It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Two Jehovahs of Psalm 110

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
To locoman: If you need two gods to make your world go round, why don't you rather go to Babylon, Assyria and Ur to find you are not alone, instead of bothing us monotheists with linguistic locomotion?


www.sacred-texts.com...




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Locoman I want to ask you some simple questions.

Do you really believe there are two Jehovah God (s)? Or is this just a fantastical theory you have thrown out for discussion?

If so, are they equal?

Would not worshiping both make one an idolater?

What relationship does Jesus Christ have with them?
Which Jehovah created Jesus?

[edit on 28-10-2009 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
And the Spartans and the mid-Romans were oligarchs, supporting two rulers, so nothing was done without there being agreement to their facts. However, they were unable to sustain a stable ground beneath themselves, so they faded away. God is One, and he is mighty well informed, always doing what's right except when you are among the people he simply "haS" to remove....



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Hi Miriam

Actually Bart Ehrman WAS in the minority when he was a fundamentalist 'apologist scholar'--it was only when he actually touched some of these ancient MSS of the NT with his own hands and worked with them for over 20 years that he gradually over time became an Agnostic---he had waaaaaaay too much evidence in front of him that showed him beyond the shadow of any doubt whatsoever in his mind (echoing the conclusions of thousands of scholars worldwide) that the texts of the New Testament (like the Old Testament) were deliberately altered over time by hand-copyists, many of whom had their own theological agendas to fulfill when they did their copy--which accounts for alot of the differences between the manuscripts themselves--so 'god' did not protect anything like an exact transmission of the texts from the beginning.

Obviously if you think Bart Ehrman (who holds a Ph.D.) is not a mainstream scholar (he certainly is NOW, although one for a popular audience, so he has to dumb-down alot of his findings) then you do not know what 'mainstream' scholarship is.

His findings are all mainstream facts and have been well known and accepted for nearly a century by scholars in the field-- but their findings were ONLY kept within scholarly circles---and he thought it his duty (finally!) as a human being to share his findings with the general masses of people so that they will know more about what they have always been expected to believe in blindly. And it took him a long time before he finally said, 'I can face the raw facts now, whereas before my 'faith' would not let me'.

He is doing the job that scholarship perhaps should have done 50 years ago for the general public--but only now are people able to accept the harsh realities of the facts of these matters.

Dig into the renowned Yale Anchor Bible Series if you want to get a glimpse of what MAINSTREAM scholarship is saying nowadays--

Here are some 'serious' mainstream international theological scholars to check out the works of such notables as : David Noel Freedman, Martin Abegg, Craig Koester, C.H. Dodd, Joseph Blenkinsopp, C.K. Barrett, Julius Welhausen, Paula Fredriksen, Martin Noth, Anthony Gelston, William Propp, Frances Anderson, F.F. Bruce, Joseph Fitzmeyer, Dominic Crossan, Israel Finklestein, Ernst Renan, Raymond Brown, Rudolf Bultmann, John Allegro, John Rogerson, James H. Charlesworth, Geza Vermes, Joachim Jeremias, Florentino Martinez, Frank Cross, John Shelby Spong, Elliott Friedman, Jacob Migrom, E.A. Speiser, W.D. Davies and 500 others of their calibre---all saying the same thing about the sorry state of the MSS evidence of both OT and NT...

I'm not sure if you are conversant with the latest biblical scholarship? If not the Yale Anchor Bible Series is a great start for beginners !



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Locoman I want to ask you some simple questions.

Do you really believe there are two Jehovah God (s)? Or is this just a fantastical theory you have thrown out for discussion?

If so, are they equal?

Would not worshiping both make one an idolater?

What relationship does Jesus Christ have with them?
Which Jehovah created Jesus?

[edit on 28-10-2009 by Blue_Jay33]



It is a simple theory I threw out for discussion purposes and I don't find it too far-fetched of an idea. I specifically believe Jesus to be the Jehovah of the OT who came in human form as the Son of God to reveal the Father. The Father was an unknown diety to the Jews and ancient Israel as all they knew was Jehovah. God in use of "Elohim" refers to the family of God which currently consists of Jesus and the Father. When God created the heavens and the earth, it was Elohim.... or the two dieties working together... the Father as the mastermind or architect and Jesus as the creator or carpenter. To worship one God, in my humble opinion is to worship the Elohim or "Family of God". Jesus is obviously the lesser of the two who submits to the Father.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus
Obviously if you think Bart Ehrman (who holds a Ph.D.) is not a mainstream scholar (he certainly is NOW, although one for a popular audience, so he has to dumb-down alot of his findings) then you do not know what 'mainstream' scholarship is.


the man tried to use the book of mark's multiple endings to claim that the resurrection of jesus wasnt original doctrine...

he picks and chooses his findings



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
God in use of "Elohim" refers to the family of God which currently consists of Jesus and the Father.


you keep saying this like its established fact. do you have anything to prove this?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Hi Miriam-

Could it be that you DO NOT KNOW that the 2rd 'council approved canonical' Greek Gospel ('Mark' whoever he was) ends at 16:8

EPHOBOUNTO GAR ["the women were afraid because..." ] ; in the earliest MSS.

The 1st Gospel ('Matthew', whoever he was), and the 3rd gospel ("Luke", whoever he was) follow 'Mark' fairly closely up to that point and it is that point that they diverge.

Later MSS go their own way to fill in the gaps in the 2nd Gospel with different resurrection appearances, none of them matching.

Bart Ehrman [as almost every single scholars before him who likewise examined the textual evidence] wrestled with the 'missing-ending' of the 2nd gospel as it appears in the oldest Greek copies, and also examined the various later spurious 'endings' to the 2nd gospel which betray a different Greek style from the writer of the 2nd gospel proper (all of which use a diffferent Weltanschauung, syntax, sentence length, vocabulary, Christology, spelling &tc.).

Ehrman in the end concurred with the MAJORITY of scholars in that there is no actual 'resurrection appearances' in the actual surviving oldest text copies of the Greek of the 2nd gospel; spurious fake endings were tacked on by different copyists at different times and in different places, only to be recopied and adpated elsewhere.

These spurious endings don't match each other and are written in a later Greek style. The 2nd Gospel story ends abruptly in mid-sentence (it is gramatically IMPOSSIBLE to end a sentence with GAR, much more so to end an ENTIRE BOOK with GAR !) which depicts women running in some kind of fear/bewilderment from an empty tomb--again, in the middle of a sentence (which suggests the end of the scroll or the end of the codex was damaged or went missing over time (the Professor Burkitt hypothesis) or that the ending was somehow 'supressed' by later 'orthodox' hands who did not like what was in the text).

Bart Erhman is merely repeating MAIN STREAM BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP when he says the Resurrection appearances in the 2nd Gospel (whoever wrote it) are MISSING in the oldest MSS---which is backed up by evidence.

Misguided beliefs based on hearsay or a non-understanding of the true nature of these texts is very common among those who are not at all conversant with the material in their original languages, and who must forever rely on 'their pastor' or some such other propaganda artist for 'information' on these matters---most of which are kept from the masses.

It is tough medicine, but Bart had it up to his chin one day and finally said: let's tell the people the TRUTH.

But some people wish still to cling to their ignorance of facts staring them right in the face: Ehrman knows this all too well, because 15 years ago, he was one of them...



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus
The 1st Gospel ('Matthew', whoever he was), and the 3rd gospel ("Luke", whoever he was) follow 'Mark' fairly closely up to that point and it is that point that they diverge.

Later MSS go their own way to fill in the gaps in the 2nd Gospel with different resurrection appearances, none of them matching.


in other words, because matthew and luke are so similiar they had to be copying.

an assumption at best.

really, i dont feel like talking about the guy. i feel he's bias and exaggerates his findings.


Bart Erhman is merely repeating MAIN STREAM BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP when he says the Resurrection appearances in the 2nd Gospel (whoever wrote it) are MISSING in the oldest MSS---which is backed up by evidence.


again, its one thing to present a finding like that (which is true.). alot of modern bibles even explain marks multiple endings.

but its another to speculate based on that finding that the resurrection didnt happen.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by miriam0566]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566



jesus said "You must not put Jehovah your god to the test", because by jumping off the battlement, thats exactly what he would have been doing.


The Devil was trying to temp Jesus. This is correct
Was Jesus overcome by temptation? No he was not
Why? Because Jesus can not be overcome by temptation.
The Devil sure tried.


Jesus was quoting a command New American Standard Bible (©1995) deut 6:16 "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah."


This is correct. He was referring exodus 17:7 when the Children of Israel were trying to temp him.

Did they succeed in their attempt? No the did not
why? Because the lord cannot be overcome by temptation.
The Children sure tried.



One can only imply that Jesus was referring to himself as Jehovah?



no they cannot.


This is your opinion based on Watchtower belief
Millions of true Christians believe that Jesus was referring to himself as God.



jesus was actually tempted


As we determined. This is correct.


and had to make a stand for his rightousness.


You saying that Jesus was sticking up for god.?


GOD is not capable of being tempted


Your correct here also. God is not capable of being overcome by temptation.
Try all you wish.


james 1:13
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.


When Jesus was temped by the Devil, Jesus was not overcome by his temptation.

Why? because Jesus was without sin and not capable of being tempted.
(try all you want)

Which brings us back to James 1:13. "For God cannot be tempted by evil"

If Jehovah cannot be overcome by evil ( Duet 6:16)
(Although the children of Israel tried)
And Jesus was not overcome by evil
(although the devil tried and tried)

Wouldn't that mean that Jesus and Jehovah both cannot be overcome by evil
Wouldn't this mean that Jesus and God are one according to James 1:13 ?
l

if jesus was god, then satan's attempt was pointless and raises the question of why he did it in the first place.


Jesus was the son of God.( God in the flesh )
Satan's attempt was not pointless because Satan has always wanted to be in God's position. Though tempting God in the flesh he could have possibly achieved his goal.



still speaks against trinitarian co-equality. if Jesus is GOD then GOD is not greater than Jesus in any way.Figurative or real.


The same way your husband is greater than you -in position
(You were made by his rib bone in the flesh)

God the Father is greater than God the son- in position
(God the son was born unto man and is of flesh)

But is your husband better than you? no he is not. you are equal. you are one. ( here comes the happy couple)
Just like God the father is not better than God the son. They are equal. They are one.( The Alpha and Omega)


your not reading the scripture for what it is


Are we speaking of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, That only Jahovah Witnesses use?, or all of other versions which for the most part imply the same meaning from the original manuscripts.


your flavoring it with your own bias


You are the one who is blindly following a organizations beliefs on how the bible should be interpreted not me.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566

below is the Watchtower article of OCT 1st 1978 pages 13 - 19. would you please show me exactly where it makes that claim?


Your right I can't show you. Because this is a digital copy of a revised article and not the original.You can't get a original digital copy because it does not exist in digital.
The only way you can get an original copy is to go to a Kingdom Hall library and ask to see a copy.( they will not let you take one with you )

I have tried.

Why you are there, you might want to take a look at some these,

www.bible.ca...

As you can see this list is way to long to post here.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 



correction. the watchtower organization is a threat to christendom. they have been exposing the churches hypocracy for over 100 years


Sure all organizations can be somewhat corrupt.
Can you honestly say that the Watchtower organization is not?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Gan you all please stop bothering Miriam for her choices and religious freedom. Though I have a different approach to God than calling him Jehovah and condemn the system which created the name Jehovah, which is a misspelled, with a twisted understanding of Hebrew vocalisation.... Anyway, People should be allowed to believe what they want, and not be keelhauled by piouss or oposites. And---- Lets stick to thread topic ey?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
The Devil was trying to temp Jesus. This is correct
Was Jesus overcome by temptation? No he was not
Why? Because Jesus can not be overcome by temptation.
The Devil sure tried.


ill respond to the rest later. but i wanted to point something out. this is where your reason flies out the window.

why would the devil try to tempt someone he knows cant be tempted?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Gan you all please stop bothering Miriam for her choices and religious freedom. Though I have a different approach to God than calling him Jehovah and condemn the system which created the name Jehovah, which is a misspelled, with a twisted understanding of Hebrew vocalisation.... Anyway, People should be allowed to believe what they want, and not be keelhauled by piouss or oposites. And---- Lets stick to thread topic ey?


She has the freedom to believe in what ever she wants.

I totally respect her knowledge in the NWT, and appreciate the fact that she can hold her own. Most Jehovah Witnesses can't.

I look forward to debating with here. Hopefully I can learn something, and vise~versa.

What was the thread topic?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
I totally respect her knowledge in the NWT, and appreciate the fact that she can hold her own. Most Jehovah Witnesses can't.


if you were actually paying attention to anything i write, then you would realize that i was quoting from the king james.

is it possible you could answer my question please? even if by U2U



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
The Devil was trying to temp Jesus. This is correct
Was Jesus overcome by temptation? No he was not
Why? Because Jesus can not be overcome by temptation.
The Devil sure tried.


ill respond to the rest later. but i wanted to point something out. this is where your reason flies out the window.


I was clearly listening to you. And I have answered all your questions the best I can.


why would the devil try to tempt someone he knows cant be tempted?


Perhaps maybe the Devil does not know that God can't be tempted

Remember that God is a sovereign god. (all knowing)

Is the Devil a sovereign devil ?



[edit on 30-10-2009 by oliveoil]

[edit on 30-10-2009 by oliveoil]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
I totally respect her knowledge in the NWT, and appreciate the fact that she can hold her own. Most Jehovah Witnesses can't.


if you were actually paying attention to anything i write, then you would realize that i was quoting from the king james.

is it possible you could answer my question please? even if by U2U


I was paying careful attention to what you write.

As far as what bible you are using, It seems that you tend to switch back and forth form the NWT when you find it convenient.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Is the Devil a sovereign devil ?


Prolly one of the most sovereign ones who never needs to reherse or take care of himself! Every cell is counted for, no need to check up on what's going on. He'll win no matter whoot?!



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
To locoman: If you need two gods to make your world go round, why don't you rather go to Babylon, Assyria and Ur to find you are not alone, instead of bothing us monotheists with linguistic locomotion?


www.sacred-texts.com...


So much for decorum. I don't worship the gods of these places Neo! I worhship God and Jesus.... two dieties mentioned in the bible. Don't hold on the traditions of man known as "monotheism". It's just a word.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join