- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 06 2011,17:47) Mike……….I see again you refused to answer my post, and come out with something that meet you dogmas, so i will ask you again, do you believe the FATHER WAS (IN) Jesus or NOT?, A Simple yes or no will suffice, It will tell us all exactly what you believe. IMO peace and love…………………………………………gene
Gene,I HAVE answered this question for you before. I said that the Father was “IN” Jesus through Spirit, just as Jesus and the Father can be “IN” us the same way.
It is not, however, LITERAL Gene. The Father remained in heaven the whole time Jesus was on earth – so He was not LITERALLY inside the flesh and blood being of Jesus.
Did you not read the parts of scripture where the Father spoke FROM HEAVEN to Jesus?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 07 2011,10:10) Quote (Pastry @ Oct. 05 2011,20:41) Hi mike! Sorry had the wrong Schripture….This one does say
HEARDJhn 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.
Hi Irene,This will be the third time I explain this scripture to you. If you don't understand what I'm saying this time, I'll give up.
Listen carefully: Jesus did NOT say “NO ONE HAS EVER heard God”. He was talking to specific people, and telling THEM (and ONLY THEM) that THEY had not heard God.
He was speaking to CERTAIN PEOPLE who had never heard God's voice. He was NOT saying that NO MAN had EVER heard God's voice.
Do you understand this now?
peace and love,
mike
Mike! When Moses went up to the Mountain to get the Ten Commandment, He did not even see God, anyone who could see God would be blind and would not live……. whether Jesus was talking to a particular people or not, it still is true…as a Human being we cant see God, never ever……you have to be a Spirit Being to see God…. that is the point in this Scripture……man flesh and blood will not see God period…..Moses only seen Gods Back and His hair turned snow white….Peace IreneIrene,
We are talking about HEARING God, remember? I agree that no man can SEE God and live, because scripture says just that.
But scripture NEVER says that no man has ever HEARD God. And the Israelites clearly DID hear God at Horeb. And men heard God at Jesus' baptism and at his transfiguration.
peace,
mikeQuote (Paladin @ Oct. 06 2011,18:37) Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2011,17:19) Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:33) Lightenup,Oct. wrote: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]Quote 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.
Kathi
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the reemata [words] that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.Hope you are having a good day,
Kathi
Paladin,
Here is what that means:It is the Spirit that quickeneth,…. It is the spirit of man that quickens him; or which being breathed into him, he becomes a living soul; for the body, without the spirit, is dead; it is a lifeless lump: and it is the Spirit of God that quickens dead sinners, by entering into them as the spirit of life, and causing them to live: and it is spiritual eating, or eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of Christ in a spiritual sense, which quickens, refreshes, and comforts the minds of believers; it is that by, and on which they live, and by which their spiritual strength is renewed: unless, by spirit, is meant the divine nature of Christ, by which he was quickened and raised from the dead, and ascended up into heaven, and was declared to be the Son of God with power:
the flesh profiteth nothing; the human nature of Christ, though profitable, as in union with the Son of God, to be given for the life of his people, and to be an offering, and a sacrifice for their sins, yet not as alone, or as abstracted from the divine nature; nor would his flesh and blood, corporeally eaten, could, or should it be done, be of any avail to eternal life; nor is any other flesh, literally understood, profitable of itself for life; for man lives not by bread, or meat, or flesh alone, but by the word and blessing of God upon it, and along with it; nor flesh, in a figurative sense, as creature acts and performances, self-righteousness, obedience to the ceremonial law, carnal descent, and birth privileges:
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life; the doctrines which Christ had then been delivering concerning himself, his flesh and blood, being spiritually understood, are the means of quickening souls. The Gospel, and the truths of it, which are the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, are the means of conveying the Spirit of God, as a spirit of illumination and sanctification, into the hearts of men, and of quickening sinners dead in trespasses and sins: the Gospel is the Spirit that giveth life, and is the savour of life unto life, when it comes not in word only, or in the bare ministry of it, but with the energy of the Holy Ghost, and the power of divine grace.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 06 2011,19:17) Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 06 2011,12:38)
They did not have the fuller revelation that the Word of God was actually His Son.
What does the Targum say about Psalm 2:7 and Proverbs 30:4?peace,
mike
Mike,
This is what the Psalms Targum says for chapter 2:salm 2
1. Why are the Gentiles disturbed, and the nations murmuring vanity?
2. The kings[3] of the earth arise and the rulers will join together to rebel in the Lord’s presence, and to strive against his Anointed.
3. They say,[4] “Let us break their bonds, and let us throw off their chains from us.”
4. The one who sits in heaven will laugh; the word of the Lord will mock at them.
5. Then he will speak to them in his strength, and in his wrath he will frighten them.
6. I have anointed my king, and appointed him over my sanctuary.[5]
7. I will tell of the covenant of the Lord. He said:[6] “You are as dear to me as a son to a father (abba), pure as if this day I had created you.”
8. Ask me and I will give the riches of the Gentiles as your inheritance, the rulers of[7] the ends of the earth as your holding.
9. You will shatter them as with a rod of iron, like a potter’s vessel you will break them.
10. And now, O kings, grow wise; accept discipline, O princes of the earth.
11. Worship in the presence of the Lord with fear, and pray with trembling.
12. Accept instruction lest he be angry, and you lose your way; for his wrath[8] will tarry a little. Happy all who trust in his word!http://targum.info/pss/ps1.htm
I haven't found the Proverbs Targum translated into English, sorry.
Kathi
Kathi………..NOTICE WHAT IT SAYS, “man doe not live by bread or Meat alone So to say he does not live at all by bread and meat would be a misstatement of what scripture really says. Fact is man does live by Bread and Meat or he would die but Sprit is also avaiable for guidance and intellect. Actually it take both for a man to live. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………………………………..geen
Hi Gene,
What/who are you quoting?You seem to be talking about physical life but if you are referring to my post on this page regarding John 6:63, that is about spiritual life.
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 06 2011,22:47) 7. I will tell of the covenant of the Lord. He said:[6] “You are as dear to me as a son to a father (abba), pure as if this day I had created you.”
Interesting………………….Thanks, Kathi!
Mike,
Quote 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. I know experts are prone to disagree and you may not know of such disagreement. Paladin may have knowledge of a different expert opinion. In addition the King James used the singular world. I also like to look at how the same form of the word is used in other scriptures in order to get a grasp of it and my original source did not provide that tool to my knowledge. Thank you for letting me know the answer, as well as sharing the new tool. You are correct that I should have asked you what tool you used. I apologize for that oversight.
Quote 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. Here are the passages I previously cites in regards Hebrews 1:2. It is my understanding that the plural aions in Ephesians 2:7 is referring to the same time period as the singular aion in both Ephesians 1::21 and Hebrews 6:5. Do you perceive it differently? If so please explain.
Quote Ephesians 1
King James Version (KJV)20Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:Quote Ephesians 2
King James Version (KJV)4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.Quote Hebrews 6
King James Version (KJV)4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,The bottom line is that there are ages to come even after Paul wrote his letter to the out-called in Ephesus.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 07 2011,17:12) The bottom line is that there are ages to come even after Paul wrote his letter to the out-called in Ephesus.
But again you have to deal with the aorist tense in Hebrews 1:2, which generally acts as an Enlish past tense.So 1:2 is saying that God DID (past tense) make the ages through Jesus. 1:2 does not say that God IS MAKING (present tense) the ages through Jesus.
Therefore, it refers to MORE THAN ONE age that had ALREADY BEEN created through Jesus.
peace,
mikeQuote (kerwin @ Oct. 07 2011,17:12) It is my understanding that the plural aions in Ephesians 2:7 is referring to the same time period as the singular aion in both Ephesians 1:21 and Hebrews 6:5. Do you perceive it differently?
Those scripture talk about the current age, and an age that is yet to come. Past tense words are not generally used in reference to things yet to come.But the imperfect tense of “ktizo” in Col 1:16 is the final nail in the coffin, Kerwin. That tense makes it clear that all existing things had already been created through Jesus in a “once for all time” action.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 07 2011,13:12) Irene, We are talking about HEARING God, remember? I agree that no man can SEE God and live, because scripture says just that.
But scripture NEVER says that no man has ever HEARD God. And the Israelites clearly DID hear God at Horeb. And men heard God at Jesus' baptism and at his transfiguration.
peace,
mike
Mike! When Jesus said inJhn 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.
Said this, it was years after the Israeli's, and it does not mattter to whom He said it, it is true…..
No man will ever, in flesh and blood see God……
To say differently is calling Jesus a liar….. Sorry Mike but YOU are dead wrong here……
Peace and Love IreneQuote (Pastry @ Oct. 08 2011,21:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 07 2011,13:12) Irene, We are talking about HEARING God, remember? I agree that no man can SEE God and live, because scripture says just that.
But scripture NEVER says that no man has ever HEARD God. And the Israelites clearly DID hear God at Horeb. And men heard God at Jesus' baptism and at his transfiguration.
peace,
mike
Mike! When Jesus said inJhn 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.
Said this, it was years after the Israeli's, and it does not mattter to whom He said it, it is true…..
No man will ever, in flesh and blood see God……
To say differently is calling Jesus a liar….. Sorry Mike but YOU are dead wrong here……
Peace and Love Irene
Ireneyou should read those scriptures in John 5 36-37-38
then you understand that Jesus was speaking to the people in front of him ,
Mike is right because as he says the hebrew heard the voice of God ,but those who were in front of Jesus did not and also did not show faith in the scriptures because they ad not believed in Jesus teachings
Pierre
Kathy,
I have not yet read all your source material but I have read a large part. In particularly it teaches that though Philo called the Logos by the title God it is an improper appellation and wrongly employed. He also does not regard the Word as a person but it is an idea, a power which is occasionally symbolically personified as an angel.
Quote Throughout so many diverse concepts may be recognized a fundamental doctrine: the Logos is an intermediary between God and the world; through it God created the world and governs it; through it also men know God and pray to Him (“De Cherub.”, 125; “Quis rerum divin. haeres sit”, 205-06.) In three passages the Logos is called God (“Leg. Alleg.”, III, 207; “De Somniis”, I, 229; “In Gen.”, II, 62, cited by Eusebius, “Praep. Ev.”, VII, 13); but, as Philo himself explains in one of these texts (De Somniis), it is an improper appellation and wrongly employed, and he uses it only because he is led into it by the Sacred Text which he comments upon. Moreover, Philo does not regard the Logos as a person; it is an idea, a power, and, though occasionally identified with the angels of the Bible, this is by symbolic personification. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia the Word is a paraphrase substituted for the name Jehovah.
Quote I In Palestinian Rabbinism the Word (Memra) is very often mentioned, at least in the Targums: it is the Memra of Jahveh which lives, speaks, and acts, but, if one endeavour to determine precisely the meaning of the expression, it appears very often to be only a paraphrase substituted by the Targumist for the name of Jahveh. Quote They did not have the fuller revelation that the Word of God was actually His Son. So you believe in a doctrine that continually evolves? I do not though I do agree with what both the Targums and Philo state. There words also agree with what the writings of the Books have revealed to me.
It sure does explain the creation of Jehovah being alone yet the Word was there with the Father.
Quote Quite frequently the Old Testament represents the creative act as the word of God (Genesis 1:3; Psalm 32:9; Sirach 42:15); sometimes it seems to attribute to the word action of itself, although not independent of Jahveh (Isaiah 55:11, Zechariah 5:1-4; Psalm 106:20; 147:15). In all this we can see only bold figures of speech: the word of creation, of salvation, or, in Zacharias, the word of malediction, is personified, but is not conceived of as a distinct Divine hypostasis. In the Book of Wisdom this personification is more directly implied (18:15 sq.), and a parallel is established (9:1-2) between wisdom and the Word. Note 1: Quotes are from Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Word in the section about the word in Judaism.
Note 2:Corrected formatting and removed two orphan “I's”.
Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 08 2011,14:56) Quote (Pastry @ Oct. 08 2011,21:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 07 2011,13:12) Irene, We are talking about HEARING God, remember? I agree that no man can SEE God and live, because scripture says just that.
But scripture NEVER says that no man has ever HEARD God. And the Israelites clearly DID hear God at Horeb. And men heard God at Jesus' baptism and at his transfiguration.
peace,
mike
Mike! When Jesus said inJhn 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.
Said this, it was years after the Israeli's, and it does not mattter to whom He said it, it is true…..
No man will ever, in flesh and blood see God……
To say differently is calling Jesus a liar….. Sorry Mike but YOU are dead wrong here……
Peace and Love Irene
Ireneyou should read those scriptures in John 5 36-37-38
then you understand that Jesus was speaking to the people in front of him ,
Mike is right because as he says the hebrew heard the voice of God ,but those who were in front of Jesus did not and also did not show faith in the scriptures because they ad not believed in Jesus teachings
Pierre
Pierre! So now every time Jesus is speaking to others in Scriptures, its not so?
Jhn 5:36 But I have greater witness than [that] of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.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.
Jhn 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
These Scriptures do not void what Jesus is saying…. that is ridiculous….and wrong….. all Scriptures are for our understanding and true…. the Scripture verse 37 is not taken out of context….but true for all of us…..
Also since you both believe verse 37 is not for us, now when the verse 36nd 38 say that He was sent….. it is also wrong and not for us to believe? Especially verse 36 is that wrong too?
Of course not….IreneQuote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 07 2011,11:24) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 06 2011,17:47) Mike……….I see again you refused to answer my post, and come out with something that meet you dogmas, so i will ask you again, do you believe the FATHER WAS (IN) Jesus or NOT?, A Simple yes or no will suffice, It will tell us all exactly what you believe. IMO peace and love…………………………………………gene
Gene,I HAVE answered this question for you before. I said that the Father was “IN” Jesus through Spirit, just as Jesus and the Father can be “IN” us the same way.
It is not, however, LITERAL Gene. The Father remained in heaven the whole time Jesus was on earth – so He was not LITERALLY inside the flesh and blood being of Jesus.
Did you not read the parts of scripture where the Father spoke FROM HEAVEN to Jesus?
Mike……..Well now that you have admitted the FATHER was (IN) Jesus , lets proceed to the next two questions , WAS the FATHER GOD? and if you answer Yes to that simple question, then answer this, is GOD A SPIRIT? would be the Next question and if you answer Yes to that , then GOD was indeed in Jesus Just as he said He was right.Then we can say as scripture does, ” God who was (IN) Christ Jesus was reconciling the world unto himself” Right? Now going on if GOD was (IN) Christ the when did he come to be in HIM. Was it before he ever existed on earth or after he existed on earth? Jesus never said anywhere GOD the Father existed (IN) Him before he was ever born on earth.
So GOD who was the Logos came to be in Jesus' flesh after his berth on earth right so the Logos who was God never became flesh (IT) came to be (IN) the flesh man Jesus. The Christos or Anointed one Jesus recieved the LOGOS who was GOD INTO HIM. And Thomas was absolutely right when he said my Lord (AND) my GOD God was truly Present (IN) Jesus through the anointing or the Christos and that is how the word or Logos became FLESH. The same way it can also be (IN) Us and when that happens GOD and Jesus is in us the anointed of GOD by his Spirit which scripture say GOD is a Spirit and He can be in all and through all, as it say that God may be all and in you all IMO
Mike as far as God speaking from Heaven goes, how does that mean he was not also (IN) Jesus? Fact is God is everywhere at one time because he is Spirit and can exist everywhere at one time He lives vicariously (IN) and (OUT) of His creation at the same time. He is Omnipresent . Had you understood what Spirit is this would not be a problem for you. Just like unclean Spirits can live in or out of a Person, so can GOD who is spirit and rather they are in our out they still exist. They can not be destoryed. Spirit does not have all kinds of meanings as you presume they do. They are (INTELLECTS) living IN and through all life forms that have life (IN) them. It is Spirit that animated all life and those spirits are expressed through Words (REEMA) which receives there existence from LOGOS or SPIRITS that are present (IN) a Person. All Spirits can come to be (IN) Flesh and can Leave Flesh also even GOD removed His Spirit from People at times and sent them evils spirits. Need scriptures i can produce them>
peace and love to you and yours………………………………………..gene
Quote (Pastry @ Oct. 08 2011,06:12) 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. Jhn 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
Hi Irene,If verse 37 means NO ONE HAS EVER heard God's voice, then verse 38 must mean that NO ONE HAS EVER believed in Jesus.
But since Jesus is saying this specifically to the ones who had not believed in him, he is also saying that those particular ones are the ones who have never heard God's voice.
John 12
28 Father, glorify your name!”Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine.
Also, read my signature at the bottom of my posts. These are part of the words God spoke directly to Job and his four companions starting in chapter 38. All five of them heard God's voice.
peace,
mikeQuote (Paladin @ Oct. 07 2011,05:21) Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 05 2011,15:12) 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.
I think most internet sources will help in finding the basic word forms, though their explanations are not to be taken as gospel. I do not use them so I am not familiar with them as much as others may be, like Irene, mike, and Wisper for just a few.
aiwnas is plural; in Heb 1:2 and 11:3 and Col 1:26 among others.aiwn is singular in Mat 12:32; 13:32; John 9:32 for just three examples.
As for the “how to” questions, I do not have the time to invest in the enormous effort it takes to post a proper response to that.
Paladin,Thank you!
Mike and Kathi were able to provide me with a tool to see for myself.
Kerwin,
Now we just need to locate a tool like that for the Hebrew part of the scriptures. Let us know if you find one. Until then, we can rely on Kathi, who bought a program for this purpose.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 08 2011,11:50) Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 07 2011,17:12) The bottom line is that there are ages to come even after Paul wrote his letter to the out-called in Ephesus.
But again you have to deal with the aorist tense in Hebrews 1:2, which generally acts as an Enlish past tense.So 1:2 is saying that God DID (past tense) make the ages through Jesus. 1:2 does not say that God IS MAKING (present tense) the ages through Jesus.
Therefore, it refers to MORE THAN ONE age that had ALREADY BEEN created through Jesus.
peace,
mike
God ORDAINED the ages (past tense) because of the Son. The Greek is 'poieo' which in Greek exegesis means 'to ordain' or 'to appoint.' God did NOT make the ages (past tense) in the sense of creating them. He made the ages (past tense) in the sense of appointing them. He makes them in the sense of creating them within the context of human history. Jesus spoke of the age 'to come' (the new covenant) and Paul spoke of the ages 'to come' (the various epochs of the new covenant Eph. 2:7).You make me bust a gut laughing sometimes Mike. Even Paladin who lacks in the area of Greek exegesis has a much better handle on it than you. Will you PLEASE stop commenting on the Greek so much and humble yourself and listen to those of us who have formally studied it? You probably won't be quiet because you are the offspring of the NWT translators who also had no formal training in Greek. “Like father like son.”
KJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
