Jump to content

Origen

Moderators
  • Content count

    2,446
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57

Origen last won the day on June 11

Origen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,674,780 Excellent

About Origen

  • Rank
    MODERATOR

Interests

  • Interests
    Hebrew, Aramaic (and other cognate languages), Greek, Latin, textual criticism, exegesis, philosophy

Gender

  • Gender
    Male

State

  • State (No Abbreviations)
    TN

Denomination

  • Den
    Church of Christ

Recent Profile Visitors

396 profile views
  1. Origen

    Greetings

    Hello and welcome OC7
  2. I am sure you don't. That, however, does not explain why anyone should accept your view over theirs and that is the point. They are experts in their field of study. They cite exegetical or grammatical evidence. You have none. So does their Bible and so does mine. It seems you might be suggesting that since you have the Spirit anyone who does not agree with you does not. I see no reason to believe that the indwelling of the Spirit within them is somehow not as valid or something less than what you claim to have. They do not simply claim we have the Spirit therefore you ought to believe us. They cite evidence for their claims concerning the text, and they have the expertise to support their view. The fact you won't even try to address the evidence which means you are unable to address it in a meaning way.
  3. So you have no exegetical or grammatical evidence that might refute the numerous Greek scholars who disagree with your claim.
  4. So rather than address the evidence against you, you just ignore it and ask me a question about what I think which proves nothing about the text. That would do nothing to support your claim. Stick to the evidence. Now, you claim it "Truly I tell you today," is to be preferred. So let me ask you a relevant question, one concerning the evidence against your claim. Do you have any exegetical or grammatical evidence that might refute the numerous Greek scholars who disagree with you? The numerous Greek scholars who translated the KJV, NKJV, ESV, Net Bible, NASB, NLT, RS, NRSV, NIV, LEB, HCSB, CSB etc.?
  5. Thus the question is why chose your view over the other? You give no reasons why your ought to be accepted. "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." Or "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." (1) Is Jesus pointing out to the criminal that "he is speaking to him on that very day" or is he telling the criminal that on that very same day he would be with him in paradise? If it is the first, then Jesus is saying something along the lines of: "believe me that I am speaking to you now" which makes no sense at all. There is no need or reason for Jesus to tell the criminal that he is speaking to on that day. The criminal already knows that Jesus is speaking to him on that day. It simply makes no sense. (2) Jesus' uses his trademark expression "Truly I say to you" (or "truly, truly") 72 times and it is NEVER modified by an adverb of time. (3) Jesus uses his trademark expression to emphasis what he is going to say not when he said. The 72 examplex in the N.T. verify this point. (4) Luke uses the adverb σήμερον ("today" or "this very day") to emphasize the immediacy of an event (See 2:11; 4:21; 5:26; 13:32-33; 22; 34, 61). Moreover, σήμερον is used 40 times in the New Testament, 11 times in Luke alone. And not once is it used in the sense of informing a person that he is being spoken to a certain time. (5) Every major translation has the comma before the adverb (i.e. KJV, NKJV, ESV, Net Bible, NASB, NLT, RS, NRSV, NIV, LEB, HCSB, CSB etc.). Give the number of Greek scholars who translated these versions, not one of them agree with you. In fact the only translation I know of which does is the cult NWT from the JWs.
  6. So Matthew Henry, Albert Barns, and John Wesley (who by the way all know Greek) are wrong but you are right, and your proof for this is you "don't thing so."
  7. Origen

    Gill's Commentary on John 19:14 reviewed

    Just think of how painful it was for me to address that nonsense. lol
  8. Origen

    David's Throne - Acts 2:29–36

    Thank you Becky.
  9. Origen

    Rate This Topic

    Hey I like really like that and I love your example. lol
  10. Origen

    David's Throne - Acts 2:29–36

    Addendum Point One Both Hebrew and Greek scholars acknowledge the word "throne" often refers to more than just the chair upon which the king sits. The word "throne" (i.e. Hebrew = כִּסֵּ֖א, Greek = θρόνος) by extention refer to a king's "reign\rule, dynasty, kingdom, dominion, sovereignty." According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (vol. 1, p. 448): While there is no doubt that the word "throne" can and sometimes does refer to a literal throne, that is much too narrow a view and does not adequately reflect the meaning of the term. There is more to than that. Two Examples: (1) 2 Sam. 14:9 - And the woman of Tekoa said to the king, “On me be the guilt, my lord the king, and on my father’s house; let the king and his throne be guiltless.” It is clear that the women is not saying that the throne itself be guiltless. She is saying that neither the king nor any part of his dynasty, kingdom is responsible. (2) Luke 1:32 - "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,..." The word "throne" in this context is not simply a reference to the seat upon which David sat. Obviously the giving of the throne to Jesus means that he is heir to the Davidic dynasty. I cite these examples (and there are many more) in order to demonstrate that the semantic range of the word "throne" (in Hebrew or Greek) covers more than simply a literal throne. Give the extended meaning of the term and the example of Luke 1:32, this shows that the actually throne of David is not needed. If one understand "throne" to refer to the Davidic dynasty, there is no problem. Luke 1:32 is even more interesting given what Peter says Acts 2:29-36 (see above post). Luke is the only N.T. author to specifically mention David and his throne. Point Two Many claim there is a difference between David's throne and God's throne, the heavenly throne. I believe Acts 2:29-36 and the meaning of the term "throne" completely dispels that idea. Yet there are other reason for rejecting that claim. For example: "So Solomon sat on the throne of David his father, and his kingdom was firmly established." 1 Kings 2:12 Now look at the parallel passage in 1Chronicles 29:23. "Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of David his father." In 1 Kings 2:12 the throne is referred to as "the throne of David" but in 1Chronicles 29:23 it is "the throne of the LORD." There is no distinction between God’s throne and David’s throne. I am sorry to say this but David was just keeping the seat warm till the real King got here and whereever that KING sits (i.e. Christ) is the throne. David himself acknowledges this fact . "And of all my sons (for the LORD has given me many sons) he has chosen Solomon my son to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel. (1 Chronicles 28:5) It is "the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel" not David's throne. The phrase "David's throne" (and those like it) were just ways to refer to the Davidic dynasty and the promise God made to him.
  11. This thread was prompted by another thread and certain claims made concerning David's throne. Many just gloss over Peter's remarks without trying to follow his argument, and in doing so they miss some key points Peter was making. Peter is making an argument and there is a flow of thought linking certain key ideas to one another. (1) Note Peter's flow of thought in verse 30. Since David was a prophet, and knew one of his descendants would be set on his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ. According to Peter, David links his knowledge concerning one of his descendants being set on his throne to the resurrection of the Christ. He does not link to the some future kingdom on Earth or to the second coming but to Christ's resurrection. Peter simply no reason to bring up Christ's resurrection and the throne unless they are linked in some way. (2) Now let's note the flow of thought in verses 32-33. Please note the verb "exalted" is in the past tense. This has already happened and is not some future event. Peter wants to make sure that every one knows that Christ was resurrected and he gives evidence for it. This point is foundational to his argument. Again it goes back to what David said about Christ's resurrection and the throne. Notice the "therefore." Peter is drawing a conclusion (i.e. giving a reason why) based upon what he has already said. Now don't forget the points that Peter has already made concerning David speaking of Christ's resurrection and the throne. Again, Since David was a prophet, and knew one of his descendants would be set on his throne, he and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ. Christ was indeed resurrected "therefore" God exalted Him, and given what Peter had previously said concerning David the link is made. The link between one of David's descendants being on his throne has nothing to do with a future kingdom on Earth or the second coming. It was Christ exaltation\enthronement following the resurrection. Peter makes it very clear that it was the resurrection. Again there is simply no reason to bring up Christ's resurrection and the throne unless they are linked. (3) Peter now cites Psalm 110:1 (a Psalm written my David). Peter gives further evidence concerning what David said about Christ. David predicted both Jesus’ resurrection (v. 31) which then culminated in His exaltation\enthronement (v. 25), something Peter had already referenced (i.e. David knew one of his descendants would be set on the throne and foretold of Christ resurrection). Thus we have Christ's resurrection and His exaltation\enthronement all linked back to David. Moreover the link is even made stronger by the fact the verbs "set" in verse 30 and "sit" in verse 34 (i.e. καθίζω and κάθημαι) are synonyms. (4) Now Peter brings it all together in verse 36. I think the designation "the house of Israel" is very telling given how Peter has based his argument upon what David said about Christ's resurrection and the throne. After all it should be the house of Israel who ought to be most interested in David and his throne. No doubt the restoration of the kingdom was be upmost Importance to the house of Israel. Peter point was the very one they crucified was the very one David foresaw and God had kept his promise. This Christ was exalted\enthroned just as David said. Peter states that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Again notice the "therefore." Peter is drawing a conclusion based on what he has already stated. The reason why God make Jesus both Lord and Christ followed from what David said. Since David was a prophet, and knew one of his descendants would be set on his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ. Christ was resurrected and exalted\enthroned just as David said. Therefore God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ again showing that God kept his promise to David. Both titles "Lord and Christ" drive Peters point home. I am sure most of you know the word "Lord" means "master, sovereign, ruler" etc. I am also sure that most of you know that the word "Lord" was also used as a title for Yahweh. Peter is using very powerful and descriptive terms. Christ is sovereign ruler. Again we have to follow Peter's line of thought and how he links that back to what David said. Given this context the word "Christ" (i.e. χριστός = anointed one) has a special significance. Who was the anointed one? What kind of messiah was the house of Israel looking for? The term "anointed one" could be used as a reference for the king. The king was God's "anointed one." That is not to say that the term could not be employed in other contexts and in other ways. The messiah (i.e. anointed one), according to Jewish thought, was to be a king who would restore Israel as a kingdom. Given Peter's argument concerning David, the throne, Christ's exaltation\enthronement, and the fact that Peter uses the term "Lord" (i.e. sovereign ruler), the term "anointed one" in this context functions as a kingly title. Thus both titles "Lord and Christ" point to Jesus' royal status. He is the king who sits upon David's throne. There is no reason to believe either David nor Peter thought it had to be the actual throne of David nor did it need to be here on Earth. This is made clear when David links the throne and Christ's resurrection and exaltation\enthronement. Peter states after Christ's resurrection He was exalted\enthroned and quotes David to prove it. According to the text this takes place in heaven after the ascension not here on Earth. If Christ's exaltation\enthronement in heaven does not fulfill God's promise to David, then Peter was wrong. Both his argument and his citing of Scripture to prove his point is wrong. It makes no sense for Peter to even bring up David's throne in this context if there was no link to Christ's exaltation\enthronement and David quote from Psalm 110:1. All the elements are there. Peter makes the connections using what David knew and said concerning his throne.
  12. Origen

    The LAST REFORMATION ever, apparently.

    Yeah, it is a cult.
  13. Origen

    About fighting and self defense

    Thought so!
×