Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[daqq]

Thank you for recognizing that there was literally only one donkey.

I asked you earlier, several pages ago, if you saw a story as literal history. I did not get a clear answer, but this provides it. It appears you do not view the gospels as literal history but what one might call “spiritualized mysteries.”

Of course, once we give the writers the freedom to rewrite history, the actual facts don’t matter. It is acceptable to claim 14 generations when there were 18 or that the centurion came and did not come, speak and did not speak.

I don’t see the gospels that way. They present themselves as literal history.

You do still cannot see what happened here? I have said some things that were not correct but I was learning as we go and allowing the Word to dismantle any of my previously held notions and preconceptions: I even told you so a few pages back and thanked you for causing me to dig in to this particular problem deeper. I have been all over the place on this now, and it was indeed a great walk through the scripture: but you really did not teach me anything as we went, and you apparently refused to learn anything with me as we walked along through these last few pages. And yet I have been shown something new which was utterly and entirely worth my time while you apparently either have learned nothing or are too prideful to admit you have learned anything. I gave you my final understanding of the whole thing in a nutshell, (at least my final understanding for now, lol), after all my own misconceptions have now been dismantled by the Word right here in front of everyone.

1) she-donkey - "accustomed to the yoke" - Jerusalem (mother-covenant)
2) colt or foal - "son of the she-donkey" - "son of Zion" (Lam 4:2, 7) - the Groom

So the Master rides upon the colt, the son of the she-donkey, and the she-donkey represents the mother-covenant, which walks along beside them as they enter into Jerusalem. The colt, (upon which no man ever sat), represents the Groom, the son of Zion, (Lam 4:2, and her Nazarites are purer than snow, Lam 4:7), and that implies that the colt itself represents the Messiah, the Groom, the King, (Zec 9:9), coming to meet his bride, (the daughter of Zion), with his mother-covenant, (the she-donkey), walking along beside. It is a perfect allegory-analogy for the covenants when you take into account all of the other things that have been posted herein, (especially the statements from the Last Supper). We must remember that the covenant with Noah and all flesh cannot be done away, (and it is not because the Malak of Rev 10:1 has the sign of that covenant upon his head, the rainbow, and thus the Father is remembering that covenant), and of course the covenant with Abraham cannot be done away, (would you shoot yourself in the foot? after all that Paul has said about all nations and the seed of Abraham which is Messiah?), and thus the primary covenant was indeed both confirmed, (Dan 9:27), at the Last Seder and then empowered or strengthened, (the same phrase from Dan 9:27), at Golgotha.

:mario:

 

[Zeke]

You really show some ignorance both of Paul's writings and the OT. Paul quoted freely, and paraphrased, from the OT all throughout his writings. His doctrinal postions all come from the OT. And his understanding of the Messiah comes from the OT too. Take a look at the Greek and see how many times he used the concept of ransom or purchasing in relation to our redemption. That comes directly from the concept of ga'al, which the book of Ruth is based upon. Every Bible writer used that concept. It is all throughout both the OT and NT. Jesus even used it.

Paul did say the OT letters all those years prior to revelation from the Spirit within him Galatians 1:12 didn't translate all that well from his religious observational powers Luke 17:20-21, that his once prized degree and doctrinal pedigree that :deadhorse:taught him to kill the spiritual messengers, didn't smell so good anymore , he couldn't hear from being imprisoned in duality, seeing the world from a good and evil mentality you partake of also, that is the foundation of every one debating on here, from some level or another the belief in the historic version hides the Eternal Spirits intent, notice Paul gives a hint on why the letter remained a buried treasure until its spiritually discerned Galatians 4:24, the donkey would be symbology concerning a state of conscience in man instead of the historic vanity of dualistic minds fighting over a shadow with no substance of life except in a dream.

 

[daqq]

I could be persuaded there was only one animal as 3 accounts state that, against 2 which state two animals but Mark and Luke were not eye witnesses and so their testimony's are is weaker. Obviously there is a discrepancy, that is fairly clear.

If you are going to speak of testimony like in a court of law then why do you not think accordingly throughout? As someone else has already said, (I think Lon), "innocent until proven guilty", and moreover, "give the benefit of the doubt", lest you end up making false accusations against the scripture, (I suppose for some it is too late but hopefully they did it in ignorance). Just because the other authors only mention one donkey does not mean there cannot have been two, and that does not make their testimony weak: for Matthew is the only account that quotes Zec 9:9, so it is only logical that Matthew would give more details, and the others might only mention what they felt was necessary for their respective accounts. If I sat down for a principal meal with Moses and Paul, and Moses said to me, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he treads the corn", and Paul confirmed, saying to me, "So that the one who plows should plow in hope: and that the one who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope." Are you therefore going to call me a liar if I tell you this saying with its meaning but only mention that I was having dinner with Moses when I learned it? So Paul shows up and says, "Yep, I was there", and you therefore call me a liar? :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

Paul did say the OT letters all those years prior to revelation from the Spirit within him Galatians 1:12 didn't translate all that well from his religious observational powers Luke 17:20-21, that his once prized degree and doctrinal pedigree that :deadhorse:taught him to kill the spiritual messengers, didn't smell so good anymore , he couldn't hear from being imprisoned in duality, seeing the world from a good and evil mentality you partake of also, that is the foundation of every one debating on here, from some level or another the belief in the historic version hides the Eternal Spirits intent, notice Paul gives a hint on why the letter remained a buried treasure until its spiritually discerned Galatians 4:24, the donkey would be symbology concerning a state of conscience in man instead of the historic vanity of dualistic minds fighting over a shadow with no substance of life except in a dream.

:nono: It wasn't an 'epiphany.' It was Jesus come to him. He met the risen Lord you say doesn't/didn't exist. Again, relationship vs a lightbulb. The answer is NOT within. He will indwell a believer which is ALSO relationship. Christianity follows what you already know to be true: friendships and family are the 'type' and created in the image of God, not this pseudo-epiphany Eastern Mysticism New-Age-y "all inside of you." All inside of you has no relationship and HAVE NOT met the Savior. John 14:6 John 15:5 Colossians 1:17

 

[Zeke]

:nono: It wasn't an 'epiphany.' It was Jesus come to him. He met the risen Lord you say doesn't/didn't exist. Again, relationship vs a lightbulb. The answer is NOT within. He will indwell a believer which is ALSO relationship. Christianity follows what you already know to be true: friendships and family are the 'type' and created in the image of God, not this pseudo-epiphany Eastern Mysticism New-Age-y "all inside of you." All inside of you has no relationship and HAVE NOT met the Savior. John 14:6 John 15:5 Colossians 1:17

Paul never knew Christ according to the flesh and left that portrayal behind him 2Cor 5:16, for obvious inheritance reason 1Cor 15:50 not available in that state of mind Galatians 4:1 Galatians 3:1-4 or Matt 11:11, great guys like David and Moses but for various reason pertaining to flesh and blood limitations they played that out to its dead end John 3:6, so inward you must go to build Christ temple Luke 17:20-21 in silence to carnal ears and judgemental observers stuck in flesh and blood symbology that still hides its spiritual message from Saul.

 

[daqq]

Nice, you found one translation out of dozens that tried to reconcile an error by mistranslation!

And it is a translation from Hebrew texts from the 15-17th centuries, not Greek!

And it says “Bring them!”

I still have grandkids visiting, so my time is limited. My apologies for not addressing every point.

You missed the point, and while that may be one translation it is derived from three texts, (or maybe four, I do not remember), which the author of that work, George Howard, compiled and translated into English. If you look at the footnotes on the bottom of the page in the link you will see the variants from the different manuscripts listed, however, there is not a single variant listed for Matthew 21:7. That means that in three or four different manuscripts, (and maybe some fragments), not one scribe thought to change the text and that was the main point: in the Hebrew thinking mind, regardless of what century, none out of three or four scribes saw any reason to "correct" that text. The fact that the text is more recent actually works in my favor for the point that was being made because it shows that the same Hebrew mindset is yet still displayed in that writing even after fourteen or fifteen centuries, (which is more precisely what I was attempting to relate). They saw no problem going from "them", (two donkeys), to "it", (the colt), in the very same sentence string. So you have two donkeys, the mother and her young colt or foal, but the Master rides upon the one, the colt. This also is quite logical, for never a man had ever sat upon the young colt, and therefore it would indeed be logical to have its mother walking along side it as they entered into the city.

 

[daqq]

Paul never knew Christ according to the flesh and left that portrayal behind him 2Cor 5:16, for obvious inheritance reason 1Cor 15:50 not available in that state of mind Galatians 4:1 Galatians 3:1-4 or Matt 11:11, great guys like David and Moses but for various reason pertaining to flesh and blood limitations they played that out to its dead end John 3:6, so inward you must go to build Christ temple Luke 17:20-21 in silence to carnal ears and judgemental observers stuck in flesh and blood symbology that still hides its spiritual message from Saul.

Yes, he did "know" Messiah according to the flesh, that is to say, in his understanding, and so long as he understood according to the flesh he persecuted the congregation of Elohim, (until he actually met HIM on the way to Damascus).

 

[2003cobra]

You do still cannot see what happened here? I have said some things that were not correct but I was learning as we go and allowing the Word to dismantle any of my previously held notions and preconceptions: I even told you so a few pages back and thanked you for causing me to dig in to this particular problem deeper. I have been all over the place on this now, and it was indeed a great walk through the scripture: but you really did not teach me anything as we went, and you apparently refused to learn anything with me as we walked along through these last few pages. And yet I have been shown something new which was utterly and entirely worth my time while you apparently either have learned nothing or are too prideful to admit you have learned anything. I gave you my final understanding of the whole thing in a nutshell, (at least my final understanding for now, lol), after all my own misconceptions have now been dismantled by the Word right here in front of everyone.



:mario:

Thanks for the post.

Which misconceptions were dismantled?

 

[2003cobra]

If you are going to speak of testimony like in a court of law then why do you not think accordingly throughout? As someone else has already said, (I think Lon), "innocent until proven guilty", and moreover, "give the benefit of the doubt", lest you end up making false accusations against the scripture, (I suppose for some it is too late but hopefully they did it in ignorance). Just because the other authors only mention one donkey does not mean there cannot have been two, and that does not make their testimony weak: for Matthew is the only account that quotes Zec 9:9, so it is only logical that Matthew would give more details, and the others might only mention what they felt was necessary for their respective accounts. If I sat down for a principal meal with Moses and Paul, and Moses said to me, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he treads the corn", and Paul confirmed, saying to me, "So that the one who plows should plow in hope: and that the one who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope." Are you therefore going to call me a liar if I tell you this saying with its meaning but only mention that I was having dinner with Moses when I learned it? So Paul shows up and says, "Yep, I was there", and you therefore call me a liar? :chuckle:

Are you sure Matthew is the only gospel that quotes Zechariah 9?

Have you read John 12?
Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it; as it is written:

15 “Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion.
Look, your king is coming,
sitting on a donkey’s colt!”



These are not “more details.”

Either Jesus told them to bring one animal or two animals. At least one gospel misquotes Jesus.

 

[2003cobra]

You missed the point, and while that may be one translation it is derived from three texts, (or maybe four, I do not remember), which the author of that work, George Howard, compiled and translated into English. If you look at the footnotes on the bottom of the page in the link you will see the variants from the different manuscripts listed, however, there is not a single variant listed for Matthew 21:7. That means that in three or four different manuscripts, (and maybe some fragments), not one scribe thought to change the text and that was the main point: in the Hebrew thinking mind, regardless of what century, none out of three or four scribes saw any reason to "correct" that text. The fact that the text is more recent actually works in my favor for the point that was being made because it shows that the same Hebrew mindset is yet still displayed in that writing even after fourteen or fifteen centuries, (which is more precisely what I was attempting to relate). They saw no problem going from "them", (two donkeys), to "it", (the colt), in the very same sentence string. So you have two donkeys, the mother and her young colt or foal, but the Master rides upon the one, the colt. This also is quite logical, for never a man had ever sat upon the young colt, and therefore it would indeed be logical to have its mother walking along side it as they entered into the city.

And did you notice the UGA prof doing the translation provided “bring them?”

 

[daqq]

Are you sure Matthew is the only gospel that quotes Zechariah 9?

Have you read John 12?

These are not “more details.”

Either Jesus told them to bring one animal or two animals. At least one gospel misquotes Jesus.

Ah yes, that is right, Jhn 12:15, but the passage clarifies that it is indeed the colt or foal which the Master sat upon. I see no problem with that clarification but you have a serious problem; for not only are you saying that Matthew "misquotes Jesus", but you are by default claiming that those words of the Master in that account are not true. That is a very serious accusation. Moreover the other witnesses are indeed "more details" just as in a court of law: Matthew is the main witness, and the others are like joint testimony that are supposed to be in support of the main witness. You however are trying to turn the other witness against the main witness by suggesting that because they did not mention two donkeys Matthew must be a liar, (see my previous post to Watchman). You have essentially said that the words of the Master in the Matthew passage are a lie. You are starting to remind me of someone else a while back who also called Stephen a liar. He is gone now, thank goodness.

 

[2003cobra]

Ah yes, that is right, Jhn 12:15, but the passage clarifies that it is indeed the colt or foal which the Master sat upon. I see no problem with that clarification but you have a serious problem; for not only are you saying that Matthew "misquotes Jesus", but you are by default claiming that those words of the Master in that account are not true. That is a very serious accusation. Moreover the other witnesses are indeed "more details" just as in a court of law: Matthew is the main witness, and the others are like joint testimony that are supposed to be in support of the main witness. You however are trying to turn the other witness against the main witness by suggesting that because they did not mention two donkeys Matthew must be a liar, (see my previous post to Watchman). You have essentially said that the words of the Master in the Matthew passage are a lie. You are starting to remind me of someone else a while back who also called Stephen a liar. He is gone now, thank goodness.

I am not saying the Words of the Master are not true. Why would you think such a thing?

I am stating the obvious — that either Mark and Luke misquote Jesus or Matthew misquotes Jesus. Jesus either told them to find and bring two animals or to find and bring one animal.

I did not say Matthew was a liar. I said whoever wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew misunderstood the Zech 9.9 and wrote the story to match their flawed understanding. I am sure they meant well. They made an error.

Your accusations lack logic and truth.


So your post is one large falsehood. Perhaps you have not thought this through, just as you had not noticed that John also quoted (or paraphrased) Zech 9.9 and did not make the mistake of thinking it was two animals.

So, the problem is yours, not mine.

 

[daqq]

By the way, Cobra, that "found" in the text of John can just as easily mean "obtained", and the passage goes on to say that the disciples "did these things unto him".

John 12:14-16 KJV
14 And Jesus, when he had found [obtained] a young ***, sat thereon; as it is written,
15 Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ***'s colt.
16 These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.

 

[2003cobra]

By the way, Cobra, that "found" in the text of John can just as easily mean "obtained", and the passage goes on to say that the disciples "did these things unto him".

John 12:14-16 KJV
14 And Jesus, when he had found [obtained] a young ***, sat thereon; as it is written,
15 Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ***'s colt.
16 These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.

Of course, I never considered that an error.

I love John’s emphasis on the important.

And he likely knew about the error in Matthew, and took the time to correctly present the prophecy as one animal (just as he corrected the misconception that the Last Supper was the Passover Meal).

God never promised us a perfect book.

 

[daqq]

I am not saying the Words of the Master are not true. Why would you think such a thing?

I am stating the obvious — that either Mark and Luke misquote Jesus or Matthew misquotes Jesus. Jesus either told them to find and bring two animals or to find and bring one animal.

I did not say Matthew was a liar. I said whoever wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew misunderstood the Zech 9.9 and wrote the story to match their flawed understanding. I am sure they meant well. They made an error.

Your accusations lack logic and truth.


So your post is one large falsehood. Perhaps you have not thought this through, just as you had not noticed that John also quoted (or paraphrased) Zech 9.9 and did not make the mistake of thinking it was two animals.

So, the problem is yours, not mine.

You have stated and have consistently held the position that Matthew "misquotes Jesus", and that means, by default, that you say Jesus did not make the statement which Matthew attributes to him. You are indeed saying that Jesus did not say those words which means that you are indeed saying that those words of the Master are not true: but because you have failed to prove your case, those words of the Master remain true, all the while you claim they are not, with nothing to support what you say except for third and maybe fourth party translations from first century Hebrew-Aramaic, then possibly into Latin, and somehow somewhere into Greek, (or maybe Greek into Latin), and now into modern English translations. It is one thing to question translations because you would be legitimately questioning translational issues, but again, it is quite another thing to be doing what you are doing.

 

[2003cobra]

You have stated and have consistently held the position that Matthew "misquotes Jesus", and that means, by default, that you say Jesus did not make the statement which Matthew attributes to him. You are indeed saying that Jesus did not say those words which means that you are indeed saying that those words of the Master are not true...

Have you not thought about this at all?

If Matthew misquoted the Master, the words he attributes to the Master are not the Master’s Words.

My comments are about misquotes, not the real words of the Savior.

Do I have to spoonful this to you? I can, but I don’t want to embarrass you.

 

[daqq]

Have you not thought about this at all?

If Matthew misquoted the Master, the words he attributes to the Master are not the Master’s Words.

My comments are about misquotes, not the real words of the Savior.

Now you do worse by implying that the words in Matthew are "not the real words of the Savior".
Perhaps it is you who has not thought this through before leveling your false charges.

Do I have to spoonful this to you? I can, but I don’t want to embarrass you.

Ah yes, Captain Ego rears his head once again. First you actually need to prove that your accusation against Matthew is true, Captain Ego, but you have had your chance and have already failed miserably over a stretch of many pages herein.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Have you not thought about this at all?

If Matthew misquoted the Master, the words he attributes to the Master are not the Master’s Words.

My comments are about misquotes, not the real words of the Savior.

Do I have to spoonful this to you? I can, but I don’t want to embarrass you.

Yes, daqq has also made your point for you.
(inerrancy has not been upheld)

I see that you have indeed seen daqq go through and find the spiritual meaning and/or allegorical.

I think he has been a bit rash in thinking you are going further than pointing out translational discrepancies.

Truth can be discovered coming from either precept, errant or inerrancy, for nothing is too hard for God.

26Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”

27But Jesus said, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”…

:ha: (gobeesh?)

 

[Lon]

Paul never knew Christ according to the flesh and left that portrayal behind him 2Cor 5:16, for obvious inheritance reason 1Cor 15:50 not available in that state of mind

Agreed, but it wasn't a 'waking up' or self-induced epiphany. He met a being, a person; Zeke.

Galatians 4:1 Galatians 3:1-4 or Matt 11:11, great guys like David and Moses but for various reason pertaining to flesh and blood limitations they played that out to its dead end John 3:6, so inward you must go to build Christ temple Luke 17:20-21 in silence to carnal ears and judgemental observers stuck in flesh and blood symbology that still hides its spiritual message from Saul.

There is a 'tiny' bit of truth in that, but it is still John 15:5 and Colossians 1:17 - a real being.

 

[Zeke]

Yes, he did "know" Messiah according to the flesh, that is to say, in his understanding, and so long as he understood according to the flesh he persecuted the congregation of Elohim, (until he actually met HIM on the way to Damascus).

Well you know what I meant by the flesh and blood Messiah, Who Paul never remarks about observing with his carnal eyes, Man can reflect that spirit but that is only spiritually discerned. The Galatians account is the one I trust concerning Paul's encounter with the Spirit by revelation, Acts has some problems in its version but that's for each to research and decide on, if its a big deal or not to them.