Sorry about the double post.
Posts by Bobcat
-
15Did Jehovah use non-believers to accomplish His will?
by I_love_Jeff in(again we have a questioned geared toward the jehovah's witnesses who strongly believe the star was a horama (illusion) crafted by satan.
this horama supposedly directed the magi who were apparently influenced by satan.).
if so, then what is wrong with god allowing the magi to accomplish his will by sending them out to find the christ?.
-
-
-
15
Did Jehovah use non-believers to accomplish His will?
by I_love_Jeff in(again we have a questioned geared toward the jehovah's witnesses who strongly believe the star was a horama (illusion) crafted by satan.
this horama supposedly directed the magi who were apparently influenced by satan.).
if so, then what is wrong with god allowing the magi to accomplish his will by sending them out to find the christ?.
-
-
Bobcat
Here are some points from the NICNT commentary on Matthew (R. T. France, pp.59, 61-2):
First, he translates Matthew 2:2 thusly: ". . . inquiring, "Where is the child who has been born as King of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose, 2 and we have come to pay homage to him."
The footnote numbered "2" says: The singular anatole is used here and in v.9 for the "rising" of a celestial body, as distinct from the plural in v.1 and in 8:11; 24:27 for the "[place of] rising [of the sun]," the East. The singular can be used for the East, as in Rev 21:13, but not normally with the article (BDF 253[5]; . . . it is in any case most unlikely that Matthew would use singular and plural so close together in the same sense. If Num 24:17 underlies Matthew's account, the use of anatello in the LXX there requires the meaning "rising" here."
In he commentary on the text of chapter 2, he says:
Most obviously, the visit of foreign dignitaries to Jerusalem to see the son of david recalls the story of the Queen of Sheba (1Kgs 10:1-10), and Matthew's specific mention of the presentation of gold, frankincense, and myrrh echoes her royal gift to Solomon of "gold and a great quantity of spices" (1 Kgs 10:10), as well as other OT passages which take her visit and gifts as a model for the future glory of the Messiah (Ps 72:10-11, 15: "tribute," "gifts," "gold of Sheba"; Isa 60:5-6: "the wealth of the nations," "gold and frankincense," also with specific mention of Sheba). The "kings" who are the donors in Ps 72:10-11; Isa 60:13 14 are the source of the later Christian tradition which by the early third century had turned Matthew's "magi" into kings. Matthew thus paves the way for Jesus' later declaration that "something greater than Solomon is here" (12:42).
The footnote numbered 14 says:
"A further echo of Isa 60:3 may be detected in the "rising" of the star, reflecting the coming of nations and kings "to the brightness of your rising," though the LXX word is not the same."
There are some further notes I wanted to include, but my time is short at the moment. The point is that Matthew's account of the magi is rich with references to OT material linked with the coming of the Messiah. The WT story that it was a plot of Satan completely destroys the Biblical allusions that Matthew sets up. The Society says that others using the star dishonor God. But in fact, they dishonor God by destroying the continuity of the account that Matthew put together.
-
15
Did Jehovah use non-believers to accomplish His will?
by I_love_Jeff in(again we have a questioned geared toward the jehovah's witnesses who strongly believe the star was a horama (illusion) crafted by satan.
this horama supposedly directed the magi who were apparently influenced by satan.).
if so, then what is wrong with god allowing the magi to accomplish his will by sending them out to find the christ?.
-
-
Bobcat
Here are some points from the NICNT commentary on Matthew (R. T. France, pp.59, 61-2):
First, he translates Matthew 2:2 thusly: ". . . inquiring, "Where is the child who has been born as King of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose, 2 and we have come to pay homage to him."
The footnote numbered "2" says: The singular anatole is used here and in v.9 for the "rising" of a celestial body, as distinct from the plural in v.1 and in 8:11; 24:27 for the "[place of] rising [of the sun]," the East. The singular can be used for the East, as in Rev 21:13, but not normally with the article (BDF 253[5]; . . . it is in any case most unlikely that Matthew would use singular and plural so close together in the same sense. If Num 24:17 underlies Matthew's account, the use of anatello in the LXX there requires the meaning "rising" here."
In he commentary on the text of chapter 2, he says:
Most obviously, the visit of foreign dignitaries to Jerusalem to see the son of David recalls the story of the Queen of Sheba (1Kgs 10:1-10), and Matthew's specific mention of the presentation of gold, frankincense, and myrrh echoes her royal gift to Solomon of "gold and a great quantity of spices" (1 Kgs 10:10), as well as other OT passages which take her visit and gifts as a model for the future glory of the Messiah (Ps 72:10-11, 15: "tribute," "gifts," "gold of Sheba"; Isa 60:5-6: "the wealth of the nations," "gold and frankincense," also with specific mention of Sheba). The "kings" who are the donors in Ps 72:10-11; Isa 60:13 14 are the source of the later Christian tradition which by the early third century had turned Matthew's "magi" into kings. Matthew thus paves the way for Jesus' later declaration that "something greater than Solomon is here" (12:42).
The footnote numbered 14 says:
"A further echo of Isa 60:3 may be detected in the "rising" of the star, reflecting the coming of nations and kings "to the brightness of your rising," though the LXX word is not the same."
There are some further notes I wanted to include, but my time is short at the moment. The point is that Matthew's account of the magi is rich with references to OT material linked with the coming of the Messiah. The WT story that it was a plot of Satan completely destroys the Biblical allusions that Matthew sets up. The Society says that others using the star dishonor God. But in fact, they dishonor God by destroying the continuity of the account that Matthew put together.
-
26
Last night in the Jeremiah Book
by BroMac ini dont understand when this happened: .
*** jr chap.
2 pp.
-
-
Bobcat
Ann:
Thanks for the further insight.
-
26
Last night in the Jeremiah Book
by BroMac ini dont understand when this happened: .
*** jr chap.
2 pp.
-
-
Bobcat
BroMac:
The problem for the Society is their dating. It creates problems for them. All sorts of little details don't mesh and so they have to "explain" things.
Daniel said it just as it was: (Daniel 1:1) ". . .In the third year of the kingship of Je·hoi′a·kim . . ." It was in the 3rd year of his reigning. And the commentary cited above clears up the discrepancy with Jer 46:2.
They do this with Daniel 2:1 also: " . . .And in the second year of the kingship of Neb·u·chad·nez′zar, . . ." The Daniel prophecy book explains that this was in the 2nd year after Neb. sacked Jerusalem. (605 by WT dating.) In reality it was 604/3, which was, just as Daniel said, 'in the 2nd year of Neb's kingship'
Gotta go.
-
18
"Last days" of John 6:53-57
by pixel inreading this section from jwfacts http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/144000.php (thanks for that excellent website!
) i came across this scripture: .
john 6:53-57 "accordingly jesus said to them: "most truly i say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.
-
-
Bobcat
Pixel:
Also, I understand "presence" as the second coming of Christ.
Yea, I was quoting from the NWT. The compare on e-Sword revealed, "arrival," "coming," "comes again," "returns," and "presence" (NWT, YLT). The Vulgate had "adventu." The majority had some form of "coming." AMG's Greek-English Dictionary has, "present, presence, a being present, a coming to a place. Presence, coming or arrival."
This was an interesting subject, by the way.
Incidentally, you've moved me to try to do some research on any possible difference between "last day" and "last days." From what I've seen on "last day," it seems to be used in a general sense of a looked-for future time. My guess is that "last days" has a narrower meaning in comparison.
"Last" in the Greek is where we get our english "eschatalogical." That was new to me.
-
18
"Last days" of John 6:53-57
by pixel inreading this section from jwfacts http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/144000.php (thanks for that excellent website!
) i came across this scripture: .
john 6:53-57 "accordingly jesus said to them: "most truly i say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.
-
-
Bobcat
Actually, it would include all those resurrected. Note how Paul understood it:
(1 Corinthians 15:22-24 NWT) . . .For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each one in his own rank: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father,. . .
Here Paul frames the resurrection with two occurences, "Christ the firstfruits," which, of course, was first century. Then, "those who belong to Christ during his presence. Next the end, when he hands over the kingdom . . ."
So the resurrection of "those who belong to the Christ" occurs "during his presence," but before he "hands over the kingdom" at the end of the 1000 years.
Those resurrected during his presence, are resurrected "each one in his own rank." ("Rank" could also be "order"; The Greek is tagma [5001], which means "anything arranged in order or in array such as a body of troops, a band, cohort.") This phrasing lends some credence to the idea of those ruling with Christ being raised first, then all believers/faithful ones, then the general population of mankind. All of whom "belong to Christ" by means of his ransom sacrifice. The phrasing by Paul allows for this to stretch out over a long period of time.
-
18
"Last days" of John 6:53-57
by pixel inreading this section from jwfacts http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/144000.php (thanks for that excellent website!
) i came across this scripture: .
john 6:53-57 "accordingly jesus said to them: "most truly i say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.
-
-
Bobcat
Incidentally, concerning "the last day" (Greek esxatos [2078] hemera [2250]):
This phrase is used in John exclusively. It occurs at:
John 6: 39, 40, 44, 54 (By Jesus, eschatalogically in ref. to the resurrection)
John 7:37 (By John in reference to a festival)
John 11:24 (By Martha, speaking of a future resurrection)
John 12:48 (By Jesus, in reference to a future judgment)
Concerning Martha's use of the term, the BECNT says, " Martha's affirmation of end-time resurrection was in keeping with Jesus' own teaching (cf. 5:21; 25-29, 6:39-44, 54), which in turn cohered with Pharisaic beliefs (cf. Acts 23:8; Josephus, Ant. 18.1.3 ~14; JW 2.8.14 ~163; see Barrett 1978:395) and those of the majority of first-century Jews (Bauckham 1998b)."
-
18
"Last days" of John 6:53-57
by pixel inreading this section from jwfacts http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/144000.php (thanks for that excellent website!
) i came across this scripture: .
john 6:53-57 "accordingly jesus said to them: "most truly i say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.
-
-
Bobcat
In connection with John chapter six and any relation to the Lord's Evening Meal, the BECNT commentary on John mentions that the discussion in chapter six uses verbs ("eats") that indicate a one-time sort of action, in contrast to a repeated action in the Lord's Evening Meal as it is memorialized over time. He (Andreas J. Kostenberger) also mentions the fact that the Memorial had not been instituted yet, so that the Jews and Jesus disciples, at the time of the discussion in chapter 6, would not have had the Memorial in mind.
At the same time, John is writing to disciples some decades later, so that the readers of his gospel account may have been intended to understand the relationship between what Jesus was saying and the symbolic meaning of the Lord's Evening Meal. He says; " On a secondary level, however, John may expect his readers to read Jesus' words in the light of the church's observance of the Lord's Supper, though not necessarily in a sacramental sense." (p.217)
One of the interesting things about John's gospel account is that it includes this discussion in chapter six, but does not have the actual account of the institution of the Lord's Evening Meal. It could be a certain amount of religious ceremony and ritual had crept in to the observance and John was working towards getting his readers to appreciate what the real meaning of the symbols were.
-
26
Last night in the Jeremiah Book
by BroMac ini dont understand when this happened: .
*** jr chap.
2 pp.
-
-
Bobcat
BroMac:
Jehoiakim was placed on the throne by Necho in 609
Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah (Hatti land, which included Judah) in 605. A footnote in the New American Commentary, p.97, concerning Daniel 1:1, 2 says:
E. Thiele, a leading authority on Biblical chronology, appears to be correct in concluding that Daniel used the Judean (Tishri) calendar, whereas Jeremiah followed the alternative Babylonian (Nisan) system in Jer 46:2 (Mysterius Numbers, 183).
There is more to the explanation in the NAC, but the point made is that according to the calendar that Daniel was using, this invasion happened in the third year of Jehoiakim's ruling. But by the calendar that Jeremiah was using it was the fourth year.
This invasion would be the one that Daniel was carried off in.
Others can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the WT maintains that there were only two deportations by the Babylonians (617, 607). Whereas, secular history has that there were three: 605, 598, 587
The WT comment about Josephus is both interesting and curious. Especially since that is all they say about it. It sounds like they don't want Josephus to be believed for some reason. (Not that he is inspired, but the note had a curious sound to it.) Incidentally, the Josephus comment can be found at Ant. 10.6.3. Best I can tell, Josephus is simply reporting what the Bible predicted, as he understood it. The Babylonian Chronicle, according to the NICOT commentary on Jeremiah say that Nebuchadnezzar did not kill Jehoiakim. Rather, that he was already dead when he entered the city in 598. The NICOT commentary posits that, since Jehoiakim rebelled, a pro-Babylonian faction within jerusalem may have killed him and had his body tossed out as a sign of submission to the Babylonians.
Hope this helps some. And I also hope, if there are mistakes, or more to add, that some one will chime in.