- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 02 2011,04:03) Mike………The Word written as Reema of GOD is FROM the LOGOS of GOD , the SPIRIT inspiring them as Paladin is showing us that GOD who is a Spirit (which is the intellect) which is the LOGOS that was (IN) the flesh man Jesus. IMO peace and love…………………………………………………..gene
Hi Gene,Good post brother!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Paladin @ Sep. 30 2011,09:26) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 22 2011,04:26) [/quote] Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,04:35) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 20 2011,06:50) Paladin, Quote You are correct, in that spirit is genitive. I've got to stop posting when I get tired. The nominative neuter singular relative pronoun “o” replaces spirit which is genitive neuter singular, not sword which is accusative feminine singular.
It does not throw off my understanding of the verse because I was not even aware I was stating spirit to be nominative, because I was focusing at that time, on reema, which is nominative neuter singular.
Thank you for the correction.
You are welcome Paladin…I would want to be corrected also if I was in error about the Greek grammar. I believe the “o” refers to “rhema” and not sword or spirit. I believe the last phrase should be “the word WHICH is of God.” Both 'word' and 'which' is written in the nominative neuter singular. Spirit is not written in the nominative and does not qualify for the 'which' to refer to it.
I hear ya about posting when tired
Take care,
Kathi
You may be confusing the relative pronoun “o” with an adjective, which agrees with the word it modifies, in case, number, and gender.With relative pronouns, however, their gender and number are determined by their antecedent, while their case is determined by their function in the relative clause.
'o anthrwpos on…ginwskomen didaskei eemas
the man…..whom we know…..teaches usIn this example, the antecedent (anthrwpos) is nominative, the relative pronoun (on) is accusaive because it is the direct object of the verb ginwskomen. [See W.D.Mounce: “Basics…]
Back to Eph 6:17:
“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:teen maxairan tou pneumatos o……estin reema theou
the sword…… of the Spirit,.. which is the word of God:“Sword” is accusative feminine singular. Accusative as the direct object of the verb “take.”
“Spirit” is genitive neuter singular. Genitive as possessor of the sword.
“which” [o] is nominative neuter singular relative pronoun referencing the neuter singular Spirit, which becomes obvious when you eliminate the feminine sword, and locate the only other possibility, the neuter singular reema.
I also prefer to be corrected when I boo a boo. I would rather be correct, but in leiu of a boo, correction is better.
Thanks again.
Hi Paladin,
I am enjoying this challenge. Note taken on the agreement of the case on adjectives but not necessarily on pronouns. Thanks. However, regarding Eph 6:17 here is something to throw into the pot:Agreement with Predicate Substantives27
Some of the exceptions to the rule of agreement show an agreement of a different kind; the relative clause is a copulative one with a predicate substantive, and the relative agrees in gender with the predicate substantive rather than with the antecedent in the main clause. An example is found in Eph 6:17: thn maxairan tou, pneuma-toj, o! estin rhma qeou, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” The actual antecedent is maxairan (feminine), but the predicate substantive, which is of course referring to the same thing, is rhma (neuter), and the relative neuter agrees with it. In every instance the predicate substantive is more prominent than the actual antecedent.27 Nine instances: Mark 7:11; 15:16, 42; Gal 3:16; Eph 6:17; 2 Thess 3:17; 1 Tim
3:15; Rev 4:5; 5:8.from here: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu….GTJ.pdf
Interesting, huh.
Kathi
Even more interesting, I find this:
Eph 6:17
and………..kai [cc
the………..teen (o`) [acc fem s def art]
helmet……..perikephalaian [acc fem s n]
-………….tou (o`) [dgns
of salvation..swteeriou [gen neu s pronominal adj]
take ye…….dexasthe [imperative aor mid 2nd pl]
and………..kai [cc
the………..teen (o`) [acc fem s def art]
sword………maxairan [acc fem s n]
of the……..tou (o`) [gen neu s def art]
spirit……..pneumatos [gen neu s n]
which………o (os) nom neu s rel pronoun]
is…………estin (eimi)[ind pres act 3rd s v]
word……….reema [nom neut s n]
of God……..theou [gen masc s n]IT'S STILL GREEK TO ME: DAVID ALLAN BLACK [page 70-71]
Quote The relative pronoun (os,ee,o)– follows the declension of the definite article. It must agree with its antecedent in gender and number, but its case is determined by its function in its own sentence.[Emphasis mine[P] Occasionally the relative agrees, not with the grammatical gender of its antecedent, but with its natural gender: paidarion [neuter]….. os[masculine] exei, “a small boy who has” (John 6:9). In I Corinthians 15:10, eimi o eimi, I am what I am,” is not a grammatical blooper. By referring to himself with the neuter pronoun, Paul wants to bring out a qualitative force. “Eimi os eimi,” “I am who I am,” would have given quite a different twist to Paul's thought.
[Emphasis mine[P]
These eleven verses have an agreeing antecedent
01) Acts 1:12 [o estin] modifies “mount” which is near Jerusalem
02) Eph 1:14 [o estin] modifies “Holy Spirit” of verse 13
03) Eph 6:17 [o estin] modifies “Spirit”
04) Col 1:24 [o estin] modifies “his body” the church
05) Col 1:27 [o estin] modifies “Mystery” Christ in you
06) II Tim 1:6 [o estin] modifies “Xarisma” gift in thee
07) I Pet 3:4 [o estin] modifies “meek and quiet spirit”
08) Rev 2:7 [o estin] modifies “tree” in the paradise of God
09) Rev 20:12 [o estin] modifies “book” of life
10) Rev 21:8 [o estin] modifies “fire and brimstone”
11) Rev 21:17 [o estin] modifies “measure”These five verses reference “o estin” as a relative pronoun without referencing an agreeing antecedent.
01) Mark 3:17 [o estin] modifies plural “names” “sons of thunder”
02) Eph 5:5 [o estin] mdofies an idolater
03) Col 3:14 [o estin] modifies “charity” bond of perfectness
04) II Thes 3:17 [o estin] modifies “salutation” – in every epistle
05) I John 2:8 [o estin] modifies “commandment”Quote The relative pronoun is involved in a few idioms: aph ou means “since;” os an means “whoever;” and *”o estin” can introduce an interpretation: “that is.”
The operative word here is “can” as in “can introduce” – not “must” as your remark seems to allow.These seven verses reference “being interpreted” (or translated), preceeded by [o estin].
01) Matt 1:23 [o estin] being interpreted
02) Mark 5:41 [o estin] being interpreted
03) Mark 15:22 [o estin] being interpreted
04) Mark 15:34 [o estin] being interpreted
05) John 1:41 [o estin] being translated
06) Acts 4:36 [o estin] being translated
07) Heb 7:1-2 [1[prwton men ermeeneuomenos]first being interpreted [2[o estin] king of peaceThese six verses are used with synonyms of “interpreted or translated”
01) Matt 27:33 [o estin] “that is to say”
02) Mark 7:11 [o estin followed by [o] “that is to say” a gift
[Korban o estin Dwron o ean ex emou wpheleethees]
03) Mark 7:34 [o estin] Ephphatha “that is to say” be thou opened
04) Mark 12:42 [o estin] two mites, “which make” a farthing
05) Mark 15:16 [o estin] the hall, “called” Praetorium;
06) Mark 15:42 [o estin] “that is” the day before the sabbathFive verses “translated/interpreted” without [o estin]
01) John 1:38 [o legetai] being interpreted “master”
02) John 1:42 [o ermeeneuetai] which is translated
03) John 9:7 [o ermeeneuetai] which is translated
04) Acts 9:36 [ee diermeeneuomenee] which by interpretation
05) Acts 13:6-8 [methermeeneuetai] for so is translatedW.D.Mounce; Basics of Biblical Greek – page 116
A Relative Clause is the relative pronoun and the clause it introduced; And can be the subject (“Whoever is with me is not against me.”); Direct Object (“I eat what is placed before me”); Object of a preposition (“Give the bible to whoever asks for it.”); and must be viewed as a unit.page 118
Relative Clauses are always dependent; they may never contain the main subject and verb of the sentence.A.T.Robertson; A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament
Quote
page 410
Fluctuation in Gender
In Rev 14:19 two genders are found with the same word; leenon.
[leenon accusative feminine singular]
[leenon accusative masculine singular]Also the common gender of “Theon”
John 1:1 theon = accusative masculine singular]
Acts 19:37 theon = accusative feminine singular]
page 411-412
EXPLANATORY o estin & tout estinA special idiom is the relative (o) as an explanation (o estin) and the demonstrative (tout esti) which are both used without much regard to the gender (not to say number) of antecedent or predicate.
Thus…in Eph 6:17 “…maxairan, o estin reema theou.” Blass observes [Gr. of N.T. Gk. p.77] that it is only in the apocalypse that this explanatory relative is assimilated to the antecedent or predicate.
The problem with that is the fact that the Greek is not correctly presented in A.T.Robertson's explanation; Eph 6:17 “…maxairan, o estin reema theou” but Paul gives us “kai teen maxairan tou pneumatos o estin reema theou.”
This has got to be based upon the presupposition that “which” modifies “sword” and not “spirit.” It follows the same attitude as that of Colwell and Sharp who make up their own rules where the Greek doesn't suit them. Also the
“historical present” which is a made up assessment which covers several different tenses other than the “present.” And if the tense is already identified as “present” why is it then labelled “historical present?” [See ATR pp 866-869]ATR also fails to consider the fact, all the “exceptions” deal with those incidents which have no antecedent in agreement with the Relative Pronouns. Eph 6:17 has an antecedent that is in agreement with the neuter singular “o” estin, pneumatos (Neut singular), which once it is found, why is ATR still looking for a match? Because he is trying desparately to make sense out of things he does not understand, and eventually must make a ruling to control the grammar of the language.
Most of the “Greek grammar” would be unrecognized if the grammarians would read the scriptures in the order in which they were produced by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Much of the grammatical explanation is demonstrably an effort to explain things in light of certain dictionary meanings that are changed by the location of words in the wrong order. Like when Paul explains how terminology is applied to the Greek among early Christians, later addressed by John in his gospel.
Instead, John's goepel preceeds every one of Paul's writings, and concept represented by the term “the logos of God” is destroyed in the resulting theology, based upon the destruction of the grammatical principles upon which God based his scriptures.
For example, John 1:1a,c; 14 “In the beginning was the logos,
…and the logos was God, and the logos became flesh…” Why do the grammarians fail to point out the natural consequences of “ho logos” and theos being inconvertible terms; i.e., when
“ho logos” became flesh, theos did not.For example, when explaining “and the logos was with God” – the theologians claim “pros ton theon” demonstrates a close intimate personal relationship between the logos and God. They go into an explanation of “pros ton theon” that has no justification if the inspired order is followed, in applying terminology to theology as the Holy spirit inspired it to be written.
“pros ton theon” is used to describe a man approaching a gate; a man being approached by a donkey, and several other incidents which show the language to be rather silly. Yet they apply it to John 1:1b as though they somehow have special insight into the mind of God as he instructs men.
Their real insight is clouded by their own evaluation of their influence based on truth. It is lacking due to theology not based in grammatical principles, but based upon political principles. The result becomes “trinitarian orthodoxy” and “pre-existant Jesus orthodoxy.”
If you understand Eph 6:17 to be saying “the spirit is the reema of God,” you have a different understanding than that of “the sword” is the reema of God, and belongs to the spirit.
They cannot both be true.And yes, I also find the exchange interesting. However, I cannot continue to try to do in depth research over an extended time period, as I am still recovering from radiation and other side issues from Cancer. That is why it has taken me so long to produce this little report. I cannot sit at my computer for very long at a time, but must waste my time putting my feet up on a lounger to stop blood clots from forming in my feet and legs.
I feel I owe the board this explanation, so these posting will not feel like I am favoring one over another. Thank you for your patience.
Paladin,
I fail to see what you claim is 'even more interesting.' There is nothing in your post to contradict what Boyer said which I quoted and put a link to.I also do not know why you are struggling with this. What would be the 'sword' of the word of God? If you replace the 'spirit' with 'word of God'…what exactly do you say is the sword of the word of God?? I believe that it is clear that the 'word of God' is the weapon, i.e. the 'sword.' Dr. Boyer agrees and spells it out, even using the Greek words in the order you have noted. Did you follow the link…the actual paragraph is on page 14 of the pdf.
The passage is talking about the pieces of armor that w
e are to put on and is not a passage explaining the spirit.Eph 6:14Stand firm therefore, HAVING GIRDED YOUR LOINS WITH TRUTH, and HAVING PUT ON THE BREASTPLATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, 15and having shod YOUR FEET WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE GOSPEL OF PEACE; 16in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
You can respond if you want or not, take your time. Hope you are feeling better.
Kathi
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2011,11:33) Hi Kerwin, I believe that the phrase “ALL THINGS” has the default meaning of ALL THINGS. I agree with you that context and/or logic COULD narrow the scope of the phrase to include only certain things. But I don't see any context in John 1:3, Col 1:16, or 1 Cor 8:6 that would make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR to anyone that the phrase has a more narrow scope than ALL THINGS. And if it's not ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, then I believe the default meaning of “ALL THINGS” should take precedence.
Kerwin, can you give me ANY scriptural or logical reason Paul could not actually mean “ALL things” in 1 Cor 8:6?
mike
Mike, if I ask you to tell me what you know about all things whether black, brown, or blue, would you tell me of things that include those are red, green or yellow?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,03:17) Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 01 2011,09:04) When Paul tells us the Spirit is the reema of God; and John tells us the logos was God, you don't discern a difference?
Paul doesn't tell us the spirit is the “rhema” of God, nor does John tell us the “logos” is God.Knowing is half the battle, Paladin.
Right. John tells us the logos W A S GOD. [John 1:1]Paul tells us reema I S the Spirit. [Eph 6:17]
But John tells us the logos changed by “becoming flesh.”[1:14]
God did not.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,04:53) Gene, You need to research John 1:1 a little more. The Word is never called “THE God” in that verse. And “THE God” is the only one we call “God”, with a capped “G”.
All others are called “gods” in English, with a lower case “g”.
And since the Word was WITH “THE God” in the beginning, he couldn't possibly have BEEN “THE God”.
1:1 speaks of TWO persons. One of them was “THE God” while the other one was was WITH “THE God”. That other one was also a mighty one, and therefore called a “god” in Biblical times – just like Satan was called a “god” in Biblical times.
That's nonsense Mike. The New Testament was written in all capital letters, and had no punctuation. All that stuff was added by scholars.There is no significance to capital letters and small letters in the scriptures of God; only in the translations of men.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,04:53) Gene, You need to research John 1:1 a little more. The Word is never called “THE God” in that verse. And “THE God” is the only one we call “God”, with a capped “G”.
All others are called “gods” in English, with a lower case “g”.
And since the Word was WITH “THE God” in the beginning, he couldn't possibly have BEEN “THE God”.
1:1 speaks of TWO persons. One of them was “THE God” while the other one was was WITH “THE God”. That other one was also a mighty one, and therefore called a “god” in Biblical times – just like Satan was called a “god” in Biblical times.
Logical fallacy. The Woman was with the Adam and was also the Adam. God called the male and the female “the Adam” (Gen. 5:1-2).The red Ford Mustang sat on the lot next to the blue Ford Mustang. Both cars are “the” Ford Mustang.
Sonnyboll's shallow thinking is easy to refute. Caiaphas was “the” high Priest. His predacessors were also “the” high priest.
KJ
Paladin?
Quote Paul tells us reema I S the Spirit. [Eph 6:17] Eph 6:10Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might. 11Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world's rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13Therefore, put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand. 14Stand therefore, having the utility belt of truth buckled around your waist, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15and having fitted your feet with the preparation of the Good News of peace; 16above all, taking up the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one. 17And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;
The context of this passage is not about the Spirit but of the armor of God and it lists each piece. From this passage, you cannot declare as fact that Paul is stating that the Spirit IS the word of God. That doesn't fit the flow of the passage, not to mention the grammar lesson that Dr. James Boyer gave, a professor of the New Testament and Greek grammar.
Sorry, Paladin but I don't think you should use this verse as a proof text of that idea that the Spirit is the 'rhema.'
Kathi
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 24 2011,15:02) [/quote] Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 23 2011,00:57)
I am stating that an explicitly expressed idea is more convincing than a argument based on personally perceived implications.
I agree. Especially when those “personally perceived implications” result in absurd statements and conclusions.Mike, is an absurd thing an actual thing? Or is it simply in reality, an absurd notion about a thing?
Or is thing an accomodative word in leiu of something real?
What, in your understanding of the terminology, is an absurd thing?
Please respond because this is important to understanding other scriptural concepts, which I will explain for your consideration. It is not a trap question, simply an introduction to a concept that may be of help.
Mike,
Quote What gives? The new creation is creation being freed from its bondage to corruption through, by, and for Jesus Christ. It includes both non-corporeal and corporeal elements.
In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul is teaching how to apply the instructions of the Spirit to the situation of eating food sacrificed to idols and causing your brother to sin.
The instruction of the Spirit of Christ is part of the new creation as it is the means by which the new man is created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. That part is non-corporeal and only applies to human beings.
Quote There are many times in scripture where the “internally consistent teaching” doesn't have to do with the act of creation, yet it is mentioned within the teaching that God made all things. (Eccl 11:5, Is 44:24, Jer 10:16, Acts 4:24, Rev 4:11, etc.) Ecclesiastes 11:5 is part of the teaching that covers verses 1-16 and is about the lack of foreknowledge of God’s works and instructs us not to worry or boast about tomorrow for that which happens is the works of God of and remains a mystery until and if he chooses to inform us. James teaches much the same in James 4:13-17 as does Jesus in Matthew 6:25-34.
Isaiah 44:24 is part of a testimony of God and certain promises that he supports with that testimonial, including his creative force. I went over it and there seems to be some parallels with 1 Corinthians 8.
Jeremiah 10:16 is similar to Isaiah 44:24 though there may be fewer parallels to 1 Corinthians 8.
Acts 4:24 is part of a prayer praising God and calling on him to use his creative force to perform signs and wonders to empower his people against godless men.
Revelation 4:24 is part of a passage that is praising God.
1 Corinthians 8 is not praising God though it speaks of a reason to praise him. It is not speaking directly of his creative force though it is teaching how to apply the results of his creative force. It is not speaking of foreknowledge of the results of his creative force but rather applying the present results. That covers all five of those scriptures.
From what you have written I believe this part of the conversation has come to an end and my time is short so I will start a new conversation to cover the rest if God so wills.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,05:14) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 01 2011,12:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,05:01) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 01 2011,11:48) Mike……….Did Jesus not say the FATHER (WHO IS GOD) was (IN) Him. Just simply put it together and you will be amazed how many scripture will begin to make sense to you. peace and love…………………………………………………………………..gene
Gene,The scriptures make perfect sense to me just as they are. And I don't have to MAKE CHANGES to them in order for them to make sense – like you do.
I don't have to change “the Word BECAME flesh” to “the Word CAME TO BE IN SOMEONE WHO WAS flesh”.
I don't have to change “I came down from heaven” to “THE SPIRIT INSIDE OF ME came down from heaven”.
I don't have to change “I am the Root and the Offspring of David” to “I am FROM THE ROOTS and the Offspring of David”.
I don't have to change “All angels are ministering spirits” to “All angels HAVE MINISTERING SPIRITS INSIDE OF THEM”.
I don't have to change “the glory I had with you before the world” to “the glory THE THOUGHT OF ME IN YOUR HEAD had with you before the world”.
I like the understanding the scriptures give me WITHOUT all the changes you have to perform.
Mike……….So the scripture make Perfect sense to you right, the Please answer the question, Did Jesus say ” THE FATHER WHO IS IN ME (HE) DO THE THE WORKS”. and while you are at it answer this also, “DO YOU N OT BELIEVE THAT THE FATHER IS (in) ME”? And let not forget Thomas famous remarks , ” My Lord (AND) My GOD” now please tell us which one of these or parts of them you do not believe> Because it is obvious you truly do not believe them.Mike you are the biggest changer of what scripture is truly saying then anyone here IMO and OTHERS also BY the WAY>
peace and love………………………………………..gene
Gene,
I noticed you didn't DENY any of the changes YOU make to scripture that I posted, but then ended your post with, “Mike you are the biggest changer of what scripture is truly saying then anyone here……..”
That is RICH, man! Gene, the Father being “in” Jesus is metaphorical. The BEING of God remained in heaven the whole time Jesus was on earth. Do you DENY this fact also?
Mike……..So say you that it is a Metaphor but i say GOD the FATHER was Truly (IN) Jesus By the His SPIRIT which gave him the WORDS (reema) to speak to us from the LOGOS that was (IN) Him. What do you think He meant when he said the Father who is (IN) me HE does the works, do you think that was just a “metaphor” also. GOD the Father and His LOGOS are one and the Same and who ever has the LOGOS (IN) them are also ONE with the Father and Jesus. This is what Jesus meant when he said the Father (IS) in me and I (IN) YOU and Both GOD the Father and Jesus by the LOGOS which is SPIRIT of GOD can be in all and through all. Just as scripture say . “THAT GOD MAY BE IN ALL AND THROUGH ALL”. God and the Logos can not be separated becasue the LOGOS was and IS GOD which is a SPIRIT (intellect) THAT RESIDES IN THE MINDS OF ALL WHO HAVE HIS HOLY SPIRIT IN THEM. The is not a Metaphor Mike it is fact.Mike was this also a Metaphor, ” destory this temple and in three day i shall raise it up” or this ” O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets, and stones, them which are sent unto you, how often would I have gathered thy childern together , even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings and you would not!
Tell us mike was that GOD the FATHER speaking through the Mouth of Jesus by the LOGOS, or was it Jesus speaking from and for himself, Or is that one of your so-called Metaphors? I noticed also Mike you failed to answer my questions about the Father who was (IN) Jesus He does the Works, and what Thomas Said, was these all metaphors also. Everything i am telling you will meet all these criteria but what you believe will NOT meet them, without you changing and forcing the text , and another thing your stupid Icons you continually post only goes to show your own ignorance even though you thing it is belittling other it really is belittling yourself. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………………………gene
Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 01 2011,16:14) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2011,11:33) Hi Kerwin, I believe that the phrase “ALL THINGS” has the default meaning of ALL THINGS. I agree with you that context and/or logic COULD narrow the scope of the phrase to include only certain things. But I don't see any context in John 1:3, Col 1:16, or 1 Cor 8:6 that would make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR to anyone that the phrase has a more narrow scope than ALL THINGS. And if it's not ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, then I believe the default meaning of “ALL THINGS” should take precedence.
Kerwin, can you give me ANY scriptural or logical reason Paul could not actually mean “ALL things” in 1 Cor 8:6?
mike
Mike, if I ask you to tell me what you know about all things whether black, brown, or blue, would you tell me of things that include those are red, green or yellow?
Yes Paladin,Because the phrase “ALL things” stipulates how the word “whether” is to be understood. We've been through this discussion before………..remember?
If you asked me about CERTAIN colors, whether they be black, brown, or blue, the word “CERTAIN” gives the word “WHETHER” the meaning of “ONLY these three colors and no others”.
But if you asked me about ALL colors, then the word “WHETHER” takes on a meaning of “SUCH AS” or “INCLUDING these three colors”. It does not exclude any of the other colors known to man because of the phrase “ALL colors”.
For those of you who didn't witness the first exchange about this between Paladin and me, he tries to say that the word “whether” in Col 1:16 limits the things that were created through Jesus to ONLY thrones, powers, rulers and authorities; and then tries to say that the word “created” in this scripture means these four things “stepped down a notch in authority” when Jesus was exalted. He likes to gloss over the words “through him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible; all things were created through him and for him.
New Living Translation (©2007)
for through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can't see–such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through him and for him.Paladin, “SUCH AS” is the true meaning of “whether” in this scripture.
Barnes says:
All things were created by him – The repetition, and the varied statement here, are designed to express the truth with emphasis, and so that there could not be the possibility of mistake or misapprehension;Paul does say “ALL things” twice, Paladin. Why do you think that is?
And Vincent points out:
All things (τὰ πάντα)The article gives a collective sense – the all, the whole universe of things. Without the article it would be all things severally.
And for Kerwin, Gill says:
The creation of all things, by him, is not to be understood of the new creation, for whenever that is spoken of, the word “new” is generally used, or what is equivalent to it, or some clause or phrase added, which determines the sense, and is not the case here: besides, all things that are in heaven are said to be created here: which, to say nothing of the sun, moon, and stars, which are not capable subjects of the new creation, to restrain them to angels, cannot be true of them; for as for those who were once in heaven, but kept not their first estate, and quitted their habitation, these find no place there any more; they never were, nor will be renewed and restored by Christ; and as for the good angels, since they never sinned, they stand in no need of renovation. Moreover, all things that are on earth are also said to be created by him, and are, but not anew: for to confine these only to men, all men are not renewed in the spirit of their minds; all have not faith, nor a good hope through grace, nor love to God and Christ, the greater part of the world lies in open wickedness; and all that profess religion are not new creatures, these are a chosen generation, and a peculiar people: wherefore these words must be understood, not metaphorically, but literally;Kerwin, the angels who remained faithful to God since their creation have no need of renovation. They would NOT be included in “the new creation”, but they ARE included in the words “all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible”.
Same with the men who already existed before Jesus became the catalyst of “the new creation”. Not all of those men became new to God through Jesus Christ, and so would not be included in “the new creation”. They are, however, included in the words “all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible”.
And like Gill points out, that is to say nothing of the things we know existed way before Jesus became flesh – such as the sun, the moon, and the stars. Likewise, these things are NOT a part of “the new creation”, but ARE included in the words “all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible”.
mike
Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 01 2011,16:23) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,03:17) Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 01 2011,09:04) When Paul tells us the Spirit is the reema of God; and John tells us the logos was God, you don't discern a difference?
Paul doesn't tell us the spirit is the “rhema” of God, nor does John tell us the “logos” is God.Knowing is half the battle, Paladin.
Right. John tells us the logos W A S GOD. [John 1:1]Paul tells us reema I S the Spirit. [Eph 6:17]
But John tells us the logos changed by “becoming flesh.”[1:14]
God did not.
Quote Right. John tells us the logos W A S GOD. [John 1:1]
Wrong, as I will show you YET AGAIN in my next post.Quote Paul tells us reema I S the Spirit. [Eph 6:17]
Wrong, as Kathi has showed you right before our very eyes.Paladin, do you ever take anything the people here say into consideration?
Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 01 2011,16:27) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,04:53) Gene, You need to research John 1:1 a little more. The Word is never called “THE God” in that verse. And “THE God” is the only one we call “God”, with a capped “G”.
All others are called “gods” in English, with a lower case “g”.
And since the Word was WITH “THE God” in the beginning, he couldn't possibly have BEEN “THE God”.
1:1 speaks of TWO persons. One of them was “THE God” while the other one was was WITH “THE God”. That other one was also a mighty one, and therefore called a “god” in Biblical times – just like Satan was called a “god” in Biblical times.
That's nonsense Mike. The New Testament was written in all capital letters, and had no punctuation. All that stuff was added by scholars.There is no significance to capital letters and small letters in the scriptures of God; only in the translations of men.
Right you are, Paladin and Gene. So let's post John 1:1 as it was in the Greek:1 IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD.
The only thing you need to pay attention to is the bolded word “THE”.
From NETNotes:
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”); (Emphasis mine)Now this is just simple common sense, folks. If the Word was WITH “THE GOD”, then the Word CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN “THE GOD”. You will notice that the Word is not called “THE GOD”, but only “GOD”.
Before we go further, does everbody here understand the very simple and logical fact that someone who was WITH God cannot possibly BE God? Are we all intelligent enough to understand that John 1:1 speaks of TWO – one who was WITH the other?
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Oct. 01 2011,16:51) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,04:53) Gene, You need to research John 1:1 a little more. The Word is never called “THE God” in that verse. And “THE God” is the only one we call “God”, with a capped “G”.
All others are called “gods” in English, with a lower case “g”.
And since the Word was WITH “THE God” in the beginning, he couldn't possibly have BEEN “THE God”.
1:1 speaks of TWO persons. One of them was “THE God” while the other one was was WITH “THE God”. That other one was also a mighty one, and therefore called a “god” in Biblical times – just like Satan was called a “god” in Biblical times.
Logical fallacy. The Woman was with the Adam and was also the Adam. God called the male and the female “the Adam” (Gen. 5:1-2).KJ
SonnyJack,I find it very amusing that you would come to a thread where I usually stand alone trying to defend the pre-existence of Jesus Christ to people who think he was never anything more than a human being “exactly like us”; and instead of helping me in this discussion, you would instead attack me.
Jack, everyone here but you can understand the difference between “THE Adam” (the first man) and “adam” (mankind).
If the Word was said to be WITH “THE Adam”, and was himself “adam”, then we would understand that the Word was A man who was with THE Man.
t8 has tried and tried to explain this to you. In fact, I seriously believe that you DO understand it. But your doctrine won't allow you to ADMIT that you understand it.
Your Daddy,
MikeQuote (Paladin @ Oct. 02 2011,03:47) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 24 2011,15:02) Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 23 2011,00:57)
I am stating that an explicitly expressed idea is more convincing than a argument based on personally perceived implications.
I agree. Especially when those “personally perceived implications” result in absurd statements and conclusions.Mike, is an absurd thing an actual thing? Or is it simply in reality, an absurd notion about a thing?
Or is thing an accomodative word in leiu of something real?
What, in your understanding of the terminology, is an absurd thing?
Please respond because this is important to understanding other scriptural concepts, which I will explain for your consideration. It is not a trap question, simply an introduction to a concept that may be of help.
Paladin,And “absurd STATEMENT”, to which I referred, is a statement that only makes sense in the eyes of someone who is afraid of truth.
Like the little kid who insists the cow says “Ribbet” despite all the evidence to the contrary. The little kid's statement is absurd to all of us who know the truth of the matter.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 02 2011,07:51) Ecclesiastes 11:5 is part of the teaching that covers verses 1-16 and is about the lack of foreknowledge of God’s works and instructs us not to worry or boast about tomorrow for that which happens is the works of God of and remains a mystery until and if he chooses to inform us.
Very good, Kerwin. Now, since you agree that “the act of creation” is NOT the “internally consistent teaching” of Eccl 11:5, will you make a claim that the “ALL things” made by God are only limited to “knowledge” in that verse? Or do you take the words as they are written and accept that “Maker of ALL things” in that verse means that God made ALL things?I ask the same question for each of the scriptures I listed – none of which have the “internally consistent teaching” of “the act of creation”.
What I want you to support is your implication that if the teaching isn't specifically about the act of creation, then when the writer includes the phrase “God made ALL things”, the “ALL” doesn't really mean “ALL”. Because that IS the implication you're making about 1 Cor 8:6, right?
Also, please note the section in my large post to Paladin that is directed to you and the “new creation” subject.
peace,
mikeQuote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 02 2011,08:51) Mike……..So say you that it is a Metaphor but i say GOD the FATHER was Truly (IN) Jesus By the His SPIRIT which gave him the WORDS (reema) to speak to us…………
You've got it right, Gene.God WAS in Jesus THROUGH HIS HOLY SPIRIT. Just like God can be in us the same way. It does not mean that the Being of God Himself ever left heaven and came to physically dwell within a human being on earth.
It would have been pretty senseless for Jesus to teach the crowd of 5000 to pray to their Father IN HEAVEN if the Father was really physically inside him at the time.
Gene, it's easy for me to see how you come to your conclusion. You simply don't know how else to explain John 20:28, and so you backtrack from that verse, knowing that Jesus isn't actually God Himself, and try to figure out in your mind a reason Thomas would have said “My Lord and my God”.
That is a bad way to come to a true understanding of scriptures, IMO.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2011,03:13) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Oct. 01 2011,16:51) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,04:53) Gene, You need to research John 1:1 a little more. The Word is never called “THE God” in that verse. And “THE God” is the only one we call “God”, with a capped “G”.
All others are called “gods” in English, with a lower case “g”.
And since the Word was WITH “THE God” in the beginning, he couldn't possibly have BEEN “THE God”.
1:1 speaks of TWO persons. One of them was “THE God” while the other one was was WITH “THE God”. That other one was also a mighty one, and therefore called a “god” in Biblical times – just like Satan was called a “god” in Biblical times.
Logical fallacy. The Woman was with the Adam and was also the Adam. God called the male and the female “the Adam” (Gen. 5:1-2).KJ
SonnyJack,I find it very amusing that you would come to a thread where I usually stand alone trying to defend the pre-existence of Jesus Christ to people who think he was never anything more than a human being “exactly like us”; and instead of helping me in this discussion, you would instead attack me.
Jack, everyone here but you can understand the difference between “THE Adam” (the first man) and “adam” (mankind).
If the Word was said to be WITH “THE Adam”, and was himself “adam”, then we would understand that the Word was A man who was with THE Man.
t8 has tried and tried to explain this to you. In fact, I seriously believe that you DO understand it. But your doctrine won't allow you to ADMIT that you understand it.
Your Daddy,
Mike
Mike,You have ALREADY been disproven of the “Freak Greek” thread. The word “God” in John 1:1c does not need a definite article because ]the nominative is inherently definitive all by itself. This assertion that the absence of the definite article must infer that it is indefinite is a load of novice crapola!
See this argument a JW gave on CARM and my reply:
The JW said:
Quote Careful translators recognize that…a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb [a verb which is a form of, as we would say in English, ‘to be’. Or, as Greek grammarians would say, a form of ei*miV (eimi ay.MEE: the first person singular of the infinitive ei^nai, (einai, I.nigh), “to be”] points to a quality about someone …In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr. 6:49; 11:31; Joh 4:19; 6:70;l 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject—New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures With References, (large print edition), 1984, “Appendix 6A”, p. 1579. See also: Kingdom Interlinear Translation, 1985, “Appendix 2A”, p. 1139. The 1950, 1951 and 1971 editions of the NWT, identify the type of noun under consideration as “the predicate noun” (bis), not nouns of other cases. pp. 776, 1363 respectively. I replied:
Quote You overlooked an example from John 8:54: “Jesus replied, 'If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God (theos), is the one who glorifies me.' ” John 8:54
The word “God” is the predicate and is anarthrous and it precedes the verb eimi. If we apply your “rule” to Jesus' statement it must read thus:
“If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim is a god of you, is the one who glorifies me.”
So give it up Mike. You know nothing of Greek as I demonstrated in the “Freak Greek” thread. I gave the same argument to you there as I did to the JW at CARM.Mike said:
Quote Your Daddy,
Mike
My “Daddy”?
I was studying the scriptures when you were still feeding on your mother's breasts.Learn some humility dude and listen to us who have formally studied Greek. Your grammar in John 1:1c is based in the NWT. Only one of the NWT translators had a high school education and NONE had any formal training in the Greek or Hebrew.
Jack
To all………..Something to be considered in John 1:1 ………In (the) beginning was the Word (Logos) and the word was with God and the word (WAS) God. Now think about this for a minuet, What was John referencing to in an overall sense, was it not “the Beginning” that he was having us focusing on . So when he said the Word (Logos) was God. He is simply telling us about (the) (a definite article ) Beginning, nothing more . He did not change any of his focus but was simply saying in that beginning the Word (logos) was indeed GOD, that has nothing to do with Jesus at all. But with the subject John was talking about and that was the beginning when all thing began no where did He change his focus to another subject or Person, just the ONE and ONLY True GOD. John was not addressing Jesus at all in that sentence. IMO
peace and love to you all…………………………………………………………..gene
Hi Mike! Since I have been so busy, I have not been on Heaven Net at all… So I will help out…
Gene! You simple don't understand that The Word became flesh, and that The Word was the only begotten of the Father….. That you miss to understand..Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
This is the ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER…. Gene, who is the only begotten of the Father? You should really know that….but again and again you deny plain written Scriptures and ignore them… A Child can read and understand it…but you and others simple don;t…….And no I don;t believe in the trinity….it has nothing to do with it….Jesus had a beginning Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 tells us so…
And it also says thatJhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
the Word was with God—that makes two beings…. and not one like you want us to believe….
What else is important when later in the Gospel of John, John tells us what Jesus said…
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
God sent His Son into the world… where did God sent His Son from? The answer is inJhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Jesus came down from Heaven to do His Father will…. that is where Jesus came from….
Peace Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
