26 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie========================================
no, because as you have already stated, sometimes he is termed something else, for example, 'father of the celestial lights, in the book of James i think, or ' mighty god', as in the verse regarding Jeremiah, chapter 37 i think, however the term 'almighty', is used exclusively for the most high himself, is it not? and why does my text always appear in a bold font?
no, because as you have already stated, sometimes he is termed something else, for example, 'father of the celestial lights, in the book of James i think, or ' mighty god', as in the verse regarding Jeremiah, chapter 37 i think, however the term 'almighty', is used exclusively for the most high himself, is it not? and why does my text always appear in a bold font?
=========================================
So then. In the book of Zechariah Jehovah sometimes is El'Shadai. But in some other cases Jehovah refers to ANOTHER Jehovah and THIS OTHER Jehovah is NOT El'Shadai.
So there are TWO Jehovahs in Zechariah, one who is El'Shadai and one who is not.
This is like saying there is a Simon Peter who is a fisherman from Galilee. But there is another Simon Peter who is not the fisherman from Galilee.
Would you clarify by pointing out these TWO Jehovahs in Zechariah ?
27 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywilllol, jaywill, what is this monkey business that you are talking about? great learning is driving you mad! (acts 26:24) of course there are not two Almighty Gods, now you and i know jaywill that there is only one Jehovah who is the Almighty God and only one begotten son, his name Jesus Christ, what you hope to gain by trying to confuse the matter, who can tell?
[b]========================================
no, because as you have already stated, sometimes he is termed something else, for example, 'father of the celestial lights, in the book of James i think, or ' mighty god', as in the verse regarding Jeremiah, chapter 37 i think, however the term 'almighty', is used exclusively for the most high himself, is it not? from Galilee.
Would you clarify by pointing out these TWO Jehovahs in Zechariah ?
27 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie==========================================
lol, jaywill, what is this monkey business that you are talking about? great learning is driving you mad! (acts 26:24) of course there are not two Almighty Gods, now you and i know jaywill that there is only one Jehovah who is the Almighty God and only one begotten son, his name Jesus Christ, what you hope to gain by trying to confuse the matter, who can tell?
there is only one Jehovah who is the Almighty God and only one begotten son, his name Jesus Christ, what you hope to gain by trying to confuse the matter, who can tell?
==========================================
According to you then There is only one Jehovah who is the Almighty God then. I agree. Thankyou.
Now we can proceed to see the revelation of the Trinity or at least very strong evidence for the Trinity in the book of Zechariah.
Thank you for your patience. Give me a few minutes.
27 Oct 08
11 edits
Zechariah 2:8 - 11 reveals that God is Triune or at least He is "more than one - one"
"For thus says Jehovah of hosts, After the glory has He sent Me against the nations who plunder you; for he who touches you touches the pupil of His eye. (v.8)
For I am now waving My hand over them, and they will be plunder for those who served them; and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me. (v.9)
Give a ringing shout and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for now I am coming and I will dwell in your midst, declares Jehovah (v.10)
And many nations will join themselve to Jehovah in that day and will become My people; and I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me to you." (v.11)
In verse 8 the Speaker is Jehovah of hosts ... "thus says Jehovah of hosts ..." And the speaker, Jehovah of hosts will wave His hand over the nations who plundered Israel. For He has been sent against them. And when He deals with these nations that troubled Israel it says "and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me."
Jehovah of hosts is both the Sender and the One who is sent. Jehovah is both the Speaker and the one who says that they will know that Jehovah has sent Him.
This amounts to God sending God. This amounts to the Almighty sending Himself. God must be mysteriously multi-une to do this. He is Triune.
"For thus says Jehovah of hosts, After the glory He has sent Me against the nations who plunder you ... and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me."
We see the same thing in 10 and 11 - " ' ... for now I am coming and I will dwell in your midst, declares Jehovah. And many nations will join themselves to Jehovah in that day and will become My people; and I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me to you."
The one who will dwell in the midst of Israel will be Jehovah. And Jehovah declares it. And when He does dwell in thier midst and they join themselves to Jehovah, they shall know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Him.
This too shows Jehovah - El'Shadai as the one dwelling in the midst and Jehovah - El'Shadai as the one who sent Him.
Jehovah God is both the Sender and the Sent One. God Almighty is both the speaker and the one who is revealed as the sender of the Speaker.
God Almighty sends Himself in Zechariah 2:8-11. God Almighty is sent by God Almighty.
This is an amazing confirmation of the Triune God - the Trinity in the Old Testament.
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillI have in my library about twenty to thirty different versions of the scriptures which i can turn to, they were a gift from a friend who married a girl in Baltimore and could not take them to America with him, there is Moffats, Darby translation, American standard, American revised, the Jerusalem Bible, the Amplified bible, the new english bible, King James etc etc etc etc etc, i consult them all for different flavours of text, also there are many Hebrew and Greek lexicons, and not a few Hebrew and Greek interlinears.
Robert, bear with one other question.
Which English Version of the Old Testament do you chiefly rely on if any ?
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywilllet me look at these verses jaywill, for their refutation, for even if i wanted to i could not make up such a work of fiction as you have done!
[b]Zechariah 2:8 - 11 reveals that God is Triune or at least He is "more than one - one"
"For thus says Jehovah of hosts, After the glory has He sent Me against the nations who plunder you; for he who touches you touches the pupil of His eye. (v.8)
For I am now waving My hand over them, and they will be plunder for those who ser ...[text shortened]... s is an amazing confirmation of the Triune God - the Trinity in the Old Testament.
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasI think what Rajk is saying is that, given the clear distinctions made by Jesus in verse 17 and the
Thomas is speaking directly to Jesus in verse 28, "...My Lord and my God."
author in verse 31 where the dichotomy between Jesus and God is clear, your interpretation of
verse 28 is flawed, that St Thomas is not expressing equivalence but exclaiming towards two
different entities: My Jesus and my God (a pagan analogy would be: My Zeus and my Ares). The
exclamation itself is equivocal, the context from the earlier and later verses makes the your
interpretation highly improbable.
Nemesio
27 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillFirst almost the entire book of Zechariah is a vision and much of it needs interpretation and cannot be taken literally. In particular verse 1 starts of with a man measuring Jerusalem. This is symbolic of Christ. So Christ is part of the dream Zechariah is having.
[b]Zechariah 2:8 - 11 reveals that God is Triune or at least He is "more than one - one"
"For thus says Jehovah of hosts, After the glory has He sent Me against the nations who plunder you; for he who touches you touches the pupil of His eye. (v.8)
For I am now waving My hand over them, and they will be plunder for those who ser is an amazing confirmation of the Triune God - the Trinity in the Old Testament.[/b]
Why did you write He and Me as if it were God. There is no such implication in any translation.
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasI read that passage over and over and the surrounding text and I really cant figure it out.
Once again:
If Jesus is not God, then why did the apostle John say that Jesus was, "calling God His own Father, making Himself equal to God" (John 5:18)?
Seriously Epi, what is it in that passage that needs explaining. People are accusing Christ of making himself equal to God. therefore Christ is the same as God. How?
Where is the brain teaser part?
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by Rajk999You are working hard to miss the obvious, aren't you?
I read that passage over and over and the surrounding text and I really cant figure it out.
Seriously Epi, what is it in that passage that needs explaining. People are accusing Christ of making himself equal to God. therefore Christ is the same as God. How?
Where is the brain teaser part?
__________
Jesus is indeed making Himself equal to God. Read the verse again. It's a narrative:
"This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God" (John 5:18, ESV).
Did Jesus break the Sabbath? Yes, He did. We can conclude that this narrative isn't a roundup of false accusations. These were accusations which Christ did nothing to deny, only strengthen. Jesus repeatedly broke the Sabbath, and by calling God his own Father, Jesus also repeatedly declared Himself equal with God.
The charge that Christ made Himself equal to God is justly inferred by His defense of the healing He performed on the Sabbath: "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working" (John 5:17). Yet it was unjustly imputed to Him as an offense, since Jesus Christ was and is God. If Jesus denied that He was equal to the Father, then He would be lying (something He cannot do). Instead, He affirms the truth:
"...all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father" (John 5:23, NKJV).
Why? Because they are equal, of course.
27 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThe passage about Thomas exactly underscores the Apostle John's whole introductory teaching of his Gospel.
I think what Rajk is saying is that, given the clear distinctions made by Jesus in verse 17 and the
author in verse 31 where the dichotomy between Jesus and God is clear, your interpretation of
verse 28 is flawed, that St Thomas is not expressing equivalence but exclaiming towards two
different entities: My Jesus and my God (a pagan analogy would be: My ...[text shortened]... from the earlier and later verses makes the your
interpretation highly improbable.
Nemesio
And the Word was with God. And the Word was God.
There was a distinction. But there was no seperation.
Once again. So the "church fathers" saw this mystery. They compared it to their experience of God, and they coined the term Trinity to express it.
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillah jaywill, for your consideration while i reflectively muse your rather imaginative work of fiction in the previous post
The passage about Thomas exactly underscores the Apostle John's whole introductory teaching of his Gospel.
[b]And the Word was with God. And the Word was God.
There was a distinction. But there was no seperation.
Once again. So the "church fathers" saw this mystery. They compared it to their experience of God, and they coined the term Trinity to express it.[/b]
the Sahidic Coptic text, and i thank God and the ancient writers for having preserved this parchment, which, are of importance for the following reasons
"The Proto-Alexandrian text appears not to have undergone the systematic grammatical and stylistic polishing that was given to other texts, including the later form of the Alexandrian text itself.
"By and large the Coptic version can be a valuable aid to the scholar engaged in textual criticism, and because in certain passages it preserves very ancient traditions of interpretation, it ought to be of considerable interest to the scholar working on the history and development of Christian doctrine."
"The Coptic Version is based on Greek manuscripts, which are significantly older that the vast majority of extant witnesses."
Because the Sahidic Coptic editions we have are likely very early, they provide an early glimpse into the texts they are translations of. And because most editions are extremely (almost woodenly) literal, they can provide insight into the underlying text ? helping in the quest to "establish the text" which is one of the first steps in any serious exegete's process
source http://sahidic.warpco.com/
so in essence these texts are more accurate, are of an earlier date and thus reflect the contemporary thought of the time and cover a much much more broader range concerning the books of the biblical cannon than any other.
what do the texts say with regard to John 1:1
****************************************************************************
hn tehoueite nefshoop ngi pshaje
auw pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute
auw neunoute pe pshaje
****************************************************************
***************************************************************************
John 1:1 in the Sahidic Coptic Bible, literal translation:
"In the beginning there existed the Word*
and the Word* existed with** the God***
and a God**** was the Word
* pshaje = Greek, ho logos, "the Word,"
** nnahrm = "in the presence of"
*** pnoute = Greek, ho theos, "the God"
**** (o)unoute = Greek, theos, "a God"
notice the use of the indefinite and definite articles, 'the God' and 'a god', Coptic unlike Syrian, Greek and Latin is similar to English in that it has these two articles, now isn't that interesting because it would seem to determine the contemporary thinking of the time, thinking much closer to the time of Christ himself and the apostles that Christ was simply considered to be a divine being and of course before the council of Nicaea, which was essentially presided over by a pagan emperor.
what are we to say and conclude other than, once again the original languages give clear and unambiguous evidence that God and Christ are two distinct entities, this fact is now rendered incontrovertible and the logic in question now unassailable! dig, ya'll
for a facsimile follow this link
http://members.aol.com/__121b_WYasvgbNIFAF7G6zRA4Ohiz57qoemTjN
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThat's a difficult concept. I've wondered about this often myself. Perhaps this is spoken in the profetic tense, as a statement of fact by someone who can see the future. This was often done in the bible. Just my guess though...
Matthew 5:48
"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Anyone willing to share their thoughts on this verse?
I'm thinking this could be interesting.
😏