do but because they can't face up to it themselves, they decide to pin it on others.
I stumped you once again, and then you decide to bring out the big guns. i.e., comments like “get your head out of the sand” with no rebuttal to go with it.
If that is a big gun, then I have nothing to worry about do I?
t8This is laughable being that you are the master at ad hominems!
WJ
Kangaroo Jack, you said:
Quote However, your argument against Trinitarianism on the basis of the “him” reading is erroneous because (1) the JW's have argued that Jehovah frequently referred to Himself in both in the first and third persons in the same breath and (2) Christ is presented as EQUAL to Jehovah in 13:7: It bothers me when people say an argument is erroneous and then in the same sentence go on to state fallacies reasoning.
First, I am not arguing against trinitarianism on the basis of “him.” My repeatedly stated goal in this thread is to show that Zech 12:10 does not constitute any good proof of the trinity. (I have always thought that the scriptures chosen for the debates would be the strongest possible proofs and if Is 1:18 chose this one, it should be somewhat strong. Yet, you yourself say I go with the “him” translation in 12:10 myself and I do believe that trinitarians present a weak argument from Zechariah 12:10. THERE. YOU AGREED WITH ME. That is my exact and precise argument! Please say those words to Is 1:18.
This is why I continually say “case closed” with regard to this scripture being any kind of solid proof of a trinity.
Anyway, what I began to say was, you can try to attempt to state that my argument is inconsistent with what JW's believe, but that in no way negates or minimizes my argument. It feels very Argumentum ad hominem-ish to me, with a touch of red herring added for flavor.
And on your point 2, even if Christ is presented as an equal in 13:7 (which I would argue is “silly”) that, much like WJ's throwing out random “trinity” scriptures doesn't really deal with what my argument is. I shall put my argument in quotations: “Zech 12:10 is a very very weak argument for trinitarianism for a number of reasons.”
Quote (t8 @ June 22 2011,17:02)
I stumped you once again, and then you decide to bring out the big guns. i.e., comments like “get your head out of the sand” with no rebuttal to go with it.
t8Right!
You left out 99% of my post and then say I had no rebuttal?Here I will post my rebuttal so you can read it a again and then you my answer the question, but I doubt it.
t8
Stick your head in the sand if you like.
Why can't you answer my questions?
Do you ever say God is my rock and “HE” is my Savour?
Then be sure to say “they” are my Savour because the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is our Savour for you cannot have one without the others.
You continue with you straw man if you like but an honest man who is a true follower of God will admit that without the three you have “no true god” but serve a false one.
Also if Jesus is not one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit then you violate the scriptures that says…
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.
Why don’t you say God is my “Saviors” since you have more than one?
WJ
David wrote:
Quote Yet, you yourself say I go with the “him” translation in 12:10 myself and I do believe that trinitarians present a weak argument from Zechariah 12:10. THERE. YOU AGREED WITH ME. That is my exact and precise argument! Please say those words to Is 1:18.
I said it in 2009 on this thread and I have just said it again.Quote Anyway, what I began to say was, you can try to attempt to state that my argument is inconsistent with what JW's believe, but that in no way negates or minimizes my argument. It feels very Argumentum ad hominem-ish to me, with a touch of red herring added for flavor.
But if Jehovah refers to Himself in the first and third persons in the same breath (JW example, Ex. 23:20-25), then 12:10 is indeed trinitarian unless you want to say that the Father was “pierced.”Quote And on your point 2, even if Christ is presented as an equal in 13:7 (which I would argue is “silly”) that, much like WJ's throwing out random “trinity” scriptures doesn't really deal with what my argument is.
I am interested in seeing how you would prove it “silly” that Jehovah's Shepherd may “stand next” to Him as an equal seeing the idea in Hebrew thought suggested equality and that David said, “Jehovah is my Shepherd” and Jehovah identified the man that “stands next” to Him as “My Shepherd” and Jesus said “I am the Good Shepherd.”Quote I shall put my argument in quotations: “Zech 12:10 is a very very weak argument for trinitarianism for a number of reasons.”
List your “number” of reasons.KJ
Hi kj
My reasons for saying this are listed in the last post of page 44. But since you agree with me completely (that this is a very weak argument) I am actually quite interested in your reasoning, especially since you are a trinitarian I believe. (this would seem to make your argument all the stronger, you not being biased towards believing as I do about zech 12:10)I am also curious how Is 1:18 would have responded to you saying that zech 12:10 is a weak argument for trinitarians.
I don't want to allow you to sidetrack this conversation, but on your question, and why I say it is silly, I don't understand how standing beside someone makes them your equal.
Posted: June 22 2011,15:05
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.”Some manuscripts have “him” where the “me” is.
WHICH IS CORRECT?
Speaking of zech 12:10 JESUS said: “another scripture [zech 12:10] says: 'they shall look on HIM whom they pierced.'”
And finally we have the second half of that sentence in zech 12:10
“…me/him whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for HIM.”Which manuscripts agree with the rest of the sentence? The answer is obvious.
Zech 12:10 as a trinitarian proof is extremely weak.
I would like to bring this discussion back on track. Zech 12:10 is what this thread is about. Is 1:18 has used this verse to attempt to prove the trinity. (I wish he were back so he could respond). But I don't see how anyone that actually looks at and studies zech 12:10 could ever consider it any kind of evidence in itself for the trinity.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
