Timothy
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
TimothyKeymaster
Sam,
Sorry for the delay. The sacrifice for sin had to be human not divine. The shedding of blood is not possible for a divine Being who is immortal and has no blood. On the other hand, a mere human (one of God’s billions of creatures) could not be the sacrifice for sin, because in that case God Himself could not take upon Himself any of the consequences of our sin.
“Kenosis” is the solution to this problem. God begat a Son, the “only-begotten of the Father,” who was His apprentice in creation, His Agent in communicating with man, the Son He has been grooming to become “King of kings and Lord of lords.” This is the “only-begotten Son” whom God gave to become flesh and die, because “God so loved the world.” The same “Son of God” was the Agent through whom God created all things (Col. 1:15-17) is the Son of God through whom He is reconciling all things to Himself (Col. 1:20).
In this model of redemption God takes upon Himself the anguish and responsibility of the atonement by doing what He asked Abraham to do — “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Gen. 22:2 NKJ). It is important to understand that Abraham’s sacrifice was to be at least as great as Isaac’s sacrifice. This is THE model of the redemption of man.
Unfortunately, Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, Modalism, and Arianism all greatly diminish God’s own sacrifice which demonstrates the extent of His love for humanity. Consequently, all of these diminish the Gospel which (in its unpolluted form) “is the power of God to salvation to everyone who believes.”
In 1 John 1:2 the Son was called “the age-enduring Life” because He was the first “Life” apart from God (immortal), and He is the one through whom we will receive immortality. After becoming mortal man and after dying to make atonement for us, He was raised to immortality as the prototype for what God will do for us also in the resurrection.
TimothyKeymasterYes, “he” should not be capitalized. Thanks for catching that. The preposition εἰς means “unto, into, for,” – extent. The idea is that he would not see death for the duration of the age. Again, IMO, that is the age to come. This phrase refers to indefinite time as opposed to infinite time, same as the Hebrew “olam.” It does not indicate an “end” but at the same time it does not necessarily mean “endless.” Here is how Young’s Literal Translation renders this verse: “Verily, verily, I say to you, If any one may keep my word, death he may not see — to the age.’ (Jn. 8:51 YLT)
TimothyKeymasterSam,
The clause εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα “unto the age” can refer to the present age or the Kingdom age. IMO, it must refer to the Kingdom age otherwise it would be saying that Christians cannot die.
July 12, 2023 at 10:34 am in reply to: Due to the Use of Greek Lestes and kakourgos for Thief 4 men were crucified?. #4742TimothyKeymasterRaymond,
This is complete nonsense. First, the alleged distinction between λῃσταί (robbers) in Matthew & Mark and κακούργους (criminals) in Luke is not a real distinction, since these terms are not mutually exclusive. “Robbers” are “criminals.” The term “robber” is more specific, but “criminals” includes robbers. If Luke intended to indicate two more other than those mentioned by Matthew and Mark he would have used a specific term which described their crimes as something other than robbers. The term “criminals” is generic and includes any crime punishable by death. Since Luke stated that there were two “criminals” (which includes “robbers”), there could not be four “criminals.”
His claim that the Greek of John 19:18 supports two men crucified on each side of Jesus (for a total of four) is wrong. καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἄλλους δύο, ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν, μέσον δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν, (and with Him two others, here and there, but in the midst Jesus). That there were only two others and not four is also indicated by vs. 32: “Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him.” The critical point is that τοῦ ἄλλου (“the other”) is singular, which necessarily means there were only two crucified with Jesus. All four Gospels agree on this point.
There is no difficulty at all with the idea that both men at first ridiculed Jesus, but that one of them had a change of heart while hanging on the cross for several hours, especially after the supernatural sign of the sun turning dark for 3 hours while they were hanging there.
Whoever wrote that piece seems to be attempting to undermine some other text (1 Cor. 12-14) by providing an example of bad translation regarding the two thieves. But he obviously does not know what he is talking about. His excessive use of hyperbole and absurd metaphor, and his use of foul language, are also evidence that he is not being objective, but has an ax to grind.
TimothyKeymasterThat would be my guess. They are calling for “peace” and “security.” Also, in Jer. 6:13-14 & Jer. 8:10-12 the false prophets prophesied “peace” when God has declared judgement.
TimothyKeymasterSam,
I agree with your last post. I would also add that what Jesus told Nicodemus, “Unless a man be born again, he cannot SEE the Kingdom of God,” and again, “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot ENTER the kingdom of God,” these words were spoken in a very limited context. That context was the fact that the Jewish leaders (particularly the Pharisees), had placed their “hope” in achieving an inheritance in the Kingdom in two things:
1. Their physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
2. Their outward adherence to the Law of Moses.Jesus repeatedly condemned them as “hypocrites” (see Mat. 23), and He challenged the validity of their physical descent from Abraham in John 8:33-59. When they said, “Abraham is our father” (v. 39) Jesus said, “You are of your father the devil” because their “works” revealed that they were not Abraham’s descendants in God’s sight because they did not do the works of Abraham.
So, within THIS context, speaking to Nicodemus a Pharisee, Jesus made the above statements in John 3. These words were not intended to make an all-inclusive theological claim about all mankind, but addressed these Pharisees of whom Nicodemus was a part. In other words, unless they embraced the Gospel they would have no part in the resurrection of the just.
TimothyKeymasterSam,
The general principle behind Sharp’s rule usually holds true. But Sharp pressed it too far in attempting to find the “deity of Christ” in certain passages where that was not the intent. Sharp defined the rule too narrowly by excluding plurals and impersonal nouns, rather than allowing those Sharp constructions to help define the intent of this construction. Sharp was trying to claim that the rule indicates that two nouns of the same case always refer to the same PERSON. But the truth of the matter is that the two nouns that fit the first rule are indeed being joined together in a unit for some important reason, but not necessarily to make them refer to the same person (although sometimes they do). For example, the plural nouns “the scribes and Pharisees” fit Sharp’s construction except they are plurals. So he excluded plural nouns because they falsified his rule. Obviously they cannot refer to the same people. However, they are intentionally being joined into one unit, the single group that was opposing Jesus. Sharp also excluded all non-personal nouns (which also falsified his rule) and even singular personal nouns which were proper names, again because they falsified his rule. Sharp’s rule is helpful in exegesis to show that the writer’s intent was to join two persons, classes, or things into a single entity, group, or event without necessarily indicating that the two nouns are identical. This broader understanding fits well with Titus 2:13 where the two nouns are not personal, “the blessed hope and glorious appearing.” The 2 nouns are being joined by this construction into a single group, while not being made identical with each other. In Titus 2:13, the “glorious appearing” is Christ’s coming to defeat the Antichrist and armies of the nations when every eye will see Him. The “blessed hope” is our being gathered to Him at that event. They are joined here because both events occur at the same TIME, not because both terms are identical.
There are other problems with the way that Sharp applied his rule to persons, in part because there are other ways that a noun can be made definite in Greek without using the definite article. For example, in the same verse in the clause, “the great God and our Savior,” Sharp applied his rule to show that Jesus is called “the great God,” because “great God” has the definite article, but Savior does not. However, the genitive “our” (of us) makes the second noun definite by identifying WHOSE Savior. So in reality, both nouns are made definite in this clause, but in different ways (one by the article and the other by the genitive of possession). The sense is then to distinguish them (as Sharp’s 2nd rule does) not make them refer to the same person.
TimothyKeymasterSam,
While chapters 2-3 deal with the “things which are” (the seven churches which existed in John’s day), the promises attached to each do indeed concern the future. This is apparent because most of them deal with the Kingdom. For example, to the overcomers in Ephesus, Jesus promised they would eat of the Tree of Life. To Smyrna, the overcomers would not be subject to the second death. To Thyatira, the promise to the overcomers is they would rule the nations with a rod of iron (a reference to Psalm 2). So while the circumstances Jesus was addressing certainly existed at the time John wrote, all of the promises are about the distant future.
TimothyKeymasterJoe,
The oldest manuscripts and the vast majority of manuscripts have ἀσελγείαις which means “sensual” or “licentious.” The KJV was made from only a handful of very late Greek manuscripts and considering the Latin Vulgate. Apparently ἀπωλείαις (“destructive ways”) was found in some of the late manuscripts which they had.
TimothyKeymasterDave,
Sorry for the delay. Yes, I have been extremely busy. The articles you found explain my position. I do not think you should create division. As long as you are tolerated, there is no problem continuing to fellowship, IMO. However, unless you remain totally silent on this topic, you probably will eventually be asked to leave. IMO, your best approach would be to have conversations only with the pastor and other leaders elders or deacons. If you confine your discussions to them, and let them know that this is what you are doing, they may not feel as threatened and be more willing to have frank discussions.
TimothyKeymasterPramod,
Questions about the LGV would probably be better in the forum marked “Exegesis of Specific Passages.”
TimothyKeymasterThanks for catching that. I corrected it. 🙂
TimothyKeymasterRoman,
I do not think God is ever surprised by any event, nor does He change His mind. Since it was always the Son who interacted with mankind as God’s agent, and not the Father Himself, I take all of these kinds of statements as referring to the Son. Since the Son had an origin, His experience was limited to time since creation. So He was learning by experience, IMO.
TimothyKeymasterNo problem. My pleasure.
TimothyKeymasterAnders,
I view the numbered seals, trumpets, and bowls as necessarily taking place sequentially. Also, the three woes must take place sequentially. However, within the description of the seals and trumpets there are parenthetical sections. These sections are not themselves part of the numbered sequences but add further details or answer anticipated questions about what has been mentioned before. For example, between the sixth and seventh seal there is a parenthetical section which deals with the 144,000 from the 12 tribes. Remember, the sixth seal is the second coming of Christ with the cosmic signs. This parenthetical section answers the anticipated question, “What happens to the faithful remnant of Israel during the preceding seals which occur during the great tribulation?” This section is not sequential. It does not describe something that occurs AFTER the second coming, but rather BEFORE the entire sequence. It shows that 12k from each tribe of Israel will be preserved by God during the testimony of the two prophets (described in Rev. 11), which coincides with seals 1-4, and then the place of safety where the woman flees to the wilderness (developed in Rev. 12), but coincides with seals 5-6.
The same is true with the trumpets. The three “woes” are trumpets 5-7. They are called “woes” to let us know that this is much more severe than the first 4 trumpets, and they occur during the last 3.5 years which is called “great tribulation.” Yet between trumpets 6 & 7 (woe 2 & 3), there is another parenthetical section which takes us back to the very beginning of the 70th week, with the 2 prophets prophesying for 1260 days. All of Rev. 10:1 – 11:13 is this parenthetical section. The first woe (5th trumpet) is Rev. 9:1-12. The second woe (6th trumpet) is Rev. 9:13-21. The third woe (7th trumpet) is Rev. 11:14-19, the second coming of Christ. The worshippers at the temple and the two prophets are not part of the 2nd woe (6th trumpet).
One more thing. If the bodies of the two prophets are left to rot in the streets of Jerusalem for the entire 42 months of the great tribulation, then who are the persons referred to in Rev. 12:6 by the plural personal pronoun “they” (NKJV)? “Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that THEY should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days” (Rev. 12:6 NKJ)? The verb is τρέφωσιν, (subjunctive mood, active voice, 3rd person, plural). This requires an implied PLURAL subject which does the feeding. If it was “she might be nourished” as in the NASB, NIV, ESV, etc. the verb would have to be in the passive voice. If it referred back to God in the same verse, it would have to be singular. The fact that it is third person and active voice means there is an implied subject doing the action to her. That it is plural in number means that the implied subject must be more than one. This is the same as using the plural personal pronoun “they” which is why the KJV, NKJV, DRV, ETH, YLT all put it in the active voice and add the plural personal pronoun “they,” requiring an antecedent. The only possible antecedent is the two prophets in chapter 11.
In the LGV, I have the critical statement in brackets as a parenthetical statement as follows: “6 And the woman escaped into the wilderness where she has a place there having been prepared from God (so that they may be nourishing her there) a thousand two hundred sixty days.” Punctuating the sentence this way shows that the preparation of this place of safety took place during the previous 1260 days of the 2 prophets prophesying (Rev. 11:3) and solves the problem of both periods being described as 1260 days. Rather, the 1260 days always refers to the first half of the week, and the 42 months and time, times, and half a time always refers to the second half of the week, including in Daniel. In Dan. 12, the time, times, and half a time corresponds to 1290 days not 1260 days. IMO, part of the prophesying of the two prophets concerns instructions to God’s people concerning the preparation of this place of safety for the woman and includes the content of the seven thunders which John heard in ch. 10 but was instructed not to write down.
Tim
-
AuthorPosts