They will look upon Me whom they pierced...

[2Corrie]

It has been suggested that the deity of Christ can not be supported with Old Testament scripture.

In Zechariah 12 God is talking:
“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."

The apostle John makes direct reference to this scripture in his account of the crucifixion,  clearly indicating that the Lord Jesus is the one who was pierced: "For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken." 37And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced."

So God is the one whom was pierced and Jesus was the one whom was pierced.

I find the reference to mourning for the only son in realisation interesting in the light of this.

[trippymonkey]

YER WOT ?!?!!?!?

'In Zechariah 12 God is talking......'

How do YOU know God is saying or said this? Just when was 'John' written anyway & by whom?
'Everyone else' is wrong?

Nick

[Anchorman]

It has been suggested that the deity of Christ can not be supported with Old Testament scripture.

In Zechariah 12 God is talking:
“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."

The apostle John makes direct reference to this scripture in his account of the crucifixion,  clearly indicating that the Lord Jesus is the one who was pierced: "For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken." 37And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced."

So God is the one whom was pierced and Jesus was the one whom was pierced.

I find the reference to mourning for the only son in realisation interesting in the light of this.

Yep.
It's hard to see that scripture meaning anything else!

[trippymonkey]

But does that mean it's correct?

[Anchorman]

S' a matter of faith. However, given that this is the text handed down to us, I see no other reasonable interpretation.

[trippymonkey]

Oh I see so it MUST be right then, eh ?!?!!??

[Brownie]

Right for Christians, ippy, or for some Christians.  I accept it too.

However it could be differently interpreted and I am honestly not going through the verses with a fine tooth comb looking for alternatives with a magnifying glass, this just came to me while I was reading them:   
if one of our children is hurt, we are hurt, we feel their pain so if someone hurts mine they are hurting me.

Hurting God's son hurt God.

That is quite clear to me.

Later: Thought of the fact that Jesus's mother was told a sword would pierce her heart.  Same thing really.

[jeremyp]

The apostle John makes direct reference to this scripture in his account of the crucifixion,

What evidence do you have that the Apostle John ever wrote anything?

clearly indicating that the Lord Jesus is the one who was pierced: "For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken." 37And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced."

Ii's called a retcon: retrospective continuity. The author of the gospel merely put the reference in to strengthen the claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What evidence do you have that the Apostle John ever wrote anything?

Ii's called a retcon: retrospective continuity. The author of the gospel merely put the reference in to strengthen the closing

The question is is it more likely to be John?
The next question is is it genuine, is the writer trying to be truthful? If you are ignoring the psychology of the author I would say you aren't properly connecting with the history or history per se.

Thanks for the word retcon which I am now about to use in another argument......

[jeremyp]

The question is is it more likely to be John?

No, the question is "what evidence do you have that the Apostle John ever wrote anything?"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, the question is "what evidence do you have that the Apostle John ever wrote anything?"

The work itself of course.

There is the argument that the disciples of John may have wrote it as indeed the disciples of famous paintings painted their masters paintings.Does that mean those painting have less artistic integrity? Of course not.

[jeremyp]

The work itself of course.

In what way does it provide evidence that it was written by the Apostle John?

There is the argument that the disciples of John may have wrote it as indeed the disciples of famous paintings painted their masters paintings.

That's an interesting idea.

Does that mean those painting have less artistic integrity? Of course not.

Yes it does.

Anyway, even if John did write the gospel (almost certainly not btw), the argument remains. Even John could have put the retcon in .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way does it provide evidence that it was written by the Apostle John?
That's an interesting idea.
Yes it does.

Anyway, even if John did write the gospel (almost certainly not btw), the argument remains. Even John could have put the retcon in .

Whoever did the paintings of the masters they are still artistic masterpieces.
Secondly if they did in those early christian days style something in the name of someone do we actually know what and why all that was about or do we assume the worse as you have?
After all what about Marks and Spencer who are still going but have actually not been in a position to personally sell any underwear due to being dead for several years.

[floo]

Whoever did the paintings of the masters they are still artistic masterpieces.
Secondly if they did in those early christian days style something in the name of someone do we actually know what and why all that was about or do we assume the worse as you have?
After all what about Marks and Spencer who are still going but have actually not been in a position to personally sell any underwear due to being dead for several years.

I am not quite sure where M&S come into the discussion?

As for Jesus and what was written about him, if something isn't credible as is much that is attributed to him, then it more than likely didn't happen. Just because people claim to have witnessed things doesn't give them credibility unless there is supporting evidence. The Angel of Mons story is a much more modern case in point. Even though it was created by an author and didn't actually happen, some people claim to have seen the angel" 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am not quite sure where M&S come into the discussion?

As for Jesus and what was written about him, if something isn't credible as is much that is attributed to him, then it more than likely didn't happen. Just because people claim to have witnessed things doesn't give them credibility unless there is supporting evidence. The Angel of Mons story is a much more modern case in point. Even though it was created by an author and didn't actually happen, some people claim to have seen the angel"

Who decides the grounds of credibility?
The angel of mons is a pretty one dimensional phenomenon which asks no personal questions or personal commitment other than intellectual assent or otherwise.

M and S comes in because although in one sense it is dishonest to talk of Marks and Spencer serving shoppers on account of them messrs Marks and Spencer being deceased, nobody bats an eyelid when stuff is done in their name and no integrity is compromised by it.

Just like the Gospel of John standing on it's own merits whatever it's called...or a rose being as sweet by any other name.

[floo]

Who decides the grounds of credibility?
The angel of mons is a pretty one dimensional phenomenon which asks no personal questions or personal commitment other than intellectual assent or otherwise.

M and S comes in because although in one sense it is dishonest to talk of Marks and Spencer serving shoppers on account of them messrs Marks and Spencer being deceased, nobody bats an eyelid when stuff is done in their name and no integrity is compromised by it.

Just like the Gospel of John standing on it's own merits whatever it's called...or a rose being as sweet by any other name.

People who are really dead don't come to life three days later, that isn't credible for a start!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

People who are really dead don't come to life three days later, that isn't credible for a start!

What, never? What is the rule which says one person in several billion can't....or that miracles can't happen...or that Karl Popper never suggested that a pattern observed a billion times was never guaranteed to happen a billionth and one time

Where are the proponents of the problem of induction when you need them?

[floo]

What, never? What is the rule which says one person in several billion can't....or that miracles can't happen...or that Karl Popper never suggested that a pattern observed a billion times was never guaranteed to happen a billionth and one time

Where are the proponents of the problem of induction when you need them?

No never, imo!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No never, imo!

Well hardly ever, i.m.

[floo]

Well hardly ever, i.m.

No ever, besides which, the story of the resurrection doesn't read like anything but a fairy tale.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No ever, besides which, the story of the resurrection doesn't read like anything but a fairy tale.

Which fairy tale is that then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No ever, besides which, the story of the resurrection doesn't read like anything but a fairy tale.

Let me give you an objection to this. Without making an argumentum ad populum nothing like Christianity has grown up around a fairy tale. Therefore in someway it IS reading like anything but a fairy tale.

[ekim]

Anyway, even if John did write the gospel (almost certainly not btw), the argument remains. Even John could have put the retcon in .

Isn't he the same John in Acts 4:13 described as agrammatoi ... illiterate and idiotai ... common?

[Ricky Spanish]

It has been suggested that the deity of Christ can not be supported with Old Testament scripture.

In Zechariah 12 God is talking:
“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."

The apostle John makes direct reference to this scripture in his account of the crucifixion,  clearly indicating that the Lord Jesus is the one who was pierced: "For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken." 37And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced."

So God is the one whom was pierced and Jesus was the one whom was pierced.

I find the reference to mourning for the only son in realisation interesting in the light of this.

In that case, the guys who wrote "John" either didn't read the whole chapter or misunderstood its references.

You decide:

1 The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The saying of the LORD, who stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundation of the earth, and formed the spirit of man within him: 2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of staggering unto all the peoples round about, and upon Judah also shall it fall to be in the siege against Jerusalem. 3 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will make Jerusalem a stone of burden for all the peoples; all that burden themselves with it shall be sore wounded; and all the nations of the earth shall be gathered together against it. 4 In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with bewilderment, and his rider with madness; and I will open Mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the peoples with blindness. 5 And the chiefs of Judah shall say in their heart: 'The inhabitants of Jerusalem are my strength through the LORD of hosts their God.' 6 In that day will I make the chiefs of Judah like a pan of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire among sheaves; and they shall devour all the peoples round about, on the right hand and on the left; and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem. 7 The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem be not magnified above Judah. 8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that stumbleth among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as a godlike being, as the angel of the LORD before them. 9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. 11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. 12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart: the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; 13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart; 14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

[Ricky Spanish]

Well, not really ekim. The guy who wrote acts was referring to an apostle of Jesus. The guys who wrote John weren't even born when Jesus was doing his stuff!!