AD66-70: The Day the Son of Man was revealed

GW · Dec 3, 2002

Originally posted by Future Man

I'm a little tired right now, but I believe I am seeing a double standard. Yes, Zech14 was fulfilled in Micah, but this line of reasoning bites back in that the very "virgin birth prophecy" was initially fulfilled in 2Kings [I believe that is where anyhow], and later applied to Jesus in the NT.

God bless, Future Man.

I'm outa time for posting for a couple weeks. But my quick response:

I didn't say Micah was fulfilled in Zechariah's day. In fact, the Micah passage I cited was fulfilled in the 700s BC. The point is that that language is nearly identical between the Micah passage and the Zechariah passage. Anyone who insists on a physical-literal interpretation of the Zechariah passage ends up knocking heads with the nearly identical Micah passage, which everyone agrees was fulfilled, yet not in a physical-literal sense.

If you go back through this thread, you'll see that we have been studying APOCALYPTIC, which is a Hebraic prophetic GENRE with common symbols and phrases that describe Jehovah's "comings" in OT scriptures.

Christ's riches,
GW

GW · Dec 3, 2002

OS WROTE:
Yes Yahweh was literally seen and then He destroyed the pagan nations [Zech 9:13-16]. It was accomplished exactly as Isa 19:2 says.

GW:
I assure you, Yahweh was not optically seen doing any of those things in the Zechariah and Isaiah passages:

1 John 4:12
No one has seen God at any time

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time

Exodus 33:20
...no man can see Me and live

Furthermore, if you claim Yahweh was visibly seen during all these OT fulfilled apocalyptic comings by all these nations and peoples, doing all these warrior actions and apocalyptic destructions ascribed to Him, then HISTORY WOULD SURELY HAVE IT ON RECORD. Cite your historic support that Yahweh was optically seen over Greece and that he visibly waged a war against them. Surely this would be in the histories of Greece. Please cite your historic account of Yahweh's coming visibly down to Egypt.

I'll make that my final word. Forgive if I don't reply again for a few weeks. You may have last words if you wish, and others can take issue with your comments.

Blessings to you.

parousia70 · Dec 4, 2002

Originally posted by GW
OS WROTE:
Yes Yahweh was literally seen and then He destroyed the pagan nations [Zech 9:13-16]. It was accomplished exactly as Isa 19:2 says.

GW:
I assure you, Yahweh was not optically seen doing any of those things in the Zechariah and Isaiah passages:

1 John 4:12
No one has seen God at any time

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time

Exodus 33:20
...no man can see Me and live

I think it's the Hermeneutical principle called "analogy of faith" that says "no scripture can be interprated in such a way as to render it in direct conflict with what is clearly taught elsewhere". 

It dosen't get any more "Clearly taught", than the  above.

Direct Conflict....Hmmmm......  Hey OS......How bout I start using "Direct conflict" instead of "Polar opposite" each time I point out your quandry?

OldShepherd · Dec 4, 2002

Posted by GW:
It is evident that the various disasters of Isaiah 19 upon Egypt are personally doled out by Yahweh's coming. Yahweh rides a cloud down to Egypt (19:1). He leads a civil war in the country (19:2). Yahweh turns them over to the cruel Assyrian Monarch (probably Sargon). Yahweh brings disasters upon them (19:16). This passage was fulfilled, and serves as another strong context for how we are to understand the Lord's coming against Israel and the nations back in the first century when the commonwealth was destroyed, Rome burned, the demonized Temple worship both at Jerusalem and Rome were leveled, and the Kingdom of God triumphed as the New Covenant Church was established forever.

It is evident that the various disasters of Isaiah 19 upon Egypt are personally doled out by Yahweh's coming. Absolute utter nonsense. Personally? No such thing is evident. I have mentioned before, this is probably why you refuse to post the scriptures, because then you cannot misquote and put your spin on them. You did get one thing right, the verse does say, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt, that is the only part you have right.

Isaiah 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.

the demonized Temple worship both at Jerusalem and Rome were leveled Jesus walked, taught, and healed in the temple. Where is any evidence, from any credible source, whatsoever, which supports this asinine allegation that the Jewish temple worship was demonized?

He leads a civil war in the country (19:2). Here is vs. 2, where does it say God personally leads a civil war in Egypt? Note, the verb is I will set. not, I will lead. The book of Genesis shows that God creates by merely speaking. In Isa. 19, God initiated the judgment upon Egypt by speaking and excluded Himself from the conflict, i.e. they shall fight, not I or We shall fight. I know this contradicts the pre-T play book, but this verse does not state or imply that God personally led any army!

2 And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.

Yahweh brings disasters upon them (19:16). Yes, exactly as He said in the scriptures. God spoke, i.e. counseled, and determined, vs. 17, and Judah became a terror unto Egypt. Not by personally leading anyone or anything. There is absolutely nothing in this passage which states, implies, or suggests that God coming in the clouds, vs. 1, does not mean exactly what it says.

16 In that day shall Egypt be like unto women: and it shall be afraid and fear because of the shaking of the hand of the LORD of hosts, which he shaketh over it.
17 And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, every one that maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself, because of the counsel[/I] (etsah) of the LORD of hosts, which he hath determined (yaats) against it.

06098 עצה etsah ay-tsaw
from 03289; TWOT - 887a; n f
1) counsel, advice, purpose

03289 יעץ yaats yaw-ats
a primitive root; TWOT - 887; v
1) to advise, consult, give counsel, counsel, purpose, devise, plan.

Every single verse of scripture you have referred to, you twist in the same manner to make it fit your presuppositions and assumptions.

Previously I asked you to prove that the ancient nations, which the scriptures say God appeared to, did not actually see God. Prove it! Prove that YHWH was not physically seen. You responded with.

GW:
John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time

1 John 4:12
No one has seen God at any time

Exodus 33:20
But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"

Note particularly the exact words of God, Ex 33:20, No man can see Me and live. In all of your proof texts where God appears, what happened to those pagans nations after God appeared to them? As you, yourself, have so carefully pointed out, they were destroyed. So they did not see God and live, they saw God, and then they died, according to scripture! Any questions?

GW: You see, for as much as the prophets said Yahweh was seen leading marches and organizing wars, and launching arrows and bringing his sword to battles and such, they meant none of this in optical terms. Yahweh is not seen doing such things with earthly eyes, but with the eyes of faith and the understanding of the covenant promises.

Actually, no, I dont see. Again I repeat. You have not proved any of this. These are your assumptions based on your misquoting the passages.

Yahweh did not lead armies!

Yahweh did initiate wars by commanding, not by physically leading!

Yahweh launched lightning bolts, figuratively called arrows, as the scripture says.

Yahweh is not said to have brought a sword into battle.

Dont presume, read the verbs! God sent. God caused. God set. God made. God counseled. God determined.

Previously posted by OS Your God is incapable of causing the sun and moons to be dark, without destroying the world and all of mankind? Read Isaiah 55:8.

GW: Again, you show that you have a very long way to go on understanding the apocalyptic language of the Hebrew prophets. The prophets don't mean the literal cosmology is being destroyed--the use of such metaphors speak of downfall of kings and princes and civilizations.

Click to expand...

I have a long way to go? Why, because I have a brain and use it, I check the scriptures and references for myself, and will not blindly follow your false doctrine, based on misquoted and twisted scriptures and other resources? Again you show that you are incapable of reading my posts and responding to what I actually say.

The prophets don't mean the literal cosmology is being destroyed You are absolutely right, because the passage I referred to, Ezek 32:7, did not say the cosmos was destroyed, it said that the sun would be covered with a cloud and the moon and stars would be dark. You responded that was, impossible, the sun and moon could not be darkened without destroying the world.

Eze 32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.

How about a total eclipse, Mt. St. Helens eruption, or the burning oil fields in Kuwait, were the sun and moon darkened, without destroying the world? Was the sun and moon darkened at the crucifixion, without destroying the world? Show me a passage, one passage, in the O.T. which states that the heavens and the earth would be destroyed, and were not!

GW: The interpretation you offered up from the Zionists there was a laughable allegorical interpretation--it was a travesty of scripture. The book of Job is not some allegory for modern day political Israel and her Zionistic political hopes. What nonsense that was.

Blah, blah, blah. Racist, ad hominem sewage. Where did you prove that the Jewish source I quoted was Zionist? Where did you prove that being a Zionist automatically makes their interpretation of scripture wrong? And lastly where did you prove the interpretation was, in fact, wrong?

a laughable allegorical interpretation--it was a travesty of scripture. Now this is laughable, the pot calling the kettle black. You call the interpretation of Hebrew speaking Jews a laughable allegory and every scripture you have posted you have allegorized and spiritualized away Gods appearances. For example, God didnt really come in the clouds in Isa 19:1, that refers to the Assyrian army in chap. 20., blah, blah, blah.

Yes, I know it hadnt been written then but could Job have had the concept of Zech 14:3-4, in mind when he said I know that my redeemer lives, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth? After all, I clearly showed that Job prayed God would remember Him after his death, Job 14:12-14. I have previously posted pre-Christian documentation, the Jews understood Zech 14:3-4 as a messianic, end time, prophecy, not an allegorical, figurative, reference to foreign armies.

Zech 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

OldShepherd · Dec 4, 2002

Job 14:12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.
13 O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!
14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.

According to Acts 1, who departed from the Mount of Olives and the angels said He would return in the same way He departed. Which, Oh BTW, quite nicely fulfills the prophecy in Zech 14? But you allegorize that away as you do every other scripture.

An illogical explanation has been offered elsewhere that Christs departure from the mount of olives fulfilled Zech 14. But that is clearly nonsense, the angels clearly stated two actions, one, Christs departure, in the clouds, and two, His return in the same manner. But in order to make it fit the pre-T play book, we have to ignore the clear, irrefutable, statement of the angels. And we also have to ignore the pre-Christian Jewish interpretation of Zechariah 14.

GW: I trust that our readers here have the good sense and reading comprehension skills to see the pattern various OT apocalypses we are discussing and recognize how the apocalypse of the first century spoken of by Christ and the apostles fits perfectly within that prophetic, Hebraic context.

Im quite sure that the majority of readers are not blindly walking in lock step with their cult teachers, and have the good sense and intelligence to read what the scriptures actually say, versus your pre-T spin, and know exactly what they mean.

GW: Christ's coming at AD 66-70 was in the glory of the Father in exactly the way that the Jews understood the many comings of Yahweh in their history. They understood that, once again in their history, the day of the Lord was then at hand and they were the generation it had come upon. They fully recognized its arrival (Philippians 1:10; 1 Cor 1:7-8; Heb 10:25)!

What in the world are you going on about? You have not proved any Jewish understanding or Hebraic contextof the scriptures, whatsoever. You have not quoted or referenced one single Jewish source to back up this nonsense. I have. You read your convoluted doctrine back into the O.T., and twist the scripture to make it fit.

[/b]They fully recognized its arrival (Philippians 1:10; 1 Cor 1:7-8; Heb 10:25)! Proof positive you are reading your own presuppositions and assumptions into the texts. Every single one of these verses, the writer and audience is still waiting for Christs appearance. How could they have recognized its arrival (past tense) when it hadnt occurred yet? till the day of Christ, waiting! waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, definitely waiting! the day approaching, and still waiting!

Philp 1:10 That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ;
1 Cor 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

GW: C'mon, get your head in the game.

Click to expand...

No! You cmon, I am the only one with my head in the game. Unlike you, I quote authentic sources, which say exactly what I claim they do. I dont twist scriptures or allegorize away, what doesnt agree with my doctrine, as you do. You claim to speak for the Jews, what they understood about Gods appearances, but I am the only one posting Jewish sources and they contradict you.

I will post documentation later but I was doing some interesting reading last night, in Ignatius. Ignatius was a disciple of John the apostle, he wrote ca. 98-117 AD. Pre-Ts, argue against an early date for Revelation because John speaks about Judaizers, which would have been impossible after the destruction of the temple. Ignatius warns several churches against Judaizers, after the destruction of the temple. Therefore that argument is blown off the map.

If the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, 70 AD, was the day of Lord why did neither Polycarp nor Ignatius, both disciples of John the apostle, never mention it? More than once in his letters, Ignatius summarizes the history of Jesus, his preexistence, birth, life, suffering, crucifixion, resurrection, post resurrection appearances, and ascension to heaven but never once makes any statement about the so-called day of Lord, in 70 AD? Since, according to pre-Ts, this is the pivotal event in the history of Judaism and the church and John supposedly prophesied it in Revelation, he would surely have taught this to his students. But both Ignatius and Polycarp are completely silent on this momentous event. Assuming of course, that Jesus coming in the clouds and the day of the Lord was fulfilled by Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem.

Evangelion · Dec 4, 2002

Doodness!

OldShepherd · Dec 4, 2002

Originally posted by Evangelion
Doodness!

Boosting your post count?

Evangelion · Dec 4, 2002

LOL, no. It was another compliment.

I've seen somebody here with more than 10,000 posts. That would seem to render a "post count" contest utterly futile.

GW · Dec 4, 2002

OS, you're fooling yourself:

1 John 4:12
No one has seen God at any time

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time

No one has ever seen Yahweh optically. His comings were not optically visible. You're going to have to come to grips with this. The Hebrews spoke of spiritual realities and powers that brought about concrete desolations and judgments upon earth.

Finally, if you argue that Jehovah's being seen in some optical way is what resulted in all those OT desolations (which is clearly not the case, for who ever visibly saw Yahweh "come down, and tread upon the high places of the earth and melt mountains under him" during the Assyrian battles??? - Micah 1:3), then I can just as equally assert that the Christ being seen in some optical way is what resulted in the day of the Lord's vengeance of the first century (Luke 21:20-22; Matt 21:40-45). Christ promised his apostles that he was to return in their generation (Matt 24:33-34). He was no false prophet. The Day of the Lord's Vengeance indeed coincided with the fall of Jerusalem so that all things written were fulfilled (Luke 21:20-22).

Evangelion · Dec 4, 2002

Oh, he'll get around that one quite easily, GW.

The standard "Christophany" rebuttal is all he needs.

GW · Dec 4, 2002

Originally posted by Evangelion
Oh, he'll get around that one quite easily, GW.

The standard "Christophany" rebuttal is all he needs.

Do you write concerning 1 John 4:12?

1 John 4:12
No one has seen God at any time

Evangelion · Dec 4, 2002

I write concerning both of your proof texts.

Evangelion · Dec 4, 2002

Mark you, I am not saying that I believe the "Christophany" argument to be a valid one.

I am simply predicting that this is what he will use.

GW · Dec 4, 2002

Originally posted by Evangelion
Mark you, I am not saying that I believe the "Christophany" argument to be a valid one.

I am simply predicting that this is what he will use.

Do tell. What is the argument, precisely?

Evangelion · Dec 4, 2002

The standard "Christophany" argument is that the "Angel of Yahweh" who appears repeatedly in the Old Testament, is none other than Christ himself.

When confronted with your two proof texts, the Christophany proponent will counter with the claim that these refer only to the Father, and not to the Son.

Less sophisticated "Christophanists" (if I may use that expression) will also refer to I Timothy 3:16, not realising that this verse contains a well documented interpolation, and is therefore useless for their purposes.

GW · Dec 4, 2002

Originally posted by Evangelion

When confronted with your two proof texts, the Christophany proponent will counter with the claim that these refer only to the Father, and not to the Son.

But, Evangelion, OS is claiming that countless enemies of God in the OT times DID see the Father. Therefore, since you admit 1 John 4:12 says no one has seen the Father, the passage by logical necessity directly refutes Old Shepherd and anyone who might try to formulate a Christophanic view (which isn't being put forth by anyone anyway). All the passages we have been discussing say explicitly that Yahweh came down and did such and such, and Old Shepherd is taking the position that this means that Father Yahweh was visibly seen doing all those myriad things attributed to him. Such is error on his part, and it violates 1 John 4:12 directly.

The OT prophets knew that Jehovah wasn't visibly, optically seen doing any of those things, and so did St. John. But try telling that to OS.

Evangelion · Dec 4, 2002

GW -

But, Evangelion, OS is claiming that countless enemies of God in the OT times DID see the Father.

I have not seen any post from him in which OS specifically claims that it was the Father who was seen on these occasions.

If I have overlooked the post(s) in which this claim was made, this would be an ideal time to bring them to my attention.

Evangelion · Dec 4, 2002

Addendum -

Therefore, since you admit 1 John 4:12 says no one has seen the Father

I "admit" no such thing. I argue that it says "No man hath seen God at any time", and from this I infer that it necessarily excludes not only the Father, but (for Trinitarians) also the Son and the Holy Spirit.

the passage by logical necessity directly refutes Old Shepherd and anyone who might try to formulate a Christophanic view

I agree, but countless Trinitarians do not.

(which isn't being put forth by anyone anyway).

Give it time.

GW · Dec 4, 2002

Originally posted by Evangelion
I have not seen any post from him in which OS specifically claims that it was the Father who was seen on these occasions.

If I have overlooked the post(s) in which this claim was made, this would be an ideal time to bring them to my attention.

Sure thing. In post #104 of this thread:

OLD SHEPHERD TO GW:

"Previously I asked you to prove that the ancient nations, which the scriptures say God appeared to, did not actually see God. "Prove it! Prove that YHWH was not physically seen." You responded with:

GW:
John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time

1 John 4:12
No one has seen God at any time

Exodus 33:20
But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"

[OS's reply then is:]
Note particularly the exact words of God, Ex 33:20, No man can see Me and live. In all of your proof texts where God appears, what happened to those pagans nations after God appeared to them? As you, yourself, have so carefully pointed out, they were destroyed. So they did not see God and live, they saw God, and then they died, according to scripture! Any questions?

============

So you see, Ev, Old Shepherd is arguing that countless OT people saw Yahweh visibly and personally. He is in error for this, and you and I agree 1 John 4:12 would refute him fully.

Evangelion · Dec 4, 2002

Ah, but none of those quotes from OS actually specify "the Father" - and remember, that is the very loophole on which the Christophany argument relies.

Again; I do not believe that this argument is a valid one. However, I do believe that this is what he will use.

AD66-70: The Day the Son of Man was revealed

Veteran

Veteran

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Zaqunraah

Zaqunraah

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Zaqunraah

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Veteran

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Veteran

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Veteran

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Veteran

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Veteran

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Similar threads