Jump to content
The World News Media

Jesus' Self-Witness


Cos

Recommended Posts

  • Member
4 hours ago, Cos said:

Strong’s dictionary has for the Hebrew word “echad”, Strong’s number 259; “A numeral from 'achad; properly, united, i.e. One…”

Ok. This has been addressed before, echad is an adjective, short definition is "one", achad, being just a previous Strong's, 258, is verb, short definition of collect."united" has no root to achad, as mentioned before I believe, and echad does have a root meaning to the word "united" yes, for this was address before - for numerically, it simply means one, uno, un, etc.

achad is a numeral form of echad.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

My electronic version of Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament has “united” as one of the meaning for the Hebrew word (see pages 28-29 in the hardcopy version).

Anyone can look up what echad means because the Strong's is available to anyone who seeks it online. Those who studied the Hebrew language will know such a word off the top of their heads.

It is also known that echad, translated as "one", only, and or alone (root meanings) in the Hebrew Old Testament, has an occurrence of 962 to 967 times in the Bible, in addition, it has been translated  some 903 times as the word "one", 5 times as the word "alone", and one time as the word "only".

4 hours ago, Cos said:

Also the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible has as the basic meaning for the word as “unity”.

Root meaning...

4 hours ago, Cos said:

BDB also identifies the word as "plural" in meaning.

Echad is a numerical adjective and naturally enough is sometimes found modifying a collective noun...

BDB, I spouse Brown–Driver–Briggs - The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, referring to Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Augustus Briggs? It will not help you that much... It has led into a discussion I had seen a while backing about God having a God and this was mentioned.

All in all, we cannot add on to what the Strong's say and or twist what it means, we cannot pick an occurrence of the word echad and assume it as something else vs it's numerical meaning. echad over here does not reflect echad over there, so to speak, I gave you several examples before, I won't waste time posting them another time.

5 hours ago, Cos said:

According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament echad is closely identified with achad “the root meaning to be united (page 30).

Tell us something we don't know.... >_>

5 hours ago, Cos said:

Even though some deny the facts, the Hebrew word “echad” can and does have the plural meaning united.

Yet it cannot be proven when people take and twist a scripture into what it does not mean, example, Deuteronomy 6:4.

But it is no surprise some will try to see echad as something entirely different, but brush over the very foremost law that is understood clearly by many.

 

It seems the lesson has not been learnt last time so I will post echad and achad once again

  • Echad - http://biblehub.com/hebrew/259.htm
  • Achad - http://biblehub.com/hebrew/258.htm

I believe last time Yachid was used, but it will not do any help here either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 2.2k
  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Matt 28:18: "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.... John 5:22: "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son,..." Hi Cos. See

One of the most striking features of the teachings of Jesus is that He was constantly talking about Himself. And to enter into the Kingdom depends on how we respond to Him personally; He even called t

What we have is nothing of the sort. It's a good thing you didn't write any of the Bible. What a dull book it would be. I guess they were about to learn a thing or two, weren't they? Not

  • Member

One of the clearest indications of Jesus’ self-understanding is found in connection with His trial and condemnation.

 

When Jesus was condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin, the Jews insisted to Pilate, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7).

 

Prior to this, the high priest who was the president of the Jewish council, put Christ under oath, Matthew reports the high priest to have said at the trial, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63).

 

Keep in mind that Jesus knew the sense in which the question was asked (for He had been accused of this before, see John 5:17-18 and John 10:30-39), and He was bound to answer it honestly and truly in the sense in which He knew the high priest meant it.

 

He therefore affirmed under oath, at that council, that He was the Son of God in the high sense the high priest meant, Jesus replied, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (verse 64) , and for this He was condemned to death.

 

This is as clear a declaration of His Deity. Some will argue that Jesus was speaking satirically, and saying in effect, “You said that, not I.” However, three observations need to be made: (1) Jesus went on to speak of His power and second coming, thus confirming rather than contradicting the charge; (2) Jesus’ answer to the high priest in the parallel account in the Gospel of Mark chapter 14 verses 61-62; (3) Jesus had the ideal opportunity here to correct any misconception which may have been involved. This he did not do.

 

The Jews’ reaction is instructive. When the high priest said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?” they replied, “He deserves death” (Matt. 26:65-66). The crime according to the Jews was that Jesus claimed what only God has the right to claim, and Jesus did not dispute the charge.

 

According to the Law of Moses, any person who enticed others to idolatry was to be punished with death (Deut. 13:6-8, see also Lev. 24:16). A mere creature, who should claim divine honor to himself, was guilty of this crime, and even though the Romans had taken away from the Jews the power of inflicting this punishment, they still had the right to report to the governor concerning such a person, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die” (John 19:7).

 

This was their decision as reported to Pilate, concerning Jesus because the Jews considered Him a creature, and if He was not entitled to this claim then their decision was just.

 

So when we read the account in the Bible, the Jews brought two charges against Jesus, one was treason against Caesar, by making Himself a King.  To this charge Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you a king” (John 18:37). Jesus answered in the affirmative, but so that they would not convict Him of a crime of which He was not guilty, He explained, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). His reply was satisfactory to the governor, who acquitted Him of the charge (John 18:38).   

 

In the other case He not only claimed to be the Son of God in the high sense, yet accompanied the claim with NO explanation. He could have said, I am the Son of God, but not in such a sense as true Deity. But he made no such explanation. If Jesus was not entitled to divine honor, He knew it; and He also knew then that He deserved death for claiming it.

 

To make the claim before the court was to be guilty of the crime. To answer as He did, on oath, if He did not mean to make the claim, was perjury. And to allow the sentence against Him to pass, without any effort to explain, was to be guilty of His own death.  Nowhere does Jesus dispute the charge. <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 5/12/2018 at 4:49 AM, Cos said:

When Jesus was condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin, the Jews insisted to Pilate, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7).

Ok.

On 5/12/2018 at 4:49 AM, Cos said:

Prior to this, the high priest who was the president of the Jewish council, put Christ under oath, Matthew reports the high priest to have said at the trial, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63).

Ok. Regardless, the above is already known, same with John 19.

On 5/12/2018 at 4:49 AM, Cos said:

Keep in mind that Jesus knew the sense in which the question was asked (for He had been accused of this before, see John 5:17-18 and John 10:30-39), and He was bound to answer it honestly and truly in the sense in which He knew the high priest meant it.

John 5:17-18 - Jesus speaks about authority given to him by his Father

John 10:30-39 - Jews try to seize Jesus

Jesus was challenged twice, but both situations were totally different.

Jesus affirmed a law twice verses 34-35 of the Jews and he spoke in challenge to the Jews who were against him - John 10:32-38.

Which goes hand in hand with how the Jews were pursuing to kill him later on, hence that chance of doing so was made a reality because an evident betrayal.

On 5/12/2018 at 4:49 AM, Cos said:

He therefore affirmed under oath, at that council, that He was the Son of God in the high sense the high priest meant, Jesus replied, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (verse 64) , and for this He was condemned to death.

Ok.

On 5/12/2018 at 4:49 AM, Cos said:

This is as clear a declaration of His Deity. Some will argue that Jesus was speaking satirically, and saying in effect, “You said that, not I.” However, three observations need to be made: (1) Jesus went on to speak of His power and second coming, thus confirming rather than contradicting the charge; (2) Jesus’ answer to the high priest in the parallel account in the Gospel of Mark chapter 14 verses 61-62; (3) Jesus had the ideal opportunity here to correct any misconception which may have been involved. This he did not do.

Jesus alludes to the Messianic prophecy, Daniel 7:13, 14,  for he is affirming that he would be the one who would gain access to God’s presence and God given ruler-ship in Heaven.

Jesus is to be on a t the ruler’s right hand meant being second in importance to the ruler himself, that is God Almighty - Psalms 110:1; Acts 7:55, 56Power in this context is understood to refer to God the Father himself, often rendered to The Power or The Powerful One in some translations. The expression for Right Hand of Power occurs in parallel to what we see in the gospel of Luke, specifically Luke 22:69, but the only difference is with the addition of the word for "God".

The phrase Right Hand of Power implies our Lord, Jesus Christ, would be given/imbued with power, and or authority (remember Mt. 28:18), because of being at the right hand of the Powerful One, God, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

So it is no clear declaration of Deity, for what we have seen in your previous response we clearly see that the Son of Man is The Son of God. Everything said in the gospel of Mark also makes cross-reference to what is addressed.

On 5/12/2018 at 4:49 AM, Cos said:

The Jews’ reaction is instructive. When the high priest said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?” they replied, “He deserves death” (Matt. 26:65-66). The crime according to the Jews was that Jesus claimed what only God has the right to claim, and Jesus did not dispute the charge.

This points back to John 19:7 whereas Jesus response affirms he is God's Son when alleged (John 10:36), to which the Jews had stated he made himself God's Son. The Jews are also abusing a Law from the Torah (Leviticus 24:16) in order to put Jesus to death, hence the claim for blasphemy (Matthew 9:3, John 10:33).

On 5/12/2018 at 4:49 AM, Cos said:

According to the Law of Moses, any person who enticed others to idolatry was to be punished with death (Deut. 13:6-8, see also Lev. 24:16). A mere creature, who should claim divine honor to himself, was guilty of this crime, and even though the Romans had taken away from the Jews the power of inflicting this punishment, they still had the right to report to the governor concerning such a person, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die” (John 19:7).

Yes, Law Covenant, Torah. The Jews played their cards in their own favor to make such a thing regarding Jesus to take place, but such was to be done.

On 5/12/2018 at 4:49 AM, Cos said:

This was their decision as reported to Pilate, concerning Jesus because the Jews considered Him a creature, and if He was not entitled to this claim then their decision was just.

Granted they have a huge disdain for him, an have been plotting to kill him for sometime until they actually seized an opportunity.

On 5/12/2018 at 4:49 AM, Cos said:

In the other case He not only claimed to be the Son of God in the high sense, yet accompanied the claim with NO explanation. He could have said, I am the Son of God, but not in such a sense as true Deity. But he made no such explanation. If Jesus was not entitled to divine honor, He knew it; and He also knew then that He deserved death for claiming it.

Yet when Jesus did die, he was recognized as the Son of God.

Matthew 27:54 - When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

Mark 15:39 - And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”

Luke 23:47 - Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, saying, “Certainly this man was innocent [righteous]!”

Jesus knew of the things that was to happen on this day already. In the gospel of Matthew, in addition to cross-references, we are aware of what Jesus said, crying out to his Father who is His God:

“It has been accomplished!” (John 19:30)

“Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.” (Luke 23:46)

One of the reasons why John 3:16 is one of the most beloved verses is because we know how much God loved his Son and that the sacrifice that His Son had made had granted us a chance to be saved, for it is of God's grace through his Son's sacrifice, that we even had this opportunity, one would shutter to think what if Jesus did not die, or had died earlier on, how things would be now. Other then that it is what it is now, and we are to maintain faith for we can easily lose it, just like our salvation if we are not careful.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

On 5/12/2018 at 4:49 AM, Cos said:

This was their decision as reported to Pilate, concerning Jesus because the Jews considered Him a creature, and if He was not entitled to this claim then their decision was just.

You may want to re-read the verses and the cross-references they didn't want to kill him because they considered him a creature, the four gospels in the Greek New Testament that speak on the historic account of Jesus Christ made it clear as to why the Jews wanted to kill him. The Jews had pure hatred for Jesus and have been plotting to thing of cunning ways to do away with him, since they, didn't have the resources to do it themselves without causing chaos and a stir among the people, other Jews and civilians were were not twisted in the head like them.

In a sense, they used false accusations and other schemes in order to lay their hands on the Christ and eventually they did.

On 5/12/2018 at 4:49 AM, Cos said:

To make the claim before the court was to be guilty of the crime. To answer as He did, on oath, if He did not mean to make the claim, was perjury. And to allow the sentence against Him to pass, without any effort to explain, was to be guilty of His own death.  Nowhere does Jesus dispute the charge. <><

Ok, but you have to realize that Jesus was indeed fearful and troubled prior to his death, for he knew what such a sacrifice met and what it was to accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Try not to manipulate my words with your usual tactics. I said: "I’m sure you know by now that there is absolutely nothing in the diary indicating the year 588." I said this in direct response to your claim that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said: "You can reference VAT 4956." . . .  "Why is this so significant? Pay extremely close attention to the language inscribed on this tablet" . . . "Year 37 of Nebukadnezzar, King of Babylon. Month I," . .  "Additional reports in this Diary include . . . Borsippa, . . . .This indicates that the conflict in that region in 588 . . . " No, you didn't actually say that. Besides I have no argument about 587. I only point out that ALL the astronomical evidence from the entire period shows that this was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. You have never made an argument (either valid or invalid) that "my argument about 587 can also be interpreted as 588."  Not that it matters in the least, but Borsippa is NOT way further in distance from Jerusalem. It's about 10 miles CLOSER "as the crow flies" and nearly the same distance using the usual travel routes of the time. Perhaps that's why no one mentioned it before. However, even here, I have already posted the entire contents of the tablet, including the reference to Borsippa. Not that it matters.  I certainly hope so!
    • That's completely false. You invariably attempt to weasel your way out of your false statements by claiming that someone has distorted your words. You make false claims about them and claim that they are the ones in the wrong. Then you bluster with some barely-related material hoping it impresses someone (or yourself) into thinking you are some kind of expert or authority. That barely-related material you make use of invariably says nearly the opposite of what you had claimed, which you should have known had you just read the context, or understood what you were reading.  I'll get to the specifics at a later time on this particular point, but it is nearly the same as with almost all these matters. I have learned to expect you to NEVER admit an error, no matter how much evidence is shown. I don't expect you to admit your error on these recent points, but your "style" provides a revealing display of the lengths people will go to, in order to support a pseudo-chronology.   
    • In response to your email, it is important to note that the Watchtower chronology begins at 4026, adhering closely to the numerical indications in scripture. The significant distinction lies in the fact that not everyone begins at 4026; some might commence their chronology at 4004, for instance. Consequently, this creates a noticeable gap between those who employ different starting points for their chronologies. Consider that the new Bible Students have rejected Russell's starting point and instead adjusted it to align with Modern Israel. They have suggested a year around 3954, or something like that, I can't remember, but it seems unfounded. Some of their sects started Criticizing Russell about this matter, and it appears unjustified, as their own knowledge may be limited. Following the Watchtower's guidance is straightforward: align events with their corresponding numerical values. It is important to remember that the Watchtower does not view its chronology as an absolute, unlike secular chronology which seeks to impose its perspective. According to the Watchtower, the pivotal date for the divided kingdom is 997. Look it up in our archives and publications.  The Watchtower's chronology will always diverge from conventional chronology due to its distinctive starting point. The organization holds steadfast to the numbers in the Bible, guided by faith in scripture rather than human interpretations. Despite persistent challenges, the unwavering stance of the Watchtower remains unchanged, as it is grounded in divine guidance, not the opinions of anonymous and faithless individuals.
    • Consider this: if we assume that the tablet dated back to 568 refers to Nebuchadnezzar, and that the king issued an order for Borsippa, a city 12-15 miles from Babylon, then it suggests that King Nebuchadnezzar might have been in his palace giving that order, since logically it would have taken weeks or a month or so for a runner to dispatch such an order from Judah that was for Borsippa in 588/587, as historically suggested, since we can use the same date 588/587 for that event.
    • It appears that he is struggling to accept the reality that Borsippa is approximately 15 miles away from Babylon, and depending on who you ask for directions, it is about 617 miles from Jerusalem. Therefore, if VAT 4956 mentions the death of an individual by the order of a king, in Borsippa and disease then we can reasonably assume it was Nebuchadnezzar based on the 37th year language in that secular evidence rather than the Bible, it suggests that the conflicts in the region were more extensive. This clearly demonstrates that no single conflict can be definitively determined or pinpointed solely by relying on that tablet designated to the year 568, regardless of how convincing it may appear. Making an absolute claim would be dishonest if the information contradicts itself. The same can be said if someone uses the date designation of 587/586 or 588/587. Only people who are desperate would argue that.
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.3k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.