Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[1Mind1Spirit]

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



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

Last words repeated 4 times.

If yuh wanna get to heaven.

Interesting.... no?

 

[Lon]

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.

Depends on how much you embrace spiritualist snake-oil gurus and deny the Lord Jesus came in the flesh, to which extent you are, sadly, lost and wandering. 1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7 (Again, as in the thread linked, John wrote about this very problem and discussion in his epistles).

We have NAUGHT but His words to us. Their rejection is a rejection of Him. This real and risen Jesus is the ONLY Christianity. John 14:6

1 John 5:12 He who HAS the Son HAS life! HAVE THE SON!

 

[2003cobra]

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.

Either Matthew’s quote of Jesus is not accurate (not the real words of Jesus) or Mark’s and Luke’s quotes are not the real words of Jesus.

I have tried repeatedly to get you to say what Jesus really told the two disciples to find and bring, yet you will never answer.

So I ask again. Is the quote in Matthew accurate or is the quote in Mark/Luke accurate? They are mutually exclusive.

What were the real words of the Savior:
1) Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie and bring to me.
Or
2) Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie and bring

Which is it, 1 or 2?

 

[2003cobra]

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?)

Yes, God does not need perfect people or perfect documents to do His work.

 

[Lon]

Yes, God does not need perfect people or perfect documents to do His work.

Here you go, Zeke is one of the guys who doesn't believe the disciples were inspired and believes in mistakes, right next to you.
BECAUSE of this, he doesn't believe in a literal Jesus and has been captured by Eastern Mysticism and reworked Buddhism.

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.

You'd do well to have a LENGTHY discussion with him over your errant bible. I've no idea how you will convince him he needs Jesus. Would LIKE to see that. -Lon

 

[Zeke]

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



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

The trinity programming in the great big up yonder is speaking on this one for you Lon, That being/light is in every divine seed that comes into this world of duality, and you don't meet that being from the objects you see outside the window of the Soul, they testify/darkly of the invisible Spirit doing the looking at them which is your own Divine Conscience.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Yes, God does not need perfect people or perfect documents to do His work.

There was a time I held with inerrancy.

I'm bettin' you have too.

I figger that's the best starting point, but even amr knows that reasoning with the Lord is a necessity even though he'll deny it if it diminishes the worth of his time and money invested to the contrary.

 

[Zeke]

Here you go, Zeke is one of the guys who doesn't believe the disciples were inspired and believes in mistakes, right next to you.
BECAUSE of this, he doesn't believe in a literal Jesus and has been captured by Eastern Mysticism and reworked Buddhism.



You'd do well to have a LENGTHY discussion with him over your errant bible. I've no idea how you will convince him he needs Jesus. Would LIKE to see that. -Lon

And Lon likes to add is own slant to what people believe, but I will say I don't worship any man or book, Jesus being the perfect pattern is kinda foolish to bow to a pattern other than acknowledge the Truth it portrays.

 

[Zeke]

Depends on how much you embrace spiritualist snake-oil gurus and deny the Lord Jesus came in the flesh, to which extent you are, sadly, lost and wandering. 1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7 (Again, as in the thread linked, John wrote about this very problem and discussion in his epistles).

We have NAUGHT but His words to us. Their rejection is a rejection of Him. This real and risen Jesus is the ONLY Christianity. John 14:6

1 John 5:12 He who HAS the Son HAS life! HAVE THE SON!

You should audition for the part of the prodigals elder brother, you would be my first pick, you have the condemnation, and religious pride thing down good.

 

[Lon]

The trinity programming in the great big up yonder is speaking on this one for you Lon, That being/light is in every divine seed that comes into this world of duality, and you don't meet that being from the objects you see outside the window of the Soul, they testify/darkly of the invisible Spirit doing the looking at them which is your own Divine Conscience.

:nono: Oddly, you and Cobra agree, yet 'seem' to be on opposite ends. That said, I've seen where this all goes. Yours is the end of such a line of reasoning where you can't trust much in scripture but what your own mind allows. I am "SUPERNATURALLY" new Zeke. You'll never be able to understand God intervening through prayer. He can't do that in your life due to lack of belief. Some things are their own credentials. How in the wide world could you compete? You can't! :noway: God is there. He exists and answers my prayers, as He does all He knows, and whom knows Him (see that qualifier?) John 10:14 (John wrote a LOT about your theology, did I mention that? Read him.)

 

[Lon]

You should audition for the part of the prodigals elder brother, you would be my first pick, you have the condemnation, and religious pride thing down good.

Nope, nobody would be happier if you came home (well, maybe your mother, but I'd be close) lain:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

And Lon likes to add is own slant to what people believe, but I will say I don't worship any man or book, Jesus being the perfect pattern is kinda foolish to bow to a pattern other than acknowledge the Truth it portrays.

Looka there, looka there... Zeke acknowledging Jesus.

 

[daqq]

Either Matthew’s quote of Jesus is not accurate (not the real words of Jesus) or Mark’s and Luke’s quotes are not the real words of Jesus.

I have tried repeatedly to get you to say what Jesus really told the two disciples to find and bring, yet you will never answer.

So I ask again. Is the quote in Matthew accurate or is the quote in Mark/Luke accurate. They are mutually exclusive.

What were the real words of the Savior:
1) Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie and bring to me.
Or
2) Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie and bring

Which is it, 1 or 2?

He tells them to bring both in Matthew just as Matthew states/implies.
And now to you, firstly, you have admitted my understanding of Mat 21:7:

Daqq writes:
How in the world can anyone who claims to have an analytical mind and the capability to understand language think that Matthew believes the Master rode two donkeys at the same time or at the very least entered the city on one, then went back out and entered the city a second time on the other?

I don’t think Jesus rode on two animals either, as I take the 3 witnesses (Mark, Luke, and John) as having recorded the event properly.

The writers of Matthew, mostly likely the Apostle Matthew’s students, wrote the version with two animals. It’s not the only time Matthew’s gospel had a sort of double vision — it has two demoniacs in the tombs where the other gospels have one.

The writers misread Zech 9.9 and revised the story to match the prophecy. They made an error, and we still have the error in the text. The Bible is not inerrant. Imperfect people wrote it. God has always used imperfect people.

You do know that the gospel attributed to Matthew clearly states that Jesus rode both animals, as Watchman pointed out?

Matt 21:6-7 The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them, 7 and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats.

Matthew 21:7 - ABP (Apostolic Bible Polyglot)
7 ήγαγον ^{they led} την ^the όνον ^donkey και ^and τον ^the πώλον ^foal, και ^and επέθηκαν ^{they placed} επάνω ^upon αυτών ^them τα ιμάτια αυτών ^{their cloaks,} και ^and επεκάθισεν ^{he sat} επάνω ^upon αυτών ^them.

It also appears that Mat 21:7 could be read in the manner that the Master sat upon the(them) garments: I speak of the last occurrence of αυτων, them, in other words he sat upon them could just as easily be speaking of sitting upon the garments and not necessarily two donkeys.

Matthew 21:7 T/R 1550
7 ηγαγον την ονον και τον πωλον και επεθηκαν επανω αυτων τα ιματια αυτων και επεκαθισεν επανω αυτων

The final pronoun, αυτων, (the last word in the sentence above), speaks of the garments.
It is not saying he sat on two donkeys at the same time but rather upon the garments.

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.

But you say that Matthew is in error because of your understanding of Zec 9:9, (which I have highlighted with bold red in the second quote from above herein, "The writers of Matthew, mostly likely the Apostle Matthew’s students, wrote the version with two animals", "The writers misread Zech 9.9 and revised the story to match the prophecy. They made an error, and we still have the error in the text"). However you have not proven that Matthew is in error just because he notes that it was actually two donkeys that were brought, (which I have now explained in my commentary at the end of the post immediately above).

Moreover you have made your position clear in the following posts:

Watchman, I will add that the Oxford Annotated NRSV note for Zech 9:9 say:
Doneky, colt, in the style of Hebrew parallelism, a single animal (as in Gen 49.21; Jon 12.14-15) is meant here. In the New Testament, Mt 21.5-7 misunderstands and assumes two animals are meant...

It is agreed that the Master only sat upon one donkey, that is, the colt or foal, the son of the mother she-donkey: but again that does not prove anything because Matthew is expounding that the mother of the colt was either along side it or walking in front of it. The Matthew text does not mean that the Master rode upon both of them, and no one says that he did in any of the other texts: therefore they all agree that the Master rode upon the colt, but the other accounts simply do not mention the mother she-donkey being present. You have not proven anything: just because they did not mention the fact that the mother donkey was present does not mean it is not true. Neither does it discount or contradict what Matthew says.

It looks like that to people accustomed to English and not trained in Hebrew.

I don’t have much time now, but perhaps this might help:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/files/zechariah_9.pdf

I think the definitive version of Zech 9.9 is in the Old Testament.

Definitive version or not, Matthew does not contradict it but rather supplements the fact that the mother donkey was brought along side the colt: that fact is logically acceptable because the colt had never been ridden. If you cannot see it now I will try to come back to the translation from this author, whom you yourself chose to quote, and I will use his translation, (your very own choice, unless you have another), and with the Matthew passage and the other passages it can be shown that they do not contradict. The truth appears to be that Matthew simply expounded on the passage, and you have taken issue with that because you cannot imagine that the mother donkey would need to be present, even if merely for the fact that the young colt had never been sat upon or ridden by anyone. You do not take a young donkey colt or foal away from its mother, saddle it with garments, and then try to ride it for the first time in its life, (since you want to see all these things as natural and physical). It is you who have not thought this through:

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 either in front of the colt or beside it 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 in front or 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).

 

[Lon]

There was a time I held with inerrancy.

I'm bettin' you have too.

I figger that's the best starting point, but even amr knows that reasoning with the Lord is a necessity even though he'll deny it if it diminishes the worth of his time and money invested to the contrary.

:nono: The money doesn't matter, it gave us important tools most others don't have. I'm sure you are aware that a horseman worth his weight, has tools for the trade, the rest don't have. That edge up is ever valuable. I 'might' be jealous but not really envious, rather appreciative. It is often sad the same is not extended the other way and seminaries are disdained. The Greek/Hebrew courses alone are worth every penny. I also really loved going through the entire bible in discussion as well as my Bible Lands and Customs course (Okay, loved my pastoral classes as well, so really all of it, just some highlights of worth here).

Bottom line? The laymen will make decisions, but they are not and cannot be as knowledgeable as the one with the degree. I wouldn't, for instance, presume to tell you how to raise horses. That'd be folly, frankly. We may STRONGLY disagree on equestrian application, yet no amount of bluster is going to take away a man's tools for the job. Something, hopefully for great pause and to chew on :e4e:

 

[Lon]

Looka there, looka there... Zeke acknowledging Jesus.

He believes in the 'Jesus' principle. For Zeke, he doesn't exist, just ideas he foollows.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

He tells them to bring both in Matthew just as Matthew states/implies.
And now to you, firstly, you have admitted my understanding of Mat 21:7:







But you say that Matthew is in error because of your understanding of Zec 9:9, (which I have highlighted with bold red in the second quote from above herein, "The writers of Matthew, mostly likely the Apostle Matthew’s students, wrote the version with two animals", "The writers misread Zech 9.9 and revised the story to match the prophecy. They made an error, and we still have the error in the text"). However you have not proven that Matthew is in error just because he notes that it was actually two donkeys that were brought, (which I have now explained in my commentary at the end of the post immediately above).

Moreover you have made your position clear in the following posts:



It is agreed that the Master only sat upon one donkey, that is, the colt or foal, the son of the mother she-donkey: but again that does not prove anything because Matthew is expounding that the mother of the colt was either along side it or walking in front of it. The Matthew text does not mean that the Master rode upon both of them, and no one says that he did in any of the other texts: therefore they all agree that the Master rode upon the colt, but the other accounts simply do not mention the mother she-donkey being present. You have not proven anything: just because they did not mention the fact that the mother donkey was present does not mean it is not true. Neither does it discount or contradict what Matthew says.



Definitive version or not, Matthew does not contradict it but rather supplements the fact that the mother donkey was brought along side the colt: that fact is logically acceptable because the colt had never been ridden. If you cannot see it now I will try to come back to the translation from this author, whom you yourself chose to quote, and I will use his translation, (your very own choice, unless you have another), and with the Matthew passage and the other passages it can be shown that they do not contradict. The truth appears to be that Matthew simply expounded on the passage, and you have taken issue with that because you cannot imagine that the mother donkey would need to be present, even if merely for the fact that the young colt had never been sat upon or ridden by anyone. You do not take a young donkey colt or foal away from its mother, saddle it with garments, and then try to ride it for the first time in its life, (since you want to see all these things as natural and physical). It is you who have not thought this through:

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 either in front of the colt or beside it 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 in front or 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).

The easiest horse I ever rode for the first time was a young mare who watched me ride her brother and mother.
I caught her looking at me like, hey Mike, I wanna do that too.
Saddled her up and she never once bucked.:thumb:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

:nono: The money doesn't matter, it gave us important tools most others don't have. I'm sure you are aware that a horseman worth his weight, has tools for the trade, the rest don't have. That edge up is ever valuable. I 'might' be jealous but not really envious, rather appreciative. It is often sad the same is not extended the other way and seminaries are disdained. The Greek/Hebrew courses alone are worth every penny. I also really loved going through the entire bible in discussion as well as my Bible Lands and Customs course (Okay, loved my pastoral classes as well, so really all of it, just some highlights of worth here).

Bottom line? The laymen will make decisions, but they are not and cannot be as knowledgeable as the one with the degree. I wouldn't, for instance, presume to tell you how to raise horses. That'd be folly, frankly. We may STRONGLY disagree on equestrian application, yet no amount of bluster is going to take away a man's tools for the job. Something, hopefully for great pause and to chew on :e4e:

I got it the hard way.
Experience.... bumps, bruises and hurt pride.

Sorry Lon but the price of eye salve is humility.

 

[2003cobra]

Here you go, Zeke is one of the guys who doesn't believe the disciples were inspired and believes in mistakes, right next to you.
BECAUSE of this, he doesn't believe in a literal Jesus and has been captured by Eastern Mysticism and reworked Buddhism.



You'd do well to have a LENGTHY discussion with him over your errant bible. I've no idea how you will convince him he needs Jesus. Would LIKE to see that. -Lon

I am not called to convince anyone. Neither are you. We are especially not called to convince people with obvious lies about documents.

We are called to share the gospel, and the Holy Spirit does the calling and convincing.

If you expect to win him by declaring he has to believe the Bible is error free while there are obvious errors, you should reconsider that approach.

 

[2003cobra]

There was a time I held with inerrancy.

I'm bettin' you have too.

I figger that's the best starting point, but even amr knows that reasoning with the Lord is a necessity even though he'll deny it if it diminishes the worth of his time and money invested to the contrary.

Yes, I was raised on inerrancy. I noticed the Bible didn’t claim that for itself, and there were errors!

Inerrancy just seems a Protestant reaction to papal infallibility.

 

[daqq]

We especially not called to convince people with obvious lies about documents.

Well, that about does it for me: I see no need to go any further here.