Jesus ? "Not God" ? Savior ?
Comments
-
Though my post identified only Bro Rando with an "@," the content of the post reported its inclusion of more than one poster. To wit:
"You're not the only CD posters [plural] who choose to disregard questions put to you, but that doesn't justify your practice. If you want the rest of us to take your posts seriously, you should take seriously the questions we put to you (as we should take seriously the questions you put to us)."
But the examples my post provided were indeed of Bro Rando's posting patterns, not yours. On that score, then, I acknowledge that you, @theMadJW, have no history in these forums that I could find of failing to acknowledge/respond to the questions posed to you. So on that basis, I withdraw and apologize for the implication of my previous post that you also refuse to acknowledge questions.
-
@BroRando posted:
And I have. 😀
Good. So it will be no problem for you to post links to the post(s) in which you answered these two questions:
- On what basis do you have confidence that by his use of the female term "חָכְמָה," the author of Proverbs 8 intends to refer to a male (or female, for that matter) human being?
- On what basis do you have confidence that Paul is referencing wisdom as described in Proverbs 8 when he asserts that Jesus "became wisdom from God" to us (1 Cor 1.30, ESV)?
Another Lie from Holey ~~...
My last name is "Coley."
For this night an angel of the God whose I am and whom I serve came to me Acts 27.23
Jesus Christ is the angel of the God whose I AM...
Coly and Wogang don't believe Jesus is the I AM... oh well... blind--deaf--and dumb to God's Word.
More name problems. My last name is "Coley," and the one you call "Wogang" is actually "Wolfgang."
The question I asked about Acts 27.23 to which you have yet to respond originated in THIS POST, but was the subject of references in subsequent posts. The question read:
"Where in the text of Acts 27 do you find support for your view that Jesus is the angel whom Paul quotes in v.23?"
In response to that question, you commented on the text from Hebrews to which I had referred, but not on the texts from Galatians 4 and Revelation 22 also included in my previous post. In my reply, I reminded you of those texts, and asked again for your reply to my Acts 27 question. At the end of the ensuing brief exchange, and in what is still, at this post's creation, the most recent post in the thread, you posted your willing to "circle back" to the questions I had asked. If you have since indeed "circled back" to my questions, the relevant posts have escaped my notice and I apologize for my oversight. Please post links to the post(s) in which you addressed the Galatians 4 and Revelation 22 texts.
Wolfgang and Coley will ask for a scripture then claim you're wrong for quoting scripture. The will lie and say you never answer them. It's a way to get more postings to make the site seem like it's buzzing with four people on it.
Both names spelled correctly. Well done.
I don't speak for Wolfgang, but I can speak for myself.
I don't tell people they're "wrong for quoting scripture." I tell people I disagree with their interpretation of Scripture, or that in my view, a given text doesn't say what they claim it says, but that's the nature of forum exchanges! You have your points of view and I have mine. Sometimes we will agree (such as to whether Jesus is God) and sometimes we will disagree. But that's not "right" or "wrong;" it's agree or disagree. And in my view, there's nothing "wrong" with disagreeing about the interpretation of Bible texts.
Did I "lie" when I claimed that you hadn't responded to my questions about verses in Acts 27, Galatians 4, and Revelation 22? No, because lying requires the liars' awareness of the falsehood of their statements as they make them, and I assure you that when I made my claims, I believed they were true. When you provide links to the posts in which you answered those questions, I may well have to acknowledge that I was wrong, but I say without doubt that I did not lie when I made the claim.
And when I "lie" (which I don't), do I do so to contribute to a misleading impression of the "buzz" in these low-populated forums? No. I post to respond to content and thread subjects that interest me. If my posts create "buzz," so be it; if they don't, that's fine, too.
-
No apology necessary, but thank you anyways!
Person to person is far better; you can tell what a person intends, whereas these online forms can be a bit confusing!
Agape!
-
@Bill_Coley posted:
Good. So it will be no problem for you to post links to the post(s) in which you answered these two questions:
UPDATE: In THIS AND TWO SUBSEQUENT POSTS you finally addressed one of the two Proverbs 8-related questions I asked. Granted, as I noted in THIS AND A SUBSEQUENT POST, you didn't address the specific subject of the question I asked, but you DID acknowledge the question's existence and post a reply, hence, it can come off the list. You're now down to the question about 1 Corinthians 1.30 and the texts from Galatians 4 and Revelation 22.
I must also note, however, that your first response to that one question came only after I raised it to your attention eight times. I hope you and I can agree that we shouldn't have to ask each other the same question eight times before we get an answer.
-
Who?
-
Thanks! I was racking my brain for questions I didn't answer!
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus June 3 Who is "the first and the last" ?
Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God. (Isaiah 44:6 ASV) Recently realized two subjects (Jehovah King & Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts) speaking as One => I am the first, and I am the last
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (Revelation 22:13 words of Jesus)
Revelation 22:13 22:13 words of Jesus does not have Greek word for savior, but does have three phrases (plural) expressing the same idea (one). Greek alphabet begins with Alpha and ends with Omega.
Logos Bible Search for phrase "יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת" (Jehovah of Hosts, plural feminine) in Lexham Hebrew Bible (LHB) found 235 verses, includes Isaiah 47:4 (ASV) Our Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel. (to me, foreshadows Mark 1:24, Luke 4:34, John 6:69)
Holy God did not inspire Bible one point at a time. English illustration of Hebrew words can be done by removing vowels:
hr srl yhwh r gd yhwh s nq nd y shll lv ywhw yr gd wth ll f yr hrt nd wth ll f yr sl nd wth ll f yr mght nd ths wrds tht m cmmndng y tdy shll b n yr hrt.
Chabad.org article How is the Torah Made ? includes images of modern Torah scrolls, including precise calligraphy. Hebrew Torah scroll does not have any chapter nor verse numbers nor vowels. To find a particular passage requires contextual Bible knowledge.
Hear, Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is unique. And you shall love Yahweh your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul and with all of your might. And these words that I am commanding you today shall be on your heart.
Hebrew verbs focus on kind of action: incomplete, complete, volitive, but does not express time of action (contextual words provide time expression). Greek verbs have primary focus of kind of action with secondary time of action. English verbs focus on time of action.
We agree. Online respectful theological discussions lack nonverbal body language & voice inflections. Also confusing is "Who ?" when @ reference for forum poster is not included: especially when a discussion has many participants & recent comment(s) refer to older ones (hard to follow).
@Bill_Coley June 5 On that score, then, I acknowledge that you, @theMadJW, have no history in these forums that I could find of failing to acknowledge/respond to the questions posed to you. So on that basis, I withdraw and apologize for the implication of my previous post that you also refuse to acknowledge questions.
. . .
@theMadJW June 6 Thanks! I was racking my brain for questions I didn't answer!
Observation is @Bill_Coley history on these forums did not find question(s) from @Bill_Coley to @theMadJW unanswered in this thread.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus June 4 post in this thread had two questions for @theMadJW :
Puzzled: why post graphics having more than one point ?
(e.g. 12 are listed in one copied above: text embedded in your graphic is difficult for reading: too much in one image). Personally interested in theological discussion with you, not your graphics.
Are words of Jesus true ?
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus later June 4 post in this thread had two more questions for @theMadJW:
Who is your article intended for ?
How is religion news article relevant for this thread ?
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus June 4 post in this thread also had questions for @BroRando @theMadJW :
@BroRando June 4 Christ is the angel of Jehovah. (Exodus 3:2)
Who saw Moses turn in Exodus 3:4 ? Who spoke with Moses in Exodus 3:4-4:17 ?
What is the first Bible verse having Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ mâshîyach (Messiah, Christ, H4899) ?
What is the first prophetic Bible verse having מָשִׁיחַ mâshîyach, anointed one ?
Merely repeating your previous translation progress post does not improve credibility.
Again, What are your sources ? What are the names of English Translations ? When published ?
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus June 4 Saul asked ‘Who are you, Lord (יהוה) ?' that was answered: "I AM Jesus ..." (same Greek words as 65 Jewish translations of "I JEHOVAH" => "I AM")
@BroRando June 5 Jehovah is the I AM THAT I AM..... the Messenger is Jesus I AM.. The angel that was SENT...
And God (e-lo-HEEM plural) said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3:14 ASV)
Acts 9 does not have Greek word ἄγγελος (angel, messenger), but does have Jesus speaking the same "I am" indentification as "I Jehovah" spoke.
Searching Lexham Hebrew Bible for אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה (I was, I am, I will be) finds 43 results, including three in Exodus 3:14 (ASV) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
@BroRando June 5 I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you on the way and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay attention to him, and obey his voice. Do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, because my name is in him." (Exodus 23:20-21)
@BroRando June 5 This messenger would have God's Name in him .... 😁
Context of Exodus 23:20-21 is Exodus 23:20-33 that has a specific time frame thousands of years ago for messenger having God's name. Angel attribute for not forgiving transgressions is different than Jesus. God can forgive sin transgressions, but Holy angel from God cannot forgive sin.
Keep Smiling 😊
-
Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God. (Isaiah 44:6 ASV) Recently realized two subjects (Jehovah King & Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts) speaking as One => I am the first, and I am the last
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (Revelation 22:13 words of Jesus)
Who says that there is only one person as "first and last" in the Bible? "First and last" is an expression using a figure of speech to emphasize the literal truth of being "the only one"! Now, the context has to determine in which regard, as pertaining to what, someone is "first and last".
I am not sure of this, but there is a good possibility that I am "the First and the Last" here in this forum ... 😉
-
Bravo, Wolfgang- even tho I'm sure you don't want to hear it.
Jesus Christ assumed many of the roles his God and Father had!
-
STOP THIS STOP THIS! STOP THIS!
No, not the discussion, but the thread. The thread, "Jesus? "Not God" ? Savior?, is TOO LONG.
Can someone start a new thread, continuing the conversation of "Jesus? "Not God"? Savior?'" -- Part-2?
Is there someone who's available, willing, and trustworthy to give an unbiased, honest summative outline of the content of part one ("Jesus? "Not God"? Savior"), in starting a new thread part-2, ("Jesus? "Not God"? Savior"?)?
Do we need @Jan's cooperation and permission? Or is this in the purview of the one who started this thread? I am a first-time contributor to this thread. For me and newcomers, it's difficult to follow the conversation when it is so lengthy. Any consideration here? CM
-
If you want to start a new thread, CM - either as a standalone entry, or as a continuation of this current thread - in my view, all you have to do is start one. CD participants will then choose in which threads to invest their contributions.
Creating a summary of the hundreds of entries in this thread would be a daunting task because many of its entries are lengthy, complex, and products of multiple previous exchanges in the thread. Hence, it seems to me that the new thread option is the most likely to have to impact you seek.
I don't favor closing threads unless their content is no longer relevant, or their exchanges have become harmfully combative and reflect serial violations of CD expectations. To my reading of it - granted, as one of its principal contributors - this thread has not reached such a threshold.
-
@Bill_Coley said,
Creating a summary of the hundreds of entries in this thread would be a daunting task because many of its entries are lengthy, complex, and products of multiple previous exchanges in the thread. Hence, it seems to me that the new thread option is the most likely to have to impact you seek.
Well, Mr. Bill, you just made the case for a part-2, of this thread. @Bill_Coley said:
"..."hundreds of entries in this thread would be a daunting task because many of its entries are lengthy, complex, and products of multiple previous exchanges in the thread".
@Bill_Coley said:
I don't favor closing threads unless their content is no longer relevant, or their exchanges have become harmfully combative and reflect serial violations of CD expectations.
Aren't there other factors besides the ones you mentioned that should be considered? Are you being too narrow, bias, and a bit exclusive? I think practicality and functionality would be nice to add for the benefit of old and newcomers to the thread.
Bill, are you being a law unto yourself? Are you aware that in these forums another thread was when it goes too long? At that time you didn't part your literary-lips about "..."hundreds of entries in this thread would be a daunting task because many of its entries are lengthy, complex, and products of multiple previous exchanges in the thread". Are we being hypocritical, forgetful, or just "down-right" indifference?
@Bill_Coley said:
To my reading of it - granted, as one of its principal contributors - this thread has not reached such a threshold.
"As one of its principal contributors" and the narrow criteria, truth is in the eyes of the beholder. Nothing will be lost. You hyperlink all the time. You will not lose anything. Besides, your views are well-taken on this topic around these forums. Are you the creator of this thread? What's there to be afraid of, given its current length?
Your rule for starting a thread is NOT the order of the day. "Content is no longer relevant, or their exchanges have become harmfully combative and reflect serial violations of CD expectations" are NOT the truth, the practical way, or the pattern and practice of the Chairman (Jan). Need I remind you that a new thread has been declared “too long and too complex” and to start a new one. The exact wordings were:
“Let's draw a line here, and for all open issues, create new (more specialized) threads.” -- Chairman Jan
The topic: “Is Jesus Deity?”. It was started by dct112685 Posts: 1,114 January 2018. See the link:
https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/6546/#Comment_6546
The full context in the chairman's (Jan) own words:
Guys,
This thread is getting too long and too complex. Let's draw a line here, and for all open issues, create new (more specialized) threads.
Instead of appending new posts here, please open a new thread with a suitable subject line, and copy a quote and a link to the post you're referring to into the new thread, as well as a tag to the person you're replying to (so that they receive a notification).
The Chairman went on to give some instructions [I am still challenged]
You can get the link to a specific post by right-clicking the **date**in the post header.
Once you have created a new thread, please link it here in this thread as well (but nothing more except a link, and possibly a very short explanation or quote what you're replying to - no more discussion in this mega thread).
There you have it. I don’t seek an apology, just a little consideration, and inclusion on the topic under discussion. CM
PS. As for a summary, I don't think it's so "daunting" it can't be done. If sometime in the future, you decided to do a summary of the thread, the truth will be blindsided, because you have "a dog in this fight". Happy New thread! I look forward to part-2. CM
-
@C Mc posted:
Well, Mr. Bill, you just made the case for a part-2, of this thread.
As I noted in my previous post, CM, if you or anyone else wants to create a "part-2" of this thread, you may certainly do so (apparently, @theMadJW has now done so). Other CD posters will then decide how to invest their time and posting energy.
Aren't there other factors besides the ones you mentioned that should be considered? Are you being too narrow, bias, and a bit exclusive? I think practicality and functionality would be nice to add for the benefit of old and newcomers to the thread.
Bill, are you being a law unto yourself? Are you aware that in these forums another thread was when it goes too long? At that time you didn't part your literary-lips about "..."hundreds of entries in this thread would be a daunting task because many of its entries are lengthy, complex, and products of multiple previous exchanges in the thread". Are we being hypocritical, forgetful, or just "down-right" indifference?
I don't think there was anything "narrow," "bias(ed)," "exclusive," "literary," "hypocritical," "forgetful," or "just 'down-right' indifference" about my previous post, in which I simply expressed my default preference against closing threads. If @Jan advises or executes the closure of this thread, so be it. My preference won't change, but neither will my temperament; it's not a compelling issue for me.
Nothing will be lost. You hyperlink all the time. You will not lose anything. Besides, your views are well-taken on this topic around these forums. Are you the creator of this thread? What's there to be afraid of, given its current length?
I'm aware of the effects of and available means of access to closed threads.
I know of nothing "to be afraid of" were this thread to be closed.
Your rule for starting a thread is NOT the order of the day. "Content is no longer relevant, or their exchanges have become harmfully combative and reflect serial violations of CD expectations" are NOT the truth, the practical way, or the pattern and practice of the Chairman (Jan). Need I remind you that a new thread has been declared “too long and too complex” and to start a new one. The exact wordings were:
I did not suggest, nor do I believe, that my preferences regarding closed threads were or should be "the order of the day," or " the truth, the practical way, or the pattern and practice of the Chairman (Jan)." Again, if @Jan advises or executes the closure of this thread, so be it. My preference won't change, but neither will my temperament; it's not a compelling issue for me.
PS. As for a summary, I don't think it's so "daunting" it can't be done. If sometime in the future, you decided to do a summary of the thread, the truth will be blindsided, because you have "a dog in this fight". Happy New thread! I look forward to part-2.
You are, of course, welcome to create a summary of this thread.
I look forward to your contributions to part-2 in the same way that for nearly two years now I have looked forward to your telling us whom you referred to when you asserted that it was "difficult" to discuss Titus 2.13 with "a non-Christian." Over time and on multiple occasions, as I'm sure you know, I've asked you to explain your comment, but you have repeatedly and without exception refused to do so. To repurpose your phrase, CM, "what's there to be afraid of"? Why not close the only open question from the Titus 2.13 thread (which you created, by the way) by reporting whom you intended to label as a "non-Christian" by that comment?
-
@C Mc June 8 Do we need @Jan's cooperation and permission? Or is this in the purview of the one who started this thread? I am a first-time contributor to this thread. For me and newcomers, it's difficult to follow the conversation when it is so lengthy. Any consideration here? CM
@Bill_Coley June 8 If you want to start a new thread, CM - either as a standalone entry, or as a continuation of this current thread - in my view, all you have to do is start one. CD participants will then choose in which threads to invest their contributions.
Concur with @Bill_Coley while being aware this thread likely has the most words in it (many lengthy posts) while not having the most comments.
@C Mc June 8 Is there someone who's available, willing, and trustworthy to give an unbiased, honest summative outline of the content of part one ("Jesus? "Not God"? Savior"), in starting a new thread part-2, ("Jesus? "Not God"? Savior"?)?
@Bill_Coley June 8 Creating a summary of the hundreds of entries in this thread would be a daunting task because many of its entries are lengthy, complex, and products of multiple previous exchanges in the thread. Hence, it seems to me that the new thread option is the most likely to have to impact you seek.
Concur. Challenge for "unbiased" summary is faith belief frame of reference. Summary would likely skip over lots of repeated questions, which were really, really, really discussing (verifying) theological points. Every human really, really, really chooses what to Love ❤️ the most.
@Bill_Coley June 8 I don't favor closing threads unless their content is no longer relevant, or their exchanges have become harmfully combative and reflect serial violations of CD expectations. To my reading of it - granted, as one of its principal contributors - this thread has not reached such a threshold.
We agree (as one of the principal contributors & the one who started this thread).
@C Mc June 9 Well, Mr. Bill, you just made the case for a part-2, of this thread.
@Bill_Coley June 9 As I noted in my previous post, CM, if you or anyone else wants to create a "part-2" of this thread, you may certainly do so (apparently, @theMadJW has now done so). Other CD posters will then decide how to invest their time and posting energy.
Noted @theMadJW June 9 post in "Just WHO is Christ?" (shows @theMadJW currently lacks interest in online respectful Theological discussion)
Currently no reason for me to post anymore in "Just WHO is Christ?" (lacks respectful interaction with my June 9 post). Thankful for many respectful & thought provoking replies by @Bill_Coley 😊 (some posts took days to compose while pondering & praying & researching).
@C Mc June 9 PS. As for a summary, I don't think it's so "daunting" it can't be done. If sometime in the future, you decided to do a summary of the thread, the truth will be blindsided, because you have "a dog in this fight". Happy New thread! I look forward to part-2.
@Bill_Coley June 9 You are, of course, welcome to create a summary of this thread.
Some replies on page 13 & 14 in this thread included an efficient summary between @Bill_Coley and myself (the two most prolific contributors):
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus יהוה Truth is consistent. Please provide Scripture text(s) that simply say "The Bible does NOT say Jesus is God." [doubtful faith conclusion is offered as fact without any supporting Scripture text evidence] & Idea "[And by the way, that IS my personal faith claim... because it's true.]" reminds me of Judges 21:25 ... each one did what was right in his own eyes. [as faith belief filters text so only want to see in the text what believe can be].
@Bill_Coley There is no such verse. But then again, there is no verse that says Jesus was not a kumquat. I guess that means Jesus might have been a kumquat?
@Bill_Coley There were COUNTLESS things Jesus was "not." But there aren't verses that identify all those countless things. I contend that were Jesus God, Jesus would have told us so, but he didn't... and other New Testament writers would have told us so, but they didn't. It's FAR, FAR, FAR more probative that no text says Jesus was God than it is that no text says "the Bible does NOT say Jesus is God."
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus February 12 Relevant difference is hermeneutical handling as non-scriptural 'probative idea' appears as immoveable filter of Scripture text that deliberately does not want to see what Scripture truly says about Jesus being יהוה God (so does not know what pre-existance of Jesus in John 17:7 & John 17:24 means, along with יהוה Father speaking from Heaven to identity יהוה Jesus as "My Son" in Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7, Luke 3:22, Luke 9:35, & 2 Peter 1:17 that fulfills Psalm 2:7 "today", plus discards Philippians 2:5-11 Jesus being God & יהוה Lord, also asserts "I AM" is always simple indentification, but Jewish leader reaction was wanting to kill Jesus in John 8:31-59 & again wanting to stone Jesus in John 10:22-42 for blasphemy, additionally believing Jewish religous leaders were mistaken according to Jewish law that Jesus should die for who יהוה Jesus claimed to be, and disrespectfully states יהוה naming of King David's descendant as יהוה צדקנו in Jeremiah 23:5-6 as not being in Scripture, as well as denying "My Lord and My God" spoken by Thomas in John 20:28 ...). Without Scripture basis, 'probative idea' is really FAR, FAR, FAR more personal belief idea about what NOT to believe in Scripture text (while using third person deceptive description: "the text themselves say").
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus February 12 If Jesus is truly יהוה (beside/in יהוה Father), would יהוה צדקנו He be righteously angry with one probatively teaching Jesus is not יהוה ?
@Bill_Coley February 15 I read this as an efficient summary of your points of view as disclosed in our countless exchanges, including, sadly, your penchant for dismissive personal address such as, in this case, alleging that I "deliberately [do] not want to see what Scripture truly says about Jesus being God," and that I offer "third person deceptive description[s]" to support my claims.
@Bill_Coley February 15 I pray there will come a day when you believe that constructive disagreement with others does not require, and in fact is damaged by, such dismissiveness.
Later on page 14 included:
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus March 23 Without two or three verifiable witnesses, idea "the Dating of the Psalms" simply lacks credibility (still not know of any factual evidence about any Psalm not written by/for anyone named in Psalm title). To me, a bibliography can have many entries, but my current bibliography for idea "the Dating of the Psalms" simply has nothing (puzzled by evasive rationale, which implies not one verifiable factual witness found).
@Bill_Coley March 24 Here are two witnesses, though I doubt you will accept them as "verifiable":
-- (1) Personal Names. The superscriptions of seventy-three psalms mention David; others mention Jeduthun (Psalms 39; 62; 77; see 1 Chr 16:41–42; 25:1–8), Heman (Psalm 88; see 1 Kgs 4:31; 1 Chr 2:6; 6:17; 16:41–42; 25:1–8), Ethan (Psalm 89; see 1 Kgs 4:31; 1 Chr 2:6), Solomon (Psalms 72; 127), Moses (Psalm 90), the Korahites (Psalms 42; 44–49; 84–85; 87–88), and the Asaphites (Psalms 50; 73–83). While it is possible in some cases that these names indicate authorship (see above on the personal/historical method), it is more likely that they originated in the process of collection. David, for instance, was remembered as the initiator of psalmody in worship (see 1 Chr 16:7–43). To be sure, the chronicler wrote hundreds of years after the actual time of David, but the memory may be an ancient one. In any case, it is more likely that many psalms were attributed to David as a result of this memory rather than as a result of Davidic authorship. Similarly, the process of collection accounts for the association of thirteen psalms with specific moments in David’s life (see Psalms 3; 7; 18; 34; 51; 52; 54; 56; 57; 59; 60; 63; 142). These references should not be construed as historically accurate, but neither should they be dismissed as irrelevant. Rather, they provide an illustrative narrative context for hearing and interpreting particular psalms as well as a clue to the appropriateness of imagining narrative contexts for other psalms that do not contain superscriptions.
Mccann, J. C., Jr. (1994–2004). The Book of Psalms. In L. E. Keck (Ed.), New Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 4, pp. 655–656). Nashville: Abingdon Press.
-- 4. Historical Interpretation. These approaches existed alongside historical interpretations, and one of the ‘senses’ which Scripture was believed to possess was the historical, even when greater value was placed upon the other interpretations. Attempts at providing historical occasions for the creation of the psalms, often in the life of David, can be seen in the headings of many of them. It is probable that these are not original but were added later (the LXX contains headings which are absent from the Heb., or additions to headings, in some forty-four psalms: e.g. Ps 70 (MT 71): ‘Of (by) David, of the sons of Jonadab, and of the first who were taken captive’, and Ps 143 (MT 144): ‘Of (by) David, concerning Goliath’). Some of the traditions found in these titles are echoed in the Mishnah (e.g. M. Tamid 7.4 sets out the seven psalms which ‘the levites used to sing in the Temple’ on each of the days of the week: Ps 24 (LXX ‘A psalm of (by) David on the first day of the week’); 48 (LXX ‘on the second day of the week’); 82; 94 (LXX ‘on the fourth day of the week’); 81 (the Old Latin has ‘fifth day of the week’); 93 (LXX ‘on the day before the sabbath when the earth was inhabited; praise of a song of David’); 92, where the MT has ‘A Song for the Sabbath Day’, showing that they are genuinely Jewish and not peculiar to the Old Greek version. When, according to Mark, Jesus quoted Ps 110 (Mk 12:36), both he and his hearers accepted that David had written the psalm and that its meaning was to be found in that context. The historical interpretation came to the forefront of psalm study from the time of the Enlightenment, and much modern study has been devoted to determining the date and authorship of individual psalms. Conservative scholars presented arguments for Davidic authorship, while liberal ones proposed a wide range of datings, some as late as the second century BCE.
Barton, J., & Muddiman, J. (Eds.). (2001). Oxford Bible Commentary (Job 42:1). New York: Oxford University Press.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus March 26 Disappointed that two or three verifiable factual witnesses have not been proffered to give your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" honest credibility.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus March 26 Noticed both quoted resources included appeals to unnamed authority: "It is more likely ..., It is probable ..." (confirms opinions being different). Seems opinions about later composition of Psalms ignores King David having musical instruments made to Praise God 1 Chronicles 23:5 plus organizing Musicians in 1 Chronicles 25.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus April 1 Disappointed by lack of scholarly sources cited for "It is more likely ..." & "It is probable ..." so cannot investigate: e.g. What was likely/probable assessment criteria ? New Interpreter's Bible preface includes three lists of people: Editorial Board, Consultants, & Contributors (seems current scholarship assumes older critical scholarship is credible and obviously well known)
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Concerning 2 Timothy 2:22-26 my previous CD replies are still directly relevant. (similar to your repeat about Jeremiah 23:5-6 text ideas, where my understanding of Holy יהוה Lord God inspired wording simply disagrees with your text interpretation & belief idea about who Jesus cannot be).
@Bill_Coley I've asked this question multiple times. Since you've STILL yet to address it directly, I ask it yet again, this time, in a different manner: 2 Timothy 2.22-26 (LEB) reads this way (emphasis added)...
@Bill_Coley 22 Run from anything that stimulates youthful lusts. Instead, pursue righteous living, faithfulness, love, and peace. Enjoy the companionship of those who call on the Lord with pure hearts.
@Bill_Coley 23 Again I say, don’t get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights. 24 A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone, be able to teach, and be patient with difficult people. 25 Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they will learn the truth. 26 Then they will come to their senses and escape from the devil’s trap. For they have been held captive by him to do whatever he wants.
@Bill_Coley How are this text's advisories about dealing with troublesome people - be they "difficult," in opposition to the truth, in need of coming to their senses or escaping from the devil - in any way relevant to our discussion of the deity of Christ or our disagreement about the meaning of Jeremiah 23.5-6, ESPECIALLY in forums whose expectations direct posters to "criticize ideas, not people"? PLEASE, answer this question directly, by which I'm asking you to tell me specifically how the advisories about dealing with troublesome people are relevant to the topic of our discussion in this thread.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus April 13 What jumped out to me when reading 'those who oppose the truth' is lack of any credible evidence for your "Dating of the Psalms" idea while dismissing (unwilling to engage) contrary truthful evidence as not being germane for discussion. Also what jumped out to me was reliance on artificial verse numbering (added ~500 years ago). Seriously, artificial verse numbering has numerous alignment issues with original language sentences. Paul had a tendency for long sentences (lots of thoughts connected together), which is broken up by verse numbering: e.g. 2 Timothy 2:23-26 is one Greek sentence (was broken up into six sentences by NLT while LEB has two sentences). Concerning deity of Christ, while writing was reminded of John 1:1 language evidence by credible Greek Scholar, William Mounce, being dismissed on April 2.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus April 13 FWIW: Years ago inquired at a Christian College about textbook being used for first year Greek class => Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar by William Mounce (who also wrote Greek for the Rest of Us - highly recommended from my past reading & discussion with a friend). My quoting of Paul's two Greek sentences in 2 Timothy 2:22-26 (LEB) has Holy יהוה Lord God jumping out words at me about my CD forum replies.
@Bill_Coley April 13 In my view, our discussion in this thread has reached the end of its productive life (and probably did so long ago!) Our many posts have testified to our profound disagreements about the deity of Christ, as well as matters related to the interpretation and inerrancy of Scripture. So be it. Though I disagree with them, I respect your points of view, and celebrate the faith nurtured in you by them.
FWIW: Logos Basic Search of New Interpreter's Bible for phrases "It is more likely" OR "It is probable" has 163 results in 151 articles, which is really disappointing for scholarly research to test ideas so can hold on to what is good.
"Third person deceptive description" has follow-up discussion in A SCRIPTURE based discussion of the Trinity that began with Caution on June 8
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@BroRando November 21 Can you explain who the person Joshua is worshipping?
Joshua 5:14-15 have a construct phrase in Hebrew: שר-צבא-יהוה Commander of Army of Yahweh
-שר - Commander - noun, common, singular, construct
-צבא - Army - noun, common, singular, construct
יהוה - Yahweh - noun, proper, masculine, singular, absolute
Commander of Army of יהוה Yahweh received worship, which is only appropriate for יהוה Lord אלהים God.
Looking at Joshua in the Lexham Hebrew Bible (with visual filter for Waw Consecutive) shows many verbs have chronological order connections:
What It Does
The Waw Consecutive, whether attached to a Perfect or an Imperfect verb, signifies that the action of the verb to which it is attached logically or chronologically follows the previous action. This is where the term “Waw Consecutive” comes from. The action this feature marks is consecutive action—action that occurs in a sequence.
The Waw Consecutive is also called the Waw Conversive because in addition to marking consecutive action, it will also “convert” the time (or aspect) of the verb to which it is attached.
• When the Waw Consecutive/Waw Conversive is attached to a verb in the Imperfect conjugation, it converts the action of the verb to that of the Perfect conjugation.
• When the Waw Consecutive/Waw Conversive is attached to a verb in the Perfect conjugation, it converts the action of the verb to that of whatever verb comes before it.
An Exegetical Insight
Consider the first two statements of Genesis 39:2 in both the Hebrew and the English Bible. There we read, “The Lord was with Joseph” and that “he [that is, Joseph] prospered.” The verb in the second statement has a Waw Consecutive attached to it. Consider how knowing this gives us new insight into this verse. We now recognize that we shouldn’t understand these two statements as two unrelated, positive features of Joseph’s life. (See, for example, the translation of the KJV.) Rather, we should understand (and translate) the second statement as logically following the first: “The Lord was with Joseph and as a consequence he prospered.” The Lord’s presence is powerfully fruitful!
Michael Williams, The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users: Grammatical Terms Explained for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 117.
Joshua 5:13-6:7 LEB (with * Waw Consecutive & Bold words spoken by יהוה Yahweh) => And it * happened, when Joshua was by Jericho, he * looked up, and he * saw a man standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand. And Joshua * went to him and * said, “Are you with us, or with our adversaries?” And he * said, “Neither. I have come now as the commander of יהוה Yahweh’s army.” And Joshua * fell on his face to the earth, and he * bowed down and * said to him, “What is my lord commanding his servant?” The commander of יהוה Yahweh’s army * said to Joshua, “Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua * did so. Now Jericho was shut up inside and out because of the presence of the Israelites; no one was going out or coming in. And יהוה Yahweh * said to Joshua, “Look, I am giving Jericho into your hand, its king and the soldiers of the army. You will march around the city, all the warriors circling the city once; you will do so for six days. And seven priests will bear seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark. On the seventh day you will march around the city seven times, and the priests will blow on the trumpets. And when they blow long on the horn of the ram, when you hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people will shout with a great war cry, and the wall of the city will fall flat, and the people will charge, each one straight ahead.” So Joshua son of Nun * summoned the priests and * said to them, “Take up the ark of the covenant, and let seven priests carry the trumpets of the rams’ horns before the ark of יהוה Yahweh.” And he * said to the people, “Go forward and march around the city, and let the armed men pass before the ark of יהוה Yahweh.
Angelic creation will not receive worship, but instead will direct worship to One unique plural אלהים e-lo-HEEM God, the creator
Revelation 19:6-10 LEB (with Hebrew words for Jewish usual translation of יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God in LXX) => And I heard something like the sound of a great crowd and something like the sound of many waters and something like the sound of powerful thunder, saying, “Hallelujah! For the יהוה Lord אלהים God, the All-Powerful, reigns! Let us rejoice and be glad and give him the glory, because the wedding celebration of the Lamb has come, and his bride has prepared herself. And it has been granted to her that she be dressed in bright, clean fine linen (for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints). And he said to me, “Write: Blessed are those who are invited to the banquet of the wedding celebration of the Lamb!” And he said to me, “These are the true words of אלהים God.” And I fell down before his feet to worship him, and he said to me, “Do not do that! I am a fellow slave of you and of your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship אלהים God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:6-20 LEB (with Hebrew words for Jewish usual translation of יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God in LXX) => And he said to me, “These words are faithful and true, and the יהוה Lord, the אלהים God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his slaves the things which must take place in a short time.” “And behold, I am coming quickly! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.” And I, John, am the one who heard and who saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed these things to me. And he said to me, “Do not do that! I am your fellow slave, and of your brothers the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship אלהים God!” And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near! The one who does evil, let him do evil still, and the defiled, let him be defiled still, and the righteous, let him practice righteousness still, and the holy, let him be holy still.” “Behold, I am coming quickly, and my reward is with me, to repay each one according to what his deeds are! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Blessed are the ones who wash their robes, so that their authority will be over the tree of life and they may enter into the city through the gates. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the sexually immoral people and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone who loves and who practices falsehood. “I, Jesus, sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And the one who hears, let him say, “Come!” And the one who is thirsty, let him come. The one who wants, let him take the water of life freely. I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, אלהים God will add to him the plagues written in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share of the tree of life and from the holy city that are written in this book. The one who testifies about these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly!” Amen! Come, יהוה Lord Jesus!
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus I enjoy reading your posts as devotionals. I hope you write a book. Or if you already have, what is it?
-
The "I am" that is Commander of Jehovah's Army is Michael the Archangel with his Sword drawn. He later became the root and decendant of David, the bright morning star.
-
@BroRando So glad to see you are OK! I was afraid the Watchtower had discovered you here and silenced you.
But you also must let go of them. I know that is terrifying, but it is possible. Others have gone before you.
-
Since you both deny Jesus... maybe this can help your brainwashed mind that is dulited against Jesus. Ask him for Help.
JESUS
(Jeʹsus) [Lat. form of the Gr. I·e·sousʹ, which corresponds to the Heb. Ye·shuʹaʽ or Yehoh·shuʹaʽ and means “Jehovah Is Salvation”].
Jewish historian Josephus of the first century C.E. mentions some 12 persons, other than those in the Bible record, bearing that name. It also appears in the Apocryphal writings of the last centuries of the B.C.E. period. It therefore appears that it was not an uncommon name during that period.
1. The name I·e·sousʹ appears in the Greek text of Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 and applies to Joshua, the leader of Israel following Moses’ death.—See JOSHUA No. 1.
2. An ancestor of Jesus Christ, evidently in his mother’s line. (Lu 3:29) Some ancient manuscripts here read “Jose(s).”—See GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST.
3. Jesus Christ.—See JESUS CHRIST.
4. A Christian, evidently Jewish, and fellow worker of Paul. He was also called Justus.—Col 4:11.
-
Your curses have no power over others.
-
Jesus Name has POWER, the very one you deny because his Name means 'Jehovah is Salvation"
Like I said, trinitarians don't beleiv in Jesus nor is Jesus in the trinity doctrine. "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 1:7)
Your trinity is listed here... And I saw three unclean inspired expressions that looked like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the wild beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. Revelation 16:13
I love Jesus!
-
The true Jesus has power. Your curses in the name of a false JW Jesus have no power at all.
I am realizing the power this JW Jesus has over you that is very, very dark. I didn't know JW and the Watchtower were quite that dreadful, but maybe you do not accurately represent who they are. I know the books speak of the evil of the Watchtower (I would have chalked it up to misunderstanding), but now you almost persuade me that such testimonies of evil are possible.
I know we have been hard on you in previous posts. I didn't realize what a dark place you were coming from.
Please come to light and freedom. I want you to feel love and probably haven't show you that like I want you to feel it.
“We hold each other’s hearts
In the palms of our hands…
and…
We ain’t got time for hate.”
- Shemekia Copeland-
-
CD Posters,
See upcoming note of continuation!!! CM
Post edited by C Mc on -
Acts 16:31
They said: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will get saved, you and your household.”
But you don't beleive in Jesus... to beleive in the Lord Jesus, you would have know what the NAME means. And you wholeheartly reject the Name JESUS. Jesus means 'Jehovah is Salvation' and like the demons they too reject Jesus.
I'll pray for you but it's like preaching to the demons about Jesus, they already know and rejected Jesus as the Christ as you have done. That's why trintarians have removed Christ from scritpure. See how the demons you work with removed Christ? Let me show you.
And he healed many ⌊who were sick⌋ with various diseases and expelled many demons. And he did not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him. t
o be Christ.(Mark 1:34 LEB)
So is removing Christ from scripture christian or antichristian? Let the Reader use discernement;.. "For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left," (Hebrews 10:26)
-
What we have here may be less spiritual than mental health. Let's be sensitive to that.
It could be the other way around. I don't know.
-
Follow the link below or start a part two go this thread. You obviously missed the discussion above. Thanks for your cooperation. CM
The OP is: "Jesus ? 'Not God" ? Savior ? See new link below...
This thread is to continue https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/12/is-jesus-deity#latest as the chairman, Jan, requested.
Thanks again. CM
-
@C Mc You aren't going fruit loops on us, are you?
-
I thought you might be interested in one of your followers. I guess he thinks your in a cult too.
Truth Posts: 286 6:13PM edited 6:14PM Flag
JW's hide the real the real God (יהוה) behind a made-up word Jehovah. The word is fine but hiding God behind that word and denying the Lord, God, and savior Jesus Christ is the work of the Watchtower and its minions. Thus a cult is built.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
