|
|
Post by thetimeoftheend on Nov 13, 2017 22:04:28 GMT -6
I think this illustrates the problem of creating a chiasmus when one does not exist in the scripture. The plain, unambiguous reading in 19:4 states that the armies of heaven followed Christ, it is not necessary to replace them with the kings of the earth. The scripture also unambiguously states he saw "the beast AND the kings of the earth gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse." The plain reading of the scripture is once again clear in the matter, creating a chiasmus where one does not exist leads only to error. I use the King James. It does not state that the armies of heaven followed Christ. However, I do agree with the inference that you have made. The purpose of that chiasmus was to illustrate a linking system that was not traditional. The debate is not about Rev. 19:19, but about the order of Melchizedek in its overall application to Lord Jesus and the Son of David. The King James Version doesnt have Revelation 19:14? |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 13, 2017 22:24:31 GMT -6
I am sorry. I thought your were speaking of Rev. 19:19 when I saw "19:4" in your posting.
|
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 14, 2017 9:21:34 GMT -6
This is a comparison of three ways of reading Psalms 110:1. The first is that of the Pharisees, the second is that of the Christians, and the third, in my opinion, reconciles the two.
Psalms 110:1
Pharisees: The Lord (God) said unto my Lord (Son of David) Sit thou (Son of David) at my (God's) right hand until I (God) make thine (Son of David's) enemies thy (Son of David's) footstool."
Christians: The Lord (God) said unto my Lord (Jesus) Sit thou (Jesus) at my (God's) right hand until I (God) make thine (Jesus') enemies thy (Jesus') footstool."
As you can see, the Christians simply supplanted "Jesus" for "Son of David" in the text, rendering, in my opinion, the Pharisees reading of the text incorrect. However, the Christians did not resolve the secondary issue; that the Son of David is not Jesus. Therefore, the Christians reading of Verse 110:1 is incorrect as well.
That is, in my opinion, the Christians are reading the text as follows:
Christians: The Lord (God) said unto my Lord (Son of God) Sit thou (Son of God) at my (God's) right hand until I (God) make thine (Son of God's) enemies thy (Son of God's) footstool."
However, Psalms 118:10-12 shows a situation in which all nations encompassed a king. The Pharisees were looking for that king. A king that destroys his enemies in the name of the Lord. I do not recall that Lord Jesus is encompassed by all nations and destroys his enemies in the name of God the Father. On the contrary, in my opinion, the Son of David destroys his enemies in the name of the Lord and that Lord is Lord Jesus. Thus Psalms 110:1 reads as follows:
The Lord (Son of David) said unto my Lord (Son of God) Sit thou (Son of God) at my (Son of David's) right hand until I (Son of David) make thine (Son of God's) enemies thy (Son of God's) footstool."
This Son of David in my opinion is the Moses of Rev. 15:3.
|
|
|
|
Post by thetimeoftheend on Nov 14, 2017 9:56:38 GMT -6
This is a comparison of three ways of reading Psalms 110:1. The first is that of the Pharisees, the second is that of the Christians, and the third, in my opinion, reconciles the two. Psalms 110:1 Pharisees: The Lord (God) said unto my Lord (Son of David) Sit thou (Son of David) at my (God's) right hand until I (God) make thine (Son of David's) enemies thy (Son of David's) footstool." Christians: The Lord (God) said unto my Lord (Jesus) Sit thou (Jesus) at my (God's) right hand until I (God) make thine (Jesus') enemies thy (Jesus') footstool." As you can see, the Christians simply supplanted "Jesus" for "Son of David" in the text, rendering, in my opinion, the Pharmacies reading of the text incorrect. However, the Christians did not resolve the secondary issue; that the Son of David is not Jesus. Therefore, the Christians reading of Verse 110:1 is incorrect as well. That is, in my opinion, the Christians are reading the text as follows: Christians: The Lord (God) said unto my Lord (Son of God) Sit thou (Son of God) at my (God's) right hand until I (God) make thine (Son of God's) enemies thy (Son of God's) footstool." However, Psalms 118:10-12 shows a situation in which all nations encompassed a king. The Pharisees were looking for that king. A king that destroys his enemies in the name of the Lord. I do not recall that Lord Jesus is encompassed by all nations and destroys his enemies in the name of God the Father. On the contrary, in my opinion, the Son of David destroys his enemies in the name of the Lord and that Lord is Lord Jesus. Thus Psalms 110:1 reads as follows: The Lord (Son of David) said unto my Lord (Son of God) Sit thou (Son of God) at my (Son of David's) right hand until I (Son of David) make thine (Son of God's) enemies thy (Son of God's) footstool." This Son of David in my opinion is the Moses of Rev. 15:3. Please forgive me, but please help me and others understand how Moses, who predated David by some 300-500 years, could be the Son of David? Or, if I am inferring correctly by "the" in front of Moses are you implicating that there is an additional Moses? Please help me understand how a reading of Revelation 15:3 could indicate a "second Moses." |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Nov 14, 2017 10:23:07 GMT -6
Your interpretation does not make sense. If I understand you correctly, Moses is telling Jesus to sit at his (Moses') right hand until Moses makes Jesus's enemies His footstool. Jesus ascended to heaven and now sits at the Father's right hand. (see Hebrews 8:1, 10:11-13; Luke 22:69) Jesus is the Son of David; Scripture shows this. Gotquestions lays it out and saves me some work: www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-son-of-David.html |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 14, 2017 11:44:38 GMT -6
I understand how you feel. When I first considered the possibility that another individual was mentioned in scripture I rejected it out right. It must be a natural response. I am sure that is what the Jews did when they heard the message of Lord Jesus. They could not accept it. However, some did listen and thereby formed an educated judgment. Some accepting the message, and some not.
All I am doing is sharing the message.
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Nov 14, 2017 11:48:05 GMT -6
If we look again at 110:1, The first Lord is actually written in small capital letters...YHWH in Hebrew. So, you cannot translate it to mean Moses because then Moses would equal YHWH and that's not correct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 11:57:50 GMT -6
I think a look at the Hebrew would be informative in this case. The first Lord is Yahweh, the second is Adon. The message is clear - and I don't see Moses anywhere involved other than in that he was a picture of a Christ at various times.
|
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 14, 2017 12:07:02 GMT -6
This is a comparison of three ways of reading Psalms 110:1. The first is that of the Pharisees, the second is that of the Christians, and the third, in my opinion, reconciles the two. Psalms 110:1 Pharisees: The Lord (God) said unto my Lord (Son of David) Sit thou (Son of David) at my (God's) right hand until I (God) make thine (Son of David's) enemies thy (Son of David's) footstool." Christians: The Lord (God) said unto my Lord (Jesus) Sit thou (Jesus) at my (God's) right hand until I (God) make thine (Jesus') enemies thy (Jesus') footstool." As you can see, the Christians simply supplanted "Jesus" for "Son of David" in the text, rendering, in my opinion, the Pharmacies reading of the text incorrect. However, the Christians did not resolve the secondary issue; that the Son of David is not Jesus. Therefore, the Christians reading of Verse 110:1 is incorrect as well. That is, in my opinion, the Christians are reading the text as follows: Christians: The Lord (God) said unto my Lord (Son of God) Sit thou (Son of God) at my (God's) right hand until I (God) make thine (Son of God's) enemies thy (Son of God's) footstool." However, Psalms 118:10-12 shows a situation in which all nations encompassed a king. The Pharisees were looking for that king. A king that destroys his enemies in the name of the Lord. I do not recall that Lord Jesus is encompassed by all nations and destroys his enemies in the name of God the Father. On the contrary, in my opinion, the Son of David destroys his enemies in the name of the Lord and that Lord is Lord Jesus. Thus Psalms 110:1 reads as follows: The Lord (Son of David) said unto my Lord (Son of God) Sit thou (Son of God) at my (Son of David's) right hand until I (Son of David) make thine (Son of God's) enemies thy (Son of God's) footstool." This Son of David in my opinion is the Moses of Rev. 15:3. Please forgive me, but please help me and others understand how Moses, who predated David by some 300-500 years, could be the Son of David? Or, if I am inferring correctly by "the" in front of Moses are you implicating that there is an additional Moses? Please help me understand how a reading of Revelation 15:3 could indicate a "second Moses." I am saying that there is a second Moses and it is he who leads the people on the rapture. Additionally, the "Son of David" is a title pertaining to the Davidic Covenant. That is, he performs his duties as stipulated to in that covenant. Thus, this second Moses is the "Son of David" that the Pharisees were looking for at the time of Lord Jesus' mortal ministery. |
|
|
|
Psalms 110
Nov 14, 2017 12:12:09 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by thetimeoftheend on Nov 14, 2017 12:12:09 GMT -6
Can I suggest the possibility of the mods considering locking this thread for review? I'm afraid we are coming close to debating core doctrine and have gone well beyond a historical grammatical interpretation of the Bible.
My concern is that those looking at these boards in the future could be lead astray by some of the things being said here with no basis in Scripture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Nov 14, 2017 12:15:56 GMT -6
Can I suggest the possibility of the mods considering locking this thread for review? I'm afraid we are coming close to debating core doctrine and have gone well beyond a historical grammatical interpretation of the Bible. My concern is that those looking at these boards in the future could be lead astray by some of the things being said here with no basis in Scripture. I will do that. I had been considering it as well. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 14, 2017 12:16:08 GMT -6
I think a look at the Hebrew would be informative in this case. The first Lord is Yahweh, the second is Adon. The message is clear - and I don't see Moses anywhere involved other than in that he was a picture of a Christ at various times. Yes, it is the case that scripture confirms to us that Jesus is the Christ. However, we look back and ask, How did the Jews miss this? It was clearly in scripture. One hundred years from now, the people will ask, How did those people miss this. It is stated in scripture. Thus, it goes along with your teachings. The preconceived ideas of what is absolute stand to be questioned. Is Lord Jesus the Savior of this earth? The answer is yes. Does he have a second Moses to lead the people. The answer is yes. Ask the Father and he will tell you. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Nov 17, 2017 9:50:58 GMT -6
The thread is being unlocked with the request that points being discussed must be expounded on further and have better support. It would also be greatly appreciated if things would be referred to as being literal versus allegorical etc because many are having a difficult time comprehending your perspective. One concern is the idea that Moses is the Son of David and interpreted as such in the Psalm. The Psalm uses LORD (with all small capitals). This is understood to be the covenant name that God gave to the Jews, written in Hebrew using YHVH. boraddict Could you possibly give better support for your interpretation? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 12:31:53 GMT -6
I think a look at the Hebrew would be informative in this case. The first Lord is Yahweh, the second is Adon. The message is clear - and I don't see Moses anywhere involved other than in that he was a picture of a Christ at various times. Yes, it is the case that scripture confirms to us that Jesus is the Christ. However, we look back and ask, How did the Jews miss this? It was clearly in scripture. One hundred years from now, the people will ask, How did those people miss this. It is stated in scripture. Thus, it goes along with your teachings. The preconceived ideas of what is absolute stand to be questioned. Is Lord Jesus the Savior of this earth? The answer is yes. Does he have a second Moses to lead the people. The answer is yes. Ask the Father and he will tell you. I am completely onboard about preconceived ideas. But that does not mean that everything that is new, is true. Newness, by itself, does not guarantee truth. But, as with all things, I will ask the Father. That is advice I cannot refuse! Even if we don't want to go so far as to calling someone else Moses - I think the core of what you are claiming is that someone(other than Jesus) will physically lead people on a future exodus as a type of Moses. Is that a correct assessment of your position? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 12:47:44 GMT -6
I think a look at the Hebrew would be informative in this case. The first Lord is Yahweh, the second is Adon. The message is clear - and I don't see Moses anywhere involved other than in that he was a picture of a Christ at various times. Yes, it is the case that scripture confirms to us that Jesus is the Christ. However, we look back and ask, How did the Jews miss this? It was clearly in scripture. One hundred years from now, the people will ask, How did those people miss this. It is stated in scripture. Thus, it goes along with your teachings. The preconceived ideas of what is absolute stand to be questioned. Is Lord Jesus the Savior of this earth? The answer is yes. Does he have a second Moses to lead the people. The answer is yes. Ask the Father and he will tell you. oh, one more thing boraddict, you asked the question, "How did those people miss this. It is stated in scripture" The people missed it because of two reasons - the idols in their heart, and the blindness given them by God. We miss much because of these same reasons. Both the traditionalists and those who find new things are under the same constraints. It is good for you to hold up your understanding for review by others. It is good of others to ponder. Let us all ask God to open our eyes and reveal who He really is to us! |
|
