Your imputed abuse is in your head.
You are abusing those who disagree with you right here in this thread: taking their words and twisting them to suit your arguments and to make yourself look superior at their expense. Did you never stop to think that perhaps that is why you get the "daqq-enese"? Even one of your own, Watchman, has said that "daqq" can speak clearly when he wants to.
I have had discourse with hundreds if not thousands of Christians, and I can truthfully say that your position and ... uh... presentation is rather unique, though considerably incomprehensible. Having been an editor, albeit for a brief period of time, I would not want to touch any manuscript you might submit. My apologies if you've become offended over the quip 'daqq-enese', but unless you really want to remain an audience of one unto yourself, you have got to drop the pretense of being something 'special' because you're the only one who understands your 'special' vocabulary (and to hell with everybody else). It is a poor author who blames his readers for not understanding what he writes.
As also said to Cobra, thank goodness you were not an end-of-the-first-century or second century scribe: for no doubt you would have taken it upon yourself to play "editor", no doubt even "special editor", since you fancy yourself as having a better understanding of Zechariah than even the author of Matthew, (I know, you say author
s, plural, to minimize the gravity of your heresy, but I do not).
Yes, much of what you have said is scattered.
You keep forcing that to be the case by your own assumptions and statements as you speak as if you know what you speak of when you do not. For instance you now introduce a juxtaposition between blood sacrifices and something you call the
"smoke that comes from the glory of God", and then you say,
"These are not even addressing the same topic, daqq. So yes, I question your interpretation abilities." But if I was to try and explain, you already know that I am forced to explain by way of what is written, the scripture, and if indeed I did then the vicious circle turns once again and you would no doubt accuse me again of being all over the place with the same inane retort once again,
"Much of what you have said is scattered", etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. You want to have your cake and eat it too, but the answers are scattered because your own discourse and accusations are all over the board: you fade out of one topic or context and into another in one breath, just as you accuse when you do not like the answer(s).
And here is a good example. Your reference to Lev 16:14 → Luk 11:20 is quite a stretch. You have compared the finger of a priest applying ritual blood to the finger of God, when Jesus was speaking of the power of the Holy Spirit to actually cast out demons. (You've never have actually met a real demon, have you?) One might better compare the finger of God with the finger of God Exo 31:18 → Luk 11:20.
That said, your comparison of Lev 16:17 → Rev 15:8 is equally obtuse, in that one speaks of blood sacrifices, and the other speaks of smoke that comes from the glory of God. These are not even addressing the same topic, daqq. So yes, I question your interpretation abilities.
I have had numerous conversations with Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses and others where these esoteric comparisons of interpretation were rather incomprehensible. So... if your identity is intrinsically intertwined with your 'special' revelation, then I understand the anxiety that shows in your posts. But you are quick to take offense, and really shouldn't be involved in these kinds of discussions. While you may think you have "walked in the way" long enough to understand your unique perspective, you have not "walked in the way" long enough to present them with any measure of clarity. If you yourself needed direct revelation (to understand whatever the heck it is you're talking about), then don't be upset if others do too.
Zenn
PS: And contrary to your sputtering, I did notice you were trying to defend Matthew by saying he was only quoting Zechariah. But, again, you didn't sufficiently present your case, and Matthew wasn't 'just' quoting Zechariah. He presented a narrative of action and linked this back to a prophetic utterance.
That is really all just your opinion with a couple extra heapings of slather on top of opinion and some boasting on the side. One thing though, is it my fault that all you can see in Lev 16 are blood sacrifices? Read on into the next chapter: who is the One whose name is the Door? And what does it say about goats in Lev 17:7 KJV? Do you suppose the Prophets never noticed such things or wrote about them? such as in Isaiah 34 or Daniel 8? You only see blood sacrifices in Lev 16 because that is the only thing you are capable of seeing: but that does not make it so, and that you do despite what the Prophets and the Writings, (especially Psalms), tell you in other places which refute your understanding. Moreover the censers of Korah and those about him were brass, even the 250 censers of those who offered incense and died: but because they offered before the LORD, even though they offered in a profane manner and died, the scripture says that their censers were hallowed, (Num 16:1-50, which passage has already been referenced previously). And since their censers were hallowed or sacred, Moses is commanded to tell Eleazar the son of Ahron to beat their censers into brass plates and make a covering for the brazen altar, (Num 16:36-40). However Korah was not of the same priestly line as Ahron and his sons, for though they were all of Levi, the priesthood was separated into different functions serving both nearer unto the Lord, (Ahron and his sons), and less near unto the Lord, (for example Korah and his sons were sons of Yitzhar). Therefore I ask you: how do you know whether or not the different metals represent nearness in service unto the LORD? For the things nearer are generally gold while the things not so near are brass: I speak of the censers of Korah, (brass), and the high probability that the censers of Nadab and Abihu may have been gold, (being sons of Ahron, and thus nearer to the LORD in their service).
Can you comprehend the intricacies of what I am saying here? For Lev 16:1 makes specific note that what follows in that passage was commanded at the time when Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire before the LORD and died. But what happened to their censers? and were they more likely golden censers? For if the censers of Korah and those about him were hallowed and sacred, even though they offered in a profane manner and died, and their censers were yet beaten into plates and used in the service of the brazen altar: what happened to the censers of Nadab and Abihu? For the LORD made the commandment clear when he commanded Moses to have Eleazer to beat the brazen censers into a covering for the brazen altar: the censers therefore must be used in the service of the sanctuary because they are hallowed and sacred. You might now go back and reread some of what has been said about this, for Lev 16:12 and Num 16:46 are the only two places in the Torah where the censer has the definite article attached to this word, (
המחתה), and Lev 16:12 is therefore the first occurrence, and it seems to appear as if out of nowhere: but not if you have the Spirit of the Torah, the Word, to guide you. :chuckle:
"blood sacrifices" ~ Zenenese . . . :chuckle:
