Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[Zenn]

I would hope I don't go too long without talking about God's word.

It is my daily bread, and a part of the Armour of God. I don't go anywhere without it.

And therein lies the problem.

The metaphor 'armor of God' says absolutely nothing about 'bible' in the Koine Greek. The sword is prayer. But you can't understand this if you embrace the wrong definition of the word Rhema.

Saying you see, now holds you accountable.

So be it,
Zenn

 

[daqq]

Why do you add in the words "seven holy" to the text?

Those words are in parenthesis, a different color, and placed in superscript: that's my doctrine and also in my Gospel. If you think that is tantamount to adding to the scripture you are just fishing for accusations.

Why do you change the word מֵאמַר (mê'mar) to "mem-ra"?

What's the Strong's number for this word Memra?

Why do you change Memra to memar? Why do you put your faith in non-believing Masoretes who rejected Messiah to point and vowelize the text for you?

מאמר ~ You say memar, I say Memra.

Zenn

PS: It actually isn't Hebrew, and it actually isn't in the Bible is it.

It is Aramaic: you brought up the Targums, which mention the Memra, (and rightly so), and I merely pointed you back to the scripture.

And yes, it is in the scripture: but you say writings, I say scripture. :rotfl:

 

[Zenn]

Since you are going to put me on ignore, you might want to just skip this one :e4e:

Wow, Lon, you really like to make stuff up.

You haven't been here long enough.

What, to have the divine experience of waddling in your self-absorbed intellect? Yeah, I've been here long enough for that.

I notice you've been itching to try and get me some sort of infraction for some reason.

Wow, your self-importance is just wayyy off the chart. And you really do like to make stuff up.

Zenn

 

[Zenn]

:first:

Seriously? What? Are you people like twelve years old?


(Oh... yeah... My bad for not recognizing this sooner. I shall endeavor to correct my mistake.)

 

[daqq]

Strong's (sigh), the bane of true scholarship. Since you wish to ignore a real lexicon, I'm not even sure God can help you.

Zenn

:doh:

Nope, that is not Strong's, just a short and quick definition.

Originally Posted by daqq
G297 ἀμφότερος amphoteros (am-fo'-te-ros) adj.
(in plural) both.
[comparative of amphi “around”]

PS ~ Think in terms of words like amphitheater and "Amphipolis", (Acts 17:1).

Strong's:

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
297 amphoteroi
both.
Comparative of amphi (around); (in plural) both -- both.
http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/297.htm

 

[daqq]

Seriously? What? Are you people like twelve years old?

Talitha Kumi . . . :chuckle:

 

[daqq]

Thanks to daqq for answering where the altar of incense was in the temple question.

I am glad you got something from that; but what did I really do? All I really did was gather some information and present it, (for the most part). I did also search Josephus but could not find the other commentary I was hoping to find, I guess it is not there, cannot remember where I read it, unfortunately.

PS ~ The answer to the woman with an issue of blood for twelve years and the raising of the twelve year old daughter Jairus is found in the Torah: the woman was required to return to the Kohen who performed her cleansing and offer sacrifice for final atonement-cleansing, two turtle doves or two pigeons-doves, (and those represent prayers and ascending thanksgiving offerings, Lev 15:28-30), and she therefore came back to the Master a second time, just as the one leper from the ten who were cleansed, realizing that he is the Kohen who performed the cleansing. The rest is all merely juxtapositioning between the accounts. Moreover the Archon in the Matthew account had his own disciples, (being the Archon of a Synagogue, no doubt, this is true), so in Matthew they are those who had come to inform him that his daughter had died. These are two different events at two different times of the same day, (for as has been shown to you several times now, seven yamim are seven hours, not seven 24-hour days).

 

[daqq]

daqq,

When a father terrorizes his children we call this child abuse. I do wonder if this is why you use the word abuse so often.

Actually I hardly ever use the word abuse, (do a forum search if you do not believe me), but in this thread it has come up because it is true: and it has nothing to do with the scripture I quoted from Paul. It is utterly astonishing that you would not even fear calling the chastisement of the Father child abuse so long as you can use it to take stabs at me simply because you understood not what I was saying. Moreover you show your utter blindness in yet another failed attempt at prophetic utterance a.k.a. word of knowledge and mind reading: I never met my physical father, I never knew him, as he and my mother parted ways before I was even born. Are you going to now try to insinuate that my mother abused me as a child because I have now told you these things? (if so, for that you will indeed be reported).

You keep projecting your shame onto others by saying, "Shame on you", but the truth is plain for all to see: your own shame is your own filthy garment, and I know the conscience is likened to a garment from the scripture and writings. Your own conscience is defiled for not believing the holy Testimony of Messiah, (Mat15:18-20). As for the remainder of what you said in the above post, which I removed: why would I tell you any more after what you said above herein? In the kingdom of Elohim you are already accounted as a murderer, (Mat15:18-20, 1Jhn3:15), and all murderers and liars are on the outside, in the outer darkness, (Rev21:8, Rev22:15, Mat7:6, Mat8:11-12, Mat22:13→Enoch10:4, Mat25:28-30). The "law of sin and death" is for murderers: go back into the womb of your mother-covenant and begin the process of relearning everything according to the parables, proverbs, allegories, sayings, idioms, and Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts, (Jerusalem of above is our mother-covenant, Gal4:21-27→Isa54:1,2), and wait there for the Father to call you forth from the womb of your mother, like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Nikocemus, Paul, and Timothy all had to do. And when the Father calls you forth from the womb of your mother you will indeed be able to say that from a babe you have known the holy scripture-writings: but as for now, you are not even yet born, unless of course you are the reprobate-castaway rotting carcass of a filthy dead fish, (for the kingdom of the heavens is like unto a net, Mat13:47-52, 2Cor13:5-7 KJV). :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

(Act 3:6 KJV) Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Where did Peter and John pray for this fellow's healing? :AMR: They didn't. They were going to pray, but never got to the temple. Instead Peter commanded the healing, and I don't think the words "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" is a magic spell required to be repeated.

(Act 9:40 KJV) But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.

And where does this text say that Peter "prayed for Tabitha" to arise? Rather, he commanded her to. αναστηθι (ARISE) is in the Imperative mood. It is a command. Peter spoke a command to the body, not to God. What I find astonishing is that when I mentioned Walter's return from the dead in a rather offhand manner, NONE of you, absolutely no one, even expressed any serious curiosity to understand what might have happened. Y'all just dismissed the possibility or unleashed a flurry of astonishment, doubt and unbelief. (According to your faith be it unto you.)

I can only read so much of your drivel. In answer to the above, I give you this.

Acts 5:12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.​

Signs, wonders, and miracles were always with a purpose. The time of the indwelling Spirit and prayer are for now. To reject it in favour of of miraculous deeds done my MEN, is but for a means to boast....as you do whenever Walter's name comes up. Boasting is excluded by the LAW OF FAITH. This is the age of Grace and the work of the Holy Spirit.


Ephesians 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

Philippians 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.

1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

1 Timothy 5:5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.

 

[glorydaz]

And yet your own Bible says there is a mediator between the saints and their great God. (And a man at that.)

(1Ti 2:5 KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I am continually amazed at how people can deceive themselves into thinking they honor and venerate a text as holy writ and yet create all sorts of rationalization for why they don't need to embrace the text as it is actually written.

God weeps.

Zenn

And yet, that's exactly what you have just done.


The "man Jesus Christ" being a mediator is for SALVATION.

1 Tim. 2:4-5 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;​

(God weeps when His words are twisted to suit a man's reason for boasting.)


It's the Holy Spirit who intercedes and interprets our prayers and supplication.

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.​

 

[glorydaz]

Does this kind of name calling help you feel better about yourself?

Are you now saying like Lon that you are Jesus to have permission to name call?

Do you seriously believe that such behaviour lies within the aegis of "love your enemy" (cf. Mat. 5:44)?

Vilification of another person, reducing him or her to a subhuman stature, in order to elevate oneself or one's position and beliefs is an all too common rationalization of the carnal mind.

Zenn

PS: (The Nazi's were way better at it than you, though.)

You should understand that most people aren't "name calling" or saying "mean things" to make themselves feel better.

Such "tough talk" is to make you see you are not the great man you think you are. Nothing tells me more about someone than to see how easily they are offended. You are easily offended, and take things so personally that you miss out on any real dialogue. Try to get over yourself, and you'll be much happier.

 

[glorydaz]

And therein lies the problem.

The metaphor 'armor of God' says absolutely nothing about 'bible' in the Koine Greek. The sword is prayer. But you can't understand this if you embrace the wrong definition of the word Rhema.

Saying you see, now holds you accountable.

So be it,
Zenn

I thought you just said prayer was unimportant. :think:

The quote says the Sword of the Spirit is the word of God....not prayer, as you claim. And you must be suggesting that Jesus prayed in the wilderness instead of quoting scripture, right? We're talking a battle sword here.

Matthew 4:3-4
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.​

The Sword of the Spirit is the "word of God". IT IS WRITTEN....... You can attack the enemy with the Word of God.

 

[Zenn]

I thought you just said prayer was unimportant. :think:

No I didn't. I gave two examples where prayer was incidental, not causal, to the how the gift of healings work.

The quote says the Sword of the Spirit is the word of God....not prayer, as you claim.

No it doesn't. And this can be understood by any second year student of Koine Greek. What scripture actually says is:

και την περικεφαλαιαν του σωτηριου δεξασθε και την μαχαιραν του πνευματος ο εστιν ρημα (RHEMA) θεου δια πασης προσευχης και δεησεως προσευχομενοι εν παντι καιρω εν πνευματι

The text does not say that "the Sword ... is the Word of God." Rather, it directly states that "the Spirit is the Word (RHEMA) of God". The squinting modifier introduced in English translations is not present in the Greek text due to gender agreement. The sword is not the Bible. Such a conclusion is the result of a bad interpretation of a poor translation.

And you must be suggesting that Jesus prayed in the wilderness instead of quoting scripture, right? We're talking a battle sword here.

Yes, and the Greek text In Ephesians six quite plainly describes this 'battle' sword as prayer. You are perpetuating a misunderstanding by changing the definition of the Rhema of God to mean 'Bible'.

Matthew 4:3-4
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.​

The Sword of the Spirit is the "word of God". IT IS WRITTEN....... You can attack the enemy with the Word of God.

Yes. No. This clearly demonstrates the problem.

You substitute the word 'Bible' for the phrase 'word of God' when the very text you quote here in Matthew says 'Rhema of God' (which is NOT the Bible). If one doesn't understand what Rhema is, one cannot "attack" with it. If one focuses on the phrase "it is written" while ignoring the meaning of what actually was written, then one misses the point entirely.

So what "it" is written?

ουκ επ αρτω μονω ζησεται ανθρωπος αλλ επι παντι ρηματι (RHEMA) εκπορευομενω δια στοματος θεου

Or in English, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every RHEMA that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." It does not say that man shall live by "every word (logos) that was written in scripture selected by the Catholic Church."

So yes. As you say, one "can attack the enemy with the Word of God" but this is RHEMA, not scripture. And the book of Ephesians describes the RHEMA of God as prayer. But if one changes the meaning of Rhema to scripture, one then "attacks" with the wrong thing, nullifying the Rhema of God by changing its definition to Bible.

This why we need to deal with what is actually written.

Zenn

 

[Lon]

Wow, Lon, you really like to make stuff up.

:yawn:

Lon....I now know your character and will likely just place you on ignore.

What, to have the divine experience of waddling in your self-absorbed intellect? Yeah, I've been here long enough for that.

"divine experience?" "waddling?" I'm a 'bit' self-absorbed with intellect because "the Bereans were more noble." Yeah, that. You can't really do an assessment of people you don't know. You were off. This was not a nice post, you said you were curious with an incorrect guess. "Not here long enough" was no slam I was merely saying 'incorrect, give it time.' Maybe you lowballed to be mean, I don't know, but I did give you a genuine and fairly friendly response.

Wow, your self-importance is just wayyy off the chart. And you really do like to make stuff up.

Zenn

First: When did 'self-importance' amount to 'making stuff up?' :idunno:

:yawn: Second:

You know, I get a warning for using the word [wash my mouth out with soap] instead of behind or posterior, and yet I run across this reference from Lon to a Monty Python movie way at the end of the post I'm reporting.
"It is simply a taunt from the French fort in my general direction. "
The line in the movie is I shall "[expend gas] in your general direction." And Lon's use of the word 'fort' is barely disguised. So no potty humor is tolerated? I am beginning to wonder if a dual standard exists. Hopefully not.
Kindly,
Zenn (the link only works for members beyond plus)

Try not to do the mean and snarky ALL the time? Mix it up a little. Say something meaningful.

 

[glorydaz]

I notice you've been itching to try and get me some sort of infraction for some reason. This one? :nono: (not the other one either). You'll have to 'learn' the rules here before you can play by them. This ISN'T that other forum. Simply looking for a clone? This ain't it. :e4e:

:first:

Seriously? What? Are you people like twelve years old?


(Oh... yeah... My bad for not recognizing this sooner. I shall endeavor to correct my mistake.)

I sure hope you're not jealous.


Lon got a :first: for telling you that TOL is special.

You'd better get used to it. Mocking our prizes will insure you NEVER get one for yourself. :banana:

 

[Lon]

Seriously? What? Are you people like twelve years old?

Er, tell that to the men's softball team at church or over at the local tavern lain:

A picture is worth more than a few words often enough. Try not to 'lower' yourself with your juvenile assessments.
It is only one who is bothered that would...er...write a post that says you are bothered.
What kind of 'adult' would be bothered? :idunno:

(Oh... yeah... My bad for not recognizing this sooner. I shall endeavor to correct my mistake.)

I don't know if you realize it, ▲ but you post sometimes like you are still in your teens. ▲ :think: Its hard not to patronize you for it.

(Act 3:6 KJV) Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Hello, "Apostle." No apostles today. You CANNOT raise Walter from the dead. God can. Colossians 1:17.

I am continually amazed at how people can deceive themselves into thinking they honor and venerate a text as holy writ and yet create all sorts of rationalization for why they don't need to embrace the text as it is actually written.

God weeps.

Zenn

He does, especially if 'you' cannot trust it. It is odd you'd accuse someone else for what you think is imperfect and uninspired.

Does this kind of name calling help you feel better about yourself?

Isn't 'devious' defining "drivel?" You do know the difference between name calling and describing inanimate objects?

Are you now saying like Lon that you are Jesus to have permission to name call?

Nothing like "TRYING" to make enemies wherever you go. RATHER I think I have the Lord Jesus Christ's permission to call a spade a spade. Hurt? Not always the aim. Sometimes, as I've said, namecalling is often just 'assessment.' That said, at your request, I'm trying to avoid it. George didn't say 'you' were 'devious drivel' but rather what you said. It didn't look 'honest' to him, and it didn't look 'worthwhile' to him. Doesn't that make better sense than "I'm devious drivel"?

Do you seriously believe that such behaviour lies within the aegis of "love your enemy" (cf. Mat. 5:44)?

Er, 'apparently?' unlike you, I still need grace. Must be nice to be perfect. Romans 2:1-5

Vilification of another person, reducing him or her to a subhuman stature, in order to elevate oneself or one's position and beliefs is an all too common rationalization of the carnal mind.

:think: I think so too! Try Romans 2:1-5 for devotions tomorrow morning? He was calling your tack devious. You 'can' always do better, no?

Zenn

PS: (The Nazi's were way better at it than you, though.)

Well, you got the 'lashing out' down pat. Were you going to 'try' the high road? 1 Peter 3:9 I can work more on it myself.

 

[glorydaz]

No it doesn't. And this can be understood by any second year student of Koine Greek. What scripture actually says is:

και την περικεφαλαιαν του σωτηριου δεξασθε και την μαχαιραν του πνευματος ο εστιν ρημα (RHEMA) θεου δια πασης προσευχης και δεησεως προσευχομενοι εν παντι καιρω εν πνευματι

The text does not say that "the Sword ... is the Word of God." Rather, it directly states that "the Spirit is the Word (RHEMA) of God". The squinting modifier introduced in English translations is not present in the Greek text due to gender agreement. The sword is not the Bible. Such a conclusion is the result of a bad interpretation of a poor translation.

Then you need to go back to school, because Spirit is the object of the preposition Sword, not the subject of the word of God. There is no modifier there.

The Spirit is NOT the word of God, so your interpretation is what's bogus. You didn't once quote the verse as it reads. LOOK AT IT. Amazing. You leave words out, and pretend they don't exist, changing what is clearly written.

Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: ​

The Sword OF THE SPIRIT is the word of God. We are to preach what is written in the Bible...not what some man makes up about what is written. Not what prayers a man says.

Romans 10:8-9
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; ​

Yes, and the Greek text In Ephesians six quite plainly describes this 'battle' sword as prayer. You are perpetuating a misunderstanding by changing the definition of the Rhema of God to mean 'Bible'.

I'm not the one perpetuating a misunderstanding, you are. The Sword of the Spirit is the word of God. I don't need to be a Greek scholar to understand how the armour of God is used. We see Jesus using it against Satan in the wilderness.

Yes. No. This clearly demonstrates the problem.

You substitute the word 'Bible' for the phrase 'word of God' when the very text you quote here in Matthew says 'Rhema of God' (which is NOT the Bible). If one doesn't understand what Rhema is, one cannot "attack" with it. If one focuses on the phrase "it is written" while ignoring the meaning of what actually was written, then one misses the point entirely.

So what "it" is written?

ουκ επ αρτω μονω ζησεται ανθρωπος αλλ επι παντι ρηματι (RHEMA) εκπορευομενω δια στοματος θεου

Or in English, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every RHEMA that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." It does not say that man shall live by "every word (logos) that was written in scripture selected by the Catholic Church."

So yes. As you say, one "can attack the enemy with the Word of God" but this is RHEMA, not scripture. And the book of Ephesians describes the RHEMA of God as prayer. But if one changes the meaning of Rhema to scripture, one then "attacks" with the wrong thing, nullifying the Rhema of God by changing its definition to Bible.

This why we need to deal with what is actually written.

Zenn

MY GOODNESS. One attacks with what cannot be broken....scripture. It isn't prayer that is a sword. We see it here, as well. Quick? Powerful, Sharp? Piercing?

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.​

 

[Zenn]

Then you need to go back to school, because Spirit is the object of the preposition Sword, not the subject of the word of God. There is no modifier there.

The Spirit is NOT the word of God, so your interpretation is what's bogus. You didn't once quote the verse as it reads.

Ma'am, I quoted the verse EXACTLY as it reads.

και την περικεφαλαιαν του σωτηριου δεξασθε και την μαχαιραν του πνευματος ο εστιν ρημα (RHEMA) θεου δια πασης προσευχης και δεησεως προσευχομενοι εν παντι καιρω εν πνευματι

My apologies that you cannot read the language. It is not I who needs to go back to school. The modifier is the word "which" and the modifying clause is "which is the word of God". The Greek word ο (or 'which') is neuter, to identify that the pneuma (or spirit) is the Word of God. To mean that the Sword is the Rhema of God, the modifying word "which" needs to be in the feminine gender. But that's not what is written.

Again, ask any second year student of Greek (there are supposedly many here) and they can (or ought to be able) to explain gender agreement to you.

So yes. The Spirit IS the Rhema(word) of God.

Zenn

PS:

Then you need to go back to school, because Spirit is the object of the preposition Sword,

The word "Sword" is not a preposition. Prepositions are words like 'in' 'of' 'at' 'through' 'above' ... words that start what is called a prepositional phrase. 'Sword' is not one of them. 'Sword' is a noun.

 

[glorydaz]

Ma'am, I quoted the verse EXACTLY as it reads.

και την περικεφαλαιαν του σωτηριου δεξασθε και την μαχαιραν του πνευματος ο εστιν ρημα (RHEMA) θεου δια πασης προσευχης και δεησεως προσευχομενοι εν παντι καιρω εν πνευματι

My apologies that you cannot read the language. It is not I who needs to go back to school. The modifier is the word "which" and the modifying clause is "which is the word of God". The Greek word ο (or 'which') is neuter, to identify that the pneuma (or spirit) is the Word of God. To mean that the Sword is the Rhema of God, the modifying word "which" needs to be in the feminine gender. But that's not what is written.

Again, ask any second year student of Greek (there are supposedly many here) and they can (or ought to be able) to explain gender agreement to you.

So yes. The Spirit IS the Rhema(word) of God.

Zenn

PS: The word "Sword" is not a preposition. Prepositions are words like 'in' 'of' 'at' 'through' 'above' ... words that start what is called a prepositional phrase. 'Sword' is not one of them. 'Sword' is a noun.

Better go back to school, Zenn. This is basic High School Sentence Diagraming.

I know "of" is a preposition. In fact, I know all the prepositions. I even know nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives. Even better, I know subjects, verbs, objects....which you don't seem to understand at all. :think:

The word "which" goes back to SWORD, since sword is the SUBJECT OF THE SENTENCE.

The object of that preposition is Spirit. That SWORD belongs to the Spirit. The Spirit is not the subject. The Sword is the subject of the sentence.


If you diagram that sentence you will see....

Sword/ is/ word

Under the subject (Sword) is the preposition OF, and the object of that preposition (Spirit)

 

[glorydaz]

Ma'am, I quoted the verse EXACTLY as it reads.

BTW, I noticed your report in the woodshed. You should know that members can see the reports in the woodshed, so nothing you report there is private in any way. Lon copied and pasted what we could all see. You should have no expectation for privacy when you report someone.