EVERY instance in the apocalypse is arnion. :crackup:
He that has the bride is the groom.
what does john the baptist mean when he says lamb of God?
Irenaeus and Victorinus
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
what does john the baptist mean when he says lamb of God?
More job offers from Rome.
Shall we discuss some more truth promotion the roman way?
Yes we should.
The Roman church promotes marriage at the same time it destroys marriage.
The Roman church feeds the poor at the same time it denies food to the poor.
The Roman church promotes brotherly love especially for its priests.
What other truth promo's should we discuss at the job interview.
If you mean the statements from John 1:29 and John 1:36 the word is Amnos which is meant in a feminine sense because the Hebrew from Isaiah 53:7 is RACHEL, (essentially the same as the name Rachel and therefore related prophetically speaking). Yeshua likens the soul and the flesh in the feminine gender in many instances throughout his allegories, parables, idioms, and sayings, and the same is true throughout the prophets as "the flesh" is always spoken of in the feminine gender, whether for the good, or whether for the evil, (like Egypt, "great of flesh", and signifies "the flesh" which Paul speaks much about). However Arnion is masculine, like as is every son of Elohim, those having been born of Elohim into the kingdom of Elohim. Messiah Yeshua the Son of Elohim has one totally faithful and true witness as the first among men, that is, the man Yeshua who became one with Messiah the Son of God at the immersion under Yochanan. Thus there was Yeshua a son of Elohim, and Yeshua the Son of Elohim, and now they are one. But you must realize that, when reading the book of the Revelation of Messiah Yeshua, you are reading the Revelation of the one who was slain from the foundation of the world, that is, the Memra-Logos-Word of Elohim. If therefore we have and hold the full Testimony of Yeshua in uprightness we then become one with him, as brethren, and he is one with Messiah, and Messiah the Memra-Logos is one with the Father.
was Jesus the lamb of God?
Yes, of course, according to the scripture!
Here is one example of the soul being reckoned in the feminine gender:
John 10:17-18
17. Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my soul, [psuchen - feminine] that I might receive her [auten - feminine] again.
18. No one takes her [auten - feminine] from me, but I lay her [auten - feminine] down of myself: I have authority to lay her [auten - feminine] down, and I have authority to receive her [auten - feminine] again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Here is another directed at all disciples of Yeshua:
Matthew 16:23-27
23. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: you are an offense unto me: for you savor not the things that be of Elohim, but those that be of men.
24. Then said Yeshua unto his disciples, If any will come after me, let him utterly forsake himself, and take up his stake, and follow me:
25. For whosoever will save his soul shall apollumi-destroy her: and whosoever will destroy his soul for my sake shall find her.
26. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
27. For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward each one according to his works.
Perhaps there is a little more to "rightly dividing" than most would care to understand?
Yes, of course, according to the scripture!
why didn't you just say that when I asked?
instead of a long post that is not clear
In my experience I think more have been befuddled by it and tend to avoid it. It's one of the reasons documenting its O.T. origins and parallels became something of a hobby for me. I mean, Daniel is a no brainer but most of the rest of it is there in the O.T. as well ... it's just gathered and presented in a different and unique way.
do you have any idea how many books on the apocalypse have been written and sold?
Nope.
As far as I have seen that was the first time you asked that question and I answered it in the post you have now quoted. However you did not specify whether you meant AMNOS or ARNION so the answer that time was, of course, yes. But as already stated; knowing the difference between the two is one of the great keys to understanding what you appear to be seeking. Without it, this thread can go on for a thousand years and you will not receive your answer. Have a nice thread.
john the baptist wrote the first apocalypse
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Wick Stick
Well-known member
You're not wrong, but it's probably not the point Jesus was making in that verse, either.Yes, of course, according to the scripture!
Here is one example of the soul being reckoned in the feminine gender:
John 10:17-18
17. Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my soul, [psuchen - feminine] that I might receive her [auten - feminine] again.
18. No one takes her [auten - feminine] from me, but I lay her [auten - feminine] down of myself: I have authority to lay her [auten - feminine] down, and I have authority to receive her [auten - feminine] again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Here is another directed at all disciples of Yeshua:
Matthew 16:23-27
23. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: you are an offense unto me: for you savor not the things that be of Elohim, but those that be of men.
24. Then said Yeshua unto his disciples, If any will come after me, let him utterly forsake himself, and take up his stake, and follow me:
25. For whosoever will save his soul shall apollumi-destroy her: and whosoever will destroy his soul for my sake shall find her.
26. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
27. For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward each one according to his works.
Perhaps there is a little more to "rightly dividing" than most would care to understand?
There is the form and there is the substance. All words pertaining to the form are cased as masculine in Greek, Hebrew, and all other Semitic languages. Likewise, all pertaining to the substance are feminine. It is no coincidence that the root of the word material is mater (mother).
Jarrod
No saying has a single point: there be seven messengers in every word and therefore we do not despise the brother who on the surface may appear to disagree because we now know it is a test to see who loves and who hates.
No saying has a single point: there be seven messengers in every word and therefore we do not despise the brother who on the surface may appear to disagree because we now know it is a test to see who loves and who hates.
it is a test
is that word in your bible?
If you mean English it depends on the translation one might choose:
1 John 4:1 RSV (Revised Standard Version)
1. BELOVED, DO not believe every spirit, but test [GSN#1381 dokimazo] the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1 John 4:1 NIV (New International Version)
1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test [GSN#1381 dokimazo] the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1 John 4:1 ESV (English Standard Version)
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test [GSN#1381 dokimazo] the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Strong's Ref. #1381
Romanized dokimazo
Pronounced dok-im-ad'-zo
from GSN1384; to test (literally or figuratively); by implication, to approve:
KJV--allow, discern, examine, X like, (ap-)prove, try.
I chose the nab
and
it is the only place you will find this:
10
Many shall be refined, purified, and tested, but the wicked shall prove wicked; none of them shall have understanding, but the wise shall have it.
Here is an example of what I meant in the post you quoted:
Matthew 16:5-12 KJV
5. And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
6. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
7. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
8. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
9. Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
10. Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
11. How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12. Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Mark 8:13-16 KJV
13. And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side.
14. Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.
15. And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.
16. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.
Both of the above portions relate the exact same occasion but Matthew-Levi hears, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees", while Mark-Peter hears, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod". Is one of them wrong? Absolutely not but rather each of them heard what the Spirit had prepared for him to hear at that time. Therefore beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, the leaven of the Sadducees, and the leaven of Herod, for the kingdom of the heavens is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. :crackup:
Matthew 16:5-12 KJV
5. And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
6. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
7. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
8. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
9. Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
10. Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
11. How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12. Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Mark 8:13-16 KJV
13. And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side.
14. Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.
15. And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.
16. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.
Both of the above portions relate the exact same occasion but Matthew-Levi hears, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees", while Mark-Peter hears, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod". Is one of them wrong? Absolutely not but rather each of them heard what the Spirit had prepared for him to hear at that time. Therefore beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, the leaven of the Sadducees, and the leaven of Herod, for the kingdom of the heavens is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. :crackup:
In the Old Greek Septuagint, (not Theodotion which I did not check) I see a form of GSN#3985 peirazo, πειρασθωσι, (peirasthosi) which is used extensively throughout the Apostolic Writings, (not the form but the same word) and several places in the Revelation, (i.e. of Smyrna in Rev 2:10). It seems more like a temptation kind of trial or test but, except for that, pretty much holds the same meaning as dokimazo:
Daniel 12:10 LXX (Old Greek)
πειρασθωσι και αγιασθωσι πολλοι και αμαρτωσιν οι αμαρτωλοι και ου μη διανοηθωσι παντες οι αμαρτωλοι και οι διανοουμενοι προσεξουσιν
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/27_012.htm
Strong's Ref. #3985
Romanized peirazo
Pronounced pi-rad'-zo
from GSN3984; to test (objectively), i.e. endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline:
KJV--assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt(-er), try.
There really aren't any reasons to suspect it. really...