The LORD is my shepherd

Deeje · Jul 22, 2020

Redemptionsong said:
You asked who it is that 'knows' Jesus, and does the will of the Father.
To begin with, we can see the equality in knowledge between Father and Son from the words, 'As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father:' [John 10:15].

And yet at Matthew 24:36, Jesus said..."Concerning that day and hour [of his return] nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."
How is it possible that God knows things that the son does not? Equality in knowledge between Father and son is shared in the eons of time spent when God was educating his "firstborn", sharing in the eventual creation of all things. As a human however, Jesus was as subject to his Father as he was in heaven. He still called the Father "my God" even after his ascension to heaven.

"‘The one who conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name." (Revelation 3:12)
If Jesus is God then how do these words make any sense?

He also speaks about "the name of his God" which we are told in Exodus 3:15 is Jehovah (YHWH in the Tanakh) and that it was to be his name "forever", so then, how can Jesus speak about a new name if he only has one? Jesus is clearly NOT Jehovah.

If you read the rest of this chapter [1 Corinthians 2] you will see that it's impossible to know and please God without having received the Spirit of God into your heart. Hence the teaching that to please God we must worship ('serve') in 'spirit and in truth'. To do this we must be 'born-again', and be filled with the Holy Spirit.

We have a completely different take on this if you will allow me to explain...?
We understand that there are two groups who inherit salvation from Jesus' sacrifice. One is a numbered group who are 'chosen by God from among mankind' to rule as 'kings and priests' in heaven. (Revelation 14:1-4) These, it says in Revelation 20:6 are part of the "first resurrection".....(if there is a first, then there has to an another following. (John 5:28-29)

This "first resurrection" is first in time and in importance because these ones make up the "Bride of Christ"....rulers in the Kingdom of God, who along with Jesus, will rule redeemed mankind on earth.
Revelation 21:2-4 shows this...

"I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

This again ties back into why we are here. God was going to be our only King and ruler, but satan stepped in and hijacked the human race for his own selfish purposes. This defection caused a barrier between God and humankind....and raised the need for a rescuer to undo what the devil had done. Right there in Eden God purposed for that rescuer (savior) to deal the devil a fatal head wound, but only after satan had dealt the seed of the woman a "heel" wound. (painful but not fatal). No one knew for centuries what Genesis 3:15 was all about, but as time went on and God's purpose unfolded, it became more apparent who the players were in this prophetic drama.

But what of the other group that is mentioned in revelation 7:9-10; 13-14? These also acknowledge salvation of the Lamb and worship God, but this group is unnumbered....and they are said to "come out of the great tribulation" which occurs on earth. (Matthew 24:21)

We see the first group as those who have to be "born again" to attain spirit life in heaven, but that is not necessary for their subjects here on earth. All of the first Christians were of that "heavenly calling". (Hebrews 3:1)

When Christ comes as judge, he will cleanse the earth through a great tribulation and the final war of Armageddon, and save those faithful ones through that unprecedented time of trouble. (Matthew 24:21) These will then be joined in time by those brought back to life in the general resurrection of the dead, who will then make up the Kingdom's subjects on earth.

The Kingdom of 1,000 years duration, will take redeemed mankind back to the perfect state that Adam once enjoyed, and then God's will can be "done on earth as it is in heaven".....mission accomplished, as everything returns to God's original purpose in Eden.

The Bible is one story....paradise was lost and God sends his son to get it back for us....with lessons learned and precedents set for all time to come....so there will never be a need for God to tolerate wickedness or disobedience ever again.

I personally think his strategy is brilliant and so far forward in its purpose. We as a human race, all obediently serving the one God in unity, will make this earth a place worthy of praise to its Creator. The current state of the world will not even be remembered...(Isaiah 65:17)

Misty Woods · Jul 23, 2020

Redemptionsong said:
There is one point I want to focus on here, and that is salvation.

The definition of 'saviour' that you provide is not helpful in the context of our discussion. If this definition were to be applied then I could claim to be 'saviour' because I saved a spider from disappearing down the plughole.

God wishes to save mankind from sin and death. I ask you, Is there any man, or god, who is able save men from sin and from death? Not according to my Bible. But maybe your Bible says something different?

Now we can read the statement of God in a clearer light. Isaiah 43:11. 'I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.'

There is no saviour beside the LORD because there is no one else who can save from sin and death.

Redemptionsong said:
There is one point I want to focus on here, and that is salvation.

The definition of 'saviour' that you provide is not helpful in the context of our discussion. If this definition were to be applied then I could claim to be 'saviour' because I saved a spider from disappearing down the plughole.

God wishes to save mankind from sin and death. I ask you, Is there any man, or god, who is able save men from sin and from death? Not according to my Bible. But maybe your Bible says something different?

Now we can read the statement of God in a clearer light. Isaiah 43:11. 'I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.'

There is no saviour beside the LORD because there is no one else who can save from sin and death.

But, hang on, Jesus Christ is a saviour from sin and death! Luke 2:11.'For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord'.

Yes, let's accept 'the clear teaching of our Creator's Inspired scripture' and agree that Jesus Christ is Saviour, because there is only one Saviour, God. The Father is God, and the Son is God.

JESUS CHRIST was baptized at the age of 30 by being immersed in water. When he came up out of the water, a voice from heaven said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.” (Matthew 3:17) That voice was God’s voice. On another occasion, in prayer to God, Jesus said: “Father, glorify your name.” And when Jesus had said that, God’s “voice came out of heaven: ‘I both glorified it and will glorify it again.’”—John 12:28.

From these accounts, even a child can understand that the relationship between almighty God and Jesus Christ was that of a father and his beloved son, two different individuals. Yet, you are insisting that Jesus Christ is God Almighty himself, the second person of a Trinity, the third person being the holy spirit.

Never did Jesus claim to be almighty God himself. Any impartial reading of the Bible without preconceived ideas about the Trinity will verify that. For example, at John 3:16, Jesus said: “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son.” Just two verses later, Jesus again said that he was “the only-begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18) When the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, he answered: “Do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?” (John 10:36) Jesus did not say that he was ‘God the Son’ but that he was “God’s Son.”

When Jesus died, even the Roman soldiers standing by knew that Jesus was not God: “The army officer and those with him watching over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: ‘Certainly this was God’s Son.’” (Matthew 27:54) They did not say, ‘this was God’ or ‘this was God the Son,’ because Jesus and his disciples taught that Jesus was the Son of God, not God Almighty in human form.

God himself testified that Jesus was his beloved Son, as the Bible writer Matthew noted when Jesus was baptized. (Matthew 3:17) Other Bible writers noted the same. Mark wrote: “A voice came out of the heavens: ‘You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.’” (Mark 1:11) Luke said: “A voice came out of heaven: ‘You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.’” (Luke 3:22) And John the Baptizer, who baptized Jesus, testified: “I have borne witness that this one [Jesus] is the Son of God.” (John 1:34) So God himself, all four Gospel writers, and John the Baptizer clearly state that Jesus was the Son of God. And some time later, at the transfiguration of Jesus, a similar thing happened: “A voice [God’s] came out of the cloud, saying: ‘This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him.’”—Luke 9:35.

So after reading accounts such as these, are you certain that you still want to insist that God was saying that he was his own son, that he sent himself, and that he approved himself? This sort of thought pattern is exactly the ‘vane schizophrenia’ that I mentioned when I first started communicating with you on this subject, and I assure you that it’s these sort of thought patterns that have led many many sheep away from Christendom.

Redemptionsong · Jul 23, 2020

Deeje said:
Jesus was 100% human because he had to be.

Having just answered a series of questions, it would help me if we could focus attention on one issue at a time. Your point about Jesus being 100% human is a good starting point.

We are both agreed that Jesus was a 'mediator' between God and men. Can you explain to me what you understand a mediator to be?

Redemptionsong · Jul 23, 2020

Misty Woods said:
JESUS CHRIST was baptized at the age of 30 by being immersed in water. When he came up out of the water, a voice from heaven said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.” (Matthew 3:17) That voice was God’s voice. On another occasion, in prayer to God, Jesus said: “Father, glorify your name.” And when Jesus had said that, God’s “voice came out of heaven: ‘I both glorified it and will glorify it again.’”—John 12:28.

From these accounts, even a child can understand that the relationship between almighty God and Jesus Christ was that of a father and his beloved son, two different individuals. Yet, you are insisting that Jesus Christ is God Almighty himself, the second person of a Trinity, the third person being the holy spirit.

Never did Jesus claim to be almighty God himself. Any impartial reading of the Bible without preconceived ideas about the Trinity will verify that. For example, at John 3:16, Jesus said: “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son.” Just two verses later, Jesus again said that he was “the only-begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18) When the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, he answered: “Do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?” (John 10:36) Jesus did not say that he was ‘God the Son’ but that he was “God’s Son.”

When Jesus died, even the Roman soldiers standing by knew that Jesus was not God: “The army officer and those with him watching over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: ‘Certainly this was God’s Son.’” (Matthew 27:54) They did not say, ‘this was God’ or ‘this was God the Son,’ because Jesus and his disciples taught that Jesus was the Son of God, not God Almighty in human form.

God himself testified that Jesus was his beloved Son, as the Bible writer Matthew noted when Jesus was baptized. (Matthew 3:17) Other Bible writers noted the same. Mark wrote: “A voice came out of the heavens: ‘You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.’” (Mark 1:11) Luke said: “A voice came out of heaven: ‘You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.’” (Luke 3:22) And John the Baptizer, who baptized Jesus, testified: “I have borne witness that this one [Jesus] is the Son of God.” (John 1:34) So God himself, all four Gospel writers, and John the Baptizer clearly state that Jesus was the Son of God. And some time later, at the transfiguration of Jesus, a similar thing happened: “A voice [God’s] came out of the cloud, saying: ‘This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him.’”—Luke 9:35.

So after reading accounts such as these, are you certain that you still want to insist that God was saying that he was his own son, that he sent himself, and that he approved himself? This sort of thought pattern is exactly the ‘vane schizophrenia’ that I mentioned when I first started communicating with you on this subject, and I assure you that it’s these sort of thought patterns that have led many many sheep away from Christendom.

John 1:14 states clearly that 'the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us'. This refers to the person we call 'the Son of God'. The Word is spirit, the flesh is a human, named Jesus.

What do you think 1 John 5:7 means? 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one'.

As some additional homework, you might like to check out Ephesians 5:4. 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism'. Who is the 'one Lord'?

Deeje · Jul 23, 2020

Redemptionsong said:
Having just answered a series of questions, it would help me if we could focus attention on one issue at a time. Your point about Jesus being 100% human is a good starting point.

Yes...there is no need to answer them all at once.....please take your time. Answer as you are inclined.

We are both agreed that Jesus was a 'mediator' between God and men. Can you explain to me what you understand a mediator to be?

Strongs Concordance defines it as....

"one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant
a medium of communication, arbitrator "

So a Mediator, according to my understanding, is one who intercedes between two parties in order to reconcile them. Sin is what alienates us from God.
In the Scriptures, Moses and Jesus both have the role of 'mediators' of the Law covenant and the new covenant respectively....

Galatians 3:19...
"Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the offspring should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator."

So according to 1 Timothy 2:5....
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus".

That being the case, I can see why Moses could carry out the role of mediator because he was just a human, given that role by God.....but if Jesus is God, then we need to be reconciled to him as well (because of sin)....so why do we not need a mediator between us and him?

The Anointed · Jul 23, 2020

Deeje said:
Yes...there is no need to answer them all at once.....please take your time. Answer as you are inclined.

Strongs Concordance defines it as....

"one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant

a medium of communication, arbitrator "

So a Mediator, according to my understanding, is one who intercedes between two parties in order to reconcile them. Sin is what alienates us from God.
In the Scriptures, Moses and Jesus both have the role of 'mediators' of the Law covenant and the new covenant respectively....

Galatians 3:19...
"Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the offspring should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator."

So according to 1 Timothy 2:5....
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus".

That being the case, I can see why Moses could carry out the role of mediator because he was just a human, given that role by God.....but if Jesus is God, then we need to be reconciled to him as well (because of sin)....so why do we not need a mediator between us and him?

So according to 1 Timothy 2:5.... "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, 'A MAN,' Christ Jesus".

A MAN, who was born of the flesh by his biological parents Mary and Joseph the son of Heli, and later born of the spirit of our Lord God and savior on the day he was baptised and filled with the spirit of our Lord as the heavenly voice was heard to say, "You are my son, (My chosen heir and successor) this day I have begotten thee. Or Hebrew 5: 5; "You are my son, TODAY I have become your Father.

The MAN who is referred to in Acts 17: 31; For He (The Lord God our savior) has fixed a day in which he will judge the whole world with justice by means of a MAN he has CHOSEN. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that MAN from death.

Luke 9: 35; A voice said from the cloud. "This is my son, whom I have CHOSEN---listen to him."

Isiah 42: 1; The Lord (God our savior) says; "Here is my servant , whom I strengthen--- the one I have CHOSEN with whom i am pleased. I have filled him with my spirit and he will bring justice to every nation, etc."

1 Timothy 1; "From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by order of God our savior and Christ Jesus our hope."

IndigoChild5559 · Jul 23, 2020

Redemptionsong said:
My starting point in this thread is a syllogism. Feel free to post your thoughts on its logic and validity.

Here we go:

The LORD (YHWH) is my shepherd [Psalm 23:1]
Jesus Christ is my shepherd [John 10:14]
Therefore, Jesus Christ is the LORD [John 20:28]

NOt that Jews ever accept the NT for doctrine, but just for the sake of argument, let's approach this from a literary angle.

I you are reading one document, it may have an extended metaphor that is consistant throughout, such as Isaiah's "my servant, Jacob." But even within one document, this is not necessarily the case.

However, you are not even talking about a single document, but two different books (psalms and John). Unless the author is quoting from the other, or makes explicit allusion to it in the shepherd case -- and he does not -- you cannot connect the two metaphors unless there is some other compelling reason, such as a culturally based bias towards called God a shepherd -- and none of that exists in this case.

BTW, one of the things I find offensive in your post (though perhaps it is an accident?) is that you misquoted John 20:28. The Hebrew tetragrammaton is not used in this verse, thus the translation is lord, not the polite LORD in all caps to designate the YHVH equivilent present in the text.

URAVIP2ME · Jul 23, 2020

Redemptionsong said:
Thanks for your comments.
There are, however, a number of things I disagree with here.
John 5:26 is saying more than that God gave immortality to Jesus. John 5:26 is saying that Jesus Christ can give life to others; life is his to give, just as the Father has life to give..................................
Then, there is the question of Thomas. I am quite sure Thomas' exclamation, My Lord and my God, is not a vacuous remark. God's inspired word is far too meaningful to contain throw away remarks.
As regards 'service', I think the repeated use of the same word in Greek is self-explanatory. 'Service' means following and doing the will of another. A servant follows and does the will of his master. Daniel 7:14 although written in Aramaic, makes it absolutely clear that we are to follow Jesus Christ and do his bidding. What is worship if it is not service from the heart?....................

Worship is service from 'more' than the heart. Note what Jesus said about the heart at Mark 7:20-23.
( I think you might have heartfelt service in mind as in having whole souled service )
Jeremiah writes to us that the heart ( our imperfect heart ) is treacherous at Jeremiah 17:9
I find because God resurrected Jesus is why God gave Jesus the Resurrection Power. Jesus did Not resurrect himself - Acts 2:27.

Question of Thomas, I find Jesus is clear at John 20:17. Any thought about verse 17 which of course comes before verse 28 ___________

Deeje · Jul 24, 2020

Redemptionsong said:
John 1:14 states clearly that 'the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us'. This refers to the person we call 'the Son of God'. The Word is spirit, the flesh is a human, named Jesus.

It says that "the Word became flesh" not that 'God became flesh'. John 1:1 does not say that Jesus was Almighty God. He was "with" God so how could he be "with God" and "be God" at the same time?

Redemptionsong said:
What do you think 1 John 5:7 means? 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one'.

No sorry, that is considered to be a spurious verse. 1 John 5:7-8 reads....
"For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." (NASB)

Read it in other trusted translations...it is generally accepted by scholars that the KJV is not truthful in this rendering. (ASV, ESV, NIV, NET all omit what the KJV says)

Redemptionsong said:
As some additional homework, you might like to check out Ephesians 5:4. 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism'. Who is the 'one Lord'?

You might like to quote that verse in context...
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."

I think Paul was pretty clear......Who called those ones into the Body of Christ? It was the Father.
Who was their Lord? Jesus.....and who is their "one God and Father"? Not Jesus. Never is Jesus addressed as "God" by any of his apostles.

Redemptionsong · Jul 24, 2020

Deeje said:
Yes...there is no need to answer them all at once.....please take your time. Answer as you are inclined.

Strongs Concordance defines it as....

"one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant

a medium of communication, arbitrator "

So a Mediator, according to my understanding, is one who intercedes between two parties in order to reconcile them. Sin is what alienates us from God.
In the Scriptures, Moses and Jesus both have the role of 'mediators' of the Law covenant and the new covenant respectively....

Galatians 3:19...
"Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the offspring should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator."

So according to 1 Timothy 2:5....
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus".

That being the case, I can see why Moses could carry out the role of mediator because he was just a human, given that role by God.....but if Jesus is God, then we need to be reconciled to him as well (because of sin)....so why do we not need a mediator between us and him?

Strong's gives us a broad definition of a 'mediator'. But the scriptures explain what God intended us to understand!

1 Timothy 2:5. 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;'

This tells us that the mediator is unique. This means that Moses was not the one mediator between God and men. Only Jesus Christ is the ONE mediator between God and men.

Now let's add another passage of scripture.
Galatians 3:19,20.' Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.'

The one mediator mediates between God and men. But as Galatians 3:20 says, the mediator is 'not a mediator of one'. The mediator is not ALL of one side or the other. Nevertheless, God is one, meaning that God cannot be divided. The one spirit of God is in the mediator, just as the flesh and blood of the human is in the mediator. He is both God and man!

It is through the mediator that we become reconciled to God, because God is in the mediator. If God was not in the mediator we could not be reconciled with God. It is God that saves us, not man.

Redemptionsong · Jul 24, 2020

IndigoChild5559 said:
NOt that Jews ever accept the NT for doctrine, but just for the sake of argument, let's approach this from a literary angle.

I you are reading one document, it may have an extended metaphor that is consistant throughout, such as Isaiah's "my servant, Jacob." But even within one document, this is not necessarily the case.

However, you are not even talking about a single document, but two different books (psalms and John). Unless the author is quoting from the other, or makes explicit allusion to it in the shepherd case -- and he does not -- you cannot connect the two metaphors unless there is some other compelling reason, such as a culturally based bias towards called God a shepherd -- and none of that exists in this case.

BTW, one of the things I find offensive in your post (though perhaps it is an accident?) is that you misquoted John 20:28. The Hebrew tetragrammaton is not used in this verse, thus the translation is lord, not the polite LORD in all caps to designate the YHVH equivilent present in the text.

Hi IC,
I appreciate that I have used a syllogism that incorporates a New Testament reference.

Here's a similar argument using just the Tanakh.

The qualifier is that one accepts the Tanakh as the inspired word of God.

The one LORD (YHWH) is the one good shepherd. [Psalm 23:1]
'My [one] servant David' is the one good shepherd. [Ezekiel 34:23]
Therefore, my one servant (prince) David is the one LORD.

Redemptionsong · Jul 24, 2020

URAVIP2ME said:
Worship is service from 'more' than the heart. Note what Jesus said about the heart at Mark 7:20-23.
( I think you might have heartfelt service in mind as in having whole souled service )
Jeremiah writes to us that the heart ( our imperfect heart ) is treacherous at Jeremiah 17:9
I find because God resurrected Jesus is why God gave Jesus the Resurrection Power. Jesus did Not resurrect himself - Acts 2:27.

Question of Thomas, I find Jesus is clear at John 20:17. Any thought about verse 17 which of course comes before verse 28 ___________

You've made a valid distinction between the heart from which proceeds good fruit and a heart from which proceeds evil fruit.
As John the Baptist said, 'Bring forth fruits meet for repentance' because 'every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.'

The heart is the spiritual hub from which our actions proceed. Until the heart becomes righteous through the indwelling spirit of Christ, it cannot produce the fruit that pleases God.

The Father sent the power of resurrection to Jesus at his baptism. That is why Jesus was able to say, I am the resurrection and the life [John 11:25]. This means that our new life begins as soon as we place our faith in Christ. Spiritually, we become new creatures the moment we repent, believe, and are baptized in the Holy Spirit [2 Corinthians 5:17].

Jesus, the man, was resurrected by the Spirit of God, the same Spirit that descended on him at baptism and left him at crucifixion [Psalm 22:1].

Jesus was raised up a spiritual being, incorruptible and immortal, the firstborn of the dead. Thomas called him, My Lord and my God because that is what he became to Thomas. Jesus Christ becomes Lord and God to all who would call themselves his sheep. It was the Father's will that we should see Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. He is, therefore, MY Lord, Shepherd, Saviour and God.

1 Corinthians 15:57,58. 'But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord'.

Whose work do we do? Who do we serve if not God in Christ?

IndigoChild5559 · Jul 24, 2020

Redemptionsong said:
Hi IC,
I appreciate that I have used a syllogism that incorporates a New Testament reference.

Here's a similar argument using just the Tanakh.

The qualifier is that one accepts the Tanakh as the inspired word of God.

The one LORD (YHWH) is the one good shepherd. [Psalm 23:1]
'My [one] servant David' is the one good shepherd. [Ezekiel 34:23]
Therefore, my one servant (prince) David is the one LORD.

Apparently you gained nothing from reading my previous post. Your syllogism suffers from the same flaw--the Psalm and Ezekiel are two different documents, thus, you cannot conflate teh metaphors.

It does say "one shepherd over them." This simply means that at that time (the messianic age), the messiah (who is referred to as David), will be the one worldly leader.

Again, as I said, the fact that both the messiah and God are referred to as metaphorical shepherds means nothing, because you are dealing with two different documents.

Please tell me that THIS time, you understand what I'm saying.

IndigoChild5559 · Jul 24, 2020

Redemptionsong · Jul 24, 2020

IndigoChild5559 said:
Apparently you gained nothing from reading my previous post. Your syllogism suffers from the same flaw--the Psalm and Ezekiel are two different documents, thus, you cannot conflate teh metaphors.

Also, you had to "ADD* to the text in order for your syllogsm to have any sense. The truth is that God has many servants. King David was one of them, but not the only one.

Where do these guys come up with this stuff?

You are Jewish. Most Jews accept that there are three distinct sections to the Tanakh; The Torah; the Nevi'im [Prophets] and the Ketuvim [Writings]. Most Jews accept that all three sections are inspired by God.

To claim that there is no consistent narrative running through the books of the Tanakh is to claim that they were not inspired by God. It is God as their author that provides the unifying ingredient. But alongside the divine teaching is a history of Israel.

It's an absolute nonsense to suggest that there is no link between the book of Psalms and the book of Ezekiel. Both David and Ezekiel prophesied God's words. Or is this something you deny?

Once you start down the road of disconnecting the parts that make up the whole, you have nothing left...but a hole.

Redemptionsong · Jul 24, 2020

IndigoChild5559 said:
Apparently you gained nothing from reading my previous post. Your syllogism suffers from the same flaw--the Psalm and Ezekiel are two different documents, thus, you cannot conflate teh metaphors.

It does say "one shepherd over them." This simply means that at that time (the messianic age), the messiah (who is referred to as David), will be the one worldly leader.

Again, as I said, the fact that both the messiah and God are referred to as metaphorical shepherds means nothing, because you are dealing with two different documents.

Please tell me that THIS time, you understand what I'm saying.

God does not use his words carelessly.

If you accept that Ezekiel is talking about the Messiah, David the prince, then it should also be clear from reading the whole of Ezekiel 34 that the one shepherd sent by God was going to be unlike any of Israel's own shepherds.

Even if this does refer to a future time, the same issue and use of logic applies. If God is your one and only good shepherd, what does this make the Messiah, who is sent by God (verse 23)?

IndigoChild5559 · Jul 25, 2020

Redemptionsong said:
You are Jewish. Most Jews accept that there are three distinct sections to the Tanakh; The Torah; the Nevi'im [Prophets] and the Ketuvim [Writings]. Most Jews accept that all three sections are inspired by God.

To claim that there is no consistent narrative running through the books of the Tanakh is to claim that they were not inspired by God. It is God as their author that provides the unifying ingredient. But alongside the divine teaching is a history of Israel.

It's an absolute nonsense to suggest that there is no link between the book of Psalms and the book of Ezekiel. Both David and Ezekiel prophesied God's words. Or is this something you deny?

Once you start down the road of disconnecting the parts that make up the whole, you have nothing left...but a hole.

You are right that Jews groups the various books of the Tanakh into the three groups of the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. But we don't consider those categories a single document. Nor do we give them the same levels of authority. In the Torah, God literally spoke to Moses. That's God talking. In the Prophets, these prophets hear God indirectly, through visions and dreams -- it has to be intrepeted by them. The Prophets therefore have authority, but less so than the Torah. The writings are merely inpisred. As a rule of thumb, we don't use books like Esther or the Psalms to form doctrine.

So getting back to your error, no you cannot link a metaphor used in psalms to one used in ezekiel. s orry. they are different documents, and each uses its own metaphors for its own reasons.

This idea that "God authored the Bible, and the authors only took dictation" is simply not true. You can believe it if you want, but you will be mistaken. And it will lead yu into these sorts of errors that we are presently discussing.

IndigoChild5559 · Jul 25, 2020

Redemptionsong said:
God does not use his words carelessly.

If you accept that Ezekiel is talking about the Messiah, David the prince, then it should also be clear from reading the whole of Ezekiel 34 that the one shepherd sent by God was going to be unlike any of Israel's own shepherds.

Even if this does refer to a future time, the same issue and use of logic applies. If God is your one and only good shepherd, what does this make the Messiah, who is sent by God (verse 23)?

That's not the point. the point is that you can't transfer the metaphor of shepherd being used for the messiah to other places in the tanakh. Nor can you transfer the metaphor of God being our shepherd from the psalms to elsewhere. Each document stands on its own as a literary work.

Redemptionsong · Jul 26, 2020

IndigoChild5559 said:
You are right that Jews groups the various books of the Tanakh into the three groups of the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. But we don't consider those categories a single document. Nor do we give them the same levels of authority. In the Torah, God literally spoke to Moses. That's God talking. In the Prophets, these prophets hear God indirectly, through visions and dreams -- it has to be intrepeted by them. The Prophets therefore have authority, but less so than the Torah. The writings are merely inpisred. As a rule of thumb, we don't use books like Esther or the Psalms to form doctrine.

So getting back to your error, no you cannot link a metaphor used in psalms to one used in ezekiel. s orry. they are different documents, and each uses its own metaphors for its own reasons.

This idea that "God authored the Bible, and the authors only took dictation" is simply not true. You can believe it if you want, but you will be mistaken. And it will lead yu into these sorts of errors that we are presently discussing.

What you call my error is, in fact, your opinion.

The fact that the books of the Torah were canonized before the Prophets and Writings does nothing to diminish the inspiration of the latter books. Either the words are inspired by God, or they are not. This is why one cannot add, or subtract from the biblical canon!

Your argument that one cannot link a metaphor used in one book of the Tanakh to a similar metaphor used in another book of the Tanakh is clearly wrong, IMO!

A good little exercise might be to look up words like 'shepherd', 'sheep', 'lamb', 'flock' and 'fold' and see if we can't find them littered throughout the Tanakh! Is it a mistake that God should choose this theme?

Add to this that David, son of Jesse, was a shepherd before becoming king of Israel. David is traditionally held to have written Psalm 23. David calls his God his shepherd. Ezekiel, writing hundreds of years later, was well aware that David was a shepherd king. But the Messiah, 'my servant David' is a future shepherd king of even greater importance. The Messiah is to be, indeed, a descendant of king David. So this is no ordinary metaphor.

The JPS 1985 version does not question that Ezekiel is speaking about a shepherd in the manner of David. These are the notes on verses 23-31: 'God's rule will be manifested in the establishment of a David as ruler ('nasi rather than 'melekh'). Though other biblical passages imagine a descendant of David as the ideal, future king (eg Isaiah 11:1-10), this passage seems to envisage a return of David himself, the earlier ideal king'.

It's an interesting note. It distinguishes between the shepherd and the king, and rightly so for those of us who see in this passage the foretelling of the Suffering Servant, or Lamb of God.

IndigoChild5559 · Jul 26, 2020

Redemptionsong said:
What you call my error is, in fact, your opinion.

The fact that the books of the Torah were canonized before the Prophets and Writings does nothing to diminish the inspiration of the latter books. Either the words are inspired by God, or they are not. This is why one cannot add, or subtract from the biblical canon!

Its not about when they were canonized. It has to do with the directness of God's revelation. If God literally speaks to Moses, that is hearing DIRECTLY. A prophet only hears indirectly through visions and dreams. It's not the same, I'm sorry. And as for the writings? We are talking about just regular inspiration. The author of Esther did not hear Gods voice at all. They were simply recording a significant portion of Jewish history that has lessons for all time.

So basically, yes, it is graduated. It is not all one book that God dictated to various secretaries -- no only is that fiction, but it does a disservice to the contributions of the very human authors who recorded the texts.

Your argument that one cannot link a metaphor used in one book of the Tanakh to a similar metaphor used in another book of the Tanakh is clearly wrong, IMO!

A good little exercise might be to look up words like 'shepherd', 'sheep', 'lamb', 'flock' and 'fold' and see if we can't find them littered throughout the Tanakh! Is it a mistake that God should choose this theme?

The idea that God chose these metaphors, as if he dictated the book to a secretary, is a fiction. You are attributing to God what men have done. that is a no-no.

You are basically trying to get more out of the text than what is actually there. You do this because you believe the text to be more than what it actually is. That is my overall assessment of what you go on to say.

The LORD is my shepherd

Avid Bible Student

A Child of Our Almighty Creator Jehovah

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Avid Bible Student

Well-Known Member

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

Well-Known Member

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.