- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 21 2009,19:59) How's everyone going? It will be 1 year tomorrow since I made the Zechariah 14 post and still no reply from T8. T8, do you intend to respond to this post?
Hi Brother Paul:We've missed you, and I hope that you and your family are doing well.
Do you have any more surprises, like any more children on the way? I know that you always obey the LORD.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Mar. 24 2009,14:15) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 21 2009,19:59) How's everyone going? It will be 1 year tomorrow since I made the Zechariah 14 post and still no reply from T8. T8, do you intend to respond to this post?
Hi Brother Paul:We've missed you, and I hope that you and your family are doing well.
Do you have any more surprises, like any more children on the way? I know that you always obey the LORD.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Thanks Marty, those are kind words….but I can tell you with absolute assurance that unfortunately no, I do not always obey the Lord….I'm a work in progress. Yes we are all doing well. Nothing new to report really we are still a family of 5, although we have a few new pets now….and there's some stuff happening with real estate, but I won't bore you with that. Whats' new for you?Quote (david @ Mar. 24 2009,12:32) Quote Interesting post. I think you've oversimplified and misrepresented my argument and haven't really addressed any of the specific points I made. Hi Paul. True, it's been a while. And yes, I did simplify it a lot. I find it a frustrating … coincidence… that a lot of explanation is often required for weak points. If your one main argument is this:
Quote Whose feet will stand on the Mount of Olives? then I would say: If you read the rest of that verse:
And his feet will actually stand in that day upon the mountain of the olive trees, which is in front of Jerusalem, on the east; and THE MOUNTAIN of the olive trees MUST BE SPLIT at its middle, FROM THE SUNRISING AND TO THE WEST. There will be a very great valley; and HALF THE MOUNTAIN WILL ACTUALLY BE MOVED TO THE NORTH, and half of it to the south.
When I read this, I certainly don't picture a literal human like foot touching the ground. Often, in the Bible, we hear of God's face, his arm, his finger, etc. But these are figures of speech. In one place, we hear of the “finger of God.” In a parallel account, it is called the spirit of God.
I don't expect to see God's foot touching the ground. Nor do I literally think the the mountain will split apart from the sunrising and to the west.
Jehovah's presence will be known and in a great way.
Looking at the Bible, angels have represented his presence. The ark of the covenant represented his presence. He has used a cloud to represent his presence.
Here's a good example:
“And I will present myself to you there and speak with you from above the cover.” (Ex 25:22)
Was Jehovah physically there, visible? Has he ever been visible? His holy spirit here represents his presence.David.
Oh, the non-literal, spiritualised exegesis…convenient. The JWs are literal when it suits them though, I've noticed. That issue aside, let's see if we can identify the person based on some of the information supplied in the text, which is patently 'yet future' in context. Let's start here: – verse 3 bears out that the “Lord” has come for battle, to “fight against those nations”. I wonder if you could find for me as many proof texts as you can supporting the (implied) assertion that The Father of Yeshua will do this. When you have a list, I'll do the same for my candidate Y'shua Mashiach and we'll compare them. Bear in mind though, it should be explicit, or at least very obvious, that the person thusly described in you proof text is in fact the Father.Blessings
Quote Oh, the non-literal, spiritualised exegesis…convenient. The JWs are literal when it suits them though, I've noticed. So you believe this is literal?
And his feet will actually stand in that day upon the mountain of the olive trees, which is in front of Jerusalem, on the east; and THE MOUNTAIN of the olive trees MUST BE SPLIT at its middle, FROM THE SUNRISING AND TO THE WEST. There will be a very great valley; and HALF THE MOUNTAIN WILL ACTUALLY BE MOVED TO THE NORTH, and half of it to the south. And you people will certainly flee to the valley of my mountains; –Zech 14:3-5
I agree with you that it
Quote is patently 'yet future' in context. But I believe it refers to ““a city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem,” (Heb 12:22)
Does it make sense that the nations would attack earthly Jerusalem AND THEN GOD WOULD DEFEND EARTHLY JERUSALEM, THE CITY THAT PUT HIS SON TO DEATH? The scripture says Jehovah would do this. (Zech 14:3)
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you impaled.” (Acts 1:12-15; 2:1-36)
Have you ever heard the scripture: “look, your house is abandoned to you”?
Or, “the kingdom will be taken from you and given to a nation producing it's fruits”?Jehovah had decreed the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem of the Jews, and neither before nor after its destruction did he issue authorization for that earthly city to be rebuilt by his people.
So why attack the nations that are attacking “Jerusalem” then?
For a long time, “Jehovah’s throne” used to be there in Jerusalem. In the year 33 C.E., when Jesus, the spirit-anointed descendant of King David, rode in a triumphal procession into Jerusalem, that city did not want him as King.
Thus the earthly Jerusalem renounced its right to have the Permanent Heir of King David sit upon a royal throne within it.
Its Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin, had Jesus Christ put to death on an execution stake just outside the walls of Jerusalem.—Matthew 21:1-43.It makes no sense to me that Jehovah would defend the city that killed his son, the city that Jesus fortold the destruction of, the city whose “house was abandoned” to her.
In verse 7, “And it must occur in that day [that] living waters will go forth from Jerusalem,” I wonder what you think the living waters are? If you take this as literal, then what are literal living waters?
In the highly symbolic book of Revelation 21:10, we hear of “the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven [ie: “heavenly Jerusalem”] from God and having the glory of God,” or in other words, not literal earlthy Jerusalem.
It's sometimes called “heavenly Jerusalem” “Jerusalem above” “New Jerusalem.” After the description of “the holy city Jerusalem” in Rev 21, chapter 22:1 begins this way:
“And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb.”
Is this a coincidence?
Also, in Rev 21 itself, in the description of “new Jerusalem” (21:2) we find these words: “To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free.” (21:6)
(notes to myself: See PM 371)So back to Zech 14:8:
And it must occur in that day [that] living waters will go forth from Jerusalem,The living waters that give life in Revelation 21:6; 22:17 come from New Jerusalem, not the earthly Jerusalem that Jehovah abandoned….the one that killed his son.
“And this is what will prove to be the scourge with which Jehovah will scourge all the peoples that will actually do military service against Jerusalem.” (Zech 14:12)
I'm wondering why it makes sense to you that Jehovah would do so much to defend the city that rejected, and killed his very son…the city that his son prophecied would be destroyed?
This scripture is speaking about “New Jersualem” “Jerusalem Above” “Heavenly Jerusalem.”
And true, the nations cannot do anything to heavenly Jersusalem itself, but it can attack those who represent it on earth.Quote The JWs are literal when it suits them though, I've noticed.
We are literal except when scripture demands that the scripture itself is not literal. If taking a scripture literally means it contradicts 10 other clear scriptures, then no, it is not to be taken literally.Quote Let's start here: – verse 3 bears out that the “Lord” has come for battle,
Clever the way most people think “the Lord” is Jesus when Jehovah is quite often called Lord and when in this instance Jehovah's name was actually in that spot, and not “lord” as your Bible indicates.Quote “fight against those nations”. I wonder if you could find for me as many proof texts as you can supporting the (implied) assertion that The Father of Yeshua will do this. When you have a list, I'll do the same for my candidate Y'shua Mashiach and we'll compare them. Bear in mind though, it should be explicit, or at least very obvious, that the person thusly described in you proof text is in fact the Father. So to be clear, you want me to find scriptures that say Jehovah will “fight against those nations.” And you'll find scriptures that say “Jesus” will fight against those nations.
Will the one with the larger list be declared the winner of this debate? Because if so, I agree to your terms.
david
We really should be having this discussion in the appropriate thread. It's frustrating that there is a thread for this exact subject, but I have no access to it.
But, concerning JOHN 1:1, I thought I should provide a link to the “coptic version of the Bible” thread.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….03;st=0
The Greek of John 1:1 has no indefinite article (“a”). So, if someone translates it into a language that does have indefinite articles (“a” or “an”) (such as English, Coptic, etc) the translator must put the “a” or “an” in where it is needed. (And every English Bible does this thousands of times.)
The languages that John 1:1 were translated and copied into early on (Greek, Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, etc) ALL had no indefinite article! Around 1500 C.E., it was translated into English which does have the indefinite article. And of course, they chose not to use it. (I wonder if the beheadings and burnings at the stake rolled through their minds as they translated this. Anyway, they had little choice on how to translate it BY THAT TIME.)
But 1300 years before, (About 200 CE) it was translated into Coptic, which does have both the indefinite article and the definite article in it's language. And the translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it, tranlsated john 1:1c with “a god.”
Their language was actually based on the Greek, using the Greek alphabet, and a couple other letters. They lived when koine Greek was actually spoken. They lived before trinity doctrine became law. And so they had both an understanding and the ability to translate it, not how the authorities demanded, but how they understood it.
Anyway, I find that thread fascinating. Check it out.
Quote (david @ Mar. 25 2009,14:42) Quote Oh, the non-literal, spiritualised exegesis…convenient. The JWs are literal when it suits them though, I've noticed. So you believe this is literal?
And his feet will actually stand in that day upon the mountain of the olive trees, which is in front of Jerusalem, on the east; and THE MOUNTAIN of the olive trees MUST BE SPLIT at its middle, FROM THE SUNRISING AND TO THE WEST. There will be a very great valley; and HALF THE MOUNTAIN WILL ACTUALLY BE MOVED TO THE NORTH, and half of it to the south. And you people will certainly flee to the valley of my mountains; –Zech 14:3-5
I agree with you that it
Quote is patently 'yet future' in context. But I believe it refers to ““a city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem,” (Heb 12:22)
Does it make sense that the nations would attack earthly Jerusalem AND THEN GOD WOULD DEFEND EARTHLY JERUSALEM, THE CITY THAT PUT HIS SON TO DEATH? The scripture says Jehovah would do this. (Zech 14:3)
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you impaled.” (Acts 1:12-15; 2:1-36)
Have you ever heard the scripture: “look, your house is abandoned to you”?
Or, “the kingdom will be taken from you and given to a nation producing it's fruits”?Jehovah had decreed the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem of the Jews, and neither before nor after its destruction did he issue authorization for that earthly city to be rebuilt by his people.
So why attack the nations that are attacking “Jerusalem” then?
For a long time, “Jehovah’s throne” used to be there in Jerusalem. In the year 33 C.E., when Jesus, the spirit-anointed descendant of King David, rode in a triumphal procession into Jerusalem, that city did not want him as King.
Thus the earthly Jerusalem renounced its right to have the Permanent Heir of King David sit upon a royal throne within it.
Its Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin, had Jesus Christ put to death on an execution stake just outside the walls of Jerusalem.—Matthew 21:1-43.It makes no sense to me that Jehovah would defend the city that killed his son, the city that Jesus fortold the destruction of, the city whose “house was abandoned” to her.
In verse 7, “And it must occur in that day [that] living waters will go forth from Jerusalem,” I wonder what you think the living waters are? If you take this as literal, then what are literal living waters?
In the highly symbolic book of Revelation 21:10, we hear of “the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven [ie: “heavenly Jerusalem”] from God and having the glory of God,” or in other words, not literal earlthy Jerusalem.
It's sometimes called “heavenly Jerusalem” “Jerusalem above” “New Jerusalem.” After the description of “the holy city Jerusalem” in Rev 21, chapter 22:1 begins this way:
“And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb.”
Is this a coincidence?
Also, in Rev 21 itself, in the description of “new Jerusalem” (21:2) we find these words: “To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free.” (21:6)
(notes to myself: See PM 371)So back to Zech 14:8:
And it must occur in that day [that] living waters will go forth from Jerusalem,The living waters that give life in Revelation 21:6; 22:17 come from New Jerusalem, not the earthly Jerusalem that Jehovah abandoned….the one that killed his son.
“And this is what will prove to be the scourge with which Jehovah will scourge all the peoples that will actually do military service against Jerusalem.” (Zech 14:12)
I'm wondering why it makes sense to you that Jehovah would do so much to defend the city that rejected, and killed his very son…the city that his son prophecied would be destroyed?
This scripture is speaking about “New Jersualem” “Jerusalem Above” “Heavenly Jerusalem.”
And true, the nations cannot do anything to heavenly Jersusalem itself, but it can attack those who represent it on earth.Quote The JWs are literal when it suits them though, I've noticed.
We are literal except when scripture demands that the scripture itself is not literal. If taking a scripture literally means it contradicts 10 other clear scriptures, then no, it is not to be taken literally.Quote Let's start here: – verse 3 bears out that the “Lord” has come for battle,
Clever the way most people think “the Lord” is Jesus when Jehovah is quite often called Lord and when in this instance Jehovah's name was actually in that spot, and not “lord” as your Bible indicates.Quote “fight against those nations”. I wonder if you could find for me as many proof texts as you can supporting the (implied) assertion that The Father of Yeshua will do this. When you have a list, I'll do the same for my candidate Y'shua Mashiach and we'll compare them. Bear in mind though, it should be explicit, or at least very obvious, that the person thusly described in you proof text is in fact the Father. So to be clear, you want me to find scriptures that say Jehovah will “fight against those nations.” And you'll find scriptures that say “Jesus” will fight against those nations.
Will the one with the larger list be declared the winner of this debate? Because if so, I agree to your terms.
david
I'll pick up on this post when the thread is opened. BTW David, you know what it was that I asked.Quote BTW David, you know what it was that I asked. It's always best to be clear–especially when someone hands you the ability to end the discussion so easily. So I repeated what I thought you said. And now you are backing away. I understand.
Quote I'll pick up on this post when the thread is opened.
Given the time that has passed so far, I'm not sure that will happen.David, note emphasis.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 24 2009,20:54) I wonder if you could find for me as many proof texts as you can supporting the (implied) assertion that The Father of Yeshua will do this. When you have a list, I'll do the same for my candidate Y'shua Mashiach and we'll compare them. Bear in mind though, it should be explicit, or at least very obvious, that the person thusly described in you proof text is in fact the Father. Blessings
Clear enough?
Hi David. Let's make this really straight forward. Can you please find for me all the verses in the New Testament supporting your implied assertion that the Father of Yeshua will “come for battle” to “fight against those nations”, as described in Zechariah 14:1-6. Make a list of them all, and i'll then do the same. Let's get the ball rolling on this.
David said:
Quote The Greek of John 1:1 has no indefinite article (“a”). So, if someone translates it into a language that does have indefinite articles (“a” or “an”) (such as English, Coptic, etc) the translator must put the “a” or “an” in where it is needed. (And every English Bible does this thousands of times.) David,
It should be noted that John 1:1 literally reads “And God was the Word.” The Greek “logos” is the predicate.Quote In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and God was the Word (not “and the Word was God”) The definite article “tov” is for God both times:
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with (tov) God and God was the Word.”
thinker
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 18 2009,15:58) Hi David. Let's make this really straight forward. Can you please find for me all the verses in the New Testament supporting your implied assertion that the Father of Yeshua will “come for battle” to “fight against those nations”, as described in Zechariah 14:1-6. Make a list of them all, and i'll then do the same. Let's get the ball rolling on this.
I wonder why you now want to limit it to the new testament. Is it because if we consider THE WHOLE BIBLE there are many many many more times where Jehovah is said to fight and war and battle against the nations?hmmm.
Why stop at limiting it to the NT? Why not limit it to the chapter of the NT that suits you most? Or even the 3 or 4 verses.
I think I know why– The NT itself says: “ALL scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for…..setting things straight.”
If you want to set this straight, we cannot limit our search to the arbitary perameters that will meet your goal, can we?
david
Quote David,
It should be noted that John 1:1 literally reads “And God was the Word.” The Greek “logos” is the predicate.Hi Thinker. It should also be noted that the literal reading of hundreds of other verses read without the definite article, “the.”
So we can throw what you just said out, as meaningless, or at the very most, extraordinarily little meaning.david
Quote (david @ April 20 2009,09:58) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 18 2009,15:58) Hi David. Let's make this really straight forward. Can you please find for me all the verses in the New Testament supporting your implied assertion that the Father of Yeshua will “come for battle” to “fight against those nations”, as described in Zechariah 14:1-6. Make a list of them all, and i'll then do the same. Let's get the ball rolling on this.
I wonder why you now want to limit it to the new testament. Is it because if we consider THE WHOLE BIBLE there are many many many more times where Jehovah is said to fight and war and battle against the nations?hmmm.
Why stop at limiting it to the NT? Why not limit it to the chapter of the NT that suits you most? Or even the 3 or 4 verses.
I think I know why– The NT itself says: “ALL scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for…..setting things straight.”
If you want to set this straight, we cannot limit our search to the arbitary perameters that will meet your goal, can we?
david
Like I said – to make it straightforward. We could use OT passages but then we more than likely would not agree on the identity of the person described as YHWH. In the NT there is a clear dichotomy between the Father and Son, and plenty of eschatological material to work with. David, you have the whole NT at your disposal, surely that's more than enough?Or are you just stalling David?
Hi Is 1.18,
If the words of the NT do not reveal the Father and His Son was the visit of the Son wasted?
God was in him reconciling the world to Himself[2Cor5]Quote Like I said – to make it straightforward. We could use OT passages but then we more than likely would not agree on the identity of the person described as YHWH. Are you seious? You have to get a better Bible–one that doesn't take God's name out.
Every one of the scriptures I would find would say “YHWH” or Jehovah in it. When we look at the NT, we can't be certain about those “lord” and “god” references, because it seems the Jews wanted that name removed. We know they did in the Hebrew scriptures. We know it is still removed in 90% of Bible's today. But even throwing that out, are you serious?If we use the Bible as a whole, THERE ARE LITERALLY 25 TIMES AS MANY REFERENCES TO “JEHOVAH” FIGHTING THE NATIONS AS THERE ARE TO JESUS.
Let me repeat that–Literally, 25 times!
Riiiight.
Okay David, use the OT as well if you like. Be sure though that the quotes you use make it plain that it's the Father of Yeshua that is in view.
Can we just get on with this David? Let's have a list.
Hi Is 1.18,
Acts 10 tells us God was with Jesus.
How does this fit with any view that says he was God?Quote (david @ April 20 2009,10:01) Quote David,
It should be noted that John 1:1 literally reads “And God was the Word.” The Greek “logos” is the predicate.Hi Thinker. It should also be noted that the literal reading of hundreds of other verses read without the definite article, “the.”
So we can throw what you just said out, as meaningless, or at the very most, extraordinarily little meaning.david
David,
Out of “hundreds of other verses” couldn't you have given me one example from the NT? You call on me to “throw out” my grammar without showing me that my grammar is wrong. You expect me to just take your word for it and then “throw out” what I have said.I will give it again,
Quote In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word It does NOT say that the Word was God. It reads, “God was the Word.”
God was the Word. Deal with it!
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
