logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline James  
#1 Posted : Saturday, July 5, 2014 1:58:12 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,608
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
So I got into a discussion with the husband of a friend of my wifes on the issue of Paul. At one point I brought up Paul's failed prophecy and how that alone would disqualify him as speaking on behalf of Yah. I got the typical christian response of well he didn't mean himself he meant christians in general. After explaining that his understanding is not valid based on the text he disengaged saying that he didn't know enough about the Greek language to discuss it, fair enough. So I have been preparing some of the evidence that that interpretation is invalid to give to him, and thought I would share it here as well.

First Paul expressly includes the word WE in his text. This may seem unimportant in English where we include we all the time, but Greek like many languages does not need to include the word WE. Many people are familiar with Spanish which uses the same style as Greek in this regard. In Spanish you don't have a word to say I, or We, you amend the verb to include it. So the word go, Va, would be VOY to say I go, and Vamos to say we go. The same is true for Greek. There is a word in Greek, but it used only to add emphasis. The word used in 1Thessilonians 4:17 is hemeis, and if you look simply to Strongs G2249 you find that it is

Strongs wrote:
hēmeis
hay-mice'
Nomitive plural of G1473; we (only used when emphatic): - us, we (ourselves).


G1473 is a word that most everyone who speaks English will recognize and know the meaning of, it is EGO (I). So the word that Paul used, that he didn't need to but choose to use to add emphasis, is the plural form of I.

The Dictionary of Biblical Languages gives us the following insight for ego, the basis of hemeis as well as hemeis itself.

DBL wrote:
1609 ἐγώ (egō): prn. (personal, in the 1st pers.); ≡ Str 1473 & 1691 & 1698 & 1700 & 2248 & 2249 & 2254 & 2257 & 3165 & 3427 & 3450; TDNT 2.343—LN 92.1 ἐγώ (egō), (subjective) I (Mt 3:11); ἐμοῦ (emou), ἐμοί (emoi), ἐμέ (eme), (objective) me (Mt 5:11; 11:6; 18:6); (in relationship) my; ἡμεῖς (hēmeis), (in plural subjective) we (Mt 6:12); ἡμῶν (hēmōn), ἡμῖν (hēmin), ἡμᾶς (hēmas), (objective) us (Mt 1:23; 3:15; 6:13); (in relationship) our.


Further more hemeis in 1Thess4:17 is written in the first person, which we see from the above when in the 1st person it is not just a pronoun, but a personal pronoun. So we have an uneeded word, used only to convey and emphasis being the first person, plural form of the personal pronoun I.

Had Paul not included hemeis here then the christian interpretation might have some validity as ho zao the two words preceding it can mean those living, and thus would not necisarily include the speaker, but when preceded with hemeis it is WE the living....

Further more the two verbs directly after hemeis, zao and perileipomai, which are being ascribed to hemeis are in the present tense.

Based on all of this there is no way to exclude Paul from this group, and since this event did not occur in Paul's lifetime then Paul was wrong, in a game where 1 strike is you are out.

Edited by user Tuesday, August 19, 2014 5:02:10 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline masters_apprentice  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:37:32 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Are you saying that that verse does not have merit over a grammar technicality? Look at what Paul is telling you and how it fits in with other verses Paul talks about about this subject. And look at what Jesus says about this subject. And what John says. And what others say. And look at the overall context and then don't strike that verse over a perceived technicaltiy.

The verse is valid. Thos who are alive at the coming of Messiah will be cahnged in an instant. PAul NEVER said it would happen in his lifetime. And Jesus never said it would happen in their generation.

(yes Jesus for the sake of the topic)
Offline James  
#3 Posted : Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:39:39 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,608
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Originally Posted by: masters_apprentice Go to Quoted Post
Are you saying that that verse does not have merit over a grammar technicality?

I am saying that based on what Paul wrote he was a false prophet and therefore we should not listen to anything he had to say. Paul made a prophecy, that prophecy did not come to pass, based on Yahowah's testimony in Dabariym 18 Paul is a false prophet.

Originally Posted by: masters_apprentice Go to Quoted Post
Look at what Paul is telling you and how it fits in with other verses Paul talks about about this subject. And look at what Jesus says about this subject. And what John says. And what others say. And look at the overall context and then don't strike that verse over a perceived technicaltiy.

I don't care what Paul has to say about this subject, the whole point of the thread was to show how Paul is a false prophet. Unless you can show me how his prophecy came true then this is a moot point.

And it is not a perceived technicality, it is examining the words the man, who claimed to speak for God, wrote, and the applying the test that God gave to determine who spoke for Him. I am doing exactly what Yahowah asked me to do.

Originally Posted by: masters_apprentice Go to Quoted Post
The verse is valid. Thos who are alive at the coming of Messiah will be cahnged in an instant. PAul NEVER said it would happen in his lifetime. And Jesus never said it would happen in their generation.

(yes Jesus for the sake of the topic)


It doesn't matter if "Thos who are alive at the coming of Messiah will be cahnged in an instant." and yes Paul did say that it would happen in his lifetime, that was the whole point of the post, and you have not provided an ounce of evidence to suggest otherwise.

You are choosing to dismiss the actual words he wrote rather than examine them. Like many you are unwilling to let go of Paul so you pull out your Paul decoder ring and say what Paul meant to say was ... Well I am not having it. These are the words the man wrote, this is what they say and no amount of wishing changes that. If Paul spoke for God, as he claimed, then his communication would be clear, he would not have used a word that precisely indicates that he himself would be part of it, if that was not his intention.

So either he wrote for himself and made mistakes, in which case he is a liar because he claimed to speak for God, or he spoke for God and was just the worst communicator ever, in which case there is no hope of understanding him and we shouldn't waste our time. Considering Yahowah specializes in working with inadequate tools and performing great works with them I am inclined to go with the first.

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 3/13/2015(UTC)
Offline masters_apprentice  
#4 Posted : Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:31:33 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Would you please post th4e verse that said the Messiah would come in his lifetime please? Are you referring to this verse...

1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

This verse is end times prophecy no matter how you try to put it in a box. It corresponds with Rev 19 and 20, 1Cor 15:52, Matthew 24, and more. The happens after Messiah returns.

Did you explain in your top post that this is referencing during his life??? I guess I need to go re-read what you allege, but this is end times prophecy simple as that.

Offline James  
#5 Posted : Friday, March 13, 2015 12:13:54 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,608
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
When Paul said, "WE (hēmeis - first person, plural form of ego, meaning the speaker and others. An unneeded word used only to add emphasis that the speaker is included) who are alive and remain." There is absolutely no other way to interpret this other than Paul saying that when this event occurred that he, Paul, would be alive.

This was the whole point of the post originally. You’re dismissing the words that he wrote because they condemn him and you are unable to do that. You have not provided any evidence or reason as to how Paul is not included in WE.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 3/13/2015(UTC)
Offline masters_apprentice  
#6 Posted : Friday, March 13, 2015 8:14:54 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Are you kidding me? "We" could mean Israelites, studiers of Yashua, righteous people, or many other implied entities. He never said "I will be alive". He is emphatic most likely becsaue this is a very important and happy thing he is telling us.

And you are trying to put him backwards into a box over a person's intepretation and call hima liar and discredit him over this??? I have chatted with many "Paul haters" and I see some more here. Paul is a genius and speaks at the highest levels of biblical understanding.

Yashua said you can pick up serpents and drink poison. Does that mean you should go pick up a snake? Of course not, but you would be surprised at how many people yearly are killed by doing this.

When Paul says "we who are alive" if he did mean him maybe he had hope it would happen then since he knows the plan. But it did not. And that is no reason to skew him like you have. Maybe Mr. Strong is slightly off too.
Offline James  
#7 Posted : Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:01:01 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,608
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
MA wrote:
Are you kidding me? "We" could mean Israelites, studiers of Yashua, righteous people, or many other implied entities. He never said "I will be alive". He is emphatic most likely becsaue this is a very important and happy thing he is telling us.


No it cannot. In English it can, but it Greek it cannot. That was the whole point of the 1st post had you bothered to read it. The Greek word which Paul choose was hēmeis, a word who’s only purpose in being used is to add emphasis. Had Paul wished to convey a plural without including himself he would not have used hēmeis. As I pointed out in the 1st post Greek like many languages alters the verb to convey who it applies to. Had Paul not included hemeis here then your interpretation might have some validity as ho zao the two words preceding it can mean those living, and thus would not necessarily include the speaker, but when preceded with hemeis it is WE the living.... Furthermore the two verbs directly after hemeis, zao and perileipomai, which are being ascribed to hemeis are in the present tense.

Based on all of this there is no way to exclude Paul from We, and since this event did not occur in Paul's lifetime then Paul was wrong, in a game where 1 strike is you are out.

MA wrote:
And you are trying to put him backwards into a box over a person's intepretation and call hima liar and discredit him over this??? I have chatted with many "Paul haters" and I see some more here. Paul is a genius and speaks at the highest levels of biblical understanding.


I am simply looking at the words your so called genius wrote. I have not cited, quoted or stated anyone’s interpretation. You are ignoring the words he wrote and telling me time and time again that he didn’t mean what he wrote he means something the opposite of what he wrote. What kind of genius can’t communicate? You are the one interpreting his words to mean something other than what they out right say.

Yes I hate Paul. And as far as the “highest levels of biblical understanding” I would say Dowd/David did that with his Pslams which are clear and simple to understand and mean what they say.


MA wrote:
Yashua said you can pick up serpents and drink poison. Does that mean you should go pick up a snake? Of course not, but you would be surprised at how many people yearly are killed by doing this.


We had this discussion before, that story is 100% made up. It did not exist in the original text, just like the story of the adulterous woman and let he who is without sin cast the first stone, religious men added this. Again, please read our prior conversation on this.
http://forum.yadayah.com...sts&t=2604#post23197

MA wrote:
When Paul says "we who are alive" if he did mean him maybe he had hope it would happen then since he knows the plan. But it did not. And that is no reason to skew him like you have. Maybe Mr. Strong is slightly off too.


HE did not say I hope, he did not say I think, he stated it as fact, he stated it with the authority of one who speaks for God, and he was wrong. If Paul spoke for Yahowah then he would not have stated what he stated and since he did he does not speak for Yahowah.

Dabariym 18 wrote:
“And if (wa ky) you actually say (‘amar – you genuinely ask over the course of time (scribed in the qal imperfect)) in (ba) your heart (lebab – your inner nature and attitude), ‘How (‘eykah) shall we actually and consistently know (yada’ – shall we continually possess the information required to genuinely distinguish, discriminate, understand and acknowledge (here the qal stem was used to convey actually, genuinely, and literally while the imperfect conjugation reveals that the ability to know is ongoing, consistent, and continual irrespective of time))accordingly if the (‘eth ha – whether the) statement (dabar – written or spoken communication) which (‘asher – under the expectation of a beneficial relationship)he speaks or writes (dabar – his complete testimony (here the prefect conjugation requires us to examine the totality of the person’s written and spoken communication while the piel stem reveals that our perceptions of the object’s writings, Yahowah’s Towrah in this case, suffer the effect of the false prophet’s testimony)) is not (lo’) Yahowah’s ()?’
If that which (‘asher) is deliberately spoken over time (dabar – has continually orchestrated through written or spoken communication (with the piel stem the subject influences the object and with the imperfect conjugation the consequence is ongoing)) by the one who proclaims the message (ha naby’ – prophet who claims divine inspiration) in (ba) Yahowah’s () name (shem – reputation and renown) is not literally and consistently present and established(lo’ hayah – is not actually instituted and existing (qal imperfect)), or it does notactually come to be (wa lo’ bow’ – does not consistently arrive (such as a predicted harvest) or literally happen (such as an errant prediction) (qal imperfect)), the message (ha dabar – the written statement and spoken communication) which(‘asher – from the perspective of a beneficial relationship) he (huw’), himself, has deliberately spoken to influence (dabar – the totality of what he has communicated orally and in writing to effect one’s perceptions regarding the object, which is God (piel perfect)) is not (lo’) Yahowah’s ().
In (ba – with) arrogance and presumptuousness (zadown – with an inflated view of himself, self-willed and self-motivated, this morally flawed, disrespectful, imprudent, insulting, and shameless individual has taken great liberty while overstepping all due bounds in contempt of the established authority), the prophet(ha naby’ – the one claiming to be issuing inspired statements from God) has spoken and written (dabar – he has conceived and presented his message (piel perfect – he has completely and deliberately sought to influence)).
You should not respect or revere him nor conspire to rebel with him (lo’ guwr min – you should not fear him, join him, congregate or live with him either).”(Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:21-22)



People like you will dance all around, bend over backward, squint their eyes and do whatever it takes not to abandon Paul. There is no hope for a true believer to ever come to the truth. Since you are here today spouting the same nonsense you did 3 years ago it is even clearer that you are a true believer and no amount of facts, evidence or reason will ever convince you, so why should I waste my time.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 3 users thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 3/14/2015(UTC), cgb2 on 3/15/2015(UTC), strikeymate on 1/10/2018(UTC)
Offline strikeymate  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, January 10, 2018 2:37:10 AM(UTC)
strikeymate
Joined: 1/10/2018(UTC)
Posts: 2
Australia
Location: Colac

Thanks: 1 times
I understand both James and apprentoice. I too believed as apprentice many years ago... that was before I asked Yahoshua to show me the truth. 10 years later and much seeking, and my paradigm has completely changed. The whole problem for those totally believinbg in the bible as the "word of God" is they follow the traditions of man and woship God in vain. They worship the bible instead of the One who gave it. Yahoshua gave only a few commands, and one which was the most important of all, is not obeyed. He said... Seek and you will find. Do you thinlk He meant for you to seek it all in a book? No, He meant to seek with all your might. It never ceases to amaze me that Christians worship a book, but do little if nothing, to find out where that book (bible) came from. If they did indeed do this, they would find that even though the bible is good for instruction, it is NOT% the whole truth and is certainly NOT ALL the word of God.

This topic is about Paul and I do acknowledge also that Paul's prophecy mentioned here has, according to traditional Christian doctrines, has certainly not manifested and therefore as james states, Paul is a liar and false prophet. But what if it DID come true? What if Yahoshua did return as He said He would in that generation... what then? Afterall He said He was " Coming soon" right? Actually6 He said again He was "at the door" which is an idiom to mean "about to happen: And Christians want to twist that to mean 2000 years or more right? Well accorfding to the definition of a prophet as james also mentions, if it does not come true in a certain time, then that professed prophet is a liar and a fake!!! Are we then to call Yahoshua a fake? Well ONLY if you believe He has not yet returned already. Please remember though, He never ever said He would return in the flesh.

For me, Yahoshua returned exactly when He said He would, 2000 years ago, and because I believe that, He is within me and guiding me in truth which is all I ask.

MY Conclusion: If you believe Yahoshua (or Jesus as the hypocrites call Him) has yet to come, then Paul is a liar and false prophet indeed. BUT, if you believe Yahoshua is the Son of God and a TRUE prohet, and so came back as He said He would according to His prophecy, then yes, Paul could very well be correct (according to the bible).
Offline James  
#9 Posted : Sunday, January 14, 2018 2:24:37 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,608
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
strikeymate,

Let me start by saying I have zero trust in the Greek Text. Anyone who honestly studies the history of the translations, and the history of how the text was passed on would come to this same conclusion. Start with the fact that they are written in Greek, a language that Yahowsha never spoke or wrote in, and a language His disciples, Yahuwdi fisherman, did not speak or write in. So even with the oldest text we have it is already a translation of what they would have said and done, and a translation into a language which was not well suited for conveying Hebrew thoughts. Next there is the problem that with the exception of Mattanyah/Matthew and Yahowchanan/John none of the authors of the Greek text were present for the events described, so they are hearsay at best. Then there is the issue that thos who originally kept these text clearly did not believe them to be devine writ and so felt perfectly comfortable with editing them as they copied them, shown by the fact that there are more than 100,000 document variances between the oldest text. So to me the Greek text are an interesting history at best, and beyond useless at worse. I really only cite them to show christians why their religion is wrong using what they believe is the word of God.

All I need to know about Yahowsha can be learned in the Psalms, and the Prophets. Because of Dany'el, chapter 9, we know the exact date at which he entered Yerushalem to serve as the Pesach lamb, because of Psalm 88 we know what happened once he arrived and in the following days. Really all that matters of Yahowsha is what happened on the three day Pesach, Matsah and Bikuriym.

Now that said, I think your conclusion is errant in that Yahowsha never said that his return would be in their lifetime.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.