YHWH PIERCED = JESUS PIERCED

[Yahweh will increase]

Cite this translation.

Amazing, if what you wrote is true, why did the HS inspire John to write what he did? Why not quote Zech 13:8 and be clear. Seems very ambiguous and vague. When one drags the topic into the ambiguous, then one has the opportunity to twist and reshape the truth into what one wants. But when it comes to prophesy God is very specific, and not vague or ambiguous. John is very clear its 'pierced' not 'strike' As to the rest of your explanation it is highly contrived. Highly contrived = least reliable.


But let's put this to the test.
Mt 26:31 Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: ‘I will strike the Shepherd, And the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’
Mk 14:27 Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: ‘I will strike the Shepherd, And the sheep will be scattered.’

Following your logic, God was the one that pierced Jesus. Want to go with that?


Again John quoted 12:10, not 13:8.

Zechariah 12:10 should be translated as "they shall look unto whom they have pierced and mourn for him" and that is why the NT writers quoted it that way also.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Zechariah 12:10 should be translated as "they shall look unto whom they have pierced and mourn for him" and that is why the NT writers quoted it that way also.

Why? What reason do you have this?

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Why? What reason do you have this?

For starters because from what I see in the Bible Hub interlinear, I don't believe it is an absolute that it should be translated with the word "Me" and then because there are a lot of translations that put it this way instead "then they shall look at the one whom they pierced" and finally because in the NT the verse is quoted the same way.

That is three witnesses.

 

[Towerwatchman]

For starters because from what I see in the Bible Hub interlinear, I don't believe it is an absolute that it should be translated with the word "Me" and then because there are a lot of translations that put it this way instead "then they shall look at the one whom they pierced" and finally because in the NT the verse is quoted the same way.

That is three witnesses.

First witness = "For starters because from what I see in the Bible Hub interlinear, I don't believe it is an absolute that it should be translated with the word "Me""
The second witness "and then because there are a lot of translations that put it this way instead "then they shall look at the one whom they pierced"

Zech 12:10 "Me" translates from
589 אֲנִי [ʾaniy /an·ee/] pers pron. Contracted from 595; TWOT 129; GK 638; 13 occurrences; AV translates as “I”, “me”, “which”, “for I”, and “mine”. 1 I (first pers. sing.—usually used for emphasis). Strong, J. (1995). In Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

The first and second witnesses refuted.

Third witness "because in the NT the verse is quoted the same way."

Truly a poor understanding of scripture. This is why a proper education in any subject is necessary.

Why did John use Him vs Me? There could be several reasons, but they are insignificant to the passage. Ancient historians were more interested in getting the gist of the story than in minute details. Note the following passages where the author does not quote the prophecy word for word but there is no question that they identify Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Mt 2:5-6. So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;
For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’ ”

Micah 5:2“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From [a]everlasting.”

============

Mt 13:34-35 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, 35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “I will open My mouth in parables;
I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

Ps 78:1-2 Give ear, O my people, to my law; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter [b]dark sayings of old,

==================

Mt 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’

Isa 6:9-10 And He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ 10 “Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.”

===================
Jn 19:28 After this, Jesus, [a]knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!”

Ps 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And My tongue clings to My jaws; You have brought Me to the dust of death.

John using “Him” vs “Me’ changes nothing, the gist of the story is that Jesus’ piercing was prophesized.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

First witness = "For starters because from what I see in the Bible Hub interlinear, I don't believe it is an absolute that it should be translated with the word "Me""
The second witness "and then because there are a lot of translations that put it this way instead "then they shall look at the one whom they pierced"

Zech 12:10 "Me" translates from
589 אֲנִי [ʾaniy /an·ee/] pers pron. Contracted from 595; TWOT 129; GK 638; 13 occurrences; AV translates as “I”, “me”, “which”, “for I”, and “mine”. 1 I (first pers. sing.—usually used for emphasis). Strong, J. (1995). In Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

The first and second witnesses refuted.

And of course you think that I should always trust in finite human and fleshy interpretations of the spiritual words of God huh?

No, for as I said before and will again, even if "me" was intended in the passage, by piercing God's Son they were really piercing God's soul by their final deliberate sin against him in killing his son and just like the parable of the Vineyard and the Tenants clearly reveals.

Also just like the physical piercing of Jesus also pierced the soul of Jesus' mother in a spiritual sense and according to the prophecy of Simeon as well.

So whereas you want to falsely think the Bible is a text book, it isn't but it is a inspired writing and therefore words can have also a spiritual meaning just like they did with the prophecy unto Marry when he told here that her soul would also be pierced through because of the death of her son.

Thus Simeon was not speaking of a literal piercing of a sword into her flesh but rather he is speaking in spiritual terms of how the death of her son Jesus would cause her grief in her soul.



So no matter which way you go with this, when Yahweh speaks of "him", he is making a distinction between himself who is Yahweh and another whom the people will mourn over, for there is only one Yahweh and the one speaking revealed himself as Yahweh and not by the person of The Father like you would want to twists it to mean.



Now then, you also have the problem with your doctrine that it is Yahweh speaking of "him" that they would mourn for as being another other than himself.

Third witness "because in the NT the verse is quoted the same way."

Truly a poor understanding of scripture. This is why a proper education in any subject is necessary.

Why did John use Him vs Me? There could be several reasons, but they are insignificant to the passage. Ancient historians were more interested in getting the gist of the story than in minute details. Note the following passages where the author does not quote the prophecy word for word but there is no question that they identify Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Mt 2:5-6. So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;
For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’ ”

Micah 5:2“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From [a]everlasting.”

============

Mt 13:34-35 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, 35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “I will open My mouth in parables;
I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

Ps 78:1-2 Give ear, O my people, to my law; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter [b]dark sayings of old,

==================

Mt 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’

Isa 6:9-10 And He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ 10 “Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.”

===================
Jn 19:28 After this, Jesus, [a]knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!”

Ps 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And My tongue clings to My jaws; You have brought Me to the dust of death.

John using “Him” vs “Me’ changes nothing, the gist of the story is that Jesus’ piercing was prophesized.

As far as your attempt to prove your case from Micah 5:2 by the word "whose going forth are from of old from eternity" all that this is meaning is that God had planned to have a human son (his mind on this the Logos made flesh) and to send him into the world to die for the world even before he created the world and which is what John 1:1-3 is all about.

All of the other scriptures describe why you and your trin buddies cannot understand these things correctly

 

[Tanachreader]

I figured I best add this in my finish with you on this passage.

You will note that none of the NT translations of John 19:37 quote the verse as "they will look upon me whom they have pierced" but rather "they will look upon the one whom they pierced or him whom they have pierced".

Furthermore, I never denied that the passage is about Jesus being pierced but only argued that if it is to be translated as "me whom they pierced" there are two persons and beings being spoken of and not just one, otherwise the word "him" revealing another other than Yahweh would not have been used in the text at all.

Good bye TW

Rev 1:7
“Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him"; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Rev 1:7
“Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him"; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen

And you think this helps you with your error on Zechariah 12:10?

Sorry but no dice.

Listen, if the Father is the one who says "they will look upon me whom they pierced", the Father doesn't have a physical body by which to be literally pierced dude and when he then says "and they will mourn for him like a Father does his only begotten son" it proves that it is the Father speaking and also that he is making a distinction between himself and another in the passage.

Therefore, the only way possible for this to work out, is if the Father was figuratively and spiritually pierced with grief when his Son was pierced physically on the cross and being it was prophesied to Mary that she would also be pierced by the death of Jesus, this all begins to make perfect sense without any contradictions like there is with your false ideas about it.


Was the Father speaking when he said "they will look upon me whom they pierced"?

If so, then when was the Father pierced dude?


This all proves that you are not getting it with the way you are learning God's word and which means you need to repent of your method and get on with the way the Bible tells us we must learn of God instead, because your way ain't cutting it.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

First witness = "For starters because from what I see in the Bible Hub interlinear, I don't believe it is an absolute that it should be translated with the word "Me""
The second witness "and then because there are a lot of translations that put it this way instead "then they shall look at the one whom they pierced"

Zech 12:10 "Me" translates from
589 אֲנִי [ʾaniy /an·ee/] pers pron. Contracted from 595; TWOT 129; GK 638; 13 occurrences; AV translates as “I”, “me”, “which”, “for I”, and “mine”. 1 I (first pers. sing.—usually used for emphasis). Strong, J. (1995). In Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

The first and second witnesses refuted.

Third witness "because in the NT the verse is quoted the same way."

Truly a poor understanding of scripture. This is why a proper education in any subject is necessary.

Why did John use Him vs Me? There could be several reasons, but they are insignificant to the passage. Ancient historians were more interested in getting the gist of the story than in minute details. Note the following passages where the author does not quote the prophecy word for word but there is no question that they identify Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Mt 2:5-6. So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;
For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’ ”

Micah 5:2“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From [a]everlasting.”

============

Mt 13:34-35 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, 35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “I will open My mouth in parables;
I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

Ps 78:1-2 Give ear, O my people, to my law; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter [b]dark sayings of old,

==================

Mt 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’

Isa 6:9-10 And He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ 10 “Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.”

===================
Jn 19:28 After this, Jesus, [a]knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!”

Ps 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And My tongue clings to My jaws; You have brought Me to the dust of death.

John using “Him” vs “Me’ changes nothing, the gist of the story is that Jesus’ piercing was prophesized.

LOL, who is speaking then when he says "they will look upon me whom they pierced" the Father or the Son?

It can't be the Son because the one speaking also says "and they will mourn for him (the Son) as one mourns for his only begotten Son", therefore it has to be The Father.

So, when did the Father also become flesh to be literally pierced along with the Son and even worse, when was the Father physically pierced?

For that is what you end up with in your foolish interpretation of this passage, the father being physically pierced also.

 

[Towerwatchman]

And of course you think that I should always trust in finite human and fleshy interpretations of the spiritual words of God huh?

That is exactly what you are doing. You want everyone to trust your finite fleshly interpretation of Scripture. Notice the difference. Everything I argue filters through Scripture, vs everything you argue filters through you. Whoever that spirit you claim inspires you, only communicates through you. We have nothing to test you by. Some spirit supposedly inspirited X then X is true even when it contradicts Scripture.
Question: does Scripture have an example to follow by? Were men who were inspired by the HS tested by men, and how were they tested?

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

You failed the test.

No, for as I said before and will again, even if "me" was intended in the passage, by piercing God's Son they were really piercing God's soul by their final deliberate sin against him in killing his son and just like the parable of the Vineyard and the Tenants clearly reveals.

Also just like the physical piercing of Jesus also pierced the soul of Jesus' mother in a spiritual sense and according to the prophecy of Simeon as well.

And that is where you fail. Very simple John did not write anything to support this. You are making it up as you go along.

So whereas you want to falsely think the Bible is a text book, it isn't but it is a inspired writing and therefore words can have also a spiritual meaning just like they did with the prophecy unto Marry when he told here that her soul would also be pierced through because of the death of her son. Thus Simeon was not speaking of a literal piercing of a sword into her flesh but rather he is speaking in spiritual terms of how the death of her son Jesus would cause her grief in her soul.

De. 11:18 Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates,

Ps 119:15 I meditate on your precepts and consider your ways. 16 I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word.

Ro 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

2 Ti 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

2 Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Notice what equips you, Scripture, not some imaginary spirit. Also, the Bible is a textbook. Included in the 66 books of the Bible we have books of history, philosophy, and logic. How would you handle these books?

So no matter which way you go with this, when Yahweh speaks of "him", he is making a distinction between himself who is Yahweh and another whom the people will mourn over, for there is only one Yahweh and the one speaking revealed himself as Yahweh and not by the person of The Father like you would want to twists it to mean.

Your god is deceitful. According to you your god wrote X but means Y. Why is that? My God wrote X because He means X. This is a typical cultist move. Instead of interpreting the Bible as it was meant to be, literally and recognizing figures of speech, you want to now classify it as a book of mysticism that only filters through you. Jim Jones claimed the same thing.

Now then, you also have the problem with your doctrine that it is Yahweh speaking of "him" that they would mourn for as being another other than himself.

I don't see a problem with that. Now if you think it's a problem post your argument.

As far as your attempt to prove your case from Micah 5:2 by the word "whose going forth are from of old from eternity" all that this is meaning is that God had planned to have a human son (his mind on this the Logos made flesh) and to send him into the world to die for the world even before he created the world and which is what John 1:1-3 is all about.

It cannot be taken literally, it has a hidden, mystical and spiritual meaning.
A perfect example of you writing your own cultist religion. Nothing in scripture supports this.

Let's put this to the test. = Did Jesus exist as a cognitive free-willed individual apart and separate from God, before the incarnation.

And you think this helps you with your error on Zechariah 12:10? Listen, if the Father is the one who says "they will look upon me whom they pierced", the Father doesn't have a physical body by which to be literally pierced dude and when he then says "and they will mourn for him like a Father does his only begotten son" it proves that it is the Father speaking and also that he is making a distinction between himself and another in the passage.
Therefore, the only way possible for this to work out, is if the Father was figuratively and spiritually pierced with grief when his Son was pierced physically on the cross and being it was prophesied to Mary that she would also be pierced by the death of Jesus, this all begins to make perfect sense without any contradictions like there is with your false ideas about it
Was the Father speaking when he said "they will look upon me whom they pierced"?
If so, then when was the Father pierced dude?
This all proves that you are not getting it with the way you are learning God's word and which means you need to repent of your method and get on with the way the Bible tells us we must learn of God instead, because your way ain't cutting it.

10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

Who is speaking?
According to Zech it is YHWH.
According to you, it's the Father.
According to Jesus, it was never the Father.
Jn 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nnor seen His form.
Totally agrees with the doctrine of the Trinity, it's logical and reasonable.

Quoting you.

"For that is what you end up within your foolish interpretation of this passage, the father heard.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

That is exactly what you are doing. You want everyone to trust your finite fleshly interpretation of Scripture. Notice the difference. Everything I argue filters through Scripture, vs everything you argue filters through you. Whoever that spirit you claim inspires you, only communicates through you. We have nothing to test you by. Some spirit supposedly inspirited X then X is true even when it contradicts Scripture.

No, because what I am not doing is trying to get you to trust me, but instead what I am attempting to do, is to show you that you need to stop trusting in flesh and blood to reveal truth unto you, because it isn't working for you.

Did I not show you that because a distinction of persons is being made in Zechariah 12:10 and because only one person was born in flesh and pierced and it wasn't the Father, that there is no way you can take the words of the Father "They will look upon me whom they pierced" to mean that the Father was literally and physically pierced?

No, what is being revealed her is that the Father was pierced in his soul with grief by the piercing of his Son (his visible image in flesh) whom he says that the people will see and mourn for.

You also totally miss the fact that it specifically states that God will give the people his own heart and Spirit so that they look at Jesus HIS Son as if he was their only begotten son who was pierced and mourn for him.

Question: does Scripture have an example to follow by? Were men who were inspired by the HS tested by men, and how were they tested?

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

You failed the test.

No I didn't but rather you did, because there is a big difference in searching the scriptures by the Holy Spirit and attempting to analyze them with your human reasoning and as thought they were a secular text book and not an inspired by God work in which one needs to be enlightened by the Spirit to understand correctly.

As I said, there are two witness, the one is the written scriptures and the other is the Holy Spirit through which God inspired them to be written.

And that is where you fail. Very simple John did not write anything to support this. You are making it up as you go along.

De. 11:18 Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates,

Ps 119:15 I meditate on your precepts and consider your ways. 16 I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word.

Ro 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

2 Ti 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

2 Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Notice what equips you, Scripture, not some imaginary spirit. Also, the Bible is a textbook. Included in the 66 books of the Bible we have books of history, philosophy, and logic. How would you handle these books?

LOL, Yes we need to read and memorize and mediate on the scriptures so that God by his Spirit can speak to our hearts through them and so that what was inspired onto the page might be inspired into our hearts by the Holy Spirit through which they were inspired onto the page to begin with.

However you are not doing this, but instead you are replacing the Holy Spirit with your own human wit, logic, wisdom and intellect and that is why you have Zechariah 12:10 wrong, for again only one person became flesh and was pierced and it wasn't Yahweh who was speaking but rather the one whom the people will mourn for as through he was their only son who was pierced.

Your god is deceitful. According to you your god wrote X but means Y. Why is that? My God wrote X because He means X. This is a typical cultist move. Instead of interpreting the Bible as it was meant to be, literally and recognizing figures of speech, you want to now classify it as a book of mysticism that only filters through you. Jim Jones claimed the same thing.

There you go again with more of your usual carnal human reasoning with the x, y and z skubalon

I don't see a problem with that. Now if you think it's a problem post your argument.

Of course you don't, because you don't want to be honest about it, for if the Father is speaking and the text very much reveals that he is, and the Father was never pierced in his flesh because he never became flesh, then there is no way that the piercing in regards to the speaker (The Father) can be a literal physical piercing but rather a piercing in his heart of grief over his Son who was pierced.

It cannot be taken literally, it has a hidden, mystical and spiritual meaning.
A perfect example of you writing your own cultist religion. Nothing in scripture supports this.

LOL, is what is spoken about the dry bones being restored back to life again in Ezekiel 37 to be understood as totally literal?

How about Mary when Simeon told her that she would be pierced through with a sword because of the death of Jesus in Luke 2:35?

Let's put this to the test. = Did Jesus exist as a cognitive free-willed individual apart and separate from God, before the incarnation.

No but instead John 1:1-3 is speaking of Jesus in God's plan and foreknowledge of him and which is what the word "Logos" by its very definition revolves around, Logos = The thought and reason, the Divine idea and ideal either spoken or unspoken.

10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

Who is speaking?
According to Zech it is YHWH.
According to you, it's the Father.
According to Jesus, it was never the Father.

And Zechariah makes a distinction from the one speaking and the one whom the speaker says that the people will mourn for as if he was their only begotten son who was pierced and this in and of itself reveals how foolish and ignorant your doctrine on this really is.

Your own doctrine states "The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit and the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son but they are all equally God.

However and once again, the speaker Yahweh is making a clear distinction between himself and the one whom the people will mourn for as if he was their only begotten Son who was pierced.

Jn 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nnor seen His

This really shows your ignorance and you inability to decipher between the spiritual and the completely literal, for I can provide many scriptures that prove that the Father did speak to the people in the OT and in fact the people sought Moses to ask God not to speak to them ever again also.

What you are so obviously ignorant about concerning John 5:37 is that Jesus meant that although the Jews heard God speak with their natural ears, they never heard him speak to their hearts by his Spirit and all because they rejected what they heard with their ears.

Even Hebrews 1:1 reveals your ignorance about this being The Father was speaking to them in the OT through the prophets and angels but now he is speaking through his Son.

This also reveals that God never spoke to the people by his Son in the OT because the Son was not born into existence yet at that time.

form.
Totally agrees with the doctrine of the Trinity, it's logical and reasonable.

Nonsense, for it doesn't at all period, for the trinity is a fabrication of that corruption that comes out of man's thinking when he is doing his own thinking instead of listening to the Living God through the Spirit.

Quoting you.

"For that is what you end up within your foolish interpretation of this passage, the father heard.

When you quote me, you should quote me correctly, for I haven't a clue what you are getting at by your words in the quotes, for it isn't correct from what I said.

Nevertheless, I stand by what I said, for it is a fact and whether your reject it in your obvious denial or not, you cannot remove the truth of it from the passage, and therefore it will be in the books at the GWT Judgment of God, so if I were you, I would give that some serious thought.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

That is exactly what you are doing. You want everyone to trust your finite fleshly interpretation of Scripture. Notice the difference. Everything I argue filters through Scripture, vs everything you argue filters through you. Whoever that spirit you claim inspires you, only communicates through you. We have nothing to test you by. Some spirit supposedly inspirited X then X is true even when it contradicts Scripture.

No, because what I am not doing is trying to get you to trust me, but instead what I am attempting to do, is to show you that you need to stop trusting in flesh and blood to reveal truth unto you, because it isn't working for you.

Did I not show you that because a distinction of persons is being made in Zechariah 12:10 and because only one person was born in flesh and pierced physically and it wasn't the Father?

Did I not show you, that because of this fact, there is no way you can take the words of the Father "They will look upon me whom they pierced" to mean that the Father himself was literally and physically pierced?

No, what is being revealed here, is that the Father was pierced in his soul with grief by the piercing of his Son (his visible image in flesh) physically and whom he says that the people will see and mourn for.

You also totally miss the fact that it specifically states that God will give the people his own heart and Spirit so that they look at Jesus HIS Son as if he was their only begotten son who was pierced and mourn for him.

Question: does Scripture have an example to follow by? Were men who were inspired by the HS tested by men, and how were they tested?

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

You failed the test.

No I didn't but rather you did, because there is a big difference in searching the scriptures by the Holy Spirit and attempting to analyze them with your human reasoning and as though they were a secular text book and not an inspired by God work in which one needs to be enlightened by the Spirit to understand correctly.

As I said, there are two witnesses, the one is the written scriptures and the other is the Holy Spirit through which God inspired them to be written.

And that is where you fail. Very simple John did not write anything to support this. You are making it up as you go along.

De. 11:18 Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates,

Ps 119:15 I meditate on your precepts and consider your ways. 16 I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word.

Ro 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

2 Ti 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

2 Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Notice what equips you, Scripture, not some imaginary spirit. Also, the Bible is a textbook. Included in the 66 books of the Bible we have books of history, philosophy, and logic. How would you handle these books?

LOL, Yes we need to read and memorize and mediate on the scriptures so that God by his Spirit can speak to our hearts through them and so that what was inspired onto the page might be inspired into our hearts by the Holy Spirit through which they were inspired onto the page to begin with.

However you are not doing this, but instead you are replacing the Holy Spirit with your own human wit, logic, wisdom and intellect and that is why you have Zechariah 12:10 wrong, for again only one person became flesh and was pierced and it wasn't Yahweh who was speaking but rather the one whom the people will mourn for as through he was their only son who was pierced.

Your god is deceitful. According to you your god wrote X but means Y. Why is that? My God wrote X because He means X. This is a typical cultist move. Instead of interpreting the Bible as it was meant to be, literally and recognizing figures of speech, you want to now classify it as a book of mysticism that only filters through you. Jim Jones claimed the same thing.

There you go again with more of your usual carnal human reasoning with the x, y and z skubalon

I don't see a problem with that. Now if you think it's a problem post your argument.

Of course you don't, because you don't want to be honest about it, for if the Father is speaking and the text very much reveals that he is, and the Father was never pierced in his flesh because he never became flesh, then there is no way that the piercing in regards to the speaker (The Father) can be a literal physical piercing but rather a piercing in his heart of grief over his Son who was pierced.

It cannot be taken literally, it has a hidden, mystical and spiritual meaning.
A perfect example of you writing your own cultist religion. Nothing in scripture supports this.

LOL, is what is spoken about the dry bones being restored back to life again in Ezekiel 37 to be understood as totally literal?

How about Mary when Simeon told her that she would be pierced through with a sword because of the death of Jesus in Luke 2:35?

Let's put this to the test. = Did Jesus exist as a cognitive free-willed individual apart and separate from God, before the incarnation.

No but instead John 1:1-3 is speaking of Jesus in God's plan and foreknowledge of him and which is what the word "Logos" by its very definition revolves around, Logos = The thought and reason, the Divine idea and ideal either spoken or unspoken.

10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

Who is speaking?
According to Zech it is YHWH.
According to you, it's the Father.
According to Jesus, it was never the Father.

And Zechariah makes a distinction from the one speaking and the one whom the speaker says that the people will mourn for as if he was their only begotten son who was pierced and this in and of itself reveals how foolish and ignorant your doctrine on this really is.

Your own doctrine states "The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit and the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son but they are all equally God.

However and once again, the speaker Yahweh is making a clear distinction between himself and the one whom the people will mourn for as if he was their only begotten Son who was pierced.

Jn 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nnor seen His

This really shows your ignorance and your inability to decipher between the spiritual and the completely literal, for I can provide many scriptures that prove that the Father did indeed speak to the people in the OT and in fact the people sought Moses to ask God not to speak to them ever again also.



What you are so obviously ignorant about concerning John 5:37 is that Jesus meant that although the Jews heard God speak with their natural ears, they never heard him speak to their hearts by his Spirit and all because they rejected what they heard with their ears.

Even Hebrews 1:1 reveals your ignorance about this being The Father was speaking to them in the OT through the prophets and angels but now he is speaking through his Son.

This also reveals that God never spoke to the people by his Son in the OT because the Son was not born into existence yet at that time.

form.
Totally agrees with the doctrine of the Trinity, it's logical and reasonable.

Nonsense, for it doesn't at all period, for the trinity is a fabrication of that corruption that comes out of man's thinking when he is doing his own thinking instead of listening to the Living God through the Spirit.

Quoting you.

"For that is what you end up within your foolish interpretation of this passage, the father heard.

When you quote me, you should quote me correctly, for I haven't a clue what you are getting at by your words in the quotes, for it isn't correct from what I said.

Nevertheless, I stand by what I said, for it is a fact and whether your reject it in your obvious denial or not, you cannot remove the truth of it from the passage, and therefore it will be in the books at the GWT Judgment of God, so if I were you, I would give that some serious thought.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

I don't see a problem with that. Now if you think it's a problem post your argument.

You asked for it and so here it is, https://forums.carm.org/threads/question-for-trins-concerning-zechariah-12-10.9581/

 

[Towerwatchman]

No, because what I am not doing is trying to get you to trust me, but instead what I am attempting to do, is to show you that you need to stop trusting in flesh and blood to reveal truth unto you, because it isn't working for you.

LOL, Yes we need to read and memorize and mediate on the scriptures so that God by his Spirit can speak to our hearts through them and so that what was inspired onto the page might be inspired into our hearts by the Holy Spirit through which they were inspired onto the page to begin with.

Following your reasoning to a logical conclusion, I should not trust you since you are flesh and bone.

Did I not show you that because a distinction of persons is being made in Zechariah 12:10 and because only one person was born in flesh and pierced physically and it wasn't the Father?

Did I not show you, that because of this fact, there is no way you can take the words of the Father "They will look upon me whom they pierced" to mean that the Father himself was literally and physically pierced?

Nowhere in the immediate text do we find 'Father', but rather "YHWH".
Also, Jesus said very plainly.
Jn 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.

No, what is being revealed here, is that the Father was pierced in his soul with grief by the piercing of his Son (his visible image in flesh) physically and whom he says that the people will see and mourn for. You also totally miss the fact that it specifically states that God will give the people his own heart and Spirit so that they look at Jesus HIS Son as if he was their only begotten son who was pierced and mourn for him.

Now you are mixing truth with lies.
Post your support that this actually happened.
the Father was pierced in his soul with grief by the piercing of his Son
states that God will give the people his own heart and Spirit

No I didn't but rather you did, because there is a big difference in searching the scriptures by the Holy Spirit and attempting to analyze them with your human reasoning and as though they were a secular text book and not an inspired by God work in which one needs to be enlightened by the Spirit to understand correctly.

Now you are omniscient and omnipresent. How do you know what I do behind closed doors?

There you go again with more of your usual carnal human reasoning with the x, y and z skubalon

Is 3rd grade logical formulas too complicated for you?

OL, is what is spoken about the dry bones being restored back to life again in Ezekiel 37 to be understood as totally literal?
How about Mary when Simeon told her that she would be pierced through with a sword because of the death of Jesus in Luke 2:35?

And? Just because A and B are figurative it does not equate that 'C must be figurative' also. C being figurative rises and falls on C.

No but instead John 1:1-3 is speaking of Jesus in God's plan and foreknowledge of him and which is what the word "Logos" by its very definition revolves around, Logos = The thought and reason, the Divine idea and ideal either spoken or unspoken...This also reveals that God never spoke to the people by his Son in the OT because the Son was not born into existence yet at that time.

Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

What was Jesus [the mere man] thinking carefully about? To make a decision you need to have more than one option to decide on, therefore He [the mere man] decided between considering equality something to be grasped, and not to be grasped. To have considered equality with God something not to be grasped, Jesus [the mere man] would have had to have considered it something to grasp at also. To make a decision you need to have more than one viable option to decide on, therefore Jesus [the mere man] decided between considering equality something to be grasped, and not to be grasped. Jesus [the mere man] sinned; he coveted when he considered equality with God a viable option to grasp. An independent, free-willed center of consciousness from God. =Jesus existed before the incarnation.

And Zechariah makes a distinction from the one speaking and the one whom the speaker says that the people will mourn for as if he was their only begotten son who was pierced and this in and of itself reveals how foolish and ignorant your doctrine on this really is.

Your own doctrine states "The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit and the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son but they are all equally God.

However and once again, the speaker Yahweh is making a clear distinction between himself and the one whom the people will mourn for as if he was their only begotten Son who was pierced.

So who is speaking? Not the Father
Jn 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.

Not the Son
Then who?

This really shows your ignorance and your inability to decipher between the spiritual and the completely literal

What you have posted is simple an ad hominem attack.

It simply attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making. This is usually the last position of ignorance knowing that it cannot compete with the intelligence and character of X, it is usually a sign of desperation on the part of the one insulting. [Logically Fallacious]

, for I can provide many scriptures that prove that the Father did indeed speak to the people in the OT and in fact the people sought Moses to ask God not to speak to them ever again also.

Provide scripture where it states literally that the Father is speaking.

What you are so obviously ignorant about concerning John 5:37 is that Jesus meant that although the Jews heard God speak with their natural ears, they never heard him speak to their hearts by his Spirit and all because they rejected what they heard with their ears.

Natural ears, vs spiritual ears? Where does it state that in the immediate text?

Even Hebrews 1:1 reveals your ignorance about this being The Father was speaking to them in the OT through the prophets and angels but now he is speaking through his Son.

Heb 1:1 does not identify God as the Father but "ho thoes' = YHWH.

Nonsense, for it doesn't at all period, for the trinity is a fabrication of that corruption that comes out of man's thinking when he is doing his own thinking instead of listening to the Living God through the Spirit.

Try to ask the spirits that speak to you to help you answer the questions. If X tells you that Y agrees with Z it does not imply that z is true. What it states is that X agrees with Z.

You asked for it and so here it is, https://forums.carm.org/threads/question-for-trins-concerning-zechariah-12-10.9581/

I don' do your homework. Post your arguments it's not my job to search a thread to find the answer.

 

[JNelson]

Don't tell me about it. Cite it and post your explanation.

“וְהִבִּ֥יטוּ אֵלַ֖י אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָ֑רוּ” the direct object indicator (green) is positioned after “look to me” and before “whom they pierced”. If the “me” and the “whom they pierced” were the same one then the direct object indicator (אֵ֣ת) would’ve been placed be for “me” as that is how the direct object indicator works in Hebrew.

Yes, Jesus is the shepherd and He was stricken, but that is irrelevant to the topic.

It’s not irrelevant because since he is both then it’s clear Jesus is not YHWH but rather YHWH’s shepherd as Zech. 13 clearly states.

Very simple John identifies Jesus as the one who was pierced in Zech. Shepherd or/and stricken carry as much weight as spit upon, struck, nailed, scourged, crucified, buried in the discussion, even though they are all true.

Jesus was pierced and stricken, both apply to him.

Is that what it reads? No, I am putting you to the test.

You don't have to.
Who spoke Zech 13:7? ...Says the Lord of hosts.“Strike the Shepherd...
What did Jesus say? Mt 26:31...‘I will strike the Shepherd, And the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’
Who is "i"?

That’s what I asked you and again, the “I” doesn’t change the fact that Jesus is the shepherd who is stricken.

Nonsense, no one is cherry-picking. You don't know what cherry-picking is. For it to be cherry-picking John 19:37 would have cited both Zech 12:10 and 13:7 and I am only picking 12:10.
What does John cite?????
12:10.
Hint= for it to be cherry-picking I need more than one option.

You are cherry-picking because you are only trying to prove your point by picking Zech. 12:10/John 19:37 while at the same time ignoring Zech. 13:7/Matt. 26:31. But even so Zech. 12:10 clearly distinguishes between YHWH and the one who they pierced as proven above.

 

[JNelson]

Do you check what you cite?
1.26 us…our…our. God speaks as the Creator-King,
who speaks as Creator King? = God as us...our... our... ===pluraility =“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness

The NIV is identifying 'Us' in the verse as God speaking as Creator King.

The NIV clearly shows that there is no trinity speaking, here it is again:

1.26 us…our…our. God speaks as the Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court (see 3.22; 11.7; Isa 6.8; see also 1 Ki 22.19-23; Job 15.8; Jer 23.18)

Note that the us refers to God and the members of his heavenly court yet we know God is the only one who actually does the creating.

Let's put this to the test.

You agree the Father is God.

Correct, I believe the Father is YHWH.

Jesus is God.
Explicit verses.
2 Pe 1:1
Titus 2:13
Heb 1:8-9
Jn 20:28

Incorrect, all those verses except for Heb. 1:8 do not call Jesus God. Also, the title God in Heb. 1:8 is not used in the same sense as it is for YHWH because the very next verse we see that he has a God “Therefore GodX your God”. YHWH doesn’t have a God, period.

HS is God
Acts 5:3-4

Holy Spirit and God are two titles that can be used interchangeably.

I have three individuals identified as God.

By that standard then you and add Satan as well also since he is called God “θεος” as well in 2 Cor. 4:4. The ones whom YHWH also called God in Psalm 82 as Jesus pointed out.

I agree that there are words that are plural and singular, and it applies to Elohim. I am discussing Elohim and how it is used when it applies to YHWH, not Dagon

When it’s used of YHWH it’s always singular in meaning, never plural.

"Deut. 6:4 belongs under definition #1, not #4" Question: is that fact or your opinion?

Fact.

“Listen, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.
How can you come to such a conclusion based on the verse or even the immediate text? noting in the immediate text speaks of other gods.

It’s based solely on the Hebrew text. There is no verb in “יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה ׀ אֶחָֽד “ so the verb “is” has to supplied when translating to English as its implicit in Hebrew. Also, “echad” can also be translated as alone as we see in 1 Chron. 29:1 “ And David the king said to all the assembly, “Solomon my son, whom alone (echad) God has chosen.

Did I write that God was the only child?
Repost.
Notice you just supported my argument. Yahid would be better. Just as it refers to an only child, it would best describe the Only True God.

It’s a very rare word, barely used and when it is used it almost always refers to an only child so no, it would NOT best describe God.

It does not state ‘God alone” but “God is One” = ‘united One”

Seems like you’re adding your own words here, “united one”. That is not what the verse is saying, alone fits the context and echad can and is translated as alone as proven above

You might have something here if we hold this verse in isolation, but against the backdrop of Scripture= no.

Not one single verse ever translates “Elohim” as Gods in reference to YHWH which undeniably proves that for YHWH it’s always the singular meaning not the plural so yesC the entire back door scriptures proves I’m right.

Isiah did not see any glory in 6:10 or 53:1. But whose glory did Isaiah see in 6:1-5?
Again John states that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus when he wrote 6:10. Isaiah wrote 6:10 when he saw the glory of God. Connect the dots. John identifies Jesus as God in Isaiah 6:1-5

John saw the future glory of the Messiah hence he wrote about him. This is exactly why John cited 6:10/53:1 not 6:1-4.

Don't just throw a wrench into the equation. Solve it. How do you reconcile the verse you quoted with.
Is 42:8 I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.
If God does not share His glory how could He share it with Jesus? Sounds hypocritical.

Simple, there are different reasons why someone is glorified. YHWH alone is glorified for being God while Jesus and all believers are glorified for different reasons.

In Scripture, glory falls under many categories. For example, the verse you cited is about the glory of unity between the Father, Son, and believers. Read the prayer.
That is different than the glory of God that Isaiah saw in chapter 6 or what the apostles saw in Mt 17
17 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light.

On both occasions, it was the Glory of God that was seen.

Really? Reconcile.
Jn 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
Following your logic, the Father will send Himself. Does that make sense?
Only if the passage is read.
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, the Father will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
But it does not say that.
Notice Jesus speaks of the HS as a separate, cognitive, consciousness separate from the Father.

Matt. 10:20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Luke 12:12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”

When God said “Whom shall I send, And who will go for Us?” what was He asking for? = A prophet.
When do prophets speak for angels?

“Us” is a pronoun that refers to more than one and in this case it is YHWH and those who are with him, the angels.

 

[johnny guitar]

And you think this helps you with your error on Zechariah 12:10?

Sorry but no dice.

Listen, if the Father is the one who says "they will look upon me whom they pierced", the Father doesn't have a physical body by which to be literally pierced dude and when he then says "and they will mourn for him like a Father does his only begotten son" it proves that it is the Father speaking and also that he is making a distinction between himself and another in the passage.

Therefore, the only way possible for this to work out, is if the Father was figuratively and spiritually pierced with grief when his Son was pierced physically on the cross and being it was prophesied to Mary that she would also be pierced by the death of Jesus, this all begins to make perfect sense without any contradictions like there is with your false ideas about it.


Was the Father speaking when he said "they will look upon me whom they pierced"?

If so, then when was the Father pierced dude?


This all proves that you are not getting it with the way you are learning God's word and which means you need to repent of your method and get on with the way the Bible tells us we must learn of God instead, because your way ain't cutting it.

God The SON was speaking in Zech. 12:10.
Case closed.

 

[Towerwatchman]

“וְהִבִּ֥יטוּ אֵלַ֖י אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָ֑רוּ” the direct object indicator (green) is positioned after “look to me” and before “whom they pierced”. If the “me” and the “whom they pierced” were the same one then the direct object indicator (אֵ֣ת) would’ve been placed be for “me” as that is how the direct object indicator works in Hebrew...
The best translation is “they will look to me because of/ on account of who they pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn”.

Yes, אֵת, is used as a direct object indicator, it is also used to give greater definiteness to what is being communicated. Notice how it is used in the following verses

. The same applies to Zech 12:10 “whom they pierced” is defining or clarifying who “Me” is. In Zech 12:10 YHWH is the one who is pierced.

Jer 38:9 “My lord the king, these men have done evil in all that they have done to Jeremiah the prophet, {אֵ ת} whom they have cast into the dungeon, and he is likely to die from hunger in the place where he is. For there is no more bread in the city.”

1 Ki 6: 5 Against the wall of the temple he built chambers all around, {אֵ ת} against the walls of the temple, all around the sanctuary and the inner sanctuary. Thus he made side chambers all around it.

Ez 14: 22 Yet behold, there shall be left in it a remnant who will be brought out, both sons and daughters; surely they will come out to you, and you will see their ways and their doings. Then you will be comforted concerning the disaster that I have brought upon Jerusalem, {אֵ ת} all that I have brought upon it.

Zech 12:10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me {אֵ ת} whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

It’s not irrelevant because since he is both then it’s clear Jesus is not YHWH but rather YHWH’s shepherd as Zech. 13 clearly states...That’s what I asked you and again, the “I” doesn’t change the fact that Jesus is the shepherd who is stricken. Jesus was pierced and stricken, both apply to him.

I agree that Jesus is the shepherd that is stricken. And that He is YWHW's shepherd. But in Zech 12:10 YHWH is pierced and John identifies Jesus as the one being pierced in Zech 12:10. Outside the Trinity, we have a problem.

 

[Towerwatchman]

The NIV clearly shows that there is no trinity speaking, here it is again:

1.26 us…our…our. God speaks as the Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court (see 3.22; 11.7; Isa 6.8; see also 1 Ki 22.19-23; Job 15.8; Jer 23.18)

Neither Gen 3:22 nor 11:7 mentions any council or heavenly court.

Isaiah 6:8 No mention of a heavenly council or court. Note again prophets only represent God, not angels.
Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying:
“Whom shall I send,
And who will go for Us?”
Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”

1 Ki 22:19-23 does mention a heavenly court.

Job 15:8 and Jer 23:18 refer to counsel, not a council.

Note that the us refers to God and the members of his heavenly court yet we know God is the only one who actually does the creating.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness..."
Notice the plurality = Us and Our. Following your reasoning to a logical conclusion, the image and likeness that man is made in is the image and likeness of God and/or His heavenly court.
Is that the case?
Vs 26 "Let Us make..." Future event.
Vs 27 "So God created" past event.
Notice vs 27 does not mention any angles or council but God alone created in His image and His likeness.
vs 27"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

Incorrect, all those verses except for Heb. 1:8 do not call Jesus God.

2 Pe 1:1 ...by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
Ti 2:13 ...our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him {Jesus}, “My Lord and my God!”

Also, the title God in Heb. 1:8 is not used in the same sense as it is for YHWH because the very next verse we see that he has a God “Therefore GodX your God”. YHWH doesn’t have a God, period.

But to the Son He says:

“Your throne, O God [ho theos], is forever and ever;

A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;

Therefore God [ho theos], Your God [ho theos], has anointed You

With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

The Father uses ho thoes to identify Himself as the true God, and uses the same ho thoes to identify the Son as the true God. Following logic and reason if ho theos does not identify the Son as the True God, then ho theos does not identify the Father as the True God.

Holy Spirit and God are two titles that can be used interchangeably.
Matt. 10:20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Luke 12:12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”

Jn 14:26 But the [a]Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Notice Jesus identifies the HS as someone separate from the Father. How does 'interchangeably' apply here?
How can the HS be a separate, cognitive, consciousness separate from the Father if it is the Father?

By that standard then you and add Satan as well also since he is called God “θεος” as well in 2 Cor. 4:4.

"Ho Theos" refers to YHWH with the exception where it is heavily modified to identify someone else.
2 Cor 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded...
Satan is identified as "ho theos tou aionos" =the god of this age. ..

The ones whom YHWH also called God in Psalm 82 as Jesus pointed out.

I said, “You are [a]gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
But you shall die like men,
Elohym carries several meanings including + rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power:

When it’s used of YHWH it’s always singular in meaning, never plural.

Notice
“Elowahh” [singular] translates to God 52 times and its plural form “elohiym” is used 2347 times referring to Jehovah God.
Why would God inspire the authors to write confusion? Why inspire to use the plural form when the singular form exists? Because God is a unity of plurality.

It’s based solely on the Hebrew text. There is no verb in “יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה ׀ אֶחָֽד “ so the verb “is” has to supplied when translating to English as its implicit in Hebrew. Also, “echad” can also be translated as alone as we see in 1 Chron. 29:1 “ And David the king said to all the assembly, “Solomon my son, whom alone (echad) God has chosen.

YHWH Elohym YHWH alone? You just argued that He operates with His heavenly council.

There is no need to translate ehad as alone.
Note.
Is 37:20 Now therefore, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that You are the Lord, You alone.”

Alone translates from:

905 בַּד, בַּד, לְבַד [bad /bad/] n m. From 909; TWOT 201a; GK 963 and 964 and 4224; 56 occurrences; AV translates as “stave” 37 times, “beside” three times, “branches” three times, “alone” twice, “only” twice, “strength” twice, “apart” once, “bars” once, “each” once, “except” once, “beside him” once, “like” once, and “themselves” once. 1 alone, by itself, besides, a part, separation, being alone. 1A separation, alone, by itself. 1A1 only (adv). 1A2 apart from, besides (prep). 1B part. 1C parts (eg limbs, shoots), bars.
Strong, J. (1995). In Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

John saw the future glory of the Messiah hence he wrote about him. This is exactly why John cited 6:10/53:1 not 6:1-4.

Read again. John wrote that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory when Isaiah wrote either or both chapters 6 and 53. And in chapter 6 Isaiah saw the glory of God. Nothing in John's text states that John saw the future glory of Jesus.
BTW where did John see Jesus' future glory?
Also the NIV is not a good translation to use.

 

[johnny guitar]

The NIV clearly shows that there is no trinity speaking, here it is again:

1.26 us…our…our. God speaks as the Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court (see 3.22; 11.7; Isa 6.8; see also 1 Ki 22.19-23; Job 15.8; Jer 23.18)

Note that the us refers to God and the members of his heavenly court yet we know God is the only one who actually does the creating.

Correct, I believe the Father is YHWH.

Incorrect, all those verses except for Heb. 1:8 do not call Jesus God. Also, the title God in Heb. 1:8 is not used in the same sense as it is for YHWH because the very next verse we see that he has a God “Therefore GodX your God”. YHWH doesn’t have a God, period.

Holy Spirit and God are two titles that can be used interchangeably.

By that standard then you and add Satan as well also since he is called God “θεος” as well in 2 Cor. 4:4. The ones whom YHWH also called God in Psalm 82 as Jesus pointed out.

When it’s used of YHWH it’s always singular in meaning, never plural.

Fact.

It’s based solely on the Hebrew text. There is no verb in “יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה ׀ אֶחָֽד “ so the verb “is” has to supplied when translating to English as its implicit in Hebrew. Also, “echad” can also be translated as alone as we see in 1 Chron. 29:1 “ And David the king said to all the assembly, “Solomon my son, whom alone (echad) God has chosen.

It’s a very rare word, barely used and when it is used it almost always refers to an only child so no, it would NOT best describe God.

Seems like you’re adding your own words here, “united one”. That is not what the verse is saying, alone fits the context and echad can and is translated as alone as proven above

Not one single verse ever translates “Elohim” as Gods in reference to YHWH which undeniably proves that for YHWH it’s always the singular meaning not the plural so yesC the entire back door scriptures proves I’m right.

John saw the future glory of the Messiah hence he wrote about him. This is exactly why John cited 6:10/53:1 not 6:1-4.

Simple, there are different reasons why someone is glorified. YHWH alone is glorified for being God while Jesus and all believers are glorified for different reasons.

Matt. 10:20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Luke 12:12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”

“Us” is a pronoun that refers to more than one and in this case it is YHWH and those who are with him, the angels.

Prophets go for God, NOT angels.
In Isaiah 6 he SAW the glory of Jesus Christ.

 

[JNelson]

I agree that Jesus is the shepherd that is stricken. And that He is YWHW's shepherd. But in Zech 12:10 YHWH is pierced and John identifies Jesus as the one being pierced in Zech 12:10. Outside the Trinity, we have a problem.

So YHWH is YHWH’s shepherd?? This is blatant polytheism.

Zech. 12:10 clearly distinguishes “ME” and “HIM” so YHWH isn’t the one pierced in Zech. 12:10 or in John 19:37, Jesus is. This verse, the next chapter and the rest of the Bible distinguishes YHWH and Jesus.