What are we really dealing with here?

[bbyrd009]

I don't follow...what do we read later? I see the bible saying this:

“I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob's brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob 3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” - Mal 1:2-3


12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. - Rom 9:12-16

In Hebrews we read this: By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau. - Heb 11:20

But the only 'blessing' that his father was able to give him was that 'in the future, you will tire of serving your brother and throw off his yoke.' So...sort of a limited 'blessing', and hardly impinging upon our conversation...not that I can see, anyway. You might need to explain a bit more...?

Genesis 32:13 He spent the night there, and from what he had with him he selected a gift for his brother Esau: from there forward

 

[bbyrd009]

Goodness! Sound the alarm! Because every single one of them not only attend mass every Sunday, I'm sure...but they are all part of a secret society run by the RCC bent on bending the USA to do her dirty will!
Next....

kind of misses the point, seems to me. Imo it is more about perceptions v reality. Personally i'm ok with Catholics on the bench, even if they are a bit punishment-happy

 

[bbyrd009]

For what? Me to spout bible verses? For what situation? This one?

oh, any Absolute Truth that Scripture has led you to would be fine; it's meant to be more like a thought exercise. You should be able to recall a contrasting v for any v in Scripture i guess. God is the only AT i can find, anyway; you might come away with a different impression

vagueness

my apologies, i'll adjust my hearing there, not meaning to be vague

 

[bbyrd009]

And....that has what to do with how Church habits were or were not formed....?

hmm. i'd guess more like "church" habits, but prolly both i guess?

Pretty much, we're doomed.

as doomed as Esau, huh

 

[bbyrd009]

ye the world going no where but down the sewer man has built.

ya, i guess leaving it is the only choice in the end; unfortunately that is made into literally dying for believers now, i guess?
Not sure when that even happened tbh

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Yes it does Helen. My salvation, my faith and thus my belief is based in knowing the real and true Jesus the Christ who died for my sins, not a God Jesus or a 100% god + 100% human creature that means having a 200% natured being I do not understand, of something with a dual nature. When I pray to God I know he is not Jesus his son, he is the creator of the universe. When I speak to Jesus I know it is Jesus and not his Father. When I speak to Jesus and the Father I know they are two separate beings I'm speaking with. I am in Christ as Christ is in the Father.

How can one pray sincerely and in truth to God, in all honestly, and believe this God is also Jesus as well. It is not possible. Who is this person really praying to? I do not desire to gamble on this grave matter. This has to be 100 % correct.

It matters a lot to me.

Bless you,

APAK

APAK, I agree that this is vital and goes way beyond correct doctrine but is rather at the core of faith. "It is not possible" you said; for God to be also be Jesus. If I believed for a second what you propose then, I don't know God at all. But, for me, you are wrong. It had to be God. The Law was fulfilled in Christ. He more than fulfilled the Law but is the Law manifested in endtimes. It was prepared for Him and by Him. For you to say that Jesus Christ was not God in the flesh, taking that shameful and rejection-filled and sorrowful walk, feeling the pain and experiencing the same temptations as fallen man, then you make God out to be a liar. He said over and over in the Old Testament what He was going to do. He told them that His(God's), visitation would come and they were blind to it and instead crucified Him. Their blindness had reason and structure and plan. As does all of the fulfillment of the word. What you propose is that man can do it with the Spirits help...like Jesus. Look around, even with the Holy Spirit...the flesh still rears up. But not with Jesus, it didn't. Because God did what man could not do. Ending man's labor to cover his filth. Now it is God's work alone and God's Glory alone. For you to say Jesus Christ was not God, it makes God a liar when He says He is: Creator, Author, and Redeemer. Seems you want mankind to hold onto a thread of his own glory; it cannot be so. Everything is under God's feet. Including mans' attempts at righteousness.

Before you bring up the Trinity. I won't go there because for me, God is One. When I pray, I pray to One God that is Creator and Redeemer. I don't see that "prepared body/a vessel" that hung on the cross. The LORD is GOD. The Lord is God. And the Risen Redeemer (Christ) is God. I see Spirit and Oneness restored. God is relationship. Period. Mans relationship was broke(breached) with God at the beginning. God is long-suffering in having that relationship broken(why... I don't know)...But God alone restored that relationship and stood in the breach for sinners like you and I. I could give you tons of verses but I am sure others already have. It begins in Genesis when God said "let there be light". That light is the Lamb which is God's Glory. Love. Sacrifice. And it continues on through Revelation 22: 21 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

 

[Harvest 1874]

I really did not ask you the to perform an EXPANSIVE reply on the few comments I initially made. It is overwhelming and not required. It is great you wanted to take the time to lecture although this subject although it was was not my intention only yours.

It is overkill and then I lose your points completely in your reply.

Thanks anyway.

And you don’t have to justify why you added the immortal/immortal definitions in a subsequent reply. I’m not interested anymore.

I would like to know though whose is ‘we’ in your writings. Why do you write in this plural form? Are you part of a team of writers or something? Just an odd thing to write and read in your post as you are not representing your own views it seems.

Can you reply in two paragraphs or less…thanks

Bless you,

APAK

I speak as a Bible Student, and those of like precious faith, We being many members are one in Christ. And no there's no team of writers if there were I wouldn't have fallen so far behind in the discussion.

As for my subsequent post concerning the difference between mortal and immortal I still intend to post it despite whether you wish to see it or not, perhaps there are others more inclined to heed the word of the Lord, others who have a true desire to learn the truth on this subject. It is evident that you do not, that you have chosen to allow your own prejudiced, your own preconceived ideas on the matter to cloud your judgment. I would caution you to pray the Lord that he might anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. Rev 3:18

The truth is not for everyone at this time, not all have eyes that see and ears that hear, most are still being blinded from the truth by the Adversary, such will have to await their coming to the knowledge of the truth in the next age.

 

[Harvest 1874]

I was wondering the same thing. Trying to work out what denomination is inspiring his thinking. Here says not JWs, yet he quoted Russell. Shades of Christadelphian, except he holds to a pre-existent Christ. Shades of Adventism t he holds to an earthly millennium and a created Christ, not begotten. Curiouser and curiouser. Can agree with much of what"they"are saying, particularly the immortality issue, but not everything, certainly i would not agree with a created Christ. Never.

Was our Lord a created being? Come let us reason together.

“For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten you”?” (Heb 1:5)

(Should read – today you have become my first born son, since it is referring to His resurrection birth as a new creature.)

Our Lord's resurrection is referred to three other times as a birth from the dead, but our Common Version has beclouded the thought by giving the word begotten instead of born. (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5)

Our Lord was actually begotten of the Father when he fully consecrated himself to the Father and was baptized at the river Jordan.

The same rules apply to us, when we present ourselves to God in consecration, and our sacrifice is accepted of him, we die as men; and are begotten to the new nature. This new life, begotten from above, continues to grow by the assimilation of spiritual nourishment (the truth), until in due time, following the death of the flesh it is born a fully developed spirit being, like unto our Lord.

Just as there is a begetting of the fleshly being, then the quickening and finally the birth, so also with regards to the spiritual being. The Christian is first begotten of the Spirit (begotten again--1 Pet. 1:3), then quickened by the Spirit (Rom. 8:11) and then having attained to full development as an embryotic new creature, he will be "born of the Spirit" in the resurrection.

Now back to our opening text:

"To which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten you”?”

This text may seem a bit puzzling to some, when we recall that elsewhere in the scriptures angles were indeed call “sons of God” (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 38:7) Adam himself was likewise called a “son of God” (Luke 3:38).

So what makes the statement in our text unique?

This statement was prophetically made in 1 Chron. 22:10, of King Solomon, Solomon being a “type” (or figure) of Christ. The point here being made is that while it’s true that the angels are all sons of God, they did not have the special honor of being a direct creation of the Father Himself. Our Lord alone is the “only [directly] begotten Son of God” (John 3:18).

“These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” Rev 3:14

“I [the Lord Jesus Christ] am the Alpha and the Omega [the first and the last], the Beginning and the End [of the direct creation of God],” says the LORD [the Father], “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Rev 1:8

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” Col 1:15

“The beginning” in the text does not refer to the beginning of the existence of Jehovah, the Almighty, the Father himself, because He is “from everlasting to everlasting,” and never had a beginning (Psa. 90:2; 106:48). However, Jehovah’s work of creation did have a beginning, it began with the creation of our Lord, “the faithful and true witness . . . the creation of God.” He didn’t create himself but was begotten of his Father (Rev. 3:14). Since Jesus was the first (beginning) and only (ending or last) direct creation of God, all other sentient beings—whether human or angelic—were subsequently created “OF” the Father but “BY” or “THROUGH” the Son (John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Rev. 1:17; 2:8).

As it was written, “Let us make man in our image” (Gen 1:26).

“For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist (or exist). And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.” Col 1:16-18

I believe we are simply arguing over semantics here between the term, “begotten” and “created”, both carry similar meanings as in shown in the foregoing texts.

Would you say that man was created or begotten?

Can you find us a text where it expressly states that man was a begotten creature? We know from the text quoted above (Col 1:16, 17) that “all things were created” of the Father through the Son, would this not include man?

So then does this imply that man is a created being and not a begotten one?

What then are we to say to our Christian brothers and sisters who say they are “born again” or “begotten again to a new nature”?

If one has been begotten again does this not imply that they were begotten once before?

So then man must have been created/ begotten of the Lord, can we not then say the same for our Lord Jesus, that he was the only direct creation begotten of the Father?

 

[Harvest 1874]

that's not what Scripture says

So you're one of those who hears voices in your head, right?

 

[bbyrd009]

So you're one of those who hears voices in your head, right?

well c'mon, "hearing voices" is diff than "inner dialogue." Even if there is no dialogue with Word in my experience. But imo it's obvious that Scripture means something else when It says "hearing" anyway right. More like "understanding" or even "interpreting" differently than most other "hearers."

but my point was that even Scripture states that the Spirit relays what It hears.

 

[Harvest 1874]

well c'mon, "hearing voices" is diff than "inner dialogue." Even if there is no dialogue with Word in my experience.

I have "inner dialogue" all the the time, I talk to myself all the time, of course I'm the only one who will listen mind you.

 

[bbyrd009]

I have "inner dialogue" all the the time, I talk to myself all the time, of course I'm the only one who will listen mind you.

ya, me too. Seems to be like the same channel Word uses, only in my experience there is no reply for Word. Word ends the inner debate even, imo. Usually with something i didn't want to hear lol

 

[Harvest 1874]

This is in response to APAK’s question:

What’s your definition of mortal/immortal all about?

Note, He’s expressed no interest in the subject, but perhaps someone else may proffer from it, so I’ll post it anyways.

In Reply, we simply stated this so that we might distinguish the difference between mortal and immortal, the first being a condition in which death is a possibility, and the second in which it is impossible.

I believe the biggest area of confusion besides understanding the difference between everlasting life and immortality is the matter as to what exactly the term “mortal” implies, it is erroneously construed as implying that which is unique to humans, flesh and blood, only that it implies that which is corruptible, and in a dying condition.

“Everlasting life and immortality are not synonymous terms, as most suppose. The word "immortal" means more than power to live everlastingly; and, according to the Scriptures, millions may ultimately enjoy everlasting life, but only a very limited "little flock" will be made immortal.

Immortality is an element or quality of the divine nature, but not of human or angelic or any other nature than the divine. And it is because Christ and his "little flock," his "bride," are to be "partakers of the divine nature" that they will be exceptions to all other creatures either in heaven or on earth. 2 Pet. 1:4

It is therefore profitable for us to consider the meaning of the words "mortal" and "immortal," for a gross misunderstanding of the significance of these words is very prevalent and often leads to confusion of thought.

The word Immortal signifies not mortal--death-proof, incorruptible, indestructible, imperishable. Any being, whose existence is dependent in any manner upon another, or upon conditions such as food, light, air, etc., is not immortal. This quality originally inhered in Jehovah God alone, as it is written--"The Father hath life in himself" (John 5:26); i.e., his existence is not a derived one, nor a sustained one. He is the King eternal, immortal, invisible. (1 Tim. 1:17) These scriptures being decisive authority on the subject, we may know beyond peradventure that men, angels, archangels, or even the Son of God, before and during the time he "was made flesh and dwelt among us"--were not immortal--all were mortal.

But the word "mortal" does not signify dying, but merely die-able--possessing life dependent upon God for its continuance. For instance, angels not being immortal are mortal and could die, could be destroyed by God if they became rebels against his wise, just and loving government. In him (in his providence) they live and move and have their being. Indeed, of Satan, who was such an angel of light, and who did become a rebel, it is distinctly declared that in due time he will be destroyed. (Heb. 2:14) This not only proves that Satan is mortal, but it proves that angelic nature is a mortal nature--one which could be destroyed by its Creator. As for man, he is a "little lower than the angels" (Psa. 8:5), and consequently mortal also, as is abundantly attested by the fact that our race has been dying for six thousand years and that even the saints in Christ are exhorted to seek immortality. Rom. 2:7

Let us now examine a few proof texts that we may settle this matter once for all.

It was APAK's opinion that angels were immortal, let’s take a look and see what the scriptures have to say about who possesses immortality.

Our first text is found in 1 Tim 1:17

“Now to the King of the ages, immortal [apthartos —incorruptible] the invisible, the only God be honor and glory for the ages of the ages. Amen.”

God has declared his name to be Jehovah, which signifies the “Self-existing One” or “The Immortal One.”

While the Scriptures do speak of the mortality of man, and indeed in nearly all particulars confine themselves to man’s relationship to God, yet they no less positively teach in another way the mortality of angels, by declaring that Christ ‘only hath immortality’— the Father always being exception. (1 Cor. 15:27)

“… He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, WHO ALONE HAS IMMORTALITY, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.” 1 Tim 6:15, 16

“As the Father hath life in himself [a life not requiring sustenance--immortality] so hath he given unto the Son that he should have life in himself [immortality]”, and that he should give it unto whomsoever he would—his bride, his Church--"members of his body." John 5:26

The foregoing text shows that our Lord was NOT immortal until after he was highly exalted, thus it would be rather absurd to imagine that the angels were immortal prior to our Lord, specially seeing that “… by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist (or exist). And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.” Col 1:16-18

I believe the scriptures are quite clear on this matter as who has and who has not immortality.

Remember my brother all scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto every good word and work, this if he is humble enough to accept it.

 

[bbyrd009]

But the only 'blessing' that his father was able to give him was that 'in the future, you will tire of serving your brother and throw off his yoke.' So...sort of a limited 'blessing', and hardly impinging upon our conversation...not that I can see, anyway. You might need to explain a bit more...?

well, see what that blessing translates to; that is the entire blessing, the culmination of the story, basically.
Throwing off the yoke of the one we are encouraged to compare ourselves with
see, Jacob makes (unnecessary) reparations to Esau, not the other way around

 

[bbyrd009]

The books are or come to life with the Holy Spirit, so the Bible is Holy.

you believe this bc you were taught it, but it is not true. Fwiw i was as surprised as you are, will be, whatever

 

[APAK]

APAK, I agree that this is vital and goes way beyond correct doctrine but is rather at the core of faith. "It is not possible" you said; for God to be also be Jesus. If I believed for a second what you propose then, I don't know God at all. But, for me, you are wrong. It had to be God. The Law was fulfilled in Christ. He more than fulfilled the Law but is the Law manifested in endtimes. It was prepared for Him and by Him. For you to say that Jesus Christ was not God in the flesh, taking that shameful and rejection-filled and sorrowful walk, feeling the pain and experiencing the same temptations as fallen man, then you make God out to be a liar. He said over and over in the Old Testament what He was going to do. He told them that His(God's), visitation would come and they were blind to it and instead crucified Him. Their blindness had reason and structure and plan. As does all of the fulfillment of the word. What you propose is that man can do it with the Spirits help...like Jesus. Look around, even with the Holy Spirit...the flesh still rears up. But not with Jesus, it didn't. Because God did what man could not do. Ending man's labor to cover his filth. Now it is God's work alone and God's Glory alone. For you to say Jesus Christ was not God, it makes God a liar when He says He is: Creator, Author, and Redeemer. Seems you want mankind to hold onto a thread of his own glory; it cannot be so. Everything is under God's feet. Including mans' attempts at righteousness.

Before you bring up the Trinity. I won't go there because for me, God is One. When I pray, I pray to One God that is Creator and Redeemer. I don't see that "prepared body/a vessel" that hung on the cross. The LORD is GOD. The Lord is God. And the Risen Redeemer (Christ) is God. I see Spirit and Oneness restored. God is relationship. Period. Mans relationship was broke(breached) with God at the beginning. God is long-suffering in having that relationship broken(why... I don't know)...But God alone restored that relationship and stood in the breach for sinners like you and I. I could give you tons of verses but I am sure others already have. It begins in Genesis when God said "let there be light". That light is the Lamb which is God's Glory. Love. Sacrifice. And it continues on through Revelation 22: 21 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

VictoryInJesus:

Yes, the law was fulfilled in Christ indeed, when he completed his mission to the cross and his death and resurrection. Both the grace of God and Jesus (Father and son) became/ created the Law for us today. Totally agree.

You insist that Jesus Christ was God in human form. How do you know Jesus Christ was God in human form? Because he felt all the pains and shame as you said? Why cannot he be a human being born of God and was spirit-filled, especially after his Baptism, who went through all these trials and pain?

Did God say he would have to sacrifice himself, instead of his son he created? Why did he then create a son?

Could God Almighty be the perfect sacrificial lamb for our sins? He could not, Jesus the man was the perfect sacrifice because he must be fully human with one nature, as the last Adam. Where does it say that if you don’t believe Jesus was God in the flesh you are calling God a liar?

Bless you,

APAK

 

[VictoryinJesus]

VictoryInJesus:

Yes, the law was fulfilled in Christ indeed, when he completed his mission to the cross and his death and resurrection. Both the grace of God and Jesus (Father and son) became/ created the Law for us today. Totally agree.

You insist that Jesus Christ was God in human form. How do you know Jesus Christ was God in human form? Because he felt all the pains and shame as you said? Why cannot he be a human being born of God and was spirit-filled, especially after his Baptism, who went through all these trials and pain?

Did God say he would have to sacrifice himself, instead of his son he created? Why did he then create a son?

Could God Almighty be the perfect sacrificial lamb for our sins? He could not, Jesus the man was the perfect sacrifice because he must be fully human with one nature, as the last Adam. Where does it say that if you don’t believe Jesus was God in the flesh you are calling God a liar?

Bless you,

APAK

Honestly? 1)I've read the scriptures. 2) Because as a father you could command your son to go do something in your stead and you take the credit and I might call a bully for commanding your son to do something you yourself could never do, which is sacrifice all. Yes, your son did it for you but that is your sons glory and accomplishment...not yours. As with Job, Even after Job loss children...Satan accused "now touch His flesh." God came in the flesh. I see Him(God/Creator, Author and finisher) laid in a grave among sinners and then resurrected by His own power. All Glory His and His alone.

Why the Son?
On earth as it is in Heaven.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

VictoryInJesus:

Yes, the law was fulfilled in Christ indeed, when he completed his mission to the cross and his death and resurrection. Both the grace of God and Jesus (Father and son) became/ created the Law for us today. Totally agree.

You insist that Jesus Christ was God in human form. How do you know Jesus Christ was God in human form? Because he felt all the pains and shame as you said? Why cannot he be a human being born of God and was spirit-filled, especially after his Baptism, who went through all these trials and pain?

Did God say he would have to sacrifice himself, instead of his son he created? Why did he then create a son?

Could God Almighty be the perfect sacrificial lamb for our sins? He could not, Jesus the man was the perfect sacrifice because he must be fully human with one nature, as the last Adam. Where does it say that if you don’t believe Jesus was God in the flesh you are calling God a liar?

Bless you,

APAK

Also, Zechariah 12:10 Interlinear: And I have poured on the house of David, And on the inhabitant of Jerusalem, A spirit of grace and supplications, And they have looked unto Me whom they pierced, And they have mourned over it, Like a mourning over the only one, And they have been in bitterness for it, Like a bitterness over the first-born.


Zechariah 12:9-10
[9] And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. [10] And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son , and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Now after looking at original text, sometimes it lines up, other translations are different. I'm no scholar so I don't know which is correct. But "mourn" to me is relevant to why the Son, as it teaches the depth of the mourning "as one mourns for his only son" one that is "in bitterness for his firstborn" a type of "mourning" man can relate to.

 

[APAK]

Also, Zechariah 12:10 Interlinear: And I have poured on the house of David, And on the inhabitant of Jerusalem, A spirit of grace and supplications, And they have looked unto Me whom they pierced, And they have mourned over it, Like a mourning over the only one, And they have been in bitterness for it, Like a bitterness over the first-born.


Zechariah 12:9-10
[9] And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. [10] And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son , and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Now after looking at original text, sometimes it lines up, other translations are different. I'm no scholar so I don't know which is correct. But "mourn" to me is relevant to why the Son, as it teaches the depth of the mourning "as one mourns for his only son" one that is "in bitterness for his firstborn" a type of "mourning" man can relate to.

VictoryinJesus:

(Joh 19:37) And again another scripture says: They shall look on him whom they pierced. (NEV)
(Joh 19:37) In addition, another passage of Scripture says, "They will look on the one whom they pierced." (ISV)
(Zec 12:10) I will pour on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they will look to Me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and will grieve bitterly for him, as one grieves for his firstborn.(NEV)
(Zec 12:10) "I will fill the descendants of David and the other people of Jerusalem with the spirit of mercy and the spirit of prayer. They will look at the one whom they stabbed to death, and they will mourn for him like those who mourn for an only child. They will mourn bitterly, like those who have lost their first-born son. (GNB)
(Zec 12:10) And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.(RSV)

Yes, Zec 12:10 is translated in most Bibles with the “at me” and for better understanding it is translated as “on him’ or “on the one.” THe RSV has it clear, at least. John 19:37 does also clear it up.

It does not say that God became a human being and was pierced. It means that the people with look upon Jesus whom they pierced, as a father that just lost his only son.

It must also be pointed out that God also felt the pain of his son’s death as if he was literally being pieced himself. So, the translators also could have had this meaning in mind when they wrote the words ‘look to me.”

I remember when one of my sons got into trouble as a young boy. I felt so distraught, saddened with tears and all I wanted was to take the punishment for him. To let him come home in earnest, and I would do the time of punishment. I felt I was literally on trial because he was my own flesh on blood and was willing to pay the price for him, no matter what. I loved him so dearly…

Bless you,

APAK

 

[VictoryinJesus]

VictoryinJesus:

(Joh 19:37) And again another scripture says: They shall look on him whom they pierced. (NEV)
(Joh 19:37) In addition, another passage of Scripture says, "They will look on the one whom they pierced." (ISV)
(Zec 12:10) I will pour on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they will look to Me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and will grieve bitterly for him, as one grieves for his firstborn.(NEV)
(Zec 12:10) "I will fill the descendants of David and the other people of Jerusalem with the spirit of mercy and the spirit of prayer. They will look at the one whom they stabbed to death, and they will mourn for him like those who mourn for an only child. They will mourn bitterly, like those who have lost their first-born son. (GNB)
(Zec 12:10) And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.(RSV)

Yes, Zec 12:10 is translated in most Bibles with the “at me” and for better understanding it is translated as “on him’ or “on the one.” THe RSV has it clear, at least. John 19:37 does also clear it up.

It does not say that God became a human being and was pierced. It means that the people with look upon Jesus whom they pierced, as a father that just lost his only son.

It must also be pointed out that God also felt the pain of his son’s death as if he was literally being pieced himself. So, the translators also could have had this meaning in mind when they wrote the words ‘look to me.”

I remember when one of my sons got into trouble as a young boy. I felt so distraught, saddened with tears and all I wanted was to take the punishment for him. To let him come home in earnest, and I would do the time of punishment. I felt I was literally on trial because he was my own flesh on blood and was willing to pay the price for him, no matter what. I loved him so dearly…

Bless you,

APAK

Good points. It comes down to this. If it is how you say, then the word has no clarity to me because, as I said, at the core of my faith is that God came in the flesh, was crucified and resurrected. If that is not the case and it is as you say, then, it is not the Spirit speaking to me or teaching or guiding but instead I talk to myself. If that is the case, then I follow a false God that I created in my mind. Because what He tells me is that this that you dispute is His will, His purpose, and His plan. For His great name's sake.

Who is the LORD in the Old Testament? Who speaks? I haven't read all of your other post so I don't know if you have already said.

1 Kings 18:31-32
[31] And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the LORD came, saying, Israel shall be thy name: [32] And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD : and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed.