Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[glorydaz]

It's a total lack of faith to even suggest that God is unable to keep His word exactly as He wants it to be.

See the part I highlighted?

This misleading and unworthy (of a Christian) insinuation has been used several times in this thread.

Should I repeat how I responded the last time this dishonest approach was used?

Recognizing God did not do a particular thing is not a statement that God is incapable of doing that particular thing.

God could have made the moon out of green cheese. The fact that He did not is not an indication of capability; it is an indication of reality.

That does not mean God is incapable of providing and preserving a perfect book — it just means that He did not do that.

And you do clearly seem to be denying the power of God to raise people from the dead today. Do you deny that He heals people too?

It isn't denying the power of God....it's stating the "reality" of the situation. :chuckle:

 

[2003cobra]

You cannot perceive the difference between a censer and an altar and yet you have the arrogance and gall to make your accusation? "Bailiff, remove this dead one and take him away from my courtroom: bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness of Lazarus, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and when the Son of Man comes he will teach him like Gideon taught the men of Sukkoth", (with thorns and briers of the desert, lol).

The golden altar of incense is the golden censer. See the passage of Exodus 30 that I quoted.

Strange that you don’t know that, or at least won’t admit it.

Now, about the story of Jairus — you still have no explanation, it seems.

 

[2003cobra]

It isn't denying the power of God....it's stating the "reality" of the situation. :chuckle:

What reality?

 

[glorydaz]

You cannot perceive the difference between a censer and an altar and yet you have the arrogance and gall to make your accusation? "Bailiff, remove this dead one and take him away from my courtroom: bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness of Lazarus, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and when the Son of Man comes he will teach him like Gideon taught the men of Sukkoth", (with thorns and briers of the desert, lol).

:first:

 

[daqq]

How do you interpret these sentences?
________________________________

He went to an established school and a good one.

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings...
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land...

O LORD, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.

The team was high in the standings and the players were having fun.
________________________________

Is it necessary, in these examples, to separate the ideas presented to such an extent as to think that different things are being talked about or just different aspects of the same thing?

The reason I tried to avoid giving GD my own understanding of the Zechariah passage when she asked for it is because it is not the duty of anyone here to convince the accusers of the meanings of any text, (and that was already attempted as you know, [and not that she meant it that way, but she asked in sincerity]). It is the duty of the accuser to prove his or her case from what is written: for that is the very claim, that is, that what is written according to them is in error. The accusers in this case have miserably failed because Matthew agrees grammatically with both the Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint versions of the Zechariah passage, (all three witnesses are in agreement, first and foremost grammatically speaking, what is actually written in each of those texts). If we delve into interpretations it only muddies the waters as has been shown. Interpretation is precisely how the accusers have manufactured the accusation to begin with, that is, by interpreting the Hebrew text of Zechariah as being "Hebrew poetry" and parallelism while not treating the other texts in the same way. All three texts agree in what is written: if therefore one is going to interpret Zechariah one way from the Hebrew then the same must be done with the LXX and with Matthew. Just because the LXX and Matthew are in Greek does not mean that they are not also attempts at bringing forth the parallelism of the Hebrew text in Zec 9:9, if indeed that is even what Zec 9:9 is, which even that is speculation from the accusers and not necessarily proven. The entire supposed error is based on the speculative interpretation of the accusers that Zec 9:9 is Hebrew poetry and parallelism while Mathew is supposedly to be interpreted as straightforward literal-physical in meaning, (all the while ignoring the Septuagint, [from their point of view]).

 

[glorydaz]

What reality?

The reality that God does not use signs and wonders in this age of Grace.

There is always a purpose for miracles and signs and wonders. There was a purpose they were used in the Old Testament. To show the power of God to the world. There was a purpose they were used by the hands of the Apostles. They were used to bring people to belief in Christ.

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.​

Now, in this age of Grace, we have the Gospel to preach, and it's by hearing and believing the Gospel that men are saved. It's by prayer and supplication that we are healed. We have direct access to God, and need not have any man "performing" any such acts.

 

[glorydaz]

I can give you an example of boasting from this thread:
You can't think out of a paper bag and assume everybody else is just as bad. Be truthful, C's and C- in school, right? It shows...You can go sit in the back of the class now and put your head down in shame for your disobedience...You are too thick to be taught...Were you raised in a one room school house where they had to pass you because you were all below par?...I'm smarter than you...you are not intelligent enough to talk to me

These are not my words directed at you. They are the words of another directed at me.

The passage in 2 Timothy 3 described those who deny the power of God as also being boastful and abusive:
There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

Boo Hoo.... I'm sure you deserve every single thing you get. If you feel you have been brutalized, the problem is yours and yours alone. Save your "righteous indignation" for the fools who might fall for your whining.

 

[glorydaz]

:think: You saw 'lover of myself in that? Boastful? (perhaps I could give you that one, if I was wrong in my academic ability). Disobedient to my parents? Abusive? You think C's and C-'s is abusive? It is simply 'ordinary.' Ungrateful? :think: Not to God. To you? Probably. Unholy? I didn't use profanity in thread. Without love? Hard to see on forums imho. Self control? I believe I've practiced that well in thread. You may not agree, but God isn't finished with me yet. I'm a work in progress. That said, ALL of us fall short, no? Do we totally disfellowship with everyone? Brutal? Have I been brutal? Not lovers of good? Didn't I say that we as believers 'should' hope all things and believe all things, not entertain just any accusation etc.? Treacherous, rash? Do you know I said you jumped the gun a few times to accuse? Wouldn't that be treacherous? Rash even? Conceited? I do wrestle with this (as do you). The question is how hard we actually wrestle with it no? Lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.... I think we all can work on that. I often eat too much (not fat but no excuse). Some smoke, others drink, others have a hard time with other vices. Doing excellent in all of these etc.?

Maybe you should have nothing to do with me? Are you being disobedient?

Note how he loves playing the victim.

Same with Sonnet. Same with Evil Eye. Same with all the sock puppet pretenders. "Oh woe is me", they whine. :baby:

I see these complaints of theirs as ways we test what they are made of. And we do see, don't we?

They are made of self-importance. They are made of self-pity. They are made of self-righteousness.

 

[Lon]

Note how he loves playing the victim.

Same with Sonnet. Same with Evil Eye. Same with all the sock puppet pretenders. "Oh woe is me", they whine. :baby:

I see these complaints of theirs as ways we test what they are made of. And we do see, don't we?

They are made of self-importance. They are made of self-pity. They are made of self-righteousness.

1 Peter 2:20;3:17 :think:

 

[daqq]

The golden altar of incense is the golden censer. See the passage of Exodus 30 that I quoted.

Strange that you don’t know that, or at least won’t admit it.

No, that is rather your ignorant assumption.
The golden altar of incense was not inside the Holy Holies. :duh:

Do you suppose Ahron and his sons were commanded to carry the entire golden altar of incense into the Holy Holies once every year for that portion of the Yom Kippurim ceremonies? The golden altar of incense was a cubit square, two cubits high, overlaid in gold, and had staves, just as you yourself have quoted from that passage: it could not be carried by one man having already two hands full of incense to burn upon the fiery coals before the mercy-seat so as to make the holy cloud. It was not the altar of incense that was taken into the Holy Holies but rather a censer, "the censer", just as the author of Hebrews notes and has been shown herein.

 

[daqq]

Originally Posted by daqq
You cannot perceive the difference between a censer and an altar and yet you have the arrogance and gall to make your accusation? "Bailiff, remove this dead one and take him away from my courtroom: bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness of Lazarus, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and when the Son of Man comes he will teach him like Gideon taught the men of Sukkoth", (with thorns and briers of the desert, lol).

:first:

The reality that God does not use signs and wonders in this age of Grace.

There is always a purpose for miracles and signs and wonders. There was a purpose they were used in the Old Testament. To show the power of God to the world. There was a purpose they were used by the hands of the Apostles. They were used to bring people to belief in Christ.

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.​

Now, in this age of Grace, we have the Gospel to preach, and it's by hearing and believing the Gospel that men are saved. It's by prayer and supplication that we are healed. We have direct access to God, and need not have any man "performing" any such acts.

You surely know more about raising and awakening "the dead" than these accusers and pretenders, (haha, one of their own favorite words). Moreover what I said about Lazarus is true: he was in outer darkness and bound hand and foot, (Jhn 11:44, see also Mat 22:13), that is, until about the midst of the fourth day, (three days and the half, the "Lazarus days", also of Dan 8:27).

 

[daqq]

Would you prefer the phrase, "expressive writing" instead of "poetry"? How about "linguistic style"? Or the Hebrew way to emphasize a point?

However I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously you think that Jesus actually rode upon two beasts simultaneously, but the opposite is attested to in Mark and Luke And John. Those three witnesses are also in agreement, but in stating that Jesus rode upon a single animal.

Are you saying Mark, Luke & John are mistaken and have errors? Or just that those texts were poorly written and don't convey an historical account?

I'm not sure you understand what "spiritualizing" comprises. Furthermore why are you having a hissy fit with me about what Cobra said to you? :AMR:

I never "spiritualized" Zechariah. I merely recognize that the concept of the King coming on a donkey rather than on a warhorse or white stallion is so foreign to the cultural expectations of their time that an emphasis was needed. I don't think the author of Matthew understood Jewish linguistic styles very well.

Now you posted a verse in Hebrew. Do you read Hebrew? Have you studied the language in depth? (And please realize questions are questions. I don't make accusations in the form of a question. When people do this, it really makes asking questions very difficult.) What education have you had in the Hebrew language and ancient culture?

In the end, though, Zechariah is presenting a prophecy that does contain spiritual lessons. Yet Matthew is supposedly presenting factual events.

Zenn

PS: You need to do less thinking with your emotions. Emotions don't reason very well.

"The heart has its reasons that are quite unknown to the head." — Blaise Pascal

Lol, you say that you "never "spiritualized" Zechariah" and then proceed to do just that by watering down what the text actually says by way of your own private interpretation, (bolded in red). Moreover, as for the first portion highlighted in red, it is not me who thinks that Matthew intends that, "Jesus actually rode upon two beasts simultaneously", no, that is YOU, because that is the same faulty interpretation which you impose onto Matthew so as to make your errant accusation. You are pitting scripture against scripture so as to nullify what you do not otherwise understand: and at the same time, as you pit one passage against another, you are using deceptive balances and false scales of judgment by interpreting one passage in one way, (Zechariah, "poetry" in prophecy), and then turning your own interpretation of that passage against the other companion passage by interpreting the secondary passage in the opposite way, (Matthew, literal and physical). You've never mentioned Hamor the father of Shechem; do you know what his name means? Do you understand that there is more than one Shechem? And how that one is in the north by Shalem-Salem-Saleim? which in turn is likely where Yohanan was also immersing because there was much water there? Neither have you said anything about amphodon in the Mark passage, which can be understood as either the parting of (two) ways, or the circle where the ways meet: you actually have not really said anything except that, according to your interpretation of Zechariah, Matthew is wrong because he or whoever wrote that account did not understand Zechariah the way YOU do. :rotfl:

 

[Lon]

What reality?

Did you see him raise Walter from the dead? Or anybody for that matter?

If not Walter, can you describe what happened for whoever you saw?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

And as John the baptist did not have any Children and Jesus was the Eldest in His family and was related to John's family it is possible Jesus was the next in line after John, and was another reason why John also prophetically said:

John 3:30
He must become greater; I must become less."

And Paul added:

Hebrews 4
14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

God gives revelation!

This morning I was lead to watch a program I had recorded about Mary and learned that in the apocryphal gospel of James Mary's Mother Anna was a descendant of Levi, (her Father was a descendant of David). This (for me) confirms Jesus really was meant to be the true high priest after John the Baptist died!

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Thank you, I'm sure you put a lot of work into this. However...

This seems to imply that Jews forgot how to correctly count to seven. I saw nothing in your OP to address this obvious problem upfront and unfortunately my time is limited. You do imply that there is some branch of Judaism that holds to a different counting. But again, delving into certain esoterics of Judaism, which would include the Kabbala, would take up time I just do not have at this point.

It would be a bit difficult for him to eat the Passover meal with his disciples as attested to in Matthew, Mark, and Luke if he was dead at the time the Passover meal was eaten.

I find this reasoning to be a bit of a stretch, as there is a better and more simple reason to understand why Romans incorrectly selected Friday.

There are certain difficulties with regards to the book of Esther being used as a foundation for argument.

Kindly,
Zenn

PS: Perhaps we can revisit these issues at Easter, when I have more time and inclination.

Sure, it is a long study to get ones head around. As I said most fall at the first hurdle. What you must focus on is that Sosigenes the Greek mathematician who Julius Caesar employed to make the Julian calendar started it on 1st January 45 BC and called that day Friday. The Jews had never called any of their days by such names (they numbered each day). Sosigenes never consulted the Jews as to when the Sabbath was, he was a pagan Greek and the times before this date the Romans had been useing a calendar with an 8 day week. Therefore Friday 1st January 45 BC is a random day on the ancient Jewish week. i.e. it could have been day 1 of the week or day 4, or day 7? There was no way Sosigenes would have known or cared.

In hope
Watchman

 

[glorydaz]

(Joh 14:12 KJV) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Please note that Jesus said he shall do, and that is what I did. It is not written "and greater works shall God do through him; because I go unto my Father." One should always be cautious when re-writing scripture up inside one's head. No? :AMR:


Zenn

Pretty silly to claim YOU raising the dead is "greater works" than Jesus raising the dead. :chuckle:

And God didn't raise the dead through you either. :nono:


See how you boast? 'I raised the dead and that is even greater than Jesus raising the dead.' :banana:


Did you walk on water, too? Did you feed five thousand on a few loaves and fishes? My my, you must be some kind of wonderful.

The greater works we do is preaching the Gospel. As the Gospel is preached far and wide, it is to the saving of the soul. Raising a dead man is what God does, be it body or soul. God gives life....you don't. Silly, boastful men. :nono:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Oh, you mean like you decide in which order I read these posts, and when I thank posts? Do you know why I thank some posts and not others? Did you know I read several of your posts before I knew how easy it would be to push your buttons? :baby:

No one will believe you. If true you should start reading threads the right way which will help you more than it will help others. Sorry if I have upset you Glorydaze but honesty really is the best policy. Shalom.

 

[daqq]

Pretty silly to claim YOU raising the dead is "greater works" than Jesus raising the dead. :chuckle:

And God didn't raise the dead through you either. :nono:


See how you boast? 'I raised the dead and that is even greater than Jesus raising the dead.' :banana:


Did you walk on water, too? Did you feed five thousand on a few loaves and fishes? My my, you must be some kind of wonderful.

The greater works we do is preaching the Gospel. As the Gospel is preached far and wide, it is to the saving of the soul. Raising a dead man is what God does, be it body or soul. God gives life....you don't. Silly, boastful men. :nono:

It really is preposterous isn't it?
Even after he was called on it he holds to his boast that it was himself who did it. :doh:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

No. It didn't matter. Again "I'm" not the one caught in assumptions. I intimated and THEN suggested two things 1) You started a LOT better in this thread than this particular bout of responses and 2) You 'might' want to wait and respond when you are in better humor.

Don't get caught up in details. Again, and as I said, I'm no man's judge. I was only noting you've posted 'better.'

Look, I know a bridge is burned with you and you are going to aim for snarky but I hadn't realized it MUST be that way from here out.

Take care of yourself and see you later.

This is all emotion. Where are your facts and citations? As I said it's the same kind of responses you make when critiquing scripture or replying to those trying to debate scripture with you.

For instance I still haven't seen you confirm whether you think Jesus asked for one animal or two? And we're well over a hundred pages in now!

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Prove otherwise?

I have not appealed to a higher court. I have simply provided the scriptures that rebuke your position.

Again you deny what the scriptures say to support your man-made tradition.

Hebrews clearly says the Holy Of Holies held the altar of incense. That is an error.

If you adopt whatever ‘spiritualizing’ (that is, rewriting and denying) of the text daqq has done to pretend an error does not exist, that is another failure.

Lon is refering to my post in #1792: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?127447-Scripture-What-is-considered-Scripture&p=5166017&viewfull=1#post5166017

In Strongs it also renders 'θυμιατήριον, ου, τό' to ordinarily: censer, but) either the altar of incense, or the shovel, on which the high-priest poured the coals, when he entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. Which makes it seem ambiguous and open to interpret as a censer:

Hebrew 9:4
2369. thumiatérion ►
Strong's Concordance
thumiatérion: altar of incense, a censer
Original Word: θυμιατήριον, ου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: thumiatérion
Phonetic Spelling: (thoo-mee-as-tay'-ree-on)
Short Definition: altar of incense
Definition: (ordinarily: censer, but) either the altar of incense, or the shovel, on which the high-priest poured the coals, when he entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement.

May be you have a counter argument to this: please respond to post #1792 if so, as there was more to it, regards.