Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I believe Cobra sees one in the Hebrew, (Zec 9:9, (which if he does I would agree with)), but sees two in Matthew, (which I do not agree with), and therefore he claims that Matthew "misquotes Jesus". As for the Watcher, he just got through prophesying again in another thread that the great tribulation begins in 2022 and Jesus returns in 2029, and thus, since the first time I saw him do that, I have not actually paid much attention to which way he happens to be drifting whenever he passes by screaming cultist, antichrist, and the rest of his favorite verbal whatnots.

I like your new, new, avi, very hypnotic. "Hail the happy daqq":bow:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Lol, seems like lately the end of the world is about once a year, if not twice: I already forgot when the last eclipse was, or when the next doomsday black orb eye-in-the-sky sun is supposed to darken all of humanity and kill a third of mankind, but I sure am glad we have all made it through those four typically copper-colored moons: all those doctored online bloody images of the "blood moons" were so atrocious that after a while some of them began to make me wonder if my own eyes were bleeding.

Yeah, Cobra posted this:



And this just above herein:



If I was an odds maker like the Watcher, I would lay odds that the Watcher himself really is not even sure what Cobra is actually saying: and that Cobra, if asked, might not even be able to tell you why the author of that PDF finds it appropriate to omit the waw-vav in a most critical place, (for this discussion), in his translation, (and rightly so, but I included it because Matthew does, and it actually shows that much of what that author has said also applies to the Hebrew mindset of the author of Matthew, which is now in Greek, but originally was not).

Moreover that is why I said this to Cobra:

Speculating what I or Cobra thinks will only add to your potential for making a mistake. I said earlier 'well done' for engaging at last in the debate and I would like to see more of that. I personally hold to two animals at the moment but I am engaged in this debate because I am not dogmatic over this. If someone can show and persuade me I am wrong then I would obviously change my position.

I will not speculate on what cobra thinks but I think he was saying it is one animal, he can clarify that if he wishes.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I think anyone who tries to predict the tribulation will be wrong about other things too, but trying to insinuate an error in all things based on a error in one thing is inappropriate.

Correct and logical, although a more accurate way to put it would be simply that anyone can make a mistake but it is almost certain that someone has/will correctly predict the tribulation given the balance of probabilities. There are thousands of us 'date setters' around.

 

[daqq]

I like your new, new, avi, very hypnotic. "Hail the happy daqq":bow:

Perhaps, for some, the alien deception has already arrived, (well before 2022, lol).

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

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

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I addressed those things already and the passage actually does not disagree with Prophet Zechariah. Read your own link which you posted: just as I said to you before, you are not following the layout and thinking according to the Prophet, so even though you may understand that the Prophet does indeed speak of a single animal, you still do not understand his thinking, the logos-reasoning behind what he says. You therefore assent to the proper reading of the Zechariah passage but deny the Prophet in that you fail to understand the meaning behind the text. For the same reason you do not understand that Matthew maintains that same logos-reasoning, (though it probably came out better in whatever Matthew was originally written in, (either Hebrew or Hebrew-Aramaic according to Irenaeus, Jerome, and Origen as quoted by Eusebius, and probably a few more)). The very link which you yourself posted to make your point even goes into the fact that Zion and Jerusalem are two different names but the same, (one!), and the daughter of Zion and the daughter of Jerusalem are two different names but the same, (one!). However the author of your link, like you, also fails to realize that even his own studies reveal how Matthew is doing the exact same thing as the Prophet except that the passage is now written in Greek! He shows himself and what he says about Matthew at the bottom of the page to be incorrect by the very same things he himself laid out in his PDF! And the reason why is because he does the same thing that you do, and that is to imagine himself as being smarter than Matthew, with himself understanding Zechariah while telling himself that Matthew must not have understood or had a different first-century mindset for reading such texts. How can anyone be so blind? How in the world can anyone who claims to have an analytical mind and the capability to understand language think that Matthew believes the Master rode two donkeys at the same time or at the very least entered the city on one, then went back out and entered the city a second time on the other?

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became" . . .

These things are intentional: and they are there to either force you to abandon your walk in the carnal man nature or doom yourself to never understanding.

I thought one way to settle this would be to find footage of a man riding two donkey's to see it is possible to do but all I could find was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvNewpB7h00

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

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

Sorry your wrong: They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them.

them.http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/21-7.htm

 

[daqq]

I thought one way to settle this would be to find footage of a man riding two donkey's to see it is possible to do but all I could find was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvNewpB7h00

Sorry your wrong: They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them.

them.http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/21-7.htm

Instead of watching BoobTube videos, ehem, Watcher, perhaps you would learn much more by treating your eyes to some good old fashioned paper "footage", ya know, like the kind of paper with writing on it that you need to be able to read? I went and made this just a bit ago just for an occasion such as this, I even highlighted the important words in yellow so that it would be readily visible and easy to understand. I'll even include the link to the online PDF were I got it from so you can go check it for yourself. Ever heard of the Shem-Tov Hebrew version of Matthew? It does not matter whether or not you accept it as legit for the simple purposes of this one little point, I myself do not, but it is useful in special situations such as this because it may give you a much better insight into the Hebrew mindset and way of thinking in this text. And even though this may only be a fourteenth century text, that fact even furthers the point that I make here, for it is not the age of the manuscript but rather the thinking that matters most for this point. Apparently the one who compiled and copied this text saw nothing wrong with the passage according to how he was reading it, (for he certainly made alterations elsewhere), and yet, in your mind you will no doubt think the passage in question sounds ridiculous, (Mat 21:7), just as your pal thought when I placed "it" following "them" in Mat 21:2.

adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/

See the yellow highlighting in both texts? Now you can take the Hebrew word in that form, (H5921 - עליה), and go investigate it on your own, it is used all over the place in many different examples. In this context it surely means "upon it" just as it is rendered in the yellow highlighting on the English translation side of the image file. I sincerely hope you will enjoy this, ehem, footage, you will certainly learn much more from this paper footage than the thirty-eight second BoobTube donkey video clip you posted.......or will you?

 

[daqq]

Perhaps, for some, the alien deception has already arrived, (well before 2022, lol).

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

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

Sorry your wrong: They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them.

them.http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/21-7.htm

Luke 19:36 T/R
36 πορευομενου δε αυτου υπεστρωννυον τα ιματια αυτων εν τη οδω

Luke 19:36 KJV
36 And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way.

Mark 11:7 W/H
7 και φερουσιν τον πωλον προς τον ιησουν και επιβαλλουσιν αυτω τα ιματια αυτων και εκαθισεν επ αυτον

Mark 11:7 ASV
7 And they bring the colt unto Jesus, and cast on him their garments; and he sat upon him.

Mark 11:7 T/R
7 και ηγαγον τον πωλον προς τον ιησουν και επεβαλον αυτω τα ιματια αυτων και εκαθισεν επ αυτω

Mark 11:7 KJV
7 And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

"τα ιματια αυτων" ~ word for word: "the garments of them" = "their garments"

Moreover Mark 11:8, Acts 7:58, Acts 4:14, and Rev 3:4 all bear witness to the same.

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

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

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

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

 

[2003cobra]

Delete

 

[2003cobra]

Truth be told I can read it either way. Why can you not see that after what I have said?

Genesis 16:12 ASV
12 And he shall be as a wild *** [wild-donkey] among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his brethren.

You know who this speaks of correct? His mother is Hagar, and it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. Moreover the one who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but the one born of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which generates bondage-slavery, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Therefore the gender of the donkeys really doesn't even matter, (as previously suggested), and neither does it matter whether you read it as two in Matthew right from the start all the way through, or the way I had it, (because if you read "divorce" for lusantes that is simply the natural flow, and the two are truly one and the same). And the reason it does not matter is because the passage actually concerns the covenants, which are two, but really the same one covenant except only seen through two different sets of eyes, (as already previously touched upon in another post, with many scripture quotes). The primary or old way of seeing the covenant is the donkey "accustomed to the yoke", (an idiom for bondage, just as the Israelites in Egypt who would have preferred to remain under the bondage of the Egyptians merely so as to have good food for the belly, (like Esau who sold his birthright for a bowl of soup)). The other donkey, or colt, upon which no one had ever sat or ridden, is the new covenant. It was therefore most likely necessary for the Matthew passage to be written the way it is because the supernal-spiritual fulfillment is way more important than satisfying the reading pleasure of the carnal minded man by making sure the flesh minded interpretation makes sense to the carnal minded reader.

Literally speaking it is one donkey. Supernally speaking it is two donkeys because Messiah confirms-strenghtens the "covenant for many", (Dan 9:27, Mat 26:28 ASV, Mrk 14:24 ASV, Luk 22:17 ASV), and yet establishes the new, (Luk 22:20 ASV).

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

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

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

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

 

[2003cobra]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Instead of watching BoobTube videos, ehem, Watcher, perhaps you would learn much more by treating your eyes to some good old fashioned paper "footage", ya know, like the kind of paper with writing on it that you need to be able to read? I went and made this just a bit ago just for an occasion such as this, I even highlighted the important words in yellow so that it would be readily visible and easy to understand. I'll even include the link to the online PDF were I got it from so you can go check it for yourself. Ever heard of the Shem-Tov Hebrew version of Matthew? It does not matter whether or not you accept it as legit for the simple purposes of this one little point, I myself do not, but it is useful in special situations such as this because it may give you a much better insight into the Hebrew mindset and way of thinking in this text. And even though this may only be a fourteenth century text, that fact even furthers the point that I make here, for it is not the age of the manuscript but rather the thinking that matters most for this point. Apparently the one who compiled and copied this text saw nothing wrong with the passage according to how he was reading it, (for he certainly made alterations elsewhere), and yet, in your mind you will no doubt think the passage in question sounds ridiculous, (Mat 21:7), just as your pal thought when I placed "it" following "them" in Mat 21:2.

adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/

See the yellow highlighting in both texts? Now you can take the Hebrew word in that form, (H5921 - עליה), and go investigate it on your own, it is used all over the place in many different examples. In this context it surely means "upon it" just as it is rendered in the yellow highlighting on the English translation side of the image file. I sincerely hope you will enjoy this, ehem, footage, you will certainly learn much more from this paper footage than the thirty-eight second BoobTube donkey video clip you posted.......or will you?

(You didn't seem to understand the humour I gave you? Mmm??)

And you would rather trust Shem Tob Hebrew translation of Matthew's Greek translation of that one word 'them' as 'it' rather than Matthew's Greek translation itself which says 'them':

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/21-7.htm

Please explain your reasoning for this?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[2003cobra]

Instead of watching BoobTube videos, ehem, Watcher, perhaps you would learn much more by treating your eyes to some good old fashioned paper "footage", ya know, like the kind of paper with writing on it that you need to be able to read? I went and made this just a bit ago just for an occasion such as this, I even highlighted the important words in yellow so that it would be readily visible and easy to understand. I'll even include the link to the online PDF were I got it from so you can go check it for yourself. Ever heard of the Shem-Tov Hebrew version of Matthew? It does not matter whether or not you accept it as legit for the simple purposes of this one little point, I myself do not, but it is useful in special situations such as this because it may give you a much better insight into the Hebrew mindset and way of thinking in this text. And even though this may only be a fourteenth century text, that fact even furthers the point that I make here, for it is not the age of the manuscript but rather the thinking that matters most for this point. Apparently the one who compiled and copied this text saw nothing wrong with the passage according to how he was reading it, (for he certainly made alterations elsewhere), and yet, in your mind you will no doubt think the passage in question sounds ridiculous, (Mat 21:7), just as your pal thought when I placed "it" following "them" in Mat 21:2.

adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/

See the yellow highlighting in both texts? Now you can take the Hebrew word in that form, (H5921 - עליה), and go investigate it on your own, it is used all over the place in many different examples. In this context it surely means "upon it" just as it is rendered in the yellow highlighting on the English translation side of the image file. I sincerely hope you will enjoy this, ehem, footage, you will certainly learn much more from this paper footage than the thirty-eight second BoobTube donkey video clip you posted.......or will you?

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

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

And it says “Bring them!”

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

 

[2003cobra]

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

I think it helps having an idea of the cause of Matthew’s revision, the misreading Of Zech 9.9 by the writers of Matthew.

Also, there is no reason in the text to assume that Matthew himself wrote the gospel named after him. It is more likely that his students compiled his teachings.

John is the only gospel that claims to be written by an eyewitness. And Luke says he investigated and interviewed eyewitnesses. So those facts should be considered as you make your assessment.

It is a pleasure corresponding with you.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What does Cobra do? He misreads and attributes all (QUOTES INCLUDED :doh: ) to Wallace, the very man against Guthrie's poor commentary (and Cobra, who largely agrees with Guthrie!) What does Cobra do? Cites an article AGAINST his own position, thinking it is Dr. Daniel Wallace COMPLETELY MISSING that it is Guthrie 1) he agrees with and 2) that the article is actually against, both Cobra and Guthrie. :doh: You can't make this stuff up, folks. lain:

Why anyone continues to engage this odd duck is bewildering. He needs to first come to grips with some of the essentials of the faith before waxing eloquent about the special revelation of that faith:
http://theologyonline.com/poll.php?pollid=1395&do=showresults

AMR

 

[Gary K]

When Paul wrote that he was referring to the OT not the NT which hadn't been formally canonised and even then we can not be sure exactly which books of the OT he was upholding, save the Torah most probably.

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

 

[2003cobra]

Why anyone continues to engage this odd duck is bewildering. He needs to first come to grips with some of the essentials of the faith before waxing eloquent about the special revelation of that faith:
http://theologyonline.com/poll.php?pollid=1395&do=showresults

AMR

And yet you can’t answer whether the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus or did not.

And you can’t say whether Jesus told the disciples to find and bring two animals or one animal.

Inerrancy is not an essential of the faith. It is not even mentioned in the scriptures.

As for the doctrine of the Trinity from your link, the fact that Jesus is God is clear in scripture. But the doctrine of the Trinity as presented by the Roman Catholic Church goes past what is revealed in scripture. I recognize it overstates what we can know, and it specifies where no specification is justified. So it may be right, and it may not be. That is a topic for a different thread.

I think the idea that man can define God is arrogant and wrong. I don’t pretend to try. I accept what the scriptures say about the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I don’t add to it as those who insist on the doctrine of the Trinity do.

Don’t comment on anything until you can define God? That is crazy talk.

 

[2003cobra]

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

If you read the context of 1 Timothy 3:16, you will find Watchman is correct.

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

The sacred writings Timothy had known from his youth is the topic.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

And yet you can’t answer whether the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus or did not.

And you can’t say whether Jesus told the disciples to find and bring two animals or one animal.

Inerrancy is not an essential of the faith. It is not even mentioned in the scriptures.

As for the doctrine of the Trinity from your link, the fact that Jesus is God is clear in scripture. But the doctrine of the Trinity as presented by the Roman Catholic Church goes past what is revealed in scripture. I recognize it overstates what we can know, and it specifies where no specification is justified. So it may be right, and it may not be. That is a topic for a different thread.

I think the idea that man can define God is arrogant and wrong. I don’t pretend to try. I accept what the scriptures say about the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I don’t add to it as those who insist on the doctrine of the Trinity do.

Well said.

Don’t comment on anything until you can define God? That is crazy talk.

I didn't check his link but this does sound like him.
I'm sure he is bewildered.