- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Pastry @ Oct. 04 2011,05:43) Jhn 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. We believe Jesus or not….it is up to the individual member here…. there are several Scriptures like this one…
Irene,Can you understand the DIFFERENCE between Jesus saying to his present company, “YOU have never heard God”, and Jesus saying, “NO ONE HAS ever heard God”?
Can you not see that Jesus was saying that ONLY the particular people he was then addressing had not heard God's voice? He DID NOT say that NO MAN had ever heard God's voice.You are creating a dilemma for yourself when there is none.
Irene, does Jesus ever say “NO ONE has ever heard God” anywhere in scripture? YES or NO? Does ANYBODY ever say those words anywhere in scripture? YES or NO?
Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:27)
Do you really think John is not familiar with the concept of “calling” something by a name? John does not say “and the word was called God, does he Mike? He says “the word was God.
Do YOU think that John was unaware that he only spoke of one “THE god” in 1:1? Only ONE of the TWO mentioned is called by John “THE theos”.Nor did I ever attempt to say John was saying the Word was “called god”. I know that John was saying the Word was A god who was with THE God in the beginning.
Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:27)
Later, John tells us that this “word” became something other than God; i.e., “the word became flesh.” God did NOT.
And that right there shoots your whole theory in the foot. If “God” did not become flesh, but the Word DID, then isn't is obviousl that the Word was NOT “God”?
Do you want us to believe that the Word was truly God Himself, but when the Word became flesh, it WASN'T God Himself?
Paladin, why don't you address the NETNotes info I included in my last post? Explain to those of us who DO have common sense how God Almighty could possibly be WITH God Almighty. If the Word was God Almighty, then it is just simple common sense that the Word couldn't have possibly been WITH God Almighty.
Can the Being of God be WITH the Being of God?
Maybe in Bizzaro World.Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:27)
Actually Mike, you have John speaking of three, not two; God who was with the word, and God who was the word, and the word who was both God and with God, and changed to being “not God.” (flesh).
Really Paladin?
You're counting “God who was the word” and “the word who was God” as TWO things? That's like saying, “David, the King of Israel” and “King David of Israel” are TWO people.
John 1:1 speaks of TWO, Paladin. One of whom was WITH the other. And only one of them became flesh. And since we agree that God Himself did not become flesh, the one who DID become flesh had to have been someone OTHER THAN God Himself.
Not only that, but the one who DID become flesh had to be the only begotten OF the Father, because after becoming flesh, that one had the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. And only ONE being in existence has EVER had the glory as of the ONLY begotten of the Father. That one is not only called the Word of God in Rev 19, but also in John 1:1 and 14.
mike
Quote
Irene, does Jesus ever say “NO ONE has ever heard God” anywhere in scripture? YES or NO? Does ANYBODY ever say those words anywhere in scripture? YES or NO?Mike! Yes, in
Jhn 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Peace and Love IrenePaladin,
Is the use of Aion in Hebrews 1:2 singular or plural in Hebrews 1:2.
Mike believes it is singular.
I would like to know how to tell the difference and what source on the internet my aid me in learning.
Thank you.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 04 2011,23:12) Paladin, Is the use of Aion in Hebrews 1:2 singular or plural in Hebrews 1:2.
Mike believes it is singular.
I would like to know how to tell the difference and what source on the internet my aid me in learning.
Thank you.
Hi Kerwin,
I can help you with this. The word is plural in that instance.Go here:
http://interlinearbible.org/hebrews/1-2.htm
Then find your word that you want to know more about, in this case Aion Strong's #165Notice the N-APM over the word 'world' and under the number #165? Just hover your cursor over the N-APM and it will pop-up to tell you what the N-APM is an abbreviation for. Don't click on it, just hover over it with your cursor. You will then see that N-APM stands for noun-accusative, plural, masculine. If it were singular it would be N-ASM.
Anytime that you want to check out a verse in the NT, that site is good to go to. Just go to that link and type in the verse you are wanting in the search box near the top.
Paladin may have a better site but this is the best one that I have found. The OT verses do not have the grammar codes to hover on, yet. I have that info on my laptop and iPod touch,but I had to pay $$ for it. You can ask me if you have a question about an OT verse and the grammar. I will look it up for you
Kathi
Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:33) Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 02 2011,08:23) 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 we 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
I find this even more “more interesting.”
Paul is explaining to Christians that they are to dress themselves with preparation. Now, preparation is not a dress code, nor is it a material which one can purchase in the local market place, to sew into a uniform or costume to wear for defense. It is a concept to which Christians must become accustomed.
Paul goes on to delineate the articles of accouterment of a soldier dressed for battle in a spiritual warfare.
Quote 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… Paul is preparing the soldier for spiritual warfare, not battle with physical swords and shields.
“And take the sword of the reema, which is the spirit,” is equivalent language to “Take the sword of the spirit, which spirit is the reema of God. “Which” modifies “Spirit” – not “sword,” regardless of what the scholars say about it, “Doctor” or not.
Compare the language of all the grammars All will tell you
Quote “the Greek relative pronoun, – so called because it “relates” to someone or something previously mentioned – 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 [David [A. Black; It's still Greek to me” page 70-71]
Quote The relative pronoun “Like any pronoun, their gender and number are determined by their antecedent, while their case is determined by their functiion in the relative clause.”
[Wm. D. Mounce; Basics of biblical Greek; page 115]The Relative gets its number and gender from the noun to which it refers,which is called the antecedent.
The Relative gets its case from its function in the relative clause.
[D.F.Hudson; New Testament Greek; page 118]It is a common theme in Greek Grammars; i.e., the relative pronoun must agree with its antecedent in gender and number. It is also an obviously common theme, that if the relative pronoun has no antecedent, it relates then to something other than the non-existant antecedent.
But once an antecedent is established, i.e., You have a definite article “tou” that is declined genitive neuter singular, applied to a noun that is in agreement with the gender and number of the relative pronoun, which does not violate any other rules of communication, why are we continuing to look for something to which the relative pronoun can relate? Is “must agree” not strong enough? [See Black above]
In eph 6:17, 'o estin' has the antecedent of “tou Spirit” which is neuter singular, as also is “o” = which.” The spirit, which is the reema…”
But we have yet to test the other Grammatical principle that must be applied also. The Greek relative pronoun follows the declension of the definite article. [See Black page 70-71; above]
There are two definite articles in the verse under consideration, and they are; “teen” which is accusative feminine singular and applies to 'the sword', accusative feminine singular maxairan; and 'tou' which is genitive neuter singular and applied to genitive neuter singular 'the Spirit.'
So, the relative pronoun 'o' declines in accord with the definite article “tou,” and agrees in gender and number with its antecedent “pneumatos; so it relates grammatically to “tou pneumatos;” But it does not relate to “teen maxairan” which though they agree in how they are declined, do not agree with how O' is declined, as it is genitive neuter singular, and is in agreement with the definite article of “The spirit” and also agrees with the neuter singular Spirit.
There is no contest, regardless of all the scholars and men with degrees that think to the contrary.
Why are you still looking for a “predicate” to which you can apply it? While it applies in some cases, it never applies when there is already a matching antecedent present, only when it is missing; why do you continue to look for the “cause” to which it applies. No antecedent, look for a predicate…etc.
Hi Paladin,
I have downloaded on my iPod touch a Complete Word Study of the Old and New Testament by AMG Publishing. The author was a member of my church before he passed away recently. My pastor has been mentored by him. Anyway, that is besides the point. In the tool, the author speaks precisely to what we are discussing and brings more light to the situation. He says that there are two departures from the rule of the pronoun agreeing with the antecedent and the departure that concerns this instance is this:Where there is the relative pronoun with the verb “to be,” the pronoun conforms in gender to the following noun.
It lists three examples of this:
Gal 3:16
Eph 1:14
Eph 6:17That was what it said as the author explained the relative pronoun in regards to the above three verses.
Also, the word is the sword/weapon that Jesus used in the desert during His temptation from satan.
KathiLightenup………… that is a good site , i have bookmarked it, thanks Kathi. What i found interesting about those scriptures is the Translators use “EN” to mean (BY) but it actually means (IN), GOD spoke to us (IN) Jesus > remember “the Father (IN) me He doth the works, God did also speak to us by and through Jesus because He was actually (IN) Jesus. But that does not make the person GOD is (IN) the GOD that was or Is (IN) him. IMO
peace and love……………………………………..gene
Pierre,
Quote The spirit of Christ is not the believer. Quote John 16:13
New International Version (NIV)13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Quote Colossians 3:10
New International Version (NIV)10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.
Quote Ephesians 4:24
New International Version (NIV)24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
I am confident that the above passages reveal that the Spirit of Christ is God’s Spirit which comes and dwells in those that believe in order to guide their character in the righteousness and holiness that is like God’s.
Quote It is not only to believe; but to do what Christ did and that is to be submissive to God’s will totally in ALL THINGS. Living by the Spirit of God through faith is the same thing as submitting yourself to God’s will totally in all things as your fruits will be to love as God loves.
For example God promised Mary that she would conceive a child even as a virgin and she believed. She did not receive the Jesus because of her own works, as she did nothing to conceive a child, and yet the fruit she manifested for her faith was him. So she did not receive the boy by works but she did receive him by the grace of God acting through her faith. That is the same way scripture teaches those that those that believe receive and walk according to the ways of the saintly spirit.
Quote Romans 9:32
New International Version (NIV)32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.
Quote I do not understand what you mean by the POWER OF GOD? It looks like it is God that can do everything, I mean that you cannot stop sinning by your own power but that you can stop sinning by the power of God; because all things are possible with God.
Quote This is not what scriptures are saying. Merriam-Webster’s learner’s dictionary
Quote Supreme
su•preme /səˈpri:m/ adjective
1 : highest in rank or authority
▪ NATO's supreme commander ▪ She reigns supreme [=is the best] in the world of tennis.
2 : highest in degree or quality : greatest or highest possible
▪ The board has supreme authority over such issues. ▪ She has an air of supreme confidence about her. ▪ the supreme example of what not to do ▪ a problem of supreme importance ▪ It's a matter of supreme indifference to her. ▪ He made the supreme sacrifice [=he died] for his country.
— su•preme•ly adverb
▪ supremely [=extremely] confident/indifferent/imaginative ▪ supremely boring/unimportantThat is what Scripture is saying as Jesus was made the supreme commander of everything in heaven is another way to say Jesus was made the king of everything in Heaven and on Earth.
Quote When was this (Jesus made Supreme) supposed to be happen??? Quote Philippians 2
New International Version (NIV)8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.Note: I edited your words to clarify the points I was answering. If I changed the meaning of any point then please correct my error. Thank you.
Gene,
Quote But here is where the difference lies you believe a Mind is not Part of one Body, while i believe it is . The mindset is the software and the brain is the hardware according to modern science but not necessary according to God.
Quote When that person dies his mind stops working? A person’s brain goes the way of the rest of the body and thus his software can no longer run on it according to the wisdom of the modern world.
Quote I believe that a Mind can absorb Spirit (INTELLECTS) and Spirit can enter our physical minds and exit them much like when a man goes in and out of a House. I believe you mean brain when you write mind. I am not sure what you mean by “intellects” but I do know that invitations to do either good or evil enter and exit our brains.
Quote But nowhere does scripture say a dead man has an active Soul still thinking or living in another state of existence. Quote Exodus 3:6
King James Version (KJV)
6Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.God is the God of the living and not the dead.
Quote I believe scripture shows when a man dies that is it until there is a resurrection of that Body and the breathe of Life enters back into it and that man again becomes a “LIVING” soul. If the soul is dead when the body dies then how was God the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob when their bodies were dead?
Quote God can remove wrong Spirit and replace it with the right Spirit (INTELLECTS) but these spirit go into a “LIVING SOUL” Not a dead one. The dead cannot get a new spirit because they are subject to judgment for what they did while under the Sun.
Quote If there was there would be no need for a resurrection anyway now would there be? The soul is not the whole person. It is the body that is revived and not the soul as the soul resides in Sheol as the body decays in its burial place. That is why it is written that the soul of the Anointed would not remain in Sheol nor would his body see decay.
Quote What I said about the man planting good seed in his Field here is what i was relating to brother. Mar 4:26 ….> And he said, so is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; vers 27…> and should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he (KNOWS NOT HOW), vers 28….> For the earth (heart) brings forth fruit of herself; first the blade , then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. vers 29…But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he puts in the sickle, becasue the harvest is come.
Thank you!
Note: I edited your words to clarify the points I was answering. If I changed the meaning of any point then please correct my error. Thank you.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2011,11:16) Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 04 2011,23:12) Paladin, Is the use of Aion in Hebrews 1:2 singular or plural in Hebrews 1:2.
Mike believes it is singular.
I would like to know how to tell the difference and what source on the internet my aid me in learning.
Thank you.
Hi Kerwin,
I can help you with this. The word is plural in that instance.Go here:
http://interlinearbible.org/hebrews/1-2.htm
Then find your word that you want to know more about, in this case Aion Strong's #165Notice the N-APM over the word 'world' and under the number #165? Just hover your cursor over the N-APM and it will pop-up to tell you what the N-APM is an abbreviation for. Don't click on it, just hover over it with your cursor. You will then see that N-APM stands for noun-accusative, plural, masculine. If it were singular it would be N-ASM.
Anytime that you want to check out a verse in the NT, that site is good to go to. Just go to that link and type in the verse you are wanting in the search box near the top.
Paladin may have a better site but this is the best one that I have found. The OT verses do not have the grammar codes to hover on, yet. I have that info on my laptop and iPod touch,but I had to pay $$ for it. You can ask me if you have a question about an OT verse and the grammar. I will look it up for you
Kathi
Kathi,Thank you!
Kerwin
Quote
Quote
The spirit of Christ is not the believer.Quote
John 16:13
New International Version (NIV)13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Quote
Colossians 3:10
New International Version (NIV)10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.
Quote
Ephesians 4:24
New International Version (NIV)24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
I am confident that the above passages reveal that the Spirit of Christ is God’s Spirit which comes and dwells in those that believe in order to guide their character in the righteousness and holiness that is like God’s.
can you not see that you are mixing two thing that are different of each other
lookQuote It is not only to believe; but to do what Christ did and that is to be submissive to God’s will totally in ALL THINGS. Living by the Spirit of God through faith is the same thing as submitting yourself to God’s will totally in all things as your fruits will be to love as God loves.
For example God promised Mary that she would conceive a child even as a virgin and she believed. She did not receive the Jesus because of her own works, as she did nothing to conceive a child, and yet the fruit she manifested for her faith was him. So she did not receive the boy by works but she did receive him by the grace of God acting through her faith. That is the same way scripture teaches those that those that believe receive and walk according to the ways of the spirit.
living by the spirit = only require knowledge and then apply it ,if it is understood in the truth of God;
living submitted to God = this mean that you are not your own controller but God is and so all what God says ,tells,you do ,in this way all is of God.
this is why James say to be submissive,this was also the spirit of Christ .
Quote That is what Scripture is saying as Jesus was made the supreme commander of everything in heaven is another way to say Jesus was made the king of everything in Heaven and on Earth. Quote
When was this (Jesus made Supreme) supposed to be happen???Quote
Philippians 2
New International Version (NIV)8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.so Christ was not a man but came IN THE APPEARANCE AS A MAN ,how is that
?Col 1:16( For by him all things were created:)? (things in heaven and on earth,)? ( visible and invisible)?, (whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;)? (all things )? (were created)? ( by him and for him.) ?
Col 1:17( He is before all things,)? and (in him all things hold together.)?could you answer those question with other scriptures NOT OPINIONS PLEASE
only supported truth will i accept for answers
Quote I am confident that the above passages reveal that the Spirit of Christ is God’s Spirit which comes and dwells in those that believe in order to guide their character in the righteousness and holiness that is like God’s. NO THEY DON'T BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT CHRIST SPIRIT IS, AND IT CAN NOT BE GODS SPIRIT ,
Quote
O THEY DON'T BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT CHRIST SPIRIT IS, AND IT CAN NOT BE GODS SPIRIT ,
Pierre! Jesus has a Spirit, just like we have a Spirit….. but Jesus also has Gods Holy Spirit in Him….Just like we do…. The big difference is that Jesus has Gods Holy Spirit without measure, will we don't…..Jesus also has immortality now and is seated at the right hand of the Father, while the Angels do not have immortality……Peace adn Love IreneKerwin and Gene,
You are certainly welcomeGene, I have been using that site for over a year now and it truly has a lot to offer. Look on the 'parallel' tab and see many translations of the verse, then go to the bottom of that page and see the various commentary on that verse. I especially like John Gill since he knows the original languages and history. He has a lot of knowledge about Jewish understanding to share also.
God bless,
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ Oct. 04 2011,23:16) Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 04 2011,23:12) Paladin, Is the use of Aion in Hebrews 1:2 singular or plural in Hebrews 1:2.
Mike believes it is singular.
I would like to know how to tell the difference and what source on the internet my aid me in learning.
Thank you.
Hi Kerwin,
I can help you with this. The word is plural in that instance.
Hi Kerwin,Mike knows it is plural, not singular. The point I was making was based on the fact it IS plural. Because you can say the “new age” was “created“? through Jesus' sacrifice. But how then have MULTIPLE ages been created through him if he did not pre-exist? That was my point.
And I used Biblos.com, which has a similar set up as the one Kathi described her link as having.
Btw, why would you ask Paladin for confirmation? Do you think I'm a liar? I would have happily given you the site to see for yourself if you would have asked.
Quote (Pastry @ Oct. 04 2011,21:48) Quote
Irene, does Jesus ever say “NO ONE has ever heard God” anywhere in scripture? YES or NO? Does ANYBODY ever say those words anywhere in scripture? YES or NO?Mike! Yes, in
Jhn 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,I said “HEARD”, not “SEEN”.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2011,14:03) Kerwin and Gene,
You are certainly welcomeGene, I have been using that site for over a year now and it truly has a lot to offer. Look on the 'parallel' tab and see many translations of the verse, then go to the bottom of that page and see the various commentary on that verse. I especially like John Gill since he knows the original languages and history. He has a lot of knowledge about Jewish understanding to share also.
God bless,
Kathi
I just realized the site you gave is also Biblos.com, Kathi!I didn't recognize it from the words in your link.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2011,02:39) 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?
Let's see now, is there a standard showing up?Mike disagrees and spouts off, He is teaching us.
I disagree and spout off, you say I am not considering what anyone on the board says.
That about it?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 05 2011,13:37) Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:27)
Do you really think John is not familiar with the concept of “calling” something by a name? John does not say “and the word was called God, does he Mike? He says “the word was God.Do YOU think that John was unaware that he only spoke of one “THE god” in 1:1? Only ONE of the TWO mentioned is called by John “THE theos”.
Nor did I ever attempt to say John was saying the Word was “called god”. I know that John was saying the Word was A god who was with THE God in the beginning.
Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:27)
Later, John tells us that this “word” became something other than God; i.e., “the word became flesh.” God did NOT.And that right there shoots your whole theory in the foot. If “God” did not become flesh, but the Word DID, then isn't is obviousl that the Word was NOT “God”?
[/quote]Not at all. You just need to realize John never said “The logos IS God. He said “the logos was God; the logos became flesh.” Simple and straightforward. There is no information as to how long the logos was God. There is not even any information as to what it means “the logos was God;” Does it mean a person logos was a person God; does it mean an attribute of “logos” was an attribute of God? Does it mean a person logos temporarily had an attribute usually reserved for God?
We know it cannot mean the logos was with one God, but was actually another God. We also know it cannot mean anything remotely like “the logos is God,” for John plainly tells us the logos became something else that was not God, i.e.,
“flesh.” It cannot mean temporarily there were two Gods, one of which was the logos. Until this can be resolved with scripture, there is nothing you can say about it that is uncontestable.Your statement that there was one God logos was with, and another God logos was, is not born out by scripture, because the only difference between theon and theos is one is Theon which is accusative and one is Theos which is nominative.
Quote Do you want us to believe that the Word was truly God Himself, but when the Word became flesh, it WASN'T God Himself? Do you know any other way for something to be God without being God himself? There is only one that I am familiar with, and that is if “God” in 1:1c references and attribute.
I think it is significant that in the second phrase, logos is nominative but Theon is accusative, making theon the direct object of “was with,” providing us with information as to the
“who” of subject value, and the “who” of direct object value.But in phrase three, ho logos and Theos both are nominative, demonstrating only that one is not the direct object of the other.
Since God cannot become flesh, (He cannot be less than God) then he can share some aspect of himself with flesh, which John tells us His word served that purpose. His word is no more “God” than your word is you. But at some point in time, it was true, that God was the logos. And the logos became flesh. it was personified in the bodies of the saints as they no longer lived, but Christ lived in them. THAT was “THE LOGOS OF GOD.” [Col 1:25-27][Gal 2:20]
Quote Paladin, why don't you address the NETNotes info I included in my last post? Why would I waste my time responding to an intentionally flawed translation of scripture? I do not suggest I even begin to understand why those people would translate the way they do. Why then would you expect me to explain their errors?
Quote Explain to those of us who DO have common sense how God Almighty could possibly be WITH God Almighty. If the Word was God Almighty, then it is just simple common sense that the Word couldn't have possibly been WITH God Almighty. But you are changing the order Mike. John does not say “the word was God and the word was with God.” He says “and the word was with God, and the word was God.” It is possible that when the word was “with God” the word was influenced in some way that for a time, it was God, and then changed to become flesh. I think if you or I were to be in close proximity witth God, we might for a moment be forgiven of our sins, and momentarily be “Holy, for I am Holy, saith the Lord.” Since we are already gods, it is not a stretch that all that stands between us and our Father, is our sinful flesh. Remember, when all returns to the Father, paul does not say “God will be all with all,” paul says God will be “all in all.” I think the logos is an example of how tht is accomplished. God in Christ, Christ in us, God all in all because Christ is in us, which is the concdept labelled by Paul, “THE LOGOS OF GOD.”
Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:27)
Actually Mike, you have John speaking of three, not two; God who was with the word, and God who was the word, and the word who was both God and with God, and changed to being “not God.” (flesh).(MIKE) Really Paladin?
You're counting “God who was the word” and “the word who was God” as TWO things?No,. Mike, that was my assessment of your words. See it there…“Actually Mike YOU HAVE JOHN SPEAKING OF THREE not TWO…”
Quote John 1:1 speaks of TWO, Paladin. One of whom was WITH the other. And only one of them became flesh. And since we agree that God Himself did not become flesh, the one who DID become flesh had to have been someone OTHER THAN God Himself. Not only that, but the one who DID become flesh had to be the only begotten OF the Father, because after becoming flesh, that one had the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.
And where does that little gem of wit come from? Do you see that little “as of” there Mike? I have addressed this before to you. [page 141 post #9] It is a reference to all those who turn their lives over to Christ
so that they no longer live but Christ lives in them, and the logos becomes flesh, and we behold once more, the glory as of the only begotten of God; just like John said.Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 05 2011,17:23)
We know it cannot mean the logos was with one God, but was actually another God.
And why is that, Paladin? Do you agree that the Greek words in 1:1 could be faithfully translated as “and the Word was a god”? I hope so, because that is the irrefutable FACT of the matter.Or is it because you are one of the “politically correct 21st century believers” who think there exists only one theos, period? Because the FACT of that matter is that there are “MANY gods, both in heaven and on earth”. (1 Cor 8) It is also a FACT that Jesus is A god. (Is 9:6, John 1:18, 20:28, possibly Heb 1:8)
Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 05 2011,17:23)
Your statement that there was one God logos was with, and another God logos was, is not born out by scripture, because the only difference between theon and theos is one is Theon which is accusative and one is Theos which is nominative.
So you don't consider the fact that only ONE of them is preceded by the definite article as a “difference”? And knowing that “a god” IS a possible translation of 1:1c, and that Jesus IS a god who emptied himself, became flesh, IS the only begotten Son of God so therefore would have the glory as of the only begotten Son of God, and is also called “the Word” in Revelation, how can you say my statement is “not born out by scripture”? Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 05 2011,17:23)
Do you know any other way for something to be God without being God himself? There is only one that I am familiar with, and that is if “God” in 1:1c references and attribute.
I don't know of a way something that is NOT God can BE God at all. But I do know of a way that “A god” could be with “THE God”. Your attribute theory doesn't hold water, Paladin. God is love, but love is not God. God is righteousness, but righteousness is not God. God is light, but light is not God. Etc. Any attribute OF God would not be “God Himself”.Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 05 2011,17:23)
His word is no more “God” than your word is you.
Tell that to Gene and Ed!Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 05 2011,17:23)
Why then would you expect me to explain [NETNote's] errors?
Paladin, it is simple common sense that God cannot possibly be WITH God. The NETNote's scholars simply acknowledge this fact that most Trinitarians won't. They also acknowledge that “a god” is a faithful translation of 1:1c – another FACT that most Trinitarians won't acknowledge. But are you really attempting to even address the NETNote info because you consider THEM, (not the actual info I've asked you to look at), to be flawed? Paladin, deal with the INFO, not the source, okay. Show me where the INFO that I posted is flawed.Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 05 2011,17:23)
It is possible that when the word was “with God” the word was influenced in some way that for a time, it was God, and then changed to become flesh.
According to you, God cannot change and become “not-God”. But you are now implying that a “not-God” can BECOME God Himself? And that after being God Himself, it can become “not-God” again? Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 05 2011,17:23)
Since we are already gods……..
Remember that when you address my second question of this post.Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 05 2011,17:23)
No,. Mike, that was my assessment of your words. See it there…“Actually Mike YOU HAVE JOHN SPEAKING OF THREE not TWO…”
Yes, I know it was YOUR assessment of MY words. But MY words never said anything that would add up to THREE in John 1:1, only TWO.Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 05 2011,17:23)
And where does that little gem of wit come from? Do you see that little “as of” there Mike? I have addressed this before to you. [page 141 post #9] It is a reference to all those who turn their lives over to Christ so that they no longer live but Christ lives in them, and the logos becomes flesh, and we behold once more, the glory as of the only begotten of God; just like John said.
Paladin, WHO exactly IS the only begotten of God, according to scripture?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
