Originally posted by Evangelion
Ah, but none of those quotes from OS actually specify "the Father"
What? That's false. OS writes:
"Prove it! Prove that YHWH was not physically seen."
Upvote
0
Originally posted by Evangelion
Ah, but none of those quotes from OS actually specify "the Father"
Originally posted by Evangelion
But this does not specify the Father.
Besides, every Trinitarian I have spoken to has told me that Yahweh is also the name of the Son - and not just the Father.
I don't know why I'm wasting any time responding to this.
No one has proposed what you are saying
and it doesn't make any sense anyway.
Originally posted by Evangelion
It "makes sense" insofar as it is logical.
What is logical?
OS is claiming these things visibly took place.
believes the Father literally came down to Egypt riding on a cloud and set up a civil war and handed over the wicked Egyptians to a new king.
I don't have time to debate this, but you just seem to misunderstand what OS is asserting.
A vast overstatement, everyone does not agree Micah 1:2-4, was not fulfilled, in a physical-literal sense. While the language of Micah and Zechariah is somewhat similar it is not identical or nearly so. Micah 1 describes a natural phenomenon which has occurred many times, even in our lifetime. I recently saw this very thing, in Hawaii, on Discovery channel.Posted by GW[/b]
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 will see a lot of assertions and assumptions, from GW, and other preters, about, apocalyptic, Hebraic prophetic, genre, common symbols, phrases etc., etc., etc. but not one single piece of documentation from any Jewish source, whatsoever, to support these presumptions and presuppositions.Posted by GW
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.
Oh, no, no, no, my friend, now that is a polar opposite. We interpret the scripture by the scripture, not secular, pagan history. I do not have to prove, the creation, the flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or any other Biblical event or person, from anything except the Bible. According to pagan secular history, the exodus never happened, because there is no record of it in Egyptian history. For centuries, the secular world rejected the Bible because there was no external history of some of the peoples/nations mentioned in the Bible. Secular history says Moses, Abraham, Job, Jesus never existed, they are only legends and fairy tales. And for the umpteenth time I repeat nothing in the passage cited, states or implies that God visibly waged a war against Greece. You simply cannot and will not understand plain English.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.
Your assurances mean diddly squat. Were you there? Produce your evidence that the Bible is wrong and you are right.GW: I assure you, Yahweh was not optically seen doing any of those things in the Zechariah and Isaiah passages:
I have no quandary! In addition to merely stating direct conflict, you must also show how it supposedly is a conflict. As I do, for example, re: the verses you quoted above.Posted by P70
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".
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
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?
That is absolutely false I have never said any such thing. I have repeatedly said that YHWH did not personally lead any armies. I have said just the opposite. I did not say that YHWH personally killed anyone with a sword, spear, arrow or any other weapon. You are the one that repeatedly misunderstands and misquotes what I say. In the future why don't you use the "quote" feature at the bottom right of each post and my exact words will be copied into your response. Perhaps then you will not be constantly misquoting me.Originally posted by GW What is logical? That these fulfilled passage visibly happened, and that Jesus did it???
OS is claiming these things visibly took place. He believes the Father literally came down to Egypt riding on a cloud and set up a civil war and handed over the wicked Egyptians to a new king.
I don't have time to debate this, but you just seem to misunderstand what OS is asserting.
Albeit putting words in my mouth, what you think I will respond.Originally posted by Evangelion
You see, OS, I have been supporting your argument in your absence.
Perhaps the Love Team Motto is rubbing off on me...
I do not have to cite anything except the Bible. Have you ever heard the expression, "The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it?" If you believe that a particular passage is NOT literal, then you must prove it. And oh BTW you are always talking about what "all scholars" have said, where have you posted anything from any recognized Bible scholar?Originally posted by GW
Please cite any commentary that offers an argument that Jehovah physically, literally came down to earth and walked on the mountains, causing the valleys to be split and the mountains to melt (Micah 1:2-4). Simply put, scholars understand this is figurative language, and so is the nearly identical language in Zechariah 14:3-5 where Jehovah is again described in this way.
False! One again you are misquoting Micah. Micah says "the mountains shall be molten under him." Actually everything in creation is "under God." So your interpretation is certainly not the only one and you have presented nothing, but your own presuppositions, that this is the correct interpretation.Micah 1:2-4 says that Jehovah would exit the Temple and tread around on mountains, causing them to split and melt. Only those that believe Jehovah physically literally performed those things ascribed to him there have any ground to assert the near-identical language of Zechariah 14:3-5 mandates that Jehovah must physically, literally fulfill it. No one asserts Micah 1:2-4 was fulfilled in a physical, literal way. Neither can there then be any justification for claiming a literal fulfillment of the near-identical language of Zechariah 14:3-5.
Do you think that it will ever be possible for you to correctly quote me or any passage of scripture? Once again reading you own presuppositions into the text. Here is Gen 33:20 Please show us where it says it is a mere assertion that IF any man did see Jehovah, he would not physically be able to remain alive. This is God speaking.Posted by GW
Exodus 33:20 has no conflict with 1 John 4:12/John 1:18. Exodus 33:20 is a mere assertion that IF any man did see Jehovah, he would not physically be able to remain alive. It does NOT say God HAS ever been seen in such a way, and St. John affirms plainly that indeed NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD AT ANY TIME, which totally refutes your argument that MANY people have seen God. St. John says no man has seen God at any time. OS says says many men have seen God at many times. I'll go with St. John!
Albeit putting words in my mouth, what you think I will respond.