language meaningful in Scripture ?

Bill_Coley

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

Concur God's ways are far beyond than human imagination (and beyond human limitations), which included a plan for One God to clearly be in two separate places at the same time: ruling in Heaven and the only spiritual being inside one holy human body (did not inherit human spirit with sin nature). "Plural unity" describes One God's heart, soul, and strength being unified while simultaneously having more than one mind.

The point of my post to which you respond here was to counter your claim, made in one of your previous posts, that one of my posts had implied the "Bible does not have a single scripture verse that supports assertion 'one man can NOT be True God'." In fact, my point was, there are at least two verses that strongly suggest God cannot be human, Isaiah 55.89 and Job 9.32.

In my view, there is no textual support for your assertion of a "plan for One God to clearly be in two separate places at the same time." On multiple occasions I have asked you for textual support for your claims of a "plural unity," or concepts similar to that (e.g. a "commUnity of love"). I'm not confident you have ever responded directly to those requests, but I AM confident you have yet to demonstrate such support in anything resembling a convincing manner.

One God's plan for dwelling in a holy human body had not happened before the time of Job. Hence Job is correct (as he complains in chapter 9), but his words lack support for assertion "one man can NOT be True God". Same is true of Numbers 23:19 words from God (through prophet Balaam) for King Balak....

Help me understand your point. Are you saying the Job and Numbers verses were correct - God could NOT be mortal - AT THE TIME of their creation, but then God changed the rules AFTER the writing of those verses?

...which provides an assertion opportunity: if can find any scripture showing Jesus lied, then Jesus cannot be God because God does not lie. FYI: scripture can plainly prove Peter is man who lied: Matthew 26:69-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:56-62, John 18:15-18, 25-27

I don't claim Jesus lied, nor do I understand the relevance of your raising the question of his truthfulness in the context of our current exchange. Please explain its relevance.

Seems conclusion about non-mortality of God restates belief assertion (assumption) "one man can NOT be True God" while ignoring God's ways.

This is your view, to which you're entitled. In my view, my conclusion about the non-mortality of God reflects an objective and defensible interpretation of the biblical text.

In contrast, Paul wrote in Colossians 2:8-9 (NLT) Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ. For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.

I don't understand the relevance of your reference to "empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking" in the context of our current exchange. Are you asserting that my view of the biblical text as declared in my posts in our exchange reflects "empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense"? If not, then please explain the point of your quoting Colossians 2.8-9.

John 1:14 begins with a simple assertion: The Word (subject) became (verb) flesh (object): ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (The Word flesh became), which shows emphasis of object destination (flesh) for The Word (with aorist verb tense declaring it happened while not providing time/action insight). Greek grammar of John 1:1 asserts The Word (ὁ λόγος) was fully being God (in the beginning) while God was being more than The Word.

I don't understand the significance of your Greek grammar summary. I also don't see in it a direct response to my claim that in John's prologue, the flesh the Word takes on is NOT the Word itself.

Hypothetical question: what happens to belief view if the blood of Jesus is proven to have 24 sets of chromosomes (complete complement of 23 sets from human mother and one "Y" set from God) ? FYI: one set from God included special bypass processing of comparison for gene dominance and submission. Normally humans have 23 pairs of chromosome sets (for a total of 46 sets).

In my view, this reflects genetic speculation that is far beyond the reach of either modern science or the biblical text.

To me, a prophet is a conduit for God's words (with prophecy fulfillment to be declared by God).

Common ground. Almost always a good thing.

The parable of the Vineyard and the Vinedressers in Matthew 21:31-46, Mark 12:1-12, & Luke 20:9-19 clearly shows difference between human prophets and the son (Jesus).

I see nothing in those texts that distinguishes in any substantive way between Jesus as a prophet and other human prophets. Please cite the specific verse(s) that in your view "clearly (show) differences."

Please note that Jesus appears to self-identify as a prophet in Luke 4.24, and in so doing, makes no effort to distinguish himself from Elijah and Elisha (Luke 4.25-27)

I also need to note that the three passages you cite all report the same scene, so effectively, you have cited one incident, not three.

Exodus 33:18-20 (NLT) Moses responded, “Then show me your glorious presence.” The Lord replied, “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and I will call out my name, Yahweh, before you. For I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose. But you may not look directly at my face, for no one may see me and live.”

Plural unity of God understands the throne of One God in Holy heaven has two minds occupying it, who intimately share one heart, one soul, one strength in One God's commUnity of Love.

Do you have a response to the biblical exegesis I offered of John 1.8, specifically that "(t)he word choice of many translations - that the one who is at the Father's side is "the only God" - makes no sense. The only God, by definition of the word "only," can't be at God's side... but the "only Son" - who is not God - can be"?

In context of Psalm 2, worship (serve) includes God the Father and God the Son genuinely as One God.

I agree with Wolfgang's assessment that Psalm 2 makes no mention or intimation of God as "Father" or "Son" or of God as "Father/Son/One God." Please specify the verse(s) which in your view make such mention.

[Deleted User]

@Bill_Coley wrote: (in reply to @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus )

... On multiple occasions I have asked you for textual support for your claims of a "plural unity," or concepts similar to that (e.g. a "commUnity of love"). I'm not confident you have ever responded directly to those requests, but I AM confident you have yet to demonstrate such support in anything resembling a convincing manner.

I am confident that 😀for_Jesus has never responded to your requests about providing textual support for his ideas of a "plural unity God" or a "commUnity of love God". The very simple reason for this lack is that there is no such textual basis to be found in Scripture.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Bill_Coley wrote: (in reply to @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus )

... On multiple occasions I have asked you for textual support for your claims of a "plural unity," or concepts similar to that (e.g. a "commUnity of love"). I'm not confident you have ever responded directly to those requests, but I AM confident you have yet to demonstrate such support in anything resembling a convincing manner.

@Wolfgang I am confident that 😀for_Jesus has never responded to your requests about providing textual support for his ideas of a "plural unity God" or a "commUnity of love God". The very simple reason for this lack is that there is no such textual basis to be found in Scripture.

Term "Plural Unity" describes Hebrew scriptures using singular and plural words for One God (previously discussed a bit). Hebrew also has dual so minimum number for plural is three. Term "commUnity of Love" came from my Pastor preaching about Genesis to describe God's nature of Love. Basic Search of my Logos library for "plural unity" finds 338 results in 33 resources while basic search for God NEAR "community of love" finds 449 results in 144 resources. Paragraph context of "plural unity" from Shedd's Dogmatic Theology (published in 1894):

Revelation represents God as “blessed forever.” This blessedness is independent of the universe which once did not exist and which he created from nothing. God, therefore, must find all the conditions of blessedness within himself alone. He is “blessed forever” in his own self-contemplation and self-communion. He does not need the universe in order that he may have an object which he can know, which he can love, and over which he can rejoice: “The Father knows the Son” from all eternity (Matt. 11:27), “loves the Son” from all eternity (John 3:35), and “glorifies the Son” from all eternity (17:5). Prior to creation, the eternal Wisdom “was by him as one brought up with him and was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him” (Prov. 8:30); the eternal Word “was in the beginning with God” (John 1:2); and “the only begotten Son” (or God only begotten, as the uncials read) was eternally “in the bosom of the Father” (1:18). Here is society within the essence and wholly independent of the created universe, and self-knowledge, self-communion, and blessedness resulting therefrom. But this is impossible to an essence destitute of these internal personal distinctions. Not the singular unit of the deist, but the plural unity of the trinitarian explains this. A subject without an object could not know (what is there to be known?), could not love (what is there to be loved?), and could not rejoice (what is there to rejoice over?). And the object cannot be the created universe. The infinite and eternal object of God’s infinite and eternal knowledge, love, and joy cannot be his creation because this is neither eternal nor infinite. There was a time when the universe was not; and if God’s self-consciousness and blessedness depend upon the universe, there was a time when he was neither self-conscious nor blessed. The objective God for the subjective God, therefore, must be very God of very God, begotten not made, the eternal Son of the eternal Father.

 William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 172.

When Jesus was asked what is the most important commandment in the law (Torah), He responded by quoting the beginning of The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) that includes "plural unity" in Hebrew followed by primary Love commandment, which is prayed 2+ times daily by Jews: Shema (hear & obey) Israel, Lord (singular) our God (plural) Lord is One (unity) and your are to love Lord (unity) your God (plural) with ...

Genesis 1:26 Let us (plural) make man in our (plural) image (unity) ... (us & our = God's commUnity of Love)

Phrase "Lord your God" occurs ~400 times in Hebrew declares Lord (unity) your God (plural).

Psalm 86:14-15 O אֱלֹהִיםGod (plural), insolent people rise up against me; a violent gang is trying to kill me. You mean nothing to them. But you, O אָדוֹן Lord (unity), are a אֵלGod (one) of compassion and mercy, slow to get angry and filled with unfailing love (One God's commUnity of Love) and faithfulness. 

Genesis 1:3 God (plural) said: "Let there be light (unity)"

1 John 1:5 God (singular) is light (unity); in Him there is no darkness at all. (Greek grammar shows all of light is God while God is more than light, which is similar to love: all of love is God while God is more than love plus The Word: all of The Word is God while God is more than The Word).

John 10:30 I and The Father (plural) are One (unity).

John 17:20-24 (in commUnity of Love) that includes Jesus knowing The Father loved Jesus before the creation of the world. if Jesus is not God, then The Father could not have loved Jesus before the creation of the world.

Curious about truthfulness of prayer in John 17 ? If Jesus lied about timing of The Father's love (would prove premise "one man can NOT be True God"), then what value do words of Jesus Christ have for dwelling in you ? (per Colossians 3:16)

Another commUnity of Love is Matthew 28:19 baptizing them in the name (unity) of The Father and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit (plural).

Ephesians 1:3-14 is one long Greek sentence that includes Father, Son, Holy Spirit in One God's commUnity of Love.

Keep Smiling 😀

Bill_Coley

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus postSmiling

Term "Plural Unity" describes Hebrew scriptures using singular and plural words for One God (previously discussed a bit). Hebrew also has dual so minimum number for plural is three. Term "commUnity of Love" came from my Pastor preaching about Genesis to describe God's nature of Love. Basic Search of my Logos library for "plural unity" finds 338 results in 33 resources while basic search for God NEAR "community of love"finds 449 results in 144 resources. Paragraph context of "plural unity" from Shedd's Dogmatic Theology (published in 1894):

With all due respect to the Mr/Dr Shedd you quoted, I asked for textual support for your ideas of a "plural unity" and "commUnity of love," so I move on to the other parts of your post.

When Jesus was asked what is the most important commandment in the law (Torah), He responded by quoting the beginning of The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) that includes "plural unity" in Hebrew followed by primary Love commandment, which is prayed 2+ times daily by Jews: Shema (hear & obey) Israel, Lord (singular) our God (plural) Lord is One (unity) and your are to love Lord (unity) your God (plural) with ...

Genesis 1:26 Let us (plural) make man in our (plural) image (unity) ... (us & our = God's commUnity of Love)

Phrase "Lord your God" occurs ~400 times in Hebrew declares Lord (unity) your God (plural).

Psalm 86:14-15 O אֱלֹהִיםGod (plural), insolent people rise up against me; a violent gang is trying to kill me. You mean nothing to them. But you, O אָדוֹן Lord (unity), are a אֵלGod (one) of compassion and mercy, slow to get angry and filled with unfailing love (One God's commUnity of Love) and faithfulness. 

Genesis 1:3 God (plural) said: "Let there be light (unity)"

To-date, I have encountered no convincing evidence that the plural Hebrew word "Elohim" actually refers to more than one God, or to some form of multi-dimensional godhead. In context and in the view of most scholars, Elohim is a plural noun that refers solely to the one and only one God. Here is a helpful, and admittedly lengthy, take on the subject: (emphasis added)

“The plural form of the word Elohim might be supposed to have some bearing on the question of unity. And, indeed, by many it has been supposed to bear testimony to the plurality of gods originally worshipped among the Semitic peoples; and by others, who seem to consider the name Elohim part of God’s revelation of Himself, to the plurality of persons in the Godhead. The real force of the plural termination … is not easy, indeed, to discover. But a few facts may lead us near it. In Ethiopic the name of God is Amlāk, a plural form also of a root allied to melek—a king. All Shemitic languages use the plural as a means of heightening the idea of the singular; the precise kind of heightening has to be inferred from the word. Thus water—מַיִם—is plural, from the fluidity and multiplicity of its parts; the heavens—שָׁמַיִם—from their extension. Of a different kind is the plural of adon—lord, in Hebrew, which takes plural suffixes except in the first person singular. Of this kind, too, is the plural of Baal, even in the sense of owner, as when Isaiah uses the phrase בְּעָלָיו אֵבוּם (1:3). Of the same kind, also, is the plural teraphim, penates, consisting of a single image. And of this kind probably is the plural Elohim—a plural not numerical, but simply enhancive of the idea of might. Thus among the Israelites the might who was God was not an ordinary might, but one peculiar, lofty, unique. Though the word be plural, in the earliest written Hebrew its predicate is almost universally singular. Only when used of the gods of the nations is it construed with a plural verb; or, sometimes, when the reference is to the general idea of the Godhead. This use with a singular predicate or epithet seems to show that the plural form is not a reminiscence of a former Polytheism. The plural expressed a plenitude of might. And as there seems no trace of a Polytheism in the name, neither can it with any probability be supposed to express a plurality of persons in the Godhead. For it cannot be shown that the word is itself part of God’s revelation; it is a word of natural growth adopted into revelation, like other words of the Hebrew language. And the usage in the words baal, adon, rab, and such like, similar to it in meaning, leads us to suppose that the plural is not numerical, as if mights, but merely intensifying the idea of might. Nor can it be shown to be probable that the doctrine of a plurality of persons should have been taught early in the history of revelation. What the proneness of mankind to idolatry rendered imperative above all and first of all, was strenuous teaching of the Divine Unity.” Davidson’s Theology of the O.T. pp. 99, 100 (T. and T. Clark).

Ryle, H. E. (1921). The Book of Genesis in the Revised Version with Introduction and Notes (p. 23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

1 John 1:5 God (singular) is light (unity); in Him there is no darkness at all. (Greek grammar shows all of light is God while God is more than light, which is similar to love: all of love is God while God is more than love plus The Word: all of The Word is God while God is more than The Word).

I don't understand the significance of your multiple "more than..." assertions. God is "more than" everything, but that doesn't prove the existence of a multi-dimensional godhead.

John 10:30 I and The Father (plural) are One (unity).

In my view, the oneness Jesus claims with his Father is not a oneness of divinity, but a oneness of purpose and will. There is no textual support for the claim that Jesus believed himself to be God.

John 17:20-24 (in commUnity of Love) that includes Jesus knowing The Father loved Jesus before the creation of the world. if Jesus is not God, then The Father could not have loved Jesus before the creation of the world.

Proper contextual understanding Jesus' perception of his relationship with God as expressed in his John 17 prayer must include John 17.3, wherein Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and "the only true God":

And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

Curious about truthfulness of prayer in John 17 ? If Jesus lied about timing of The Father's love (would prove premise "one man can NOT be True God"), then what value do words of Jesus Christ have for dwelling in you ? (per Colossians 3:16)

As I posted earlier in our exchange, I do not claim that Jesus lied.

Another commUnity of Love is Matthew 28:19 baptizing them in the name (unity) of The Father and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit (plural).

There are consequential issues regarding the authorship and history of inclusion of Matthew 28.19.

Ephesians 1:3-14 is one long Greek sentence that includes Father, Son, Holy Spirit in One God's commUnity of Love.

I infer from your responses that "commUnity of Love" is your personal phrase for the Trinity. Am I correct?

As for Ephesians 1.3-14, I see a clear distinction between God - who is the Father of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1.3) - and Jesus. For example, Ephesians 1.5:

God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. This is what he wanted to do, and it gave him great pleasure.

Your post does not respond to several requests I made of you in MY PREVIOUS POST, so I offer them again:

• Help me understand your point. Are you saying the Job 9.32 and Numbers 23.19 verses were correct - God could NOT be mortal - AT THE TIME of their creation, but then God changed the rules AFTER the writing of those verses?
• I don't understand the relevance of your reference to "empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking" in the context of our current exchange. Are you asserting that my view of the biblical text as declared in my posts in our exchange reflects "empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense"? If not, then please explain the point of your quoting Colossians 2.8-9.
• I don't understand the significance of your Greek grammar summary. I also don't see in it a direct response to my claim that in John's prologue, the flesh the Word takes on is NOT the Word itself.
• Do you have a response to the biblical exegesis I offered of John 1.8, specifically that "(t)he word choice of many translations - that the one who is at the Father's side is "the only God" - makes no sense. The only God, by definition of the word "only," can't be at God's side... but the "only Son" - who is not God - can be"?

[Deleted User]

A simple observation regarding the plural Hebrew word Elohim: As with any other word or expression, the correct meaning of a word or passage is derived from its use and usage in the respective context in which it is used.

The plrual word Elohim is used in two main usages: (1) when the context indicates that it is speaking of plural / multiple persons, and (2) when the context indicates it is speaking of a single person.

In the case of a reference to multiple persons, the translators of Bible versions usually translate the term with the English plural word "GODS". In case of a reference to only one single person, the correct translation is the English single word "GOD". Thus, where the word refers to the one true God, the terms is always - and correctly so (!) - translated in singular as GOD! In case of reference to false multiple persons/ gods, the translators correctly translate as plural "GODS"

The use of the plural form Elohim for the true single GOD furthermore emphasizes the greatness and supremacy of the ONE, Who Alone is True God, over all the other various multiple "gods"

[Deleted User]

Hi everyone,

for those interested in the use of figures of speech in the Bible, here are some verses to consider:

Lk 16,29   Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

Lk 16,31   And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

DId those people spoken of really HAVE Moses and the prophets? Is this literally true or did the author make a mistake with the wording?

Joh 5,46   For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Was Moses alive and preaching among the people in Jesus' time sp that they could hear and believe Moses? What is with this strange wording?

Apg 6,11   Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and [against] God.

How did Stephen blaspheme against Moses and against God? Had Moses and God been around so that Stephen could have blasphemed against them? What about understanding this passage literally? Were Stephen's accusers making false accusations?

2Kor 3,15   But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

Moses is read? How can this be literally understood ?

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Wolfgang for those interested in the use of figures of speech in the Bible, here are some verses to consider:

Lk 16,29   Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

What does the acronym TNK (TaNaKh) for Hebrew scriptures mean ? How are Hebrew scriptures organized ?

@Wolfgang Joh 5,46   For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Was Moses alive and preaching among the people in Jesus' time sp that they could hear and believe Moses? What is with this strange wording?

What did One God inspire Moses to write about Jesus in the Torah (Teaching) ? e.g. the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15

@Bill_Coley so I offer them again:

Help me understand your point. Are you saying the Job 9.32 and Numbers 23.19 verses were correct - God could NOT be mortal - AT THE TIME of their creation, but then God changed the rules AFTER the writing of those verses?

One God conceived a plan before creation of the world, which included design for the seed (one offspring) of the woman in Genesis 3:15 to have a human body indwelled by The Word (eternally & fully God), which Paul echos in Colossians 2:9 (NLT) For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.

Job 9.32 and Numbers 23.19 state God is not a man, which was True at the time of Holy Inspiration along with One God's plan to clearly be in two separate places at the same time: e.g. Immanuel prophecy in Isaiah 7.14 with specific fulfillment in Matthew 1.23 (while Immanual has a generic fulfillment in Isaiah 8).

Part of One God's plan fulfillment is recorded in Matthew 1:20-21 (NLT) As he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. “Joseph, son of David,” the angel said, “do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For the child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit. And she will have a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 

I don't understand the significance of your Greek grammar summary. I also don't see in it a direct response to my claim that in John's prologue, the flesh the Word takes on is NOT the Word itself.

Suggest researching "Colwell's Rule" with John 1:1 implications: e.g. Chapter 6 in Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 3rd ed. plus Application of Colwell’s Construction to John 1:1 starting on page 266 in Greek Grammar beyond the Basics

Also suggest researching purpose of Greek definite article being a finger pointer so The Word in John 1:1 is The Word in John 1:14

Please provide scripture support for "the flesh the Word takes on is NOT the Word itself". Stilted literal translation of first phrase in John 1:14

ὁ λόγος The Word (is the subject, same as The Word in John 1:1)

σὰρξ flesh (or body is the object with Greek word order to emphasis what The Woed became)

ἐγένετο became (simple statement)

John 1:14 simply states The Word became flesh.

I don't understand the relevance of your reference to "empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking" in the context of our current exchange. Are you asserting that my view of the biblical text as declared in my posts in our exchange reflects "empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense"? If not, then please explain the point of your quoting Colossians 2:8-9.

My experience using S.O.A.P. (Scripture Observe Apply Pray) suggests reply answers the question "What jumps out?" from Scripture. Next question is "What does God want you to do?". Another reason for quoting Colossians 2:8-9 was not mentioned in reply: e.g. Paul declares The Christ (Jesus) was fully God in a human body.

Do you have a response to the biblical exegesis I offered of John 1.8, specifically that "(t)he word choice of many translations - that the one who is at the Father's side is "the only God" - makes no sense. The  God, by definition of the word "only," can't be at God's side... but the "only Son" - who is not God - can be"?

John 1.8 does not have a word that has been translated "only" while John 1.18 has μονογενὴς that has a range of word meaning that includes only (as in only unique one). Translation of μονογενὴς as "only-begotten" goes back to Jerome. Parallel verse to John 1.18 is John 17.24 where Jesus remembers The Father loving Jesus before the world was created. Only One God existed before creation.

Keep Smiling 😀

[Deleted User]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Wolfgang for those interested in the use of figures of speech in the Bible, here are some verses to consider:

Lk 16,29   Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

What does the acronym TNK (TaNaKh) for Hebrew scriptures mean ? How are Hebrew scriptures organized ?

what does your question have to do with the point in my post which you cited?

@Wolfgang Joh 5,46   For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Was Moses alive and preaching among the people in Jesus' time sp that they could hear and believe Moses? What is with this strange wording?

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

What did One God inspire Moses to write about Jesus in the Torah (Teaching) ? e.g. the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15

So you acknowledge that Jesus was not talking in a literal sense of the person Moses when he mentioned that those folks should have believed "Moses", rather he was using the name "Moses" as part of a figure of speech for THE WRITINGS of Moses?

Indeed, my post pointed out that in these verses one must recognize the use of a figure of speech in order to understand the statements correctly

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Wolfgang for those interested in the use of figures of speech in the Bible, here are some verses to consider:

Lk 16,29   Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

What does the acronym TNK (TaNaKh) for Hebrew scriptures mean ? How are Hebrew scriptures organized ?

@Wolfgang what does your question have to do with the point in my post which you cited?

Torah is Teaching (or Law) that One God inspired Moses to write: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

Nevi’im is Prophets that One God inspired to be written: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve (Minor Prophets)

K’tuvim is Writings that One God inspired to be written: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Five Scrolls (Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles

Hebrew scriptures inspired by One God began to be written hundreds of years after Abraham (Luke 16,29 is referring to the person Abraham). The phrase "Moses and the prophets" is a Jewish figure of speech for 24 books of the Holy inspired Hebrew scriptures, which includes 613 mitzvot (commands) from One God in the five books of Moses.

@Wolfgang Joh 5,46   For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Was Moses alive and preaching among the people in Jesus' time sp that they could hear and believe Moses? What is with this strange wording?

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

What did One God inspire Moses to write about Jesus in the Torah (Teaching) ? e.g. the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15

@Wolfgang So you acknowledge that Jesus was not talking in a literal sense of the person Moses when he mentioned that those folks should have believed "Moses", rather he was using the name "Moses" as part of a figure of speech for THE WRITINGS of Moses?

@Wolfgang Indeed, my post pointed out that in these verses one must recognize the use of a figure of speech in order to understand the statements correctly

Holy Scriptures were inspired by One God to Jewish authors, who used Jewish figures of speech. An example is John 5,46 where Jesus uses "Moses" so Jewish hearers understood reference to the first five books of Holy Scriptures written by Moses. john 7,37 "last day of the festival" is a Jewish figure of speech whose meaning is hidden from those unfamiliar with Jewish culture and Holy Scriptures.

Keep Smiling 😀

[Deleted User]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

Holy Scriptures were inspired by One God to Jewish authors, who used Jewish figures of speech. An example is John 5,46 where Jesus uses "Moses" so Jewish hearers understood reference to the first five books of Holy Scriptures written by Moses.

The figure of speech used is metonymy by which the author/writer is put for the writings ... "Moses" is used in place of "the writings of Moses". This has nothing really to do with "Jewish figure of speech", it is a commonly known figure of speech in various cultures and many languages. This same figure is used, for example, when I say that "the pianist played Beethoven" ... the pianist did not play the person Beethoven (whose been dead for centuries) but played a piece of music composed by Beethoven.

Here's an interesting example: "The audience listened to {name of living author}" ... what is meant? The statement could mean that the audience was at a meeting where the author was publicly reading or speaking (in which case the author's name is used in its literal sense to indicate ther person); it could mean that the audience was at a meeting where works of the author were read (perhaps by someone other than the author (in which case the statement uses the figure metonymy and the name of the author stands for the author's work that was read).. What would determine which meaning would be correct? The correct meaning would be gained from the context of which the statement is a part.

john 7,37 "last day of the festival" is a Jewish figure of speech whose meaning is hidden from those unfamiliar with Jewish culture and Holy Scriptures.

The expression "last day of the festival" involves no figure of speech at all but is meant literally and speaks of the last day of a certain festival. The meaning is thus not hidden at all. A person who is not familiar with festivals spoken of in the context may not understand exactly which festival is referenced ... but that has nothing to do with having a knowledge of figures of speech or not.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

John 7,37 "last day of the festival" is a Jewish figure of speech whose meaning is hidden from those unfamiliar with Jewish culture and Holy Scriptures.

@Wolfgang The expression "last day of the festival" involves no figure of speech at all but is meant literally and speaks of the last day of a certain festival. The meaning is thus not hidden at all. A person who is not familiar with festivals spoken of in the context may not understand exactly which festival is referenced ... but that has nothing to do with having a knowledge of figures of speech or not.

Babylonian Talmud Tract Succoth Chapter V includes:

MISHNA: He who has not witnessed the rejoicings at the water-drawing has, throughout the whole of his life, witnessed no real rejoicing. ...

GEMORA: The rabbis taught: Who has not seen the rejoicing at the drawing of water, has not seen a real rejoicing in his life. ...

 Michael L. Rodkinson, tran., The Babylonian Talmud: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English, vol. 7b (Boston, MA: The Talmud Society, 1918), 77.

John 7,37 "last day of the festival" is a Jewish metonymy for water drawing duing the festival of Succoth (Tabernacles). While water drawn from the pool of Shiloam is poured out at the Temple altar, Isaiah 12 is read, which has meaningful context for the rest of John 7,37 (especially Isaiah 12,3).

Keep Smiling 😀

[Deleted User]

John 7,37 "last day of the festival" is a Jewish metonymy for water drawing during the festival of Succoth (Tabernacles). While water drawn from the pool of Shiloam is poured out at the Temple altar, Isaiah 12 is read, which has meaningful context for the rest of John 7,37 (especially Isaiah 12,3)

instead of "looking for meaning behind the text", it is advisable to simply read the text and acknowledge text and context that is written. Things you gather from Mishnah and Gemora quotes relate to a particular action happening during the course of festival to which the quotes refer. However, that does not mean that the expression "last day of the festival" is used as part of a figure of speech to refer to that particular action, rather it simply tells the time when what is then recorded happened.

Now, what you are most likely trying to say is that in Jesus' following statement about "... If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink...", he indirectly referenced that action and transferred it to a spiritual truth connected with the accomplishments of his mission.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

John 7,37 "last day of the festival" is a Jewish metonymy for water drawing during the festival of Succoth (Tabernacles). While water drawn from the pool of Shiloam is poured out at the Temple altar, Isaiah 12 is read, which has meaningful context for the rest of John 7,37 (especially Isaiah 12,3)

@Wolfgang instead of "looking for meaning behind the text", it is advisable to simply read the text and acknowledge text and context that is written.

Please explain "looking for meaning behind the text" assertion. My reply summarized historical cultural context of John 7,37

By the way, what is Mishnah and Gemora ?

@Wolfgang Now, what you are most likely trying to say is that in Jesus' following statement about "... If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink...", he indirectly referenced that action and transferred it to a spiritual truth connected with the accomplishments of his mission.

Puzzling assertions (using words that are different than mine). Please explain "he indirectly referenced that action and transferred it to a spiritual truth connected with the accomplishments of his mission." (since intended meaning did not communicate to me)

Keep Smiling 😀