- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (carmel @ Dec. 15 2011,08:04) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 14 2011,17:41) Charles You ask me how many creatures their are below the first one right ?
Pierre
Pierre,Just give a random sensible number any will do, this simply to start our discussion and the I will answer according to what you answer.
This is to proove how wrong all those who change a simple word like creature into creation,which although it seems the same in fact it's not,for the simple reason that when we use the first born of every creature it gives more light regarding the spirit of Jesus'function in creation.
charlesok; 3
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 15 2011,08:18) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 15 2011,08:04) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 14 2011,17:41) Charles You ask me how many creatures their are below the first one right ?
Pierre
Pierre,Just give a random sensible number any will do, this simply to start our discussion and the I will answer according to what you answer.
This is to proove how wrong all those who change a simple word like creature into creation,which although it seems the same in fact it's not,for the simple reason that when we use the first born of every creature it gives more light regarding the spirit of Jesus'function in creation.
charlesok; 3
Pierre
Quote ok; 3 Now since you stated: the firstborn over all creation :
Where out of that 3 is Jesus.
Since we all know that God the Father created ALL in Jesus spirit, ALL by Jesus spirit,and ALL for Jesus spirit.
NOW CONCENTRATE before you post because ALL THOSE THREE ( WHICH REPRESENT ALL THE CREATION)must be created in that definition.
I mean All in Him,ALL by Him,and ALL for Him
Charles
Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 08 2011,19:07) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 07 2011,17:07) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2011,18:03) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2011,08:42) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 06 2011,03:45) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 05 2011,15:12) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 05 2011,03:23) …Jesus used the term I AM in order to prove that He was the God of the old testament…
Hi Charles,If that is what you believe, tell me then, why did Jesus say this…
Take heed lest any deceive you: For many shall come
in my name, saying, {i am}; and shall deceive many. (Mark 13:5-6)Hebrew has no such wording as εγω ειμι {ego eimi} in Geek and {i am} in English.
God bless
Ed JQuote Hebrew has no such wording as εγω ειμι {ego eimi} in Geek and {i am} in English.
Edj,Hebrew not,they has no such wording . This is “אני הווה”
Hi Charles,“אני הווה” means “I present”, NOT 'i am'; try again.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Charles?
Edj,After all christ spoke ARAMAIC.
Now what did Jesus Said when they came to arrest HIm and they all fell to the ground and WHY??
Hi Charles,I believe it has to do with a 'forced agreement'
between YHVH and satan before the world began;
and the reason why we are all here as human beings.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote I believe it has to do with a 'forced agreement'
between YHVH and satan before the world began;
and the reason why we are all here as human beings.Edj,
I believe you did watch The passion of The Christ, no?
Can you remember what the words were, when they came to arresst Him, they were on the screen in English “I AM” ,and they were spoken in Aramaic no?? REMIND ME PLEASE AS I CANNOT REMEMBER.
PEACE AND LOVE IN JESUS
CHARLES
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 10 2011,06:41) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 09 2011,11:04) Mike, Scriptures says:
THE WORD WAS GOD.
TO ME THAT IS FINAL.
Your argument of Satan is not valid for the simple reason that in John the word is God it is in the same sentence, and context of the deity.
Satan is called god on his own not in the same conext,and sentece where it refers to GOD.
Actually Charles,It is the CONTEXT of John 1:1 that makes it clear that the Word is not THE Theos that he was WITH. God Almighty cannot possibly be WITH God Almighty. That CONTEXT should be enough to tell you that the Word was A god, but not THE God.
Here's what the 25 TRINITARIAN scholars of NETNotes, (who would like nothing more than to agree with you that the Word was THE God), have to say about it:
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.Charles, are you able to see that there are THREE possibilities for the proper translation of John 1:1? Those three options are:
1. God
2. A god
3. God-like, divine, having qualities similar to God's qualitiesCharles, I REALLY want you to recognize and acknowledge for me that you understand all THREE of these options. I don't ever want to hear you say, “Scriptures says: THE WORD WAS GOD. TO ME THAT IS FINAL.” Because the majority of Trinitarian biased English translations is NOT the “final” answer on John 1:1 – nor do their translations make any sense. (Which you'll see in a minute.)
There are THREE different possible translations. Charles, do you understand this? Will you please ACKNOWLEDGE that you understand this for me?
Now, let me show you the ONLY one of those THREE possibilities that the 25 TRINITARIAN scholars of NETNotes eliminates; and why:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)Charles, do you see that the ONLY possibility that these scholars ruled out is YOUR possibility? Did you notice their reason for ruling out YOUR possibility? It was because it is common sense to most people that the Word couldn't BE THE PERSON OF GOD if the Word was WITH THE PERSON OF GOD.
This is what I'm also trying to tell you. So if you are unable to accept this common sense teaching from me, then at least accept it from these 25 experts in the Greek language that also want Jesus to BE the God he is the Son of – just like you do.
So if anything, 2 Corinthians 4:4 has more of a chance of calling Satan “God Almighty”, based on the context, than John 1:1 has of calling the Word “God Almighty”. Because in 4:4, it doesn't point out that the god known as Satan was WITH “THE God“, thereby eliminating any possibility that Satan WAS “THE God“. In 1:1, that fact IS pointed out for us.
peace,
mikeQuote It is the CONTEXT of John 1:1 that makes it clear that the Word is not THE Theos that he was WITH. God Almighty cannot possibly be WITH God Almighty. That CONTEXT should be enough to tell you that the Word was A god, but not THE God. Mike,
read this and see if this is possible or not within GOD!!
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD.!AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD?
Now God was in His glory all by Himself and definitely within Him had a voice NO, since He spoke to humans.
So God always had the word within Himself since he had His voice.
We also have a voice and also within our intelect and mentality we do have all our words no?
Is it OK up to now ?? before I carry on??
peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,01:12) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 08 2011,19:07) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 07 2011,17:07) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2011,18:03) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2011,08:42) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 06 2011,03:45) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 05 2011,15:12) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 05 2011,03:23) …Jesus used the term I AM in order to prove that He was the God of the old testament…
Hi Charles,If that is what you believe, tell me then, why did Jesus say this…
Take heed lest any deceive you: For many shall come
in my name, saying, {i am}; and shall deceive many. (Mark 13:5-6)Hebrew has no such wording as εγω ειμι {ego eimi} in Geek and {i am} in English.
God bless
Ed JQuote Hebrew has no such wording as εγω ειμι {ego eimi} in Geek and {i am} in English.
Edj,Hebrew not,they has no such wording . This is “אני הווה”
Hi Charles,“אני הווה” means “I present”, NOT 'i am'; try again.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Charles?
Edj,After all christ spoke ARAMAIC.
Now what did Jesus Said when they came to arrest HIm and they all fell to the ground and WHY??
Hi Charles,I believe it has to do with a 'forced agreement'
between YHVH and satan before the world began;
and the reason why we are all here as human beings.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote I believe it has to do with a 'forced agreement'
between YHVH and satan before the world began;
and the reason why we are all here as human beings.Edj,
I believe you did watch The passion of The Christ, no?
Can you remember what the words were, when they came to arresst Him, they were on the screen in English “I AM” ,and they were spoken in Aramaic no?? REMIND ME PLEASE AS I CANNOT REMEMBER.
PEACE AND LOVE IN JESUS
CHARLES
Hi Charles,What point are you trying to make?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 10 2011,06:41) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 09 2011,11:04) Mike, Scriptures says:
THE WORD WAS GOD.
TO ME THAT IS FINAL.
Your argument of Satan is not valid for the simple reason that in John the word is God it is in the same sentence, and context of the deity.
Satan is called god on his own not in the same conext,and sentece where it refers to GOD.
Actually Charles,It is the CONTEXT of John 1:1 that makes it clear that the Word is not THE Theos that he was WITH. God Almighty cannot possibly be WITH God Almighty. That CONTEXT should be enough to tell you that the Word was A god, but not THE God.
Here's what the 25 TRINITARIAN scholars of NETNotes, (who would like nothing more than to agree with you that the Word was THE God), have to say about it:
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.Charles, are you able to see that there are THREE possibilities for the proper translation of John 1:1? Those three options are:
1. God
2. A god
3. God-like, divine, having qualities similar to God's qualitiesCharles, I REALLY want you to recognize and acknowledge for me that you understand all THREE of these options. I don't ever want to hear you say, “Scriptures says: THE WORD WAS GOD. TO ME THAT IS FINAL.” Because the majority of Trinitarian biased English translations is NOT the “final” answer on John 1:1 – nor do their translations make any sense. (Which you'll see in a minute.)
There are THREE different possible translations. Charles, do you understand this? Will you please ACKNOWLEDGE that you understand this for me?
Now, let me show you the ONLY one of those THREE possibilities that the 25 TRINITARIAN scholars of NETNotes eliminates; and why:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)Charles, do you see that the ONLY possibility that these scholars ruled out is YOUR possibility? Did you notice their reason for ruling out YOUR possibility? It was because it is common sense to most people that the Word couldn't BE THE PERSON OF GOD if the Word was WITH THE PERSON OF GOD.
This is what I'm also trying to tell you. So if you are unable to accept this common sense teaching from me, then at least accept it from these 25 experts in the Greek language that also want Jesus to BE the God he is the Son of – just like you do.
So if anything, 2 Corinthians 4:4 has more of a chance of calling Satan “God Almighty”, based on the context, than John 1:1 has of calling the Word “God Almighty”. Because in 4:4, it doesn't point out that the god known as Satan was WITH “THE God“, thereby eliminating any possibility that Satan WAS “THE God“. In 1:1, that fact IS pointed out for us.
peace,
mikeQuote Actually Charles, It is the CONTEXT of John 1:1 that makes it clear that the Word is not THE Theos that he was WITH. God Almighty cannot possibly be WITH God Almighty. That CONTEXT should be enough to tell you that the Word was A god, but not THE God.
Mike I have posted this writing regarding your point.
I would mostly apprciate it if you were to comment .
Some people ask how to understand John 1:1, since some sects claim that this verse should read that the Word was “a God”—or “a god.” This claim is based on the fact that in the original Greek text the word theos in the last clause of John 1:1 does not have the definite article as it does in the second clause, which refers to the Father. This argument is based on ignorance of Greek grammar and syntax.
It is not true that John 1:1 could be translated: “and the Word was a God.” This translation is possible in a pagan Greek work, but utterly impossible in a Christian or Hebrew work. The reason is that the Bible teaches there is only one God. The Jewish and Christian religions have always taught this. The translation “a God” implies polytheism and denies one of the most fundamental teachings of the whole Bible.
The clause “and the Word was God” is translated from the Greek “theos en ho logos.” In Greek it is not necessary to use the definite article with a predicate nominative in this kind of sentence. In fact, doing so would change the meaning in a way that would confuse what John was saying. Using the definite article in this case would make the clause mean that the Word was the same person as the Father. However, John wanted to point out that the Word was God, but not the same person as the Father, who is the one commonly referred to when we just use the word God.
The word Theos in this clause is a predicate nominative coupled to the subject by a form of the verb “to be.” An eminent scholar, C. H. Dodd, commenting on John 1:1 explains: “The general rule is that in a sentence containing the verb `to be' as a copula the subject has the article and a predicate noun is anarthrous, even though it be definite. Hence, if theos was to be used predicatively it would be anarthrous, without any necessary change of meaning from the ho theos of the preceding clause.” (New Testament Translation Problems II, The Bible Translator 28, 1[January 1977]:103).
There are a number of biblical texts where Christ is referred to as God where the definite article does appear—though with other qualifiers that distinguish him from the Father (John 20:28 and 1 John 5:20, and in most Greek texts, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1).
Nonetheless, some argue that Jesus was not God, but a creation of God. This is based on the fact that John 1:1 does not have the definite article with God (Greek theos) in the clause “the Word was God.” At least one group of Bible students believes that this indicates the Word is a lesser god. They then speculate that the Word was created. This entire notion is dispelled, however, by an expert analysis of the Greek. We quote a brief statement by a scholar on this point:
A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . . The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before theos] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it
precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20:28, “My Lord and my God”]. (E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LII (1933), 12-21. Cf. also B. M. Metzger, “On the Translation of John 1:1,” Expository Times, LXIII (1951-52), 125 f., and C. F. D. Moule, The Language of the New Testament, Inaugural Lecture, delivered at Cambridge University on May 23, 1952, pp. 12-14.)Inasmuch as John 1:1-3 explicitly states that both the Word and God are divine, it is unnecessary to go further to prove that the Word, who became Jesus Christ, is an eternal, noncreated, hypostasis of God.
The King James, New King James, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, The Jerusalem Bible, Challoner-Douay Version, The New American Bible and other major translations all have: “and the Word was God.”
Greek scholars are in general agreement that the wording “The Word was God” or “the Word was divine” is the correct way to understand the last clause of John 1:1. Competent scholarship does not support the argument that the lack of a definite article in a predicate nominative indicates an indefinite reference. “To say that the absence of the article bespeaks of the nonabsolute deity of the Word is sheer folly. There are many places in this Gospel where the anarthrous [used without the article] theos appears (e.g., 1:6, 12, 13, 18), and not once is the implication that this is referring to just 'a god’” [Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, editor, volume 9, page 30].
If it were true, as the heretic Arius taught in the fourth century, that Jesus Christ is a god but not the God, that he was created and not God from eternity, then Christianity would be a polytheistic religion. However, polytheism is condemned in the Bible. God’s Word says there is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Timothy 1:17; 1 John 4:8; 5:20; Matthew 28:1; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Corinthians 8:6).
Here briefly are some of the reasons we believe that Jesus Christ was “God the Son”: he is called “God” (Hebrews 1:8-9) and “Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6); we are told that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9-10). Also, the disciples worshiped him as God (Matthew 14:33; John 20:28).
In the New International Version (and most other translations are equally clear on this point), there are a number of clear statements about the deity of Christ. See for example John 1: 3, 10, 14, 18; 5:18; Revelation 1:13-18; 22:13.
What about Revelation 3:14, however? Is there evidence here that Jesus could have been created? In this verse, the word “beginning” is translated from the Greek arche, which means “chief” (that from which the beginning is generated and flows). Christ is the originating instrument of creation (Colossians 1:15-17). He is the Chief—the Head and Governor of creation. Revelation 3:14, therefore, does not even hint that Christ was created by the Father sometime before the beginning. He has always existed.
Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 16 2011,01:38) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,01:12) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 08 2011,19:07) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 07 2011,17:07) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2011,18:03) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2011,08:42) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 06 2011,03:45) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 05 2011,15:12) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 05 2011,03:23) …Jesus used the term I AM in order to prove that He was the God of the old testament…
Hi Charles,If that is what you believe, tell me then, why did Jesus say this…
Take heed lest any deceive you: For many shall come
in my name, saying, {i am}; and shall deceive many. (Mark 13:5-6)Hebrew has no such wording as εγω ειμι {ego eimi} in Geek and {i am} in English.
God bless
Ed JQuote Hebrew has no such wording as εγω ειμι {ego eimi} in Geek and {i am} in English.
Edj,Hebrew not,they has no such wording . This is “אני הווה”
Hi Charles,“אני הווה” means “I present”, NOT 'i am'; try again.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Charles?
Edj,After all christ spoke ARAMAIC.
Now what did Jesus Said when they came to arrest HIm and they all fell to the ground and WHY??
Hi Charles,I believe it has to do with a 'forced agreement'
between YHVH and satan before the world began;
and the reason why we are all here as human beings.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote I believe it has to do with a 'forced agreement'
between YHVH and satan before the world began;
and the reason why we are all here as human beings.Edj,
I believe you did watch The passion of The Christ, no?
Can you remember what the words were, when they came to arresst Him, they were on the screen in English “I AM” ,and they were spoken in Aramaic no?? REMIND ME PLEASE AS I CANNOT REMEMBER.
PEACE AND LOVE IN JESUS
CHARLES
Hi Charles,What point are you trying to make?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote What point are you trying to make?
Edj,I think I was clear enough No.
Is the pronounciation of I AM in Aramaic from the Hebrew language different?? YES since it originated in Syria I suppose!
SO if Jesus spoke and wrote Aramaic therefore He could do both. No?
So I was wondering whether you noticed it while watching the film since you are so keen.
I myself was not so interested, infact I was quite an evil person in comparison to now, although I don't consider myself much better yet.
peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,08:02) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 15 2011,08:18) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 15 2011,08:04) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 14 2011,17:41) Charles You ask me how many creatures their are below the first one right ?
Pierre
Pierre,Just give a random sensible number any will do, this simply to start our discussion and the I will answer according to what you answer.
This is to proove how wrong all those who change a simple word like creature into creation,which although it seems the same in fact it's not,for the simple reason that when we use the first born of every creature it gives more light regarding the spirit of Jesus'function in creation.
charlesok; 3
Pierre
Quote ok; 3 Now since you stated: the firstborn over all creation :
Where out of that 3 is Jesus.
Since we all know that God the Father created ALL in Jesus spirit, ALL by Jesus spirit,and ALL for Jesus spirit.
NOW CONCENTRATE before you post because ALL THOSE THREE ( WHICH REPRESENT ALL THE CREATION)must be created in that definition.
I mean All in Him,ALL by Him,and ALL for Him
Charles
charlesChrist is not in those three,because it says OVER not IN
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 16 2011,05:21) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,08:02) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 15 2011,08:18) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 15 2011,08:04) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 14 2011,17:41) Charles You ask me how many creatures their are below the first one right ?
Pierre
Pierre,Just give a random sensible number any will do, this simply to start our discussion and the I will answer according to what you answer.
This is to proove how wrong all those who change a simple word like creature into creation,which although it seems the same in fact it's not,for the simple reason that when we use the first born of every creature it gives more light regarding the spirit of Jesus'function in creation.
charlesok; 3
Pierre
Quote ok; 3 Now since you stated: the firstborn over all creation :
Where out of that 3 is Jesus.
Since we all know that God the Father created ALL in Jesus spirit, ALL by Jesus spirit,and ALL for Jesus spirit.
NOW CONCENTRATE before you post because ALL THOSE THREE ( WHICH REPRESENT ALL THE CREATION)must be created in that definition.
I mean All in Him,ALL by Him,and ALL for Him
Charles
charlesChrist is not in those three,because it says OVER not IN
Pierre
Quote Christ is not in those three,because it says OVER not IN Pierre,
IN HIM All the fulness dwell.
What it the meaning of ALL??
Read:
Colossians 115Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
[/B]
Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,12:55) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 16 2011,05:21) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,08:02) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 15 2011,08:18) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 15 2011,08:04) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 14 2011,17:41) Charles You ask me how many creatures their are below the first one right ?
Pierre
Pierre,Just give a random sensible number any will do, this simply to start our discussion and the I will answer according to what you answer.
This is to proove how wrong all those who change a simple word like creature into creation,which although it seems the same in fact it's not,for the simple reason that when we use the first born of every creature it gives more light regarding the spirit of Jesus'function in creation.
charlesok; 3
Pierre
Quote ok; 3 Now since you stated: the firstborn over all creation :
Where out of that 3 is Jesus.
Since we all know that God the Father created ALL in Jesus spirit, ALL by Jesus spirit,and ALL for Jesus spirit.
NOW CONCENTRATE before you post because ALL THOSE THREE ( WHICH REPRESENT ALL THE CREATION)must be created in that definition.
I mean All in Him,ALL by Him,and ALL for Him
Charles
charlesChrist is not in those three,because it says OVER not IN
Pierre
Quote Christ is not in those three,because it says OVER not IN Pierre,
IN HIM All the fulness dwell.
What it the meaning of ALL??
Read:
Colossians 115Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
[/B]
charlesQuote Pierre, IN HIM All the fulness dwell.
What it the meaning of ALL??
if some thing is in some thing that some thing that have the things on the inside is obviously out side of it ,right ??
all the candies in the jar ,it does not say that the jar is a candy ,right ?
Pierre
Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,03:37) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 16 2011,01:38) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,01:12) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 08 2011,19:07) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 07 2011,17:07) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2011,18:03) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2011,08:42) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 06 2011,03:45) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 05 2011,15:12) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 05 2011,03:23) …Jesus used the term I AM in order to prove that He was the God of the old testament…
Hi Charles,If that is what you believe, tell me then, why did Jesus say this…
Take heed lest any deceive you: For many shall come
in my name, saying, {i am}; and shall deceive many. (Mark 13:5-6)Hebrew has no such wording as εγω ειμι {ego eimi} in Geek and {i am} in English.
God bless
Ed JQuote Hebrew has no such wording as εγω ειμι {ego eimi} in Geek and {i am} in English.
Edj,Hebrew not,they has no such wording . This is “אני הווה”
Hi Charles,“אני הווה” means “I present”, NOT 'i am'; try again.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Charles?
Edj,After all christ spoke ARAMAIC.
Now what did Jesus Said when they came to arrest HIm and they all fell to the ground and WHY??
Hi Charles,I believe it has to do with a 'forced agreement'
between YHVH and satan before the world began;
and the reason why we are all here as human beings.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote I believe it has to do with a 'forced agreement'
between YHVH and satan before the world began;
and the reason why we are all here as human beings.Edj,
I believe you did watch The passion of The Christ, no?
Can you remember what the words were, when they came to arresst Him, they were on the screen in English “I AM” ,and they were spoken in Aramaic no?? REMIND ME PLEASE AS I CANNOT REMEMBER.
PEACE AND LOVE IN JESUS
CHARLES
Hi Charles,What point are you trying to make?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote What point are you trying to make?
Edj,I think I was clear enough No.
Is the pronounciation of I AM in Aramaic from the Hebrew language different?? YES since it originated in Syria I suppose!
SO if Jesus spoke and wrote Aramaic therefore He could do both. No?
So I was wondering whether you noticed it while watching the film since you are so keen.
I myself was not so interested, infact I was quite an evil person in comparison to now, although I don't consider myself much better yet.
peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Hi Charles,The Hebrew/Aramaic has no equivalent to the Greek {εγω ειμι} ego eimi ?
So I repeat, “what point are you trying to make?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (carmel @ Dec. 15 2011,08:20) Mike, read this and see if this is possible or not within GOD!!
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD.!AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD?
Now God was in His glory all by Himself and definitely within Him had a voice NO, since He spoke to humans.
So God always had the word within Himself since he had His voice.
We also have a voice and also within our intelect and mentality we do have all our words no?
Is it OK up to now ?? before I carry on??
Hi Charles,One's “words” are not “with” them. Nor is someone's intellect ever said to be “with” them.
Nor had God at this time spoken to any humans, or even angels.
Charles, do you believe that the one called “the Word of God” in Revelation 19:13 is Jesus? YES or NO?
Quote (carmel @ Dec. 15 2011,08:39) Mike I have posted this writing regarding your point. I would mostly apprciate it if you were to comment .
Absolutely, Charles. There are many flaws in it, and many conclusions that are jumped to when the scriptures don't bear those conclusions out. I will take this piece apart with a fine toothed comb with you, but not just for my own enjoyment. I will do it ONLY if you are right there with me, learning along with me as we go. I will assume you are willing and will therefore begin.First up from the piece you quoted:
Some people ask how to understand John 1:1, since some sects claim that this verse should read that the Word was “a God”—or “a god.” This claim is based on the fact that in the original Greek text the word theos in the last clause of John 1:1 does not have the definite article as it does in the second clause, which refers to the Father.The bolded part above is completely true. The Greek words of John 1:1 say: in beginning was THE word and THE word was with THE god and god was THE word
You'll notice that THE word was not called “THE god”, but just “god”. Do you acknowledge that John 1:1 has one DEFINITE god (THE god), and one INDEFINITE god (god)? Do you acknowledge that the Word was NOT called “THE god”?(Charles, I won't move forward with this unless you DIRECTLY comment on each of these points as we go. I already know this stuff, so I am doing this for YOUR benefit. But it will be of no benefit to you unless you comment along with me as we go, showing me that you are understanding the stuff we are learning. So please address each bolded question or point I make.)
Continuing with the piece you quoted:
This argument is based on ignorance of Greek grammar and syntax. It is not true that John 1:1 could be translated: “and the Word was a God.” This translation is possible in a pagan Greek work, but utterly impossible in a Christian or Hebrew work. The reason is that the Bible teaches there is only one God.As for the words above, they are completely false. Firstly, the indefinite “god” is tranlsated as “a god” two other times in the NT. So unless they're calling the NT a “pagan Greek work”, they have spoken inaccurately.
Secondly, “Jesus is God” believers have been falsely claiming the Biblical belief in only one god for years, in an attempt to be able to say, “Well, Jesus is called “god”, and there is only ONE God mentioned in the Bible, so Jesus must be Him”.
The problem is that this is a complete fabrication. There are many other gods mentioned in the Bible. Satan was called a god by both Paul AND Jehovah Himself. Molech, Dagon, Chemosh, and Ashtoreth were also recognized by the Hebrews as gods. Not “false gods”, but “gods”. And Paul clearly tells us in 1 Cor 8 that there are “many who are called gods, both in heaven and on earth, as indeed there ARE many gods”. Was Paul lying? How about Jehovah when he called Satan a god? Was He lying?
Charles, do you acknowledge that the Bible speaks of MANY gods, both in heaven and on earth? YES or NO?
Okay, that should be enough for now. I have much more to say about the piece you qouted, but this will suffice for now. Charles, please DIRECTLY comment on all three of my bolded points. Only then will I go forward with the rest of the piece.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 16 2011,07:03) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 15 2011,08:20) Mike, read this and see if this is possible or not within GOD!!
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD.!AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD?
Now God was in His glory all by Himself and definitely within Him had a voice NO, since He spoke to humans.
So God always had the word within Himself since he had His voice.
We also have a voice and also within our intelect and mentality we do have all our words no?
Is it OK up to now ?? before I carry on??
Hi Charles,One's “words” are not “with” them. Nor is someone's intellect ever said to be “with” them.
Nor had God at this time spoken to any humans, or even angels.
Charles, do you believe that the one called “the Word of God” in Revelation 19:13 is Jesus? YES or NO?
Quote One's “words” are not “with” them. Nor is someone's intellect ever said to be “with” them. Nor had God at this time spoken to any humans, or even angels.
Mike,
My question was:
read this and see if this is possible or not within GOD!!
WE are discussing God!!
So do not compare us with God
Now explain these within God's turm'THEN!!
Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.Hebrews 4:For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
John 6:63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Matthew 12:37 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
What relation has the intellect,and the word then??
Are the words always in , or with, us??
Quote Charles, do you believe that the one called “the Word of God” in Revelation 19:13 is Jesus? YES or NO? Yes.
Quote Nor had God at this time spoken to any humans, or even angels.
God always the same !
Only REV:19:13 disturbed you out of that post ??
What are your comments with all the rest??
peace and love inJ esus
Charles
Quote (carmel @ Dec. 15 2011,15:11) What are your comments with all the rest??
Charles,I won't address 30 points in one post. I've told you this more than once.
My answer stands that one's word is not that one. Nor can one's word be WITH them.
I will wait for your response to my latter post.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 16 2011,12:55) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 15 2011,15:11) What are your comments with all the rest??
Charles,I won't address 30 points in one post. I've told you this more than once.
My answer stands that one's word is not that one. Nor can one's word be WITH them.
I will wait for your response to my latter post.
Quote I won't address 30 points in one post. I've told you this more than once. My answer stands that one's word is not that one. Nor can one's word be WITH them.
Mike''
One's word has nothing to do with God's word !
Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please,.
The above shows that the word of God is so powerfull that
“it shall accomplish that which He pleases,”
God said let there be light,and there was light in that instant He spoke it Mike
Does our word do the same??
Mike,
If I phone you what would you say??
Obvious you say Charles spoke to me on the phone??
Since you only heard my words on the phone and you still say Charles spoke to me :
My words on the phone are also myself No.
Also Mike if you hear God's word within you what would you say?
You say it's not God?
You say it's God's word ?
You say God spoke to me??
If you say God spoke to you.
Then God's word is also God.No
So THE WORD WAS GOD .
Now if God's word is also God,that same word of God became flesh.
I will comment on the other post, but not before I make my study on it.
PEACE AND LOVE IN JESUS
CHARLES
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 16 2011,07:53) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 15 2011,08:39) Mike I have posted this writing regarding your point. I would mostly apprciate it if you were to comment .
Absolutely, Charles. There are many flaws in it, and many conclusions that are jumped to when the scriptures don't bear those conclusions out. I will take this piece apart with a fine toothed comb with you, but not just for my own enjoyment. I will do it ONLY if you are right there with me, learning along with me as we go. I will assume you are willing and will therefore begin.First up from the piece you quoted:
Some people ask how to understand John 1:1, since some sects claim that this verse should read that the Word was “a God”—or “a god.” This claim is based on the fact that in the original Greek text the word theos in the last clause of John 1:1 does not have the definite article as it does in the second clause, which refers to the Father.The bolded part above is completely true. The Greek words of John 1:1 say: in beginning was THE word and THE word was with THE god and god was THE word
You'll notice that THE word was not called “THE god”, but just “god”. Do you acknowledge that John 1:1 has one DEFINITE god (THE god), and one INDEFINITE god (god)? Do you acknowledge that the Word was NOT called “THE god”?(Charles, I won't move forward with this unless you DIRECTLY comment on each of these points as we go. I already know this stuff, so I am doing this for YOUR benefit. But it will be of no benefit to you unless you comment along with me as we go, showing me that you are understanding the stuff we are learning. So please address each bolded question or point I make.)
Continuing with the piece you quoted:
This argument is based on ignorance of Greek grammar and syntax. It is not true that John 1:1 could be translated: “and the Word was a God.” This translation is possible in a pagan Greek work, but utterly impossible in a Christian or Hebrew work. The reason is that the Bible teaches there is only one God.As for the words above, they are completely false. Firstly, the indefinite “god” is tranlsated as “a god” two other times in the NT. So unless they're calling the NT a “pagan Greek work”, they have spoken inaccurately.
Secondly, “Jesus is God” believers have been falsely claiming the Biblical belief in only one god for years, in an attempt to be able to say, “Well, Jesus is called “god”, and there is only ONE God mentioned in the Bible, so Jesus must be Him”.
The problem is that this is a complete fabrication. There are many other gods mentioned in the Bible. Satan was called a god by both Paul AND Jehovah Himself. Molech, Dagon, Chemosh, and Ashtoreth were also recognized by the Hebrews as gods. Not “false gods”, but “gods”. And Paul clearly tells us in 1 Cor 8 that there are “many who are called gods, both in heaven and on earth, as indeed there ARE many gods”. Was Paul lying? How about Jehovah when he called Satan a god? Was He lying?
Charles, do you acknowledge that the Bible speaks of MANY gods, both in heaven and on earth? YES or NO?
Okay, that should be enough for now. I have much more to say about the piece you qouted, but this will suffice for now. Charles, please DIRECTLY comment on all three of my bolded points. Only then will I go forward with the rest of the piece.
peace,
mikeQuote Do you acknowledge that John 1:1 has one DEFINITE god (THE god), and one INDEFINITE god (god)? Do you acknowledge that the Word was NOT called “THE god”? Mike,
Yes, But how are we to distinguish between the “WORD” AS A PERSON, AND THE FATHER AS ANOTHER ?? Since they are in the same sentence.
Quote Charles, do you acknowledge that the Bible speaks of MANY gods, both in heaven and on earth? YES or NO? Yes, But you are referring to the Old Testament. Many times I quoted that the Old Testament is fulfilled by Jesus, and also that it is a complete confusion. We as Christians are more subject to the New testament since Jesus is the truth,and fulfilled and sealed the OT once and for all.
Mark 2:21No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse. 22And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.
it's clear enough to me Mike leave the OT,and concentrate on the NEW!
John was writing the Gospel according to Jesus as GOD HIMSELF as man, believe it or not, and also the truth regarding the deity of Jesus, the Father and the true GOD.
He wanted to include them in one sentence to make us aware that the two persons mentioned are the same ONE SPIRIT OF GOD. Also he indicated that the word god is only a title not one entity, but a complex entity.
peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 16 2011,06:34) Hi Charles, The Hebrew/Aramaic has no equivalent to the Greek {εγω ειμι} ego eimi ?
So I repeat, “what point are you trying to make?God bless
Ed
Charles?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
