Benchmark ?

[duxrow]

1. Melchizedek is introduced with cameo shot of bread/wine in Book of Genesis.

2. 1,000 yrs. later, David mentions his name in Ps110:4.

3. Then ANOTHER 1,000 yrs. till we learn in Book of Hebrews how he's a pic or type of Jesus !

Kings couldn't be Priests in OT (Saul/Uzzia), but now we can be both! (Rev 1:6)

Genesis / Psalms / Hebrews -- Do they fit some kind of pattern? :winking0071:

[David M]

1. Melchizedek is introduced with cameo shot of bread/wine in Book of Genesis.

2. 1,000 yrs. later, David mentions his name in Ps110:4.

3. Then ANOTHER 1,000 yrs. till we learn in Book of Hebrews how he's a pic or type of Jesus !

Kings couldn't be Priests in OT (Saul/Uzzia), but now we can be both! (Rev 1:6)

Genesis / Psalms / Hebrews -- Do they fit some kind of pattern? :winking0071:

Hello Dux

Maybe Jesus in the millenial age when he returns to restore the earth and rule as king has left his position in Heaven will be no longer the High Priest in Heaven making intercession. I know this sounds contradictory for as we read; (Psalm 110:4) Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
"For ever" might mean "for as long as it takes".

When sin and the consequences of sin i.e. death has finally been defeated and does not exist on the earth, then in the Kingdom of God there will be no need for the High Priest to continue to make intercession. Maybe then in the 'New World Order' which God will bring about and when all things are "made new", a High Priest will not be necessary.

Does the Bible mention after Jesus returns to the earth, he is both High Priest and King? When Jesus returns to rule on the earth, he will be as God and giving his son all of hiis power and authority and even having God's title and name. God will be taking a rest; the 7th millenium (1 day = a thousand years) will be God's sabbath day of rest while Jesus takes over for that period. What do you think to these thoughts?


David

[duxrow]

They all sound good to me, David, but I'm expecting some big surprises as well.
BTW, Liked your rubic cube example, thinking 6 Days for Mankind, just as God took 6 days for Creation and then the "Rest". :yo:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Dux

Maybe Jesus in the millenial age when he returns to restore the earth and rule as king has left his position in Heaven will be no longer the High Priest in Heaven making intercession. I know this sounds contradictory for as we read; (Psalm 110:4) Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
"For ever" might mean "for as long as it takes".

When sin and the consequences of sin i.e. death has finally been defeated and does not exist on the earth, then in the Kingdom of God there will be no need for the High Priest to continue to make intercession. Maybe then in the 'New World Order' which God will bring about and when all things are "made new", a High Priest will not be necessary.

I agree, it sounds very contradictory, especially since Hebrews expands upon that theme:
Hebrews 7:24 But this man [Christ], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Where did you get the idea that he would leave heaven to come to earth? That's not taught anywhere in the Bible. This is closely related to your idea that he will come to earth to sit on the "throne of David." Indeed, the two prophecies are connected by Peter in Acts:
Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
According to Peter, Christ is sitting on the "throne of David" in heaven, and this fulfills Psalm 110:1.

Your idea that there won't be a "need" for a high priest in heaven in the future is totally made up. Nothing like that is stated anywhere in the Bible. Do you see how many unbiblical assumptions you make?


Does the Bible mention after Jesus returns to the earth, he is both High Priest and King? When Jesus returns to rule on the earth, he will be as God and giving his son all of hiis power and authority and even having God's title and name. God will be taking a rest; the 7th millenium (1 day = a thousand years) will be God's sabbath day of rest while Jesus takes over for that period. What do you think to these thoughts?

Nope, the Bible makes no mention of Jesus returning to earth to rule as High Priest and King. He is already ruling as both according to Scripture. And he has already been given all power and authority (Matt 28).

And the idea of a thousand years being LIKE one day is not an equation "1000 years = 1 day."

This is why I constantly say that we need to establish a FOUNDATION OF AGREEMENT or we will never make any progress. Much of what you say is either made up or directly contrary to the Bible.

Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

All the best,

Richard

[L67]

1. Melchizedek is introduced with cameo shot of bread/wine in Book of Genesis.

2. 1,000 yrs. later, David mentions his name in Ps110:4.

3. Then ANOTHER 1,000 yrs. till we learn in Book of Hebrews how he's a pic or type of Jesus !

Kings couldn't be Priests in OT (Saul/Uzzia), but now we can be both! (Rev 1:6)

Genesis / Psalms / Hebrews -- Do they fit some kind of pattern? :winking0071:

Melchizedek is a heavenly being who will bring salvation, a being identified as a personification of the archangel Michael according to the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QMelch). This document was found in Qumran Cave 11. The Qumran community substituted Melchizedek for Yahweh in the documents that were found. Yet, he is neither Jesus or God. Check this link out for more information. http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/qumran/melchizedek-dss.html

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Melchizedek is a heavenly being who will bring salvation, a being identified as a personification of the archangel Michael according to the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QMelch). This document was found in Qumran Cave 11. The Qumran community substituted Melchizedek for Yahweh in the documents that were found. Yet, he is neither Jesus or God. Check this link out for more information. http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/qumran/melchizedek-dss.html
That's fascinating info. It connects very strongly with the NT. Here's how the fragmentary text has been reconstructed (from the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11Q13)):

11QMelch — ...[And it will be proclaimed at] the end of days concerning the captives as [He said, To proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa. 61.l). Its interpretation is that He] will assign them to the Sons of Heaven and to the inheritance of Melchizedek; f[or He will cast] their 5 [lot] amid the po[rtions of Melchize]dek, who will return them there and will proclaim to them will proclaim to them liberty, forgiving them [the wrong-doings] of all their iniquities. And the Day of Atonement is the e[nd of the] tenth [Ju]bilee, when all the Sons of [Light] and the men of the lot of Mel[chi]zedek will be atoned for. [And] a statute concerns them [to prov]ide them with their rewards. For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek. [And h]e will, by his strength, judge the holy ones of God, executing judgement as it is written concerning him in the Songs of David, who said, ELOHIM has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement [Ps 82:1]. ... And Melchizedek will avenge the vengeance of the judgements of God... and he will drag [them from the hand of] Belial.
It says that Melchizedek fulfilled Isaiah 61:1, just like Luke says Jesus read that verse and then said "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears." And the talk of the "inheritance of Melchizedek" is a big theme of the book of Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
And Hebrews is, of course, the book that explains Melchizedek was a type (or pre-incarnation) of Christ:

Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated "king of righteousness," and then also king of Salem, meaning "king of peace," 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.
It looks like the stories of Christ were modeled on the traditions relating to Melchizedek.

[L67]

That's fascinating info. It connects very strongly with the NT. Here's how the fragmentary text has been reconstructed (from the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11Q13)):

11QMelch — ...[And it will be proclaimed at] the end of days concerning the captives as [He said, To proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa. 61.l). Its interpretation is that He] will assign them to the Sons of Heaven and to the inheritance of Melchizedek; f[or He will cast] their 5 [lot] amid the po[rtions of Melchize]dek, who will return them there and will proclaim to them will proclaim to them liberty, forgiving them [the wrong-doings] of all their iniquities. And the Day of Atonement is the e[nd of the] tenth [Ju]bilee, when all the Sons of [Light] and the men of the lot of Mel[chi]zedek will be atoned for. [And] a statute concerns them [to prov]ide them with their rewards. For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek. [And h]e will, by his strength, judge the holy ones of God, executing judgement as it is written concerning him in the Songs of David, who said, ELOHIM has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement [Ps 82:1]. ... And Melchizedek will avenge the vengeance of the judgements of God... and he will drag [them from the hand of] Belial.
It says that Melchizedek fulfilled Isaiah 61:1, just like Luke says Jesus read that verse and then said "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears." And the talk of the "inheritance of Melchizedek" is a big theme of the book of Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
And Hebrews is, of course, the book that explains Melchizedek was a type (or pre-incarnation) of Christ:

Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated "king of righteousness," and then also king of Salem, meaning "king of peace," 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.
It looks like the stories of Christ were modeled on the traditions relating to Melchizedek.

It is very fascinating. Another interesting fact is that Yahweh chose Abraham to sire a great nation. But Melchizedek blesses Abraham and Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe according to Genesis. Genesis 14:18-20

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

Talk about confusion. Is Abraham breaking the third commandment?

This last bit will make Davids head spin. We learn from these documents that Melchizedek is some kind of heavenly being or angel. But from the wiki you posted it says this. Melchizedek as leader of God's angels in a war in Heaven against the angels of darkness instead of the more familiar archangel Michael.

So by those statements angels can sin?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It is very fascinating. Another interesting fact is that Yahweh chose Abraham to sire a great nation. But Melchizedek blesses Abraham and Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe according to Genesis. Genesis 14:18-20

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

Talk about confusion. Is Abraham breaking the third commandment?

In what way did Abraham take God's name in vain?


This last bit will make Davids head spin. We learn from these documents that Melchizedek is some kind of heavenly being or angel. But from the wiki you posted it says this. Melchizedek as leader of God's angels in a war in Heaven against the angels of darkness instead of the more familiar archangel Michael.

So by those statements angels can sin?
That's just another example of how the ANE held the near universal belief that angels in heaven could, and did, sin. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written before Revelation 12 which tells the same story about Michael and the war in heaven. It is requires great sophistry to deny all this evidence and make up an "interpretation" that says the "heaven" in Rev 12 was not intended to refer to the habitation of angels. Let's llook
Revelation 12:7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, "Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.
Now look at who was "cast down." He is called "that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan" and "the accuser of our brethren." What could be more plain and obvious? But no, David must reinterpret everything until words have lost all meaning. If we go that route, then not a single word of the Bible remains. We can reinterpret anything and everything according to whatever whimsical thoughts cross our minds. There is no STANDARD by which to judge. It all becomes totally subjective.

[L67]

In what way did Abraham take God's name in vain?

Wow. Boy did I get my commandments wrong. It should be the first commandment.



Now look at who was "cast down." He is called "that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan" and "the accuser of our brethren." What could be more plain and obvious? But no, David must reinterpret everything until words have lost all meaning. If we go that route, then not a single word of the Bible remains. We can reinterpret anything and everything according to whatever whimsical thoughts cross our minds. There is no STANDARD by which to judge. It all becomes totally subjective.


I think that is what biblical interpretation has come down to. The Bible can literally say anything you want it to.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Wow. Boy did I get my commandments wrong. It should be the first commandment.

I don't see Abram taking Melchizedek as another God. So what is the violation?

[L67]

I don't see Abram taking Melchizedek as another God. So what is the violation?

I'm not saying he is in violation. I was just posing the question.

The reason I asked is because Melchizedek is separate from God according to the dead sea scrolls. But in Genesis Abraham gives a tithe to Melchizedek. Genesis 28:20-22 says that you are supposed to give a tenth unto the Lord. Genesis 28:20-22

20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,

21 So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God:

22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.


In Leviticus the Lord says that all tithes belong to him. Leviticus 27:30-34 0 And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's: it is holy unto the Lord.

31 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.

32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord.

33 He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.

34 These are the commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai


Would that not violate the first commandment? You are suppose to tithe unto the Lord, not Melchizedek. So why is Abraham tithing to Melchizedek? Is that not equating Melchizedek with being the Lord?

I could be way off but just thought I would throw it out there. Just wanted to see your input.

[David M]

I will not be drawn into continuing the argument here for; angels, Angels, Satan, Devil, the serpent, heaven or Heaven, There are too many misunderstood verses to go into here and I have explained these elsewhere in threads over this forum.

It is wrong to presume something which is not said. If Melchizedek was an Angel, we are not told that. We are told the story of when Angels visited Abraham, and in this case, we are not told Melchizedek was an Angel. Not knowing his parentage does not mean he did not have parents. The line inevitably ended with him as he had no descendants. Hence he was "a type" a one-off for that time with Abraham and a type of one who was to come who was better than he was.

It needs the whole of Hebrews chapter 7 to be got in context and understood properly and take everything Paul writes into account.

Tithes were later given to the Levitical priests in the law of Moses, so there is nothing different to what followed by the Levitical priesthood. They took over where Melchizedek left off, until Jesus comes on the scene to be the better High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Jesus has that title now and is making intercession for us. Why make intercession if all our sins are already forgiven purely by the sacrifice of Jesus? Again, we have to get the sacrifice for sin and the actual forgiveness of sins into perspective.

"Forever" can mean "for as long as it takes" a human lifetime is not a limiting factor. God declares; "I make all things new". Those words taken at face value, mean exactly that. The order of Melchizedek I venture to say will vanish. When there is no more human sin and no human death on the earth, what would be the purpose of a High Priest then? The role of Jesus as High Priest and as King has to be got into proper perspective. I do not intend to go into this now, or in future posts in this thread. I have enough trying to keep up with the posts I have not got around to replying to. I am just making the case against Richard and L67 for saying what they have.


This encounter Abraham had with Melchizedek from which Abraham was given insight and from the time Abraham was tested in offering Isaac his son was giving him insights of the Son of God to come. That is why Jesus could say;(John 8:56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Even the symbols of bread and wine continues through to the time of Jesus and even now as he is remembered by sharing bread and wine in remembrance of him.

Perhaps in another thread, but not here we can discuss the cup of wine Jesus drunk at the pre passover meal he had with his disciples. I am learning new things and just the other day, it was said that the custom at passover was to have four cups of wine on the table. Each cup related to God's deliverance of his people. When Jesus said; (Matt 26:29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Why do you think that was? up until recently, I just thought that was because Jesus was going away from his disciples. Now that it has been explained how four cups were on the table and Jesus did not drink of that 4th cup is an added piece of evidence that God's people (Israel) has to be delivered again. This is in keeping with the coming of the Messiah they have always know will come; it is matter of when. Now that the nation of Israel is established, and Israel is threatened with annihilation we can see why they will eventually call on God to deliver them and they will recognize Jesus as their Messiah. It will be the first coming of the Messiah for Israel in the capacity of saving them from the hardship that will befall them, it will be the return of Jesus for those who recognized his first coming. Jesus had two roles as Messiah; 1) saving people from their sins, which his what his sacrifice did, whereby he paid the price in his own blood for our redemption, and 2) Jesus has to be the Messiah to save Israel when they cry for help in the future just as they did in the time of Egypt.

Sorry to disappoint you L67. You are right about my head spinning. The head-cold that I have at the moment is bad enough without your confusing answers.

I will catch you in the other threads we have to finish off.


David

[L67]

I will not be drawn into continuing the argument here for; angels, Angels, Satan, Devil, the serpent, heaven or Heaven, There are too many misunderstood verses to go into here and I have explained these elsewhere in threads over this forum.

It's obvious you never read the link I posted.


It is wrong to presume something which is not said. If Melchizedek was an Angel, we are not told that. We are told the story of when Angels visited Abraham, and in this case, we are not told Melchizedek was an Angel. Not knowing his parentage does not mean he did not have parents. The line inevitably ended with him as he had no descendants. Hence he was "a type" a one-off for that time with Abraham and a type of one who was to come who was better than he was.

No it's not wrong. If you bothered to read the link I posted you would see that according t the dead sea scrolls Melchizedek name is substituted for Yahweh's. He is some sort of heavenly being or angel. Read it DAVID. http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/qumran/melchizedek-dss.html




Sorry to disappoint you L67. You are right about my head spinning. The head-cold that I have at the moment is bad enough without your confusing answers.

Sucks you are sick. Hope you get better soon. My answers aren't confusing. Read the link I posted above, and it will end the confusion.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm not saying he is in violation. I was just posing the question.

The reason I asked is because Melchizedek is separate from God according to the dead sea scrolls. But in Genesis Abraham gives a tithe to Melchizedek. Genesis 28:20-22 says that you are supposed to give a tenth unto the Lord. Genesis 28:20-22

20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,

21 So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God:

22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.

In Leviticus the Lord says that all tithes belong to him. Leviticus 27:30-34 0 And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's: it is holy unto the Lord.

31 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.

32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord.

33 He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.

34 These are the commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai

Would that not violate the first commandment? You are suppose to tithe unto the Lord, not Melchizedek. So why is Abraham tithing to Melchizedek? Is that not equating Melchizedek with being the Lord?

I could be way off but just thought I would throw it out there. Just wanted to see your input.
No, it wouldn't violate the first commandment. It always was the priests who actually received the tithes given "to the Lord." And since Melchizedek was a "priest of the most high God" he was qualified to receive tithes just like the Levitical priests would (much later, after their priesthood was established). The book of Hebrews uses this as "proof" that Melchizedek's priesthood was greater than the Levitical priesthood:
Hebrews 7:4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. 5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; 6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. 8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. 11 ¶ Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.
I don't see any conflicts here.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I will not be drawn into continuing the argument here for; angels, Angels, Satan, Devil, the serpent, heaven or Heaven, There are too many misunderstood verses to go into here and I have explained these elsewhere in threads over this forum.

Good morning David,

There's no need to go over the specific ambiguities you use in the foundation of your doctrines. The important thing to understand is that your method is like building a house on sand. The foundation cannot stand because it is built on disputations about ambiguous words. The foundation is supposed to be SOLID (established on many mutually confirming clear and unambiguous passages).



It is wrong to presume something which is not said. If Melchizedek was an Angel, we are not told that. We are told the story of when Angels visited Abraham, and in this case, we are not told Melchizedek was an Angel. Not knowing his parentage does not mean he did not have parents. The line inevitably ended with him as he had no descendants. Hence he was "a type" a one-off for that time with Abraham and a type of one who was to come who was better than he was.

"It is wrong to presume something which is not said." - You mean, like, oh ... I don't know ... Perter said nothing about any "human messengers" when he spoke of the the ANGELS THAT SINNED and were chained in Tartarus? :p

Have you ever heard about something called a "double standard"? Many of your doctrines are based on things that are not said, and worse, things that are contrary to the things that actually are said!

"If Melchizedek was an Angel, we are not told that." - True, but many people see reason to INFER that from what is said. And you can't complain because that is precisely how you invent your doctrines, as for example when you INFER that Angels can't sin.

"Hence he was a type" - that may be true, or he could have been a Christophany (a pre-incarnational appearance of Christ). And there are other possibilities. Believers debate this point.



This encounter Abraham had with Melchizedek from which Abraham was given insight and from the time Abraham was tested in offering Isaac his son was giving him insights of the Son of God to come. That is why Jesus could say;(John 8:56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Even the symbols of bread and wine continues through to the time of Jesus and even now as he is remembered by sharing bread and wine in remembrance of him.

That's not all Jesus said. The context shows that he was declaring his divinity, that he was the I AM that spoke to Moses at the burning bush:
John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." 57 Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." 59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
He used the Divine Name I AM to identify himself. He was explicit, and said "I say unto you ... I AM." The Jews understood perfectly and that's why they tried to stone him for blasphemy just like in chapter 10:
John 10:30 "I and My Father are one." 31 ¶ Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."
Jesus did not contradict that charge. It is perfectly clear that he was presenting himself as God by using the Divine Name and declaring that he and God were "one."



Perhaps in another thread, but not here we can discuss the cup of wine Jesus drunk at the pre passover meal he had with his disciples. I am learning new things and just the other day, it was said that the custom at passover was to have four cups of wine on the table. Each cup related to God's deliverance of his people. When Jesus said; (Matt 26:29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Why do you think that was? up until recently, I just thought that was because Jesus was going away from his disciples. Now that it has been explained how four cups were on the table and Jesus did not drink of that 4th cup is an added piece of evidence that God's people (Israel) has to be delivered again. This is in keeping with the coming of the Messiah they have always know will come; it is matter of when. Now that the nation of Israel is established, and Israel is threatened with annihilation we can see why they will eventually call on God to deliver them and they will recognize Jesus as their Messiah. It will be the first coming of the Messiah for Israel in the capacity of saving them from the hardship that will befall them, it will be the return of Jesus for those who recognized his first coming. Jesus had two roles as Messiah; 1) saving people from their sins, which his what his sacrifice did, whereby he paid the price in his own blood for our redemption, and 2) Jesus has to be the Messiah to save Israel when they cry for help in the future just as they did in the time of Egypt.

Fascinating. The >>>BIBLE<<< says nothing about any "fourth cup." You are taking the traditions of men and calling them "evidence" for your unbiblical doctrine that carnal Israel is to be delivered again.

"This is in keeping with the coming of the Messiah they have always know will come; it is matter of when." - What are you talking about? He already came and was announced specifically TO THE JEWS by Peter in the first century:
Acts 2:29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 "he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. 34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, 35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." ' 36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." 37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation." 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
According to the Bible, it's already happened man. You are claiming PROMISES FROM GOD for those who rejected him. There are no promises for the children of the flesh. Have you never read the Bible?
Romans 9:6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
You are claiming promises that were never given. All the promises of God are IN CHRIST, not in carnal Israel, the sons of Abraham's flesh that rejected the Messiah. This coheres with all the teachings of the NT. For example, Paul used the technical biblical term "circumcision" to identify the Church as True Israel, God's People, the Temple of God. The Church is the "faithful remnant" of Israel that God promised to save. There now is are no "Jews and Gentiles" but only believers and unbelievers (from a biblical perspective, of course).

All the best,

Richard

[David M]

Hello L67

It's obvious you never read the link I posted. So what if I did not, I did not want to be drawn into further conversation at this time. I have now look read the article and it is as I expect a waste of my time and confirms what I thought would be the case.

So what if a piece has been found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls in which the name of God has been substituted for the name of YHWH. Our libraries are full of historical and fictional books and books that have perverted history. I do not put much value on such writings. The Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed much as to the accuracy of the Bible relating to places and historical people.



No it's not wrong. If you bothered to read the link I posted you would see that according t the dead sea scrolls Melchizedek name is substituted for Yahweh's. He is some sort of heavenly being or angel. Read it DAVID. http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/qumran/melchizedek-dss.html That is my point; who substituted the name? You best find the person who did it and ask why? I am putting little value on writings which can be associated with men's writings not inspired by God and have not made it to the cannons of scripture. I will reason with you from the Bible as we have it today as the primary source. Here are two extracts from the article that give me no confidence in such writings;
Other Jewish works of this era reflect a common belief that Someone operated in close proximity to God and shared his authority and even name, though he was not fully God himself.

In the mystical Qumran documents known as “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice” (originally called “The Angelic Liturgy”), Melchizedek appears to be a superior angel. The texts are broken up too badly to be sure of this identification




Sucks you are sick. Hope you get better soon. I am still sneezing my head off as I write so will not be responding much today.



My answers aren't confusing. Read the link I posted above, and it will end the confusion. Its nothing to do with the link you have given. Its when you say you agree with me for quoting Jesus and yet have you have not explained to me the reasons why Jesus said what he did. If you have answered the questions in your own mind, you know all the reasons why people will not follow the "narrow path" that leads to the kingdom of God and eternal life. Personally, I can be rejected and I am then one of the masses, but it is still true for the few who make it to the kingdom; they will have been judged acceptable and they are in the minority. It goes without saying; the less you do to please God; the less chance you have of being found acceptable. I know that is in another thread we are having a discussion and my mistake for mentioning the fact in this thread


David.

[David M]

Hello Richard


Good morning David,

There's no need to go over the specific ambiguities you use in the foundation of your doctrines. The important thing to understand is that your method is like building a house on sand. The foundation cannot stand because it is built on disputations about ambiguous words. The foundation is supposed to be SOLID (established on many mutually confirming clear and unambiguous passages). You have not convinced me you have many mutually confirming verses supporting your point. When I read those verses differently the proof you say you have given me is not proof at all.


"It is wrong to presume something which is not said." - You mean, like, oh ... I don't know ... Perter said nothing about any "human messengers" when he spoke of the the ANGELS THAT SINNED and were chained in Tartarus? :p There yo go again, assuming "angels" to be God's Angels in Heaven. I have fully explained these verses in the thread I gave my exposition of Jude 6 and you would not.


Have you ever heard about something called a "double standard"? Many of your doctrines are based on things that are not said, and worse, things that are contrary to the things that actually are said! That is just your point of view and does noting to add to the debate. We can only put up the verses from the Bible and give all possible explanations and then reach a conclusion. I do not know about double standards but I know of some of the contradictions you have made, sufficient to prove to me, you are no authority to be listened to. I know you will disagree, but it is on record in this forum when I have pointed out your contradictions.


"If Melchizedek was an Angel, we are not told that." - True, but many people see reason to INFER that from what is said. And you can't complain because that is precisely how you invent your doctrines, as for example when you INFER that Angels can't sin. And this all stems from the fact that Jesus said; Thy will be done on earth as it is (done) in Heaven.
You deny Jesus is telling us the truth and we have read your replies to try and get round this. Your explanations failed to satisfy me and would only satisfy anyone holding the same misbelief you say the Bible teaches. I think you are inferring much more from what Jesus did not say than I am.



"Hence he was a type" - that may be true, or he could have been a Christophany (a pre-incarnational appearance of Christ). And there are other possibilities. Believers debate this point. There is only one truth so what is it? What is the proof of a pre-incarnation of Christ? Many believe Christ pre-existed (wrong IMO) with God from the beginning and that is why people think M would have been C, because it is based on a false belief. This is a case of compounding lie upon lie. There is no reason from within the pages of the Bible to assume M was no other than a human. As I said, we are told when Abraham met with Angels (in human form) and we are not told on this occasion that M was an Angel. M served a purpose and gave Abraham insight of that seed singular which God would raise up.


That's not all Jesus said. The context shows that he was declaring his divinity, that he was the I AM that spoke to Moses at the burning bush:
John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." 57 Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." 59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
He used the Divine Name I AM to identify himself. He was explicit, and said "I say unto you ... I AM." The Jews understood perfectly and that's why they tried to stone him for blasphemy just like in chapter 10:
John 10:30 "I and My Father are one." 31 ¶ Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."
Jesus did not contradict that charge. It is perfectly clear that he was presenting himself as God by using the Divine Name and declaring that he and God were "one."
I have already answered you on these points in another thread; if I can find my reply or if I stumble upon it and can remember to copy and paste here, I will. It is evident from reading the Greek as in the Emphatic Diaglott, John 8:58 is translated; I am he. The exact Hebrew word used at the time God appeared to Moses is not evident in what Jesus said or reported to have said. Jesus could have used a play on words which were mistakenly used against him. I know how Jesus and God can be one, without Jesus being of the same substance as God. I will not comment more at this time; I will do as Jesus did and withdraw quietly.


Fascinating. The >>>BIBLE<<< says nothing about any "fourth cup." I know that and I was saying that is something I recently heard and apparently it is/was the Jewish Tradition. It does not make much difference to me, as I have always thought there was only one cup, and the fact that there might have been four used traditionally at the time of Jesus, just gives more added meaning as to why Jesus would not drink of the cup. If you know Jewish tradition very well, you can explain what the traditions of the time were related to keeping the passover meal. I gave an explanation as to why four cups were used, if that was the case. Are you open to learn anything new as I am, or are you accusing me of having closed ears also? I am glad you say; "The >>>BIBLE<<< says nothing about any "fourth cup." In that case, we will keep only to the Bible and forget any other reference works outside the Bible.


You are taking the traditions of men and calling them "evidence" for your unbiblical doctrine that carnal Israel is to be delivered again. I have done no such thing. This is your way to take a snipe at me every opportunity you can. I fail to see how we will ever have a meaningful discussion based on the Bible. Maybe this is your way to make the discussion never reach a conclusion, in fear you might be proved wrong. Keep trying to prove wrong instead of saying I am wrong.


"This is in keeping with the coming of the Messiah they have always know will come; it is matter of when." - What are you talking about? He already came and was announced specifically TO THE JEWS by Peter in the first century:
Acts 2:29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 "he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. 34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, 35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." ' 36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." 37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation." 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. For all that yo have quoted, the fact is; in the time of Jesus, carnal Israel was looking for Messiah to deliver them from the Roman ruler-ship they were under. That did not happen. The disciples might have wrongly assumed Jesus would come back in their lifetime to restore the kingdom to Israel and that did not happen. The Jews are in their own land today and there are Messianic Jews who expect their Messiah to come. Israel is back in their own land, but the kingdom has not been restored to them. Only in 1967 did the whole of Jerusalem come under the control of the Jews. The Jews/people of that land, do not have a king over them. Until Christ comes as their king, the kingdom will not be restored to Israel. In restoring the kingdom to Israel, the whole world we be restored and eventually, Christ hands over the restored kingdom to his Heavenly Father. Those making up Spiritual Israel now will also be present in the kingdom to come.



According to the Bible, it's already happened man. You are claiming PROMISES FROM GOD for those who rejected him. There are no promises for the children of the flesh. Have you never read the Bible?
Romans 9:6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. I know Paul is speaking of Spiritual Israel in which the Gentiles are grafted in. This has nothing to do with physical Israel that remain God's witness. God is still ruling in the kingdoms of men as foretold by Daniel.



You are claiming promises that were never given. All the promises of God are IN CHRIST, not in carnal Israel, the sons of Abraham's flesh that rejected the Messiah. This coheres with all the teachings of the NT. For example, Paul used the technical biblical term "circumcision" to identify the Church as True Israel, God's People, the Temple of God. The Church is the "faithful remnant" of Israel that God promised to save. There now is are no "Jews and Gentiles" but only believers and unbelievers (from a biblical perspective, of course). "We are all one in Christ Jesus"; all believers whether Jew or Gentile are the same to God. As Peter said; "God is no respecter of persons" This still does not exclude physical Israel in the part they have to play on the world stage. You have not explained to me when Ezekiel chapter 38 and the prophecy in surrounding chapters took place.
God's promises will be fulfilled through Christ, but not all those promises have been fulfilled todate. There is prophecy which has not been fulfilled and which will be fufilled when Christ returns.

All the best,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

You have not convinced me you have many mutually confirming verses supporting your point. When I read those verses differently the proof you say you have given me is not proof at all.

Don't be absurd David. I said things that are incontrovertible. You cannot be convinced because you reject what the Bible says.






It is wrong to presume something which is not said. If Melchizedek was an Angel, we are not told that. We are told the story of when Angels visited Abraham, and in this case, we are not told Melchizedek was an Angel. Not knowing his parentage does not mean he did not have parents. The line inevitably ended with him as he had no descendants. Hence he was "a type" a one-off for that time with Abraham and a type of one who was to come who was better than he was.
"It is wrong to presume something which is not said." - You mean, like, oh ... I don't know ... Perter said nothing about any "human messengers" when he spoke of the the ANGELS THAT SINNED and were chained in Tartarus? :p
There yo go again, assuming "angels" to be God's Angels in Heaven. I have fully explained these verses in the thread I gave my exposition of Jude 6 and you would not.

There YOU go again not reading what I wrote. I did not make any assumption about the identity of the angels. I simply pointed out that YOU had said "It is wrong to presume something which is not said" and then you did that very thing when you said that the angels in Peter are "human messengers" even though that was something which was not said by Peter.

It would help if you followed the conversation a little more closely. I was talking about how you contradicted your own words.






It is wrong to presume something which is not said. If Melchizedek was an Angel, we are not told that. We are told the story of when Angels visited Abraham, and in this case, we are not told Melchizedek was an Angel. Not knowing his parentage does not mean he did not have parents. The line inevitably ended with him as he had no descendants. Hence he was "a type" a one-off for that time with Abraham and a type of one who was to come who was better than he was.
Have you ever heard about something called a "double standard"? Many of your doctrines are based on things that are not said, and worse, things that are contrary to the things that actually are said!

That is just your point of view and does noting to add to the debate. We can only put up the verses from the Bible and give all possible explanations and then reach a conclusion. I do not know about double standards but I know of some of the contradictions you have made, sufficient to prove to me, you are no authority to be listened to. I know you will disagree, but it is on record in this forum when I have pointed out your contradictions.

It is not "just my point of view." I was responding to your assertion that it is "wrong to presume something which is not said" and then showing that you were doing the very thing you said was wrong. That's why I asked if you had heard of a "double standard."


I know you will disagree, but it is on record in this forum when I have pointed out your contradictions.

You have repeatedly made this false and absurd assertion. You have never found any contradictions in anything I've written. So no you MUST either present the evidence or admit you are wrong. You have done many times, and I've repeatedly called you on it, and you have REFUSED to present any evidence supporting your assertion. You said you have trouble using the search feature, and I responded by telling you that you can then simply tell me what you remember and I will find the evidence for you. But again, you have ignored this. So now you MUST either answer with evidence of retract your statement.



And this all stems from the fact that Jesus said; Thy will be done on earth as it is (done) in Heaven.
You deny Jesus is telling us the truth and we have read your replies to try and get round this. Your explanations failed to satisfy me and would only satisfy anyone holding the same misbelief you say the Bible teaches. I think you are inferring much more from what Jesus did not say than I am.

I do not deny that Jesus was speaking the truth. That is a LIE. I have never said or implied that Jesus lied. You now must admit your error or stand as a blatant liar. Why do you say things that you know are not true? It just doesn't make any sense.

The explanations fail to satisfy you because you are absolutely committed to your dogma that angels cannot sin. For some mysterious reason, you let yourself feel "satisfied" with ridiculous forced "harmonizations" that are obviously fallacious. Jesus didn't say a word about "angels" in that verse, yet you are using it to FORCE your preconceived dogma. The contrast is HUGE - you are willing to deny the plain meaning of MANY VERSES to force a doctrine. If you were really concerned with meaningful explanations, you would see that MANY MORE VERSES make more sense if you assume the truth of 2 Peter 2:4 that says "angels sinned."

This is the real mystery - your numbers are all distorted. You have to explain away a LOT more verses if you assume that angels don't sin. Why then do you find those explanations convincing? What is your standard? It is obviously NOT "which interpretation is more harmonious" because the idea that angels have sinned is MUCH MORE HARMONIOUS with MANY MORE VERSES than your doctrine. This would be a good test case. I've been asking you to test which interpretation is true by counting up how many verses natural fit minus how many need to be explained away. I think the angels sinning would be a good test case. I know of at least a dozen major passages you need to explain away to make you interpretation fit. And there are two minor verses that I would have to "explain away." So if you are willing to really deal with what the Bible really teaches on this issue, without inventing huge mountains of unbiblical speculations, I think we could probably settle this one once and for all.




"Hence he was a type" - that may be true, or he could have been a Christophany (a pre-incarnational appearance of Christ). And there are other possibilities. Believers debate this point.
There is only one truth so what is it? What is the proof of a pre-incarnation of Christ? Many believe Christ pre-existed (wrong IMO) with God from the beginning and that is why people think M would have been C, because it is based on a false belief. This is a case of compounding lie upon lie. There is no reason from within the pages of the Bible to assume M was no other than a human. As I said, we are told when Abraham met with Angels (in human form) and we are not told on this occasion that M was an Angel. M served a purpose and gave Abraham insight of that seed singular which God would raise up.

Nobody knows the truth because the Bible is ambiguous on this point and it doesn't give enough information to settle the question. That's why the debate has never been settled in the last 2000 years. The Bible simply does not give enough info.

As you noted in another post, beliefs are built upon other beliefs and presuppositions which are built on other beliefs ... and so there is no simple answer. There is one interpretation if Jesus is God, and a different interpretation if Jesus is not, and yet another that is independent of whether or not Jesus is God. Don't you get it? This is the nature of the Bible.





That's not all Jesus said. The context shows that he was declaring his divinity, that he was the I AM that spoke to Moses at the burning bush:
John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." 57 Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." 59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
He used the Divine Name I AM to identify himself. He was explicit, and said "I say unto you ... I AM." The Jews understood perfectly and that's why they tried to stone him for blasphemy just like in chapter 10:
John 10:30 "I and My Father are one." 31 ¶ Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."
Jesus did not contradict that charge. It is perfectly clear that he was presenting himself as God by using the Divine Name and declaring that he and God were "one."

I have already answered you on these points in another thread; if I can find my reply or if I stumble upon it and can remember to copy and paste here, I will. It is evident from reading the Greek as in the Emphatic Diaglott, John 8:58 is translated; I am he. The exact Hebrew word used at the time God appeared to Moses is not evident in what Jesus said or reported to have said. Jesus could have used a play on words which were mistakenly used against him. I know how Jesus and God can be one, without Jesus being of the same substance as God. I will not comment more at this time; I will do as Jesus did and withdraw quietly.

I found you had mentioned the Emphatic Diaglott in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God&p=46446#post46446) in the thread Jesus is not God (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God) that you started in January 2012 shortly after joining this forum. I found it using the search function. I just put in the word Diaglott (since it is pretty rare) and your post popped up. I remember seeing your conversation with Rose and had intended to jump in but got distracted by other things. But you did not cite John 8:58 in that post. You were using it to make a point about Colossians 1:16. In any case, there are two problems with you appeal to the Emphatic Diaglott. It is just a translation. The fact that it translates "Ego eimi" (which literally means I AM) as "I am he" is merely the choice of the translator. It means nothing in this debate. And worse, the Emphatic Diaglott is used by the Jehovah's Witnesses who are famous for monkeying with the Bible, changing and adding words all for the purpose of proving their doctrine that Christ is not God. It is the worst translation to use if you really want to convince an informed Bible scholar of anything. The fact remains, when Jesus said "Before Abraham was, EGO EIME" it looks like he was deliberately invoking the Divine Name. This is really quite obvious and is confirmed by the context since the Jews wanted to stone him just as they did in John 10:30 where they accused him of making himself out to be God. What could be more plain and obvious? It coheres perfectly with what I wrote.



I am glad you say; "The >>>BIBLE<<< says nothing about any "fourth cup." In that case, we will keep only to the Bible and forget any other reference works outside the Bible.

It is impossible to "keep only to the Bible and forget any other reference works outside the Bible" unless you read Greek and Hebrew. And even then, it would be impossible because the only way you could learn those languages would be to read all grammars, lexicons, written by scholars. And where do you think the dictionaries get their definitions? The CONSTANTLY appeal to ancient literature from the Greeks, Hebrews, Latin, etc. The path you suggest is absurd. There is no greater folly than to think you can study the Bible without any knowledge of the other literature from that time. And to choose to be ignorant of 2000 years of Biblical scholarship is ludicrous. It is the path to total delusion. I've explained this many times, yet you persist in the delusion that you can understand the bible without knowing the original languages, without any knowledge of the first century culture in which the Bible was written, and without any reference books written by scholars.



For all that yo have quoted, the fact is; in the time of Jesus, carnal Israel was looking for Messiah to deliver them from the Roman ruler-ship they were under. That did not happen. The disciples might have wrongly assumed Jesus would come back in their lifetime to restore the kingdom to Israel and that did not happen. The Jews are in their own land today and there are Messianic Jews who expect their Messiah to come. Israel is back in their own land, but the kingdom has not been restored to them. Only in 1967 did the whole of Jerusalem come under the control of the Jews. The Jews/people of that land, do not have a king over them. Until Christ comes as their king, the kingdom will not be restored to Israel. In restoring the kingdom to Israel, the whole world we be restored and eventually, Christ hands over the restored kingdom to his Heavenly Father. Those making up Spiritual Israel now will also be present in the kingdom to come.

It doesn't matter what unbelieving CARNAL ISRAEL was looking for! The promises in the Bible are for the believing remnant, known as "True Israel" that formed the first century church.

It didn't happen because it wasn't God's plan. They were simply ignorant of God's plan which had nothing to do with conquering the Romans.

The modern secular state of Israel has nothing to do with anything in the Bible. This has been explained. If you disagree, give your reasons. It is silly to just keep repeating the same assertions without any evidence.

Your entire doctrine of a future carnal Israel is false. It is not based on the Bible. If you just begin with what the Bible actually states, you will not find your doctrine. It is based on taking verses out of context (such as the verse in Jeremiah that speaks of teh Babylonian exile). If you had any confidence you doctrine were true, why do you not try to establish it on what the Bible really says? Or better yet, just begin with the main and plain things and paint the "Big Picture" and then look and see if you doctrine is part of it. I contend that it is NOT part of what the Bible actually teaches. And I could prove this to you if you would choose to begin in the BEGINNING and lay a foundation of agreement concerning what the Bible actually states. I have laid this out for you many times. It begins with the final prophecies of the OT which predict an "Elijah" would come (John the Baptist) who would prepare the way for Messiah AND warn of the wrath that would come down in 70 AD ... etc. It's a very simple and clear picture that flows naturally from the text and does not require making up ridiculous explanations about how "it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18) does not mean "it is the last hour" and how "this generation" really means "that generation" etc., etc., etc. .... you must get tired of making up explanations at some point. That's how I know you doctrines cannot be true. They clash with the Bible in a thousand ways ....

All the best,

Richard

[David M]

Hello Richard


Don't be absurd David. I said things that are incontrovertible. You cannot be convinced because you reject what the Bible says.
You keep on insisting reasonable explanations are "absurd"; that demonstrates your own lack of reasoning. It is about time you stopped these silly statements and just kept to the evidence brought to support our claims. How can the things you say be "incontrovertible" when I am challenging them? If the things you said were incontrovertible, I would be agreeing with you. Stop this silliness and stick to the points of the arguments.



There YOU go again not reading what I wrote. I did not make any assumption about the identity of the angels. I simply pointed out that YOU had said "It is wrong to presume something which is not said" and then you did that very thing when you said that the angels in Peter are "human messengers" even though that was something which was not said by Peter. You know very well, that "angels" means "messengers" and that term can apply to humans and God's angels. The word "priest" or "minister" could have been used by the translators to convey a better meaning in context with what Peter and Jude are writing about. Even if you have not defined what "angels" mean in this post, I have conversed with you enough times and dealing with this as your supporting verses to say (or say the Bible says) to prove God's Angels sin. Don't try to be clever and as a self-proclaimed word-smith knowing all possible meanings of the word "angels" as I know you do. The whole argument of whether God's Angels sin is based on these two verses from Peter and Jude. If not, give me your best evidence for saying "God's Angels sin". I have not found where the Bible directly says this.


It would help if you followed the conversation a little more closely. I was talking about how you contradicted your own words. And you do not do the same? Give me a break, you have contradicted yourself a number of times in different threads and I do not keep dragging that up. I only mention it here, because you keep bringing the point up.



It is not "just my point of view." I was responding to your assertion that it is "wrong to presume something which is not said" and then showing that you were doing the very thing you said was wrong. That's why I asked if you had heard of a "double standard." Let's just stick with the specifics. We are all guilty of reading what is not written on the page, or indeed, not reading what is on the page. We all have to read between the lines or reason things out from the few words that are written. Point out when you think I am reading to much into something or leaving something out and I will do the same to you. This is the basis for discussion.



You have repeatedly made this false and absurd assertion. You have never found any contradictions in anything I've written. So no you MUST either present the evidence or admit you are wrong. You have done many times, and I've repeatedly called you on it, and you have REFUSED to present any evidence supporting your assertion. You said you have trouble using the search feature, and I responded by telling you that you can then simply tell me what you remember and I will find the evidence for you. But again, you have ignored this. So now you MUST either answer with evidence of retract your statement. I am not going to retract my statement. You think I am wrong and have not proved it to me, because I challenge your use of verses which can be explained differently. You are likely to say the point is "moot" instead of conceding and so we continue to disagree. You must stop this repeated nonsense and deal with the arguments and stop accusing the other person of absurdities etc.. I have come to the conclusion it is impossible for you do it, that is your controversial style. It is not the way to win an argument and your tactics have been exposed. Object to my statement as much as you want, I know from what others have written, they also have the measure of you. Focus on the actual point of disagreement or quit the conversation. If you do not stop, I will quit.


I do not deny that Jesus was speaking the truth. That is a LIE. I have never said or implied that Jesus lied. You now must admit your error or stand as a blatant liar. Why do you say things that you know are not true? It just doesn't make any sense. OK I will agree that you did not say the words; "Jesus is a liar" but that is what is can be inferred. I also know how you have wriggled around the words of Jesus to say that he was not lying when he said what he did, but that did not stop Angels sinning before or after Jesus said his words or when the Angels were not in Heaven. Either Jesus was truthful and meant Angels never sin when he said; "as it (Thy will) is (done) in Heaven" or you think that was not the case. I expect you accuse Jesus having a double standard saying God's will is done in Heaven when he knew it was not the case. I take Jesus' words at there face value in this case and have no reason to doubt.


The explanations fail to satisfy you because you are absolutely committed to your dogma that angels cannot sin. For some mysterious reason, you let yourself feel "satisfied" with ridiculous forced "harmonizations" that are obviously fallacious. Jesus didn't say a word about "angels" in that verse, yet you are using it to FORCE your preconceived dogma. The contrast is HUGE - you are willing to deny the plain meaning of MANY VERSES to force a doctrine. If you were really concerned with meaningful explanations, you would see that MANY MORE VERSES make more sense if you assume the truth of 2 Peter 2:4 that says "angels sinned." You have your own understanding that you are fixed on and I have my understanding I am fixed on until proven to be incorrect. Now you are telling me to "assume the truth" which is not the truth if you assume "angels" are God's Angels. Those are the words of "an idiot" and I quote the words of someone else who would agree with me. I have asked you before now to give me all this "evidence" you claim is in the Bible or give me your one and only incontrovertible piece of evidence that settles the matter beyond doubt.


This is the real mystery - your numbers are all distorted. You have to explain away a LOT more verses if you assume that angels don't sin. Why then do you find those explanations convincing? What is your standard? It is obviously NOT "which interpretation is more harmonious" because the idea that angels have sinned is MUCH MORE HARMONIOUS with MANY MORE VERSES than your doctrine. This would be a good test case. I've been asking you to test which interpretation is true by counting up how many verses natural fit minus how many need to be explained away. I think the angels sinning would be a good test case. I know of at least a dozen major passages you need to explain away to make you interpretation fit. And there are two minor verses that I would have to "explain away." So if you are willing to really deal with what the Bible really teaches on this issue, without inventing huge mountains of unbiblical speculations, I think we could probably settle this one once and for all. I do intend to give more examples where the Bible tells us the origin of the devil and what the devil is. Understanding the truth of the Devil, removes all need to attribute sin to God's Angels. I will post in a new thread when I have nothing else to reply to.



Nobody knows the truth because the Bible is ambiguous on this point and it doesn't give enough information to settle the question. That's why the debate has never been settled in the last 2000 years. The Bible simply does not give enough info. We have sufficient information to be going on with. It would be good to have more information, but will more information be of any value to doubters? Jesus said; (John 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? It must have been frustrating for Jesus and I expect Jesus would have the same frustration conversing with you Richard. You do not believe Moses' words, so you do not believe Jesus' words. I should not expect you to believe my words when I give my understanding reasoned from the Bible. That is why we shall continue to talk past each other and never fully reason these things out between us from the Bible. It is not lack of willingness on my part, but you fail to continue the dialogue along those lines.



As you noted in another post, beliefs are built upon other beliefs and presuppositions which are built on other beliefs ... and so there is no simple answer. There is one interpretation if Jesus is God, and a different interpretation if Jesus is not, and yet another that is independent of whether or not Jesus is God. Don't you get it? This is the nature of the Bible. The nature of the Bible is such that we have to reason things out. Things which are not reasoned out correctly will eventually be exposed; if not by what we say, the exposure will come from God when all truth is finally revealed. That is when all of God's plan, as it is given in the Bible, is accomplished.




I found you had mentioned the Emphatic Diaglott in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God&p=46446#post46446) in the thread Jesus is not God (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God) that you started in January 2012 shortly after joining this forum. I found it using the search function. I just put in the word Diaglott (since it is pretty rare) and your post popped up. I remember seeing your conversation with Rose and had intended to jump in but got distracted by other things. But you did not cite John 8:58 in that post. You were using it to make a point about Colossians 1:16. In any case, there are two problems with you appeal to the Emphatic Diaglott. It is just a translation. The fact that it translates "Ego eimi" (which literally means I AM) as "I am he" is merely the choice of the translator. It means nothing in this debate. And worse, the Emphatic Diaglott is used by the Jehovah's Witnesses who are famous for monkeying with the Bible, changing and adding words all for the purpose of proving their doctrine that Christ is not God. It is the worst translation to use if you really want to convince an informed Bible scholar of anything. The fact remains, when Jesus said "Before Abraham was, EGO EIME" it looks like he was deliberately invoking the Divine Name. This is really quite obvious and is confirmed by the context since the Jews wanted to stone him just as they did in John 10:30 where they accused him of making himself out to be God. What could be more plain and obvious? It coheres perfectly with what I wrote. I shall try the search function again at some time. Yes, it is much easier when a word is rare; not so easy when the word is not rare. I knew you would know the origin of the Diaglott. It is a good work and the irony of it is, as you say, the JW's changed the words in their own Bible from the words in the Diaglott. The Diaglott was more correct and then to fit in with failed dates fulfilling prophecy, they had to change the wording in their Bible. I let my comment stand for now. Again, it depends on what you already understand as to which way you interpret the verse. When you say the "choice of the translator", you are happy to go with the words "I AM" to prove your point and are unhappy to agree with the translators for using the words "I am he" which are valid. You agree with the translators using the word "angels" and would disagree if the word "priests" had been used by the translators.



It is impossible to "keep only to the Bible and forget any other reference works outside the Bible" unless you read Greek and Hebrew. And even then, it would be impossible because the only way you could learn those languages would be to read all grammars, lexicons, written by scholars. And where do you think the dictionaries get their definitions? The CONSTANTLY appeal to ancient literature from the Greeks, Hebrews, Latin, etc. The path you suggest is absurd. There is no greater folly than to think you can study the Bible without any knowledge of the other literature from that time. And to choose to be ignorant of 2000 years of Biblical scholarship is ludicrous. It is the path to total delusion. I've explained this many times, yet you persist in the delusion that you can understand the bible without knowing the original languages, without any knowledge of the first century culture in which the Bible was written, and without any reference books written by scholars. I expected it it to go without saying; dictionaries in the ancient languages are useful tools. Dictionaries I would expect to be less biassed than commentaries on the Bible. That is why we can check with dictionaries and see what alternatives the translators could have used. I bow to your knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and will give your comments on the Greek and Hebrew the same latitude I would give anyone else commenting with the same knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. All your study of Christianity does is expose the apostasy and the lies that have been introduced. I know of these and I do not have to know all the other things that have gone on. It does give understanding to how things have come about, but we are dealing with the truth of the Bible and so we have to reason from the Bible, not base our reasoning on the lies that have been introduced. I do not know why you are disagreeing with me so much when I agree with your condemnation of mainstream Christianity. We should be both on the same page and be searching for truth.



It doesn't matter what unbelieving CARNAL ISRAEL was looking for! The promises in the Bible are for the believing remnant, known as "True Israel" that formed the first century church. The promises are for the Gentiles also who are grafted in until the "times of the Gentiles" is fulfilled. If that was not the case, the same argument would apply for believing the resurrection in vain, if Christ be not risen.


It didn't happen because it wasn't God's plan. They were simply ignorant of God's plan which had nothing to do with conquering the Romans. Without hindsight, the people did not have a clear knowledge of God's plan any more than what is understood by "God's Glory filling the earth" at the time that promise was made back in Moses' day. In hindsight we know more of God's plan, but that is not a hindsight you are willing to accept.


IThe modern secular state of Israel has nothing to do with anything in the Bible. This has been explained. If you disagree, give your reasons. It is silly to just keep repeating the same assertions without any evidence. Maybe you have responded later as I work down your reply. If you have not, then please answer the question as to when the prophecies in Ezekiel in chapters 37 - 39 were fulfilled?


Your entire doctrine of a future carnal Israel is false. It is not based on the Bible. If you just begin with what the Bible actually states, you will not find your doctrine. It is based on taking verses out of context (such as the verse in Jeremiah that speaks of teh Babylonian exile). If you had any confidence you doctrine were true, why do you not try to establish it on what the Bible really says? Or better yet, just begin with the main and plain things and paint the "Big Picture" and then look and see if you doctrine is part of it. I contend that it is NOT part of what the Bible actually teaches. And I could prove this to you if you would choose to begin in the BEGINNING and lay a foundation of agreement concerning what the Bible actually states. I have laid this out for you many times. It begins with the final prophecies of the OT which predict an "Elijah" would come (John the Baptist) who would prepare the way for Messiah AND warn of the wrath that would come down in 70 AD ... etc. It's a very simple and clear picture that flows naturally from the text and does not require making up ridiculous explanations about how "it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18) does not mean "it is the last hour" and how "this generation" really means "that generation" etc., etc., etc. .... you must get tired of making up explanations at some point. That's how I know you doctrines cannot be true. They clash with the Bible in a thousand ways .... I am not totally disagreeing with the way you see John the Baptist as a form of Elijah, but I am not dismissing much more of what the Bible has to say. As for that reference in Jeremiah, I have agreed that it talks of the exile in Babylon, but we have to get the whole of prophecy of Jeremiah into context. I am not saying I am an expert on understanding everything written in Jeremiah. Jeremiah speaks of events after the exile such as Jer. 33:14 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. 15 In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness. Do you agree "the Branch" is a reference to Christ? When was this prophecy fulfilled completely? God is promising to a "good thing" to both the house of Israel and the house of Judah. When is this, if the house of Israel represented by the ten northern tribes never returned from their exile? Only Judah returned from exile after 70 years. God's promise includes to the House of Israel and so when does this happen? God is referring to a time when Jerusalem will be at peace (the peace we are still to pray for) and the inhabitants will dwell safely and the city will be given the additional name of 'the LORD our righteousness'; this has not happened, so it remains future. These are plain words, so what do you make of them?

All the best,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You have not convinced me you have many mutually confirming verses supporting your point. When I read those verses differently the proof you say you have given me is not proof at all.
Don't be absurd David. I said things that are incontrovertible. You cannot be convinced because you reject what the Bible says.

You keep on insisting reasonable explanations are "absurd"; that demonstrates your own lack of reasoning. It is about time you stopped these silly statements and just kept to the evidence brought to support our claims. How can the things you say be "incontrovertible" when I am challenging them? If the things you said were incontrovertible, I would be agreeing with you. Stop this silliness and stick to the points of the arguments.

Good morning David,

I did not insist your explanations were absurd. I wasn't even talking about your explanations. On the contrary, I was responding to YOUR INSISTENCE that the evidence I presented was did not "convince" you and didn't even count as "proof at all." In other words, you are doing the very thing you are complaining about. I presented good evidence with many confirming verses, and you simply reject it without reason.


You know very well, that "angels" means "messengers" and that term can apply to humans and God's angels. The word "priest" or "minister" could have been used by the translators to convey a better meaning in context with what Peter and Jude are writing about. Even if you have not defined what "angels" mean in this post, I have conversed with you enough times and dealing with this as your supporting verses to say (or say the Bible says) to prove God's Angels sin. Don't try to be clever and as a self-proclaimed word-smith knowing all possible meanings of the word "angels" as I know you do. The whole argument of whether God's Angels sin is based on these two verses from Peter and Jude. If not, give me your best evidence for saying "God's Angels sin". I have not found where the Bible directly says this.

Yes, we both know that "angel" can mean refer either to a human or a spiritual being depending on context. That has never been an issue. The issue is whether or not it is what Peter and/or Jude meant. You have made your case, and I have made mine. We both think the other has failed. Looks like a stalemate unless one of us can find a new angle of approach.

But you are wrong when you say that the "whole argument" is based on just those two verses from Peter and Jude. There is a vast array of verses that support the point. First, of course, is the war in heaven which obviously supports the case that angels sinned. You have to make up extremely unlikely interpretations to force it to fit your doctrine. Likewise, all the verses that present Satan as a real spiritual being that "fell like lightning" - you have to explain all those verses away, as well as Ephesians 6 which speaks of wickedness in high places, and a hundred other verses. So your assertion that there are only two verses that contradict your doctrine is obviously false.



And you do not do the same? Give me a break, you have contradicted yourself a number of times in different threads and I do not keep dragging that up. I only mention it here, because you keep bringing the point up.

David, that is ridiculous beyond words. You have never showed any contradiction in anything I have written. I recall one time long ago you tried, and I showed your error. You really need to stop saying falsehoods that you cannot support with evidence.




You have repeatedly made this false and absurd assertion. You have never found any contradictions in anything I've written. So no you MUST either present the evidence or admit you are wrong. You have done many times, and I've repeatedly called you on it, and you have REFUSED to present any evidence supporting your assertion. You said you have trouble using the search feature, and I responded by telling you that you can then simply tell me what you remember and I will find the evidence for you. But again, you have ignored this. So now you MUST either answer with evidence of retract your statement.
I am not going to retract my statement. You think I am wrong and have not proved it to me, because I challenge your use of verses which can be explained differently. You are likely to say the point is "moot" instead of conceding and so we continue to disagree. You must stop this repeated nonsense and deal with the arguments and stop accusing the other person of absurdities etc.. I have come to the conclusion it is impossible for you do it, that is your controversial style. It is not the way to win an argument and your tactics have been exposed. Object to my statement as much as you want, I know from what others have written, they also have the measure of you. Focus on the actual point of disagreement or quit the conversation. If you do not stop, I will quit.

David, I only say things are "absurd" when they are truly absurd. Your assertion that you have caught me in contradictions is truly absurd. You constantly repeat that false assertion without providing any evidence. In contrast, I give evidence when you contradict yourself. Case in point: You simultaneously stated that you "do not disagree with" the law of non-contradiction even as you said that you reject both P and Not P! And you attempted to justify this absurdity by saying there was some sort of "ambiguity" in P and Not P which did not exist in any way at all. You and I used the same language in forming the paradox, yet you rejected my formulation. I have PROVED my point as well as any mathematical formula has ever been proven, and you simple reject the truth without reason. L67 bears witness to this truth, and calls you to admit it, but you refused him too (proof (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3647-O-A-C-____-A-C-A-C&p=53342#post53342)).



OK I will agree that you did not say the words; "Jesus is a liar" but that is what is can be inferred.

Excellent. Thanks! :thumb:

But the idea that it was "inferred" follows ONLY if your interpretation is true and so it is absurd for you to say that I was implying anything like that. It would be like me saying that you are saying that Peter LIED when he said "angels sinned." You would not accept that, because you would find a way to "harmonize" the verse so that Peter was not lying. That's exactly what Bible believers do with the Lord's prayer - they find a way to harmonize it with the other verses of the Bible that they think teach angels sinned. It's simple symmetry. I don't understand why you can't see this. You are holding me to a different standard than yourself.


I also know how you have wriggled around the words of Jesus to say that he was not lying when he said what he did, but that did not stop Angels sinning before or after Jesus said his words or when the Angels were not in Heaven. Either Jesus was truthful and meant Angels never sin when he said; "as it (Thy will) is (done) in Heaven" or you think that was not the case. I expect you accuse Jesus having a double standard saying God's will is done in Heaven when he knew it was not the case. I take Jesus' words at there face value in this case and have no reason to doubt.

Again, you need to take a more balanced view. You cannot say that I have "wriggled around the words" without admitting that an opponent would see your "explanations" in exactly the same light.

And again, your case is based on a LOGICAL IMPLICATION that you insist follows from the Lord's Prayer (even though it doesn't even mention angels). This is why I tried to formulate your argument for you with rigorously precise logic, and you totally failed to understand you own argument. I have tried to explain your error for over seven months, and you have resisted my every effort, and you have written blatantly irrational gibberish in response to my simply incontrovertible logic. Therefore, you cannot advance your argument, which is based on a LOGICAL IMPLICATION until you find a way to formulate your argument with rigorously precise logic.

Please think about this. Your entire argument is based on a LOGICAL IMPLICATION. Therefore, you must be able to state it in a logically valid form. If you can't do this, your argument can't even get off the ground.


You have your own understanding that you are fixed on and I have my understanding I am fixed on until proven to be incorrect. Now you are telling me to "assume the truth" which is not the truth if you assume "angels" are God's Angels. Those are the words of "an idiot" and I quote the words of someone else who would agree with me. I have asked you before now to give me all this "evidence" you claim is in the Bible or give me your one and only incontrovertible piece of evidence that settles the matter beyond doubt.

Excellent! Your comment reveals the fundamental flaw in your logic. You are so convinced that angels cannot sin that you cannot even consider the HYPOTHETICAL POSSIBILITY that they do. This is why you cannot stand by your own formulation of your own paradox. Initially, I had formulated it for you as follows:

Richard: There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

You complained that my formulation of the paradox implied that Angels really could sin. This is the same error you have been repeating now for over seven months. I don't know how many times I've explained it to you and you have never shown any understanding. You simply do not understand that a hypothetical statement does not imply an actuality. So I worked and worked with you, asking you to formulate your own paradox because you rejected mine, and you came up with this:

David: There would be a paradox if God's Angels in Heaven sinned and Jesus said God's will is done in Heaven.

I then noted that your formulation was logically identical to mine hoping that you would finally be able to see your error. You ignored my post for MONTHS. I chased you all over this forum bringing this to you attention over and over and over again, and you refused to answer (proof (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3647-O-A-C-____-A-C-A-C&p=53344#post53344)).

And now we see that you are continuing in the same error and repeating it yet again? :doh:

I would be delighted to know who "agreed" with you. It wasn't on this forum was it?



We have sufficient information to be going on with. It would be good to have more information, but will more information be of any value to doubters? Jesus said; (John 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? It must have been frustrating for Jesus and I expect Jesus would have the same frustration conversing with you Richard. You do not believe Moses' words, so you do not believe Jesus' words. I should not expect you to believe my words when I give my understanding reasoned from the Bible. That is why we shall continue to talk past each other and never fully reason these things out between us from the Bible. It is not lack of willingness on my part, but you fail to continue the dialogue along those lines.

No one using valid logic and facts would ever have reason to be frustrated in conversing with me. I admit the truth, even when it contradicts something I may have said. I have no dogmas to uphold. No doctrines to protect. I am free of such things that clog the minds of so many people. You have no idea how much power is available for free thought when you rid your mind of dogmatic viruses that suck up all your CPU time.

You are repeating the same error you admitted above when you say I "do not believe Jesus' words." I have never disputed any of the words that Jesus spoke when I formulate my argument concerning angels sinning. This is the same error you just admitted above when you admitted that I did not say Jesus was lying. Your comments are entirely inconsistent with themselves.

David, please think about this. You falsely asserted that I called Jesus a liar. I corrected your error. You admitted your error. And now, in the space of a few lines in your post, you repeated the same error!

The reason we talk past each other is because I prove you wrong and you simply ignore what I write and then repeat the same error as if I had never exposed it.

The solution is simple. We need to come to AGREEMENT, as you did when you admitted that I had not called Jesus a liar. But then you also need to be consistent in your thinking or you will just repeat the same error even after you have admitted it, as when you said that the reason we disagree is because I "do not believe Jesus' words" as if that were the reason for our disagreement! That is a GROSS ERROR. Our disagreement is not based on my rejection of any of the words of Jesus. There is nothing in my argument based on the idea that Christ's words were false. That is not where our disagreement lies. You need to admit this error.



The nature of the Bible is such that we have to reason things out. Things which are not reasoned out correctly will eventually be exposed; if not by what we say, the exposure will come from God when all truth is finally revealed. That is when all of God's plan, as it is given in the Bible, is accomplished.

And I have exposed FUNDAMENTAL errors in your logic with MATHEMATICAL PRECISION and have been rejecting the proof for over seven months. And worse, you ignored my posts for most of those months and you have yet to show any understanding about how to formulate the LOGICAL IMPLICATION that is the foundation of your argument.


I shall try the search function again at some time. Yes, it is much easier when a word is rare; not so easy when the word is not rare. I knew you would know the origin of the Diaglott. It is a good work and the irony of it is, as you say, the JW's changed the words in their own Bible from the words in the Diaglott. The Diaglott was more correct and then to fit in with failed dates fulfilling prophecy, they had to change the wording in their Bible. I let my comment stand for now. Again, it depends on what you already understand as to which way you interpret the verse. When you say the "choice of the translator", you are happy to go with the words "I AM" to prove your point and are unhappy to agree with the translators for using the words "I am he" which are valid. You agree with the translators using the word "angels" and would disagree if the word "priests" had been used by the translators.

Why would you put any faith in the Diaglott. That guy was self-taught - how do you know if he was any good? Do you have any reason to put your trust in that MAN? The only reasonable path is to compare all translations and it would be best to take time to learn the language yourself. I get the impression you chose the Diaglott because it fits your preconceptions. I've already exposed one error in it - an error that you happily swallowed without thinking. Namely, the error that the "ego eimi" of John 8:58 should be translated as "I am he" when in fact there is no "he" in that phrase. Now it is true that the word "he" could be implied by context, but there is nothing in that context that would suggest that. On the contrary, the context most strongly supports the fact that he was invoking the Divine Name.

You are absolutely correct when you say that "it depends on what you already understand as to which way you interpret the verse." That's been my main point for the last few posts. Each interpretation is a PARADIGM that defines a context in which verses are interpreted. This is called the "hermeneutical loop." You must know the correct Paradigm (Big Picture) in order to properly understand the verses, but you must know the proper interpretation of each verse in order to understand the Paradigm (Big Picture). It's a chicken and egg problem. This is the most important thing any interpreter of the Bible must wrestle with.




It is impossible to "keep only to the Bible and forget any other reference works outside the Bible" unless you read Greek and Hebrew. And even then, it would be impossible because the only way you could learn those languages would be to read all grammars, lexicons, written by scholars. And where do you think the dictionaries get their definitions? The CONSTANTLY appeal to ancient literature from the Greeks, Hebrews, Latin, etc. The path you suggest is absurd. There is no greater folly than to think you can study the Bible without any knowledge of the other literature from that time. And to choose to be ignorant of 2000 years of Biblical scholarship is ludicrous. It is the path to total delusion. I've explained this many times, yet you persist in the delusion that you can understand the bible without knowing the original languages, without any knowledge of the first century culture in which the Bible was written, and without any reference books written by scholars.
I expected it it to go without saying; dictionaries in the ancient languages are useful tools. Dictionaries I would expect to be less biassed than commentaries on the Bible. That is why we can check with dictionaries and see what alternatives the translators could have used. I bow to your knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and will give your comments on the Greek and Hebrew the same latitude I would give anyone else commenting with the same knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. All your study of Christianity does is expose the apostasy and the lies that have been introduced. I know of these and I do not have to know all the other things that have gone on. It does give understanding to how things have come about, but we are dealing with the truth of the Bible and so we have to reason from the Bible, not base our reasoning on the lies that have been introduced. I do not know why you are disagreeing with me so much when I agree with your condemnation of mainstream Christianity. We should be both on the same page and be searching for truth.

It could not "go without saying" because it was directly contradicted by what you said. Dictionaries are They are INTERPRETATIONS of what the words mean. They are abbreviated commentaries that are filled with references to writings from outside the Bible. It is literally impossible to "reason from the Bible" alone.

Comparing translations is very important, but many people do that so they can CHERRY PICK possibilities to find something that fits their desired doctrine even though it might not be valid in the given context. This is the technique used by countless cult leaders. It is easy to see through by careful study. You can't just say "here is a possible translation according to this dictionary" - you have to give REASONS why the context implies that particular translation is correct. To do this, you often have to look at how that Greek or Hebrew word was used in texts outside the Bible. This is basic Bible study, and it is how all the dictionaries were put together so it cannot be avoided.

I don't know why we disagree so much either. I just say things that seem self-evidently true based on logic and facts. Yet you disagree. I don't understand. I do not simply deny the Bible. I have explicitly stated that there is much that is true in it. But there is much that is false. That's where we differ. You refuse to admit that the Bible contains any flaws (other than translation or copying errors).



The promises are for the Gentiles also who are grafted in until the "times of the Gentiles" is fulfilled. If that was not the case, the same argument would apply for believing the resurrection in vain, if Christ be not risen.

No one knows what the "time of the Gentiles" means because the Bible does not say. Therefore, you CANNOT use that verse in the foundation of your eschatological system. You first must define the PARADIGM using many mutually confirming clear and unambiguous passages. Then once you have the paradigm securely understood, you can attempt to interpret the less clear passages.

I think it's great that we are finally getting this fundamental point clearly articulated. The phrase "times of the Gentiles" will have one meaning under Preterism and a different meaning under Futurism. That's why it cannot be used to discern which paradigm is correct.



Maybe you have responded later as I work down your reply. If you have not, then please answer the question as to when the prophecies in Ezekiel in chapters 37 - 39 were fulfilled?

I don't see how those verses could be fulfilled under either Preterism or Futurism without lots of unjustifiable "explanations." Therefore, they cannot be used to discern which paradigm is correct.


I am not totally disagreeing with the way you see John the Baptist as a form of Elijah, but I am not dismissing much more of what the Bible has to say.

That makes no sense. Jesus said John was the Elijah who was to come. It sounds like you are denying that Christ was Messiah, which is the necessary implication if you deny that John fulfilled the prophecy of the Elijah who was to come and 1) prepare the way for Messiah, and 2) warn of the coming day of the Lord.

Your glib dismissal of major arguments like this creates a lot of frustration. You have no good reason to dismiss the fact that John fulfilled the prophecies of Elijah or to suggest that there is going to be a "second coming of the Elijah who was to come." I have been presenting this same argument to you for over a year and you have never actually dealt with it.



As for that reference in Jeremiah, I have agreed that it talks of the exile in Babylon, but we have to get the whole of prophecy of Jeremiah into context. I am not saying I am an expert on understanding everything written in Jeremiah. Jeremiah speaks of events after the exile such as Jer. 33:14 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. 15 In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness. Do you agree "the Branch" is a reference to Christ? When was this prophecy fulfilled completely? God is promising to a "good thing" to both the house of Israel and the house of Judah. When is this, if the house of Israel represented by the ten northern tribes never returned from their exile? Only Judah returned from exile after 70 years. God's promise includes to the House of Israel and so when does this happen? God is referring to a time when Jerusalem will be at peace (the peace we are still to pray for) and the inhabitants will dwell safely and the city will be given the additional name of 'the LORD our righteousness'; this has not happened, so it remains future. These are plain words, so what do you make of them?

All the best,

David
Yes, from a Bible-believing point of view, the Branch clearly speaks of Christ. It was "completely fulfilled" in the church.

The "house of Israel and the house of Judah" is just a figure of speech. This is the primary error of Futurists. They hyper-literalize and absolutize the words of the Bible and so believe things as silly as saying that Jesus must have hinges and a knob because he is the "Door."

The northern tribes were assimilated into the Gentiles. They no longer exist. This is totally obvious to anyone who understands population dynamics. The ten tribes lost their tribal identity and so intermixed with the Gentiles. After just a dozen generations they are genetically indistinguishable from the Gentiles, and more significantly, the Gentiles are indistinguishable from them!

You interpretation that "this has not happened" makes sense only in your Futurist paradigm which is based on a hundred assumptions that contradict the plain text of Scripture. To solve this confusion, we must return to the FOUNDATION and establish the PARADIGM on many mutually confirming clear and unambiguous verses.

Great chatting!

Richard

PS: Phew! What huge posts we generate! Think of how much smaller they would be if we could find a basic FOUNDATION OF AGREEMENT! They are long because there are so many disagreements.


When was this prophecy "fulfilled completely"? The phrase "fulfilled completely" is redundant. Anything that is "fulfilled" is "fulfilled completely." Now there are things that are fulfilled and then have a continuing effect, such as the giving of the Holy Spirit. It was fulfilled at Pentecost, and is given to all