Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
This needs to be resolved:
#6
Thirdwoe Wrote:Jeremy,

The plot thickens...

In considering these options you give.

Both Mark and Luke do show that it is "Mari", whom David by the Holy Spirit calls the Messiah, and not "Marya".

And Apostle Peter, In Acts 2:33-36 it seems to me, rules out the option you propose, that would make David the "Mari" rather than The Messiah in the text... Because it says there in Acts, that it is not referring to David, but to The Messiah as the one who is called to sit at Marya's right hand... Apostle Peter making the point, that David had not ascended to Heaven, but the Messiah had.

BUT...He (Peter) goes on to say there that Alaha, has made Yeshua to be both "Marya" and Messiah... So, we have a kunundrum.

Maybe it is as you say, that Yeshua said it two different ways...?

But the "Mari" being a 3rd person referance to King David, seems to be out as an option, based on what Apostle Peter says in Acts...(though Yeshua is Prophetically called "David" in Scripture....and also what Apostle Peter says about Alaha making Yeshua to be both Marya & Messiah...then Matthew's account could stand as worded...and not be a scribal error.

Also It seems the idea that Yeshua was saying it one way in the Matthew account, and another way in the Mark and Luke accounts...may not be an option...??? Because are not all these accounts of the very same event/time, that Yeshua is speaking these words? Each account gives a bit more detail as to how it went down...but I believe it shows that it was just this one time that Yeshua spoke these words.

In any case...I don't think I helped get any closer to a "fix"....maybe even made it worse. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Blessings.

..


Shlama,


i am not seeing the issue existing so prominently via the reading from Acts, because, as you point out, it says that Yah made Yeshu'a both MarYa AND M'sheekha. this should be a cue that Peter understood it even deeper, likely spurred by what He heard taught by Yeshu'a on this very verse.

the reason why it fits to me is that Peter is reading it one way, the way the "Scripturalist" would do (ie, scribe and Sadducee), whereas Yeshu'a applied it BOTH ways to shut up both groups of His opponents.

the way i see it best, as i mentioned in my former post, was that Yeshu'a used ONE passage and exegeted it TWO ways to two different groups: to the scribes, the "my master" is of necessity M'sheekha, so He points that out, backing them into a corner. but to the Pharisees, "MarYa" there can ALSO be technically understood as M'sheekha, which almost certainly threw them for a loop, because He asks them the same initial question He gave the scribes, but then He twists it, and blows their minds, backing them into a corner, too. no wonder no man dared to ask Him anything after this discussion! He used a single verse and proved His point to two groups of interpretation who were normally at odds, and made them BOTH agree that His position was valid! that is masterful teaching, if you ask me. but it works so seamlessly because of the UNITY that exists between Him and the Father: He can be both MarYa AND M'sheekha, as Keepha pointed out - which fits exactly with the interpretation i've given. it is so awesome, because here He is right before Passover, being examined by those "teachers" just like the Passover lamb was examined for spot and blemish, and He proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no spot or blemish in Him, but that THEY are the ones who are lacking in understanding.

in my opinion, if you look at what He says, and to who, it IS different. this aspect is what Andrew pointed out in his approach that started making things make a little more sense to me. there's a reason why it is worded differently in all three accounts, and why different people groups are listed. to me, it fits best to read it as Him truly asking the same -but slightly tweaked- question to the different groups present, which allowed Him to show His mastery of the Father's Word, and how easy it was to shut up those who had their "pretended" authority.

again, i'm all for another explanation, i just haven't seen anything else that i feel more comfortable about than this take, since the verse from Matthew DOES say Daweed called M'sheekha "MarYa." textually, that is what we have to deal with. so either there is a mistake, as pointed out was a possibility, or else He REALLY meant to go the "MarYa" route and blow the minds of the Pharisees who likely NEVER expected Him to turn it on its head in front of the scribes.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply


Messages In This Thread
This needs to be resolved: - by Thirdwoe - 09-13-2011, 03:56 AM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by Burning one - 09-14-2011, 03:29 AM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by Thirdwoe - 09-15-2011, 02:40 AM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by distazo - 09-15-2011, 09:20 AM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by Thirdwoe - 09-16-2011, 02:01 AM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by Burning one - 09-16-2011, 04:42 AM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by Burning one - 09-16-2011, 04:46 AM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by Thirdwoe - 09-16-2011, 06:47 AM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by Thirdwoe - 09-16-2011, 07:52 AM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by gbausc - 09-17-2011, 10:49 PM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by Burning one - 09-18-2011, 03:10 AM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by Burning one - 09-18-2011, 03:13 AM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by Thirdwoe - 09-18-2011, 06:41 AM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by Jerry20 - 09-30-2011, 05:03 AM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by distazo - 09-30-2011, 07:11 AM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by Jerry20 - 09-30-2011, 02:10 PM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by distazo - 09-30-2011, 06:33 PM
Re: This needs to be resolved: - by The Texas RAT - 07-04-2012, 03:41 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)