- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2011,15:06) t8,
You don't quite get what I am saying. I will try to explain:Deut 10:17 tells us who Jehovah our God is:
For the LORD (Jehovah) your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.Jehovah our God = God of gods + Lord of lords
Jehovah our God is the name of the compound unity of the God of gods (the Father) and the Lord of lords (the Son).
I know exactly what you are saying.My question still stands.
How come the Father is never called the Father of God or the Father of Jehovah?
Because if the Father is part of the compound unity as is the son, (as you say), and the son is the son of the compound unity thereby being called son of God, then why is the Father not called Father of God, as he is the Father part of the compound unity, *as you say).
OK, I had a second take of your post and I think my response is more of a response to what you have said in the past.
So Let's look at what you believe.
Jehovah = God of gods x Lord of lords.
God of gods is the Father
Lord of lords is Jesus.Simple deduction from what you teach here is that Jesus is not God, but Lord.
Have you come full circle on this, or am I not understanding you correctly because I seem to remember when you were teaching that Jesus was God.
I am confused about where you stand now. You seem to be contradicting your earlier statements.
One more thing kathi is that the word LORD in the Old Testament is not the same as the word Lord in the New Testament. This has led to many a confusion especially with Trinitarians who freely interchange these words as if they were the same.
The passage that says: God made Jesus both Lord and Christ, is not true if you render the Old Testament word for LORD in there.
One is YHWH and the other Kurios.
Perhaps you are already aware of this, but I am just checking at this stage in case you are not aware of it.
I even started a topic on this.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….t=3944;Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 02 2011,12:38) Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 01 2011,19:06) Even though the Church in Biblical terms is a She, to me it is not.
Hi Irene,In the passage to which Kathi refers, the KJV calls the church “IT”, not “SHE” like some of the other translations.
The Greek language, like many languages, has some words that are “feminine”, and others that are “masculine”. But there are 1000's of feminine words in the Greek mss that are rendered simply as “IT” in the English translations. Just like in the case of the church in the KJV translation.
And the problem with the “SHE” translation is that only TWO of the three “she's” are feminine Greek words. One of those three words that some translations render as “she” is actually a Greek MASCULINE word.
I know you don't like dealing with all this language stuff, but I thought you'd like to know that Kathi is simply reaching for a way to justify her claim that Jehovah is TWO persons who are for some odd reason called “HE” instead of “THEY”. She has picked a weak passage to use for justification, because for one, “she” is so often used of even inanimate objects. And for two, like I said, one of the “she's” should actually be a “he” if they were to follow the gender of the Greek words throughout the whole passage.
peace to you and Georg,
mike
Mike! Thank you for that explanation. That is also what I think, the Church being a it makes much more sense to me too. Since the people are the Church, the Buildings that people go to is an it…
But Georg told me that in biblical terms it is called She…..
Regardless of that Jehovah God is not plural. Scriptures do not teach that. Even the Scriptures She gives does not teach it.She gave these Scriptures as proof
1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
Because it says and we by Him, AND one Lord Jesus Christ etc. She thinks that shows that Jesus also is Jehovah God? No way…. it says AND ONE GOD THE FATHER….AND..
Deu 10:17 For the LORD your God [is] God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
How can She make two out of this? No way God or LORD is God, (Singular) of Gods and LORD OF LORDS….
Peace and Love Irene
t8 and others, see my reply on the new thread:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….y305754Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2011,10:31) Mike,
I'm just answering your questions for my benefit to know that I can. I will leave the convincing to the Lord. I am just supposed to proclaim the truth freely as it is given me…what kind of ground it falls on is out of my control. This site is open to anybody whether their soil is rich and fertile, ready to hold on to truth and produce fruit or the rocky soil where the truth just blooooows away.Neither of us know much about the Hebrew language. I do know that some translators translate more literally than others. Some translate so the translation is more easily readable rather than literal. It appears that Jack's link is the more literal translation.
Kathi,Aaaahhh! Mike is feeling the force of the argument otherwise it would not matter if the Online Hebrew Interlinear is more literal or not.
Young's Literal Translation also gives a singular form. If Mike would do his homework he would not have to ask you.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage….ion=YLT
Mike's feelin the heat man!
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 02 2011,16:49) If Mike would do his homework he would not have to ask you.
I did a tiny bit of homework on this, Jack. And in about 10 minutes, I was able to discover that the English translation on the site YOU gave has “their eyes”, etc. And the LXX has “their eyes”, etc. And the Hebrew interlinear from Biblos.com has “their eyes”, etc.So Kathi can WANT your source to be the more literal one…………but that doesn't mean it is. For all I know, it could be, but she shouldn't consider hurdles as jumped before they truly are. And that was all I was saying to her.
But thank you for your consistent urging of me to delve deeper and deeper into the sources. Without that urging from you in our very first debate, I would not have by now uncovered the many Trinitarian scams and slants that are added into scripture to prove something they know can't be proven without the scams and slants they add. So, thanks again, Jack.
mike
Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 02 2011,07:39)
Mike! Thank you for that explanation.
Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 02 2011,07:39)
She thinks that shows that Jesus also is Jehovah God? No way…. it says AND ONE GOD THE FATHER….AND..
I can see she's not able to pull the wool over your eyes, either. That is a good thing, Irene. If “Son OF God” isn't enough for them, then surely “we have but one God, THE FATHER” should be. Amazingly, it isn't. peace and love,
mikeQuote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2011,22:18)
Do I need to dumb it down for ya Mike, is that what you are saying?
Yes please.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2011,22:18)
The Son of God is a co-equal member of the unity with the God that He is the Son of.
Kathi, who exactly makes up our ONE “God Almighty”?mike
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2011,22:28) Mike, Quote And for two, like I said, one of the “she's” should actually be a “he” if they were to follow the gender of the Greek words throughout the whole passage. I truly think this is not so…we just don't understand Greek construction well enough to know that, imo.
Eph 5:27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
With your level of Greek knowledge, should you be making such claims?
Kathi
Click here to see that “autos” in 5:27 is masculine.In 5:25 and 5:26, they are both feminine. But in 5:27, the word is masculine – at least according to Biblos.com. (Also notice how Biblos translates all of them as “IT”, even though the Greek words are not neuter.)
mike
Mike,
The 'autos' is the 'He' in the passage…see that it is in the nominative case which means that it is the pronoun that is the subject and not the direct or indirect object of the sentence. The 'church' is in the accusative case which is another way of saying that the word is the direct object and receiving the action of the verb.Eph 5:27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
The two pronouns that I bolded, 'He' and 'Himself' are the singular masculine pronouns in the sentence. The 'He' is the subject, the 'Him' is the indirect object and the church is the direct object to which 'her' glory refers to.
The interlinears have combined the translation of 'autos' with the verb but should have separated the subject from the verb when translating it to avoid the confusion. It is all cleared up when you notice that the 'autos' is in the nominative case and refers to Christ who is the subject in the sentence. If I explained this to Irene, I don't think that she would understand…so would you please explain that you were in error in what you told her because we need to be careful as to what we teach.
This is a perfect example of one not knowing enough about Greek and coming to the wrong conclusion. We both need to be careful in assuming things about how the Greek is translated, ok?
Thank you,
KathiQuote (Pastry @ Aug. 02 2011,08:39) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 02 2011,12:38) Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 01 2011,19:06) Even though the Church in Biblical terms is a She, to me it is not.
Hi Irene,In the passage to which Kathi refers, the KJV calls the church “IT”, not “SHE” like some of the other translations.
The Greek language, like many languages, has some words that are “feminine”, and others that are “masculine”. But there are 1000's of feminine words in the Greek mss that are rendered simply as “IT” in the English translations. Just like in the case of the church in the KJV translation.
And the problem with the “SHE” translation is that only TWO of the three “she's” are feminine Greek words. One of those three words that some translations render as “she” is actually a Greek MASCULINE word.
I know you don't like dealing with all this language stuff, but I thought you'd like to know that Kathi is simply reaching for a way to justify her claim that Jehovah is TWO persons who are for some odd reason called “HE” instead of “THEY”. She has picked a weak passage to use for justification, because for one, “she” is so often used of even inanimate objects. And for two, like I said, one of the “she's” should actually be a “he” if they were to follow the gender of the Greek words throughout the whole passage.
peace to you and Georg,
mike
Mike! Thank you for that explanation. That is also what I think, the Church being a it makes much more sense to me too. Since the people are the Church, the Buildings that people go to is an it…
But Georg told me that in biblical terms it is called She…..
Regardless of that Jehovah God is not plural. Scriptures do not teach that. Even the Scriptures She gives does not teach it.She gave these Scriptures as proof
1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
Because it says and we by Him, AND one Lord Jesus Christ etc. She thinks that shows that Jesus also is Jehovah God? No way…. it says AND ONE GOD THE FATHER….AND..
Deu 10:17 For the LORD your God [is] God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
How can She make two out of this? No way God or LORD is God, (Singular) of Gods and LORD OF LORDS….
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
Mike was incorrect in what he told you and I hope that he will clear it up with you. See the above post that I wrote about this to him.Kathi
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 02 2011,20:00) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2011,22:18)
Do I need to dumb it down for ya Mike, is that what you are saying?
Yes please.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2011,22:18)
The Son of God is a co-equal member of the unity with the God that He is the Son of.
Kathi, who exactly makes up our ONE “God Almighty”?mike
It depends on the context Mike.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2011,01:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 02 2011,20:00) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2011,22:18)
Do I need to dumb it down for ya Mike, is that what you are saying?
Yes please.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2011,22:18)
The Son of God is a co-equal member of the unity with the God that He is the Son of.
Kathi, who exactly makes up our ONE “God Almighty”?mike
It depends on the context Mike.
Kathi,Exactly! Your answer pins Mike down. Example: In Deuteronomy 6:4 it is Jesus that is God because verse 16 says that the people tempted God at Massah. Paul said that it was Christ the people tempted (1 Cor. 10).
Therefore, God in the context of the Shema is Jesus Christ.
Jack
Kathi! I said this before, I don't care what you call the Church, its not important to me. What is more important to me that you believe that you think that Jesus also is Jeho0vah Gosd. That is totally wrong according to Scripture in
Psa 83:18 That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the earth.Psa 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name Jehovah, and rejoice before him.
Jehovah is Almighty Gods name, the most high God…..
The Scriptures you give in
1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
Even this Scripture says that there is only ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL…… it does not proof that Jesus too is Jehovah God….it says and the Lord Jesus Christ….
Deu 10:1 ¶ At that time the LORD said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood.
In Deut. 10 most verses say LORD, if you noticed….. Georg had told me that LORD is used instead of Jehovah God…. He just cant find it where it says in the footnotes…. butI don;t believe Georg is a liar…
But you used these Scriptures as proof that Jesus also is Jehovah God, which it does not…..
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
Jehovah is both God AND Lord, not just God.Who is our ONE Lord, Irene?
1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2011,12:23) Irene,
Jehovah is both God AND Lord, not just God.Who is our ONE Lord, Irene?
1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
Kathi
Kathi! In the Old Testament it says LORD, which according to the footnotes is Jehovah God, LORD of LORDS. Jesus is Lord of Lords, not Jehovah Gods name…. You are ignoring Psalm 83:18 and
Psalm 68:4 it is our Heavenly Fathers name.
How does 1 Cor. 8:6 proof that Jesus who is Lord of Lords and also Jehovah God? It does not…..But these Scriptures does proof it is the most high God name…
Psa 83:18 That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the earth.Psa 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name Jehovah and rejoice before him.
It is His name, Kathi and not Jesus name at all…. There is no Scripture that says that…..
IreneIrene,
I explained to you that Jehovah is God of gods and Lord (adonay) of lords (adown). Jehovah is both God and Lord (adonay).1 Cor 8:6 tells us who is our one God, Irene but who is our ONE Lord (adonay), Irene? I am not asking who is our one LORD (Jehovah).
Jehovah is not just God but Jehovah is God AND Lord (adonay).
You give me a lot of opportunity to explain the same thing to you over and over again, Irene.
Peace and Love,
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2011,08:47) Mike,
The 'autos' is the 'He' in the passage…see that it is in the nominative case which means that it is the pronoun that is the subject and not the direct or indirect object of the sentence. The 'church' is in the accusative case which is another way of saying that the word is the direct object and receiving the action of the verb.
Oh. So the scholars of Biblos.com were referring to JESUS as an “IT”?And the KJV scholars are also wrong? The Kingdom Interlinear has it the same way as Biblos, with “parastese” meaning “HE might present”. Do you suppose it has anything to do with the fact that this verb is “third person singular”? Does that mean the “HE” is implied as being attached to the verb itself?
Look towards the bottom at the “it should be” on the Biblos site. Again, the Greek word is a verb, but it is in the “third person singular”. Biblos lists this verb as “IT should be” while the Kingdom Interlinear lists it as “IT may be”.
Also, can you show me from Biblos where your translation gets the “she” in verse 27?
mike
(Btw, the JW's Interlinear says: he might present he to himself So they even recognize the “IT” as the masculine word it really is……………and render it literally as “HE” in their Interlinear.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
