- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 15 2011,09:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 15 2011,03:49) FULLY God? Here's some of what the NETNotes scholars say about their own translation:
Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos is one in essence with God the Father.
Mike……….The word or LOGOS is fully GOD and was and is (IN) Jesus, all seven Spirits of GOD indwell Him and all who have God Logos (IN) them have GOD in them also through the CHRISTOS or anointing Logos of GOD.John 1:14……..> And the LOGOS was made (came into being) in flesh.
Mike what part of Jesus word do you not believe, when he said the FATHER WAS IN HIM . If you could come to see as Thomas finely did when he said my Lord and my God. Why can't you understand that GOD the Father was actually in working through him reconciling the world back to him. Take what Thomas said literally God the Father was indeed in Jesus and speaking his words through him. That does not make Jesus the God that was (IN) him though. When Jesus said he was not alone he was not lying GOD the Father was with him , When Jesus spoke the words destory this temple and in three day I shall raise it up, that was not Jesus saying that it was God the Father that was literally in him speaking through him God was in Jesus in bodily form. Jesus' body was God the Father's temple he was living in and speaking his LOGOS through.
God who in times past has spoken to us through the prophets has in these latter days Spoken to us through a son. IMO
peace and love…………………………..gene
Gene,Read the rest of the NETNotes info I posted. These are hardcore Trinitarians who are willing to add words to the scriptures in an effort to further promote THEIR “truth”, and not necessarily the TRUTH of the scriptures.
Yet even these hardcore Trinitarians recognize that the words “with God” in John 1:1b completely prohibit the logos from actually BEING the God he was WITH.
Gene, John 1:1 speaks of TWO, not ONE. It speaks of one with the title of “god” who happened to be WITH one who had the title of “THE god” in the beginning.
You have fallen prey to one of the best Trinitarian scams ever. First, they omit the definite article “THE” from before the god mentioned in 1:1b, and then cap the “G” in the god mentioned in 1:1c, making it seems as if 'THE GOD' could sensibly be said to be WITH “THE GOD”.
Don't feel bad………….many fall for this charade. But I'm here to tell you that there are TWO beings called theos in John 1:1, and only one of those two is referred to as THE theos.
mike
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2011,02:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 15 2011,03:49) FULLY God? Here's some of what the NETNotes scholars say about their own translation:
Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos is one in essence with God the Father.
Mike……….The word or LOGOS is fully GOD and was and is (IN) Jesus, all seven Spirits of GOD indwell Him and all who have God Logos (IN) them have GOD in them also through the CHRISTOS or anointing Logos of GOD.John 1:14……..> And the LOGOS was made (came into being) in flesh.
Mike what part of Jesus word do you not believe, when he said the FATHER WAS IN HIM . If you could come to see as Thomas finely did when he said my Lord and my God. Why can't you understand that GOD the Father was actually in working through him reconciling the world back to him. Take what Thomas said literally God the Father was indeed in Jesus and speaking his words through him. That does not make Jesus the God that was (IN) him though. When Jesus said he was not alone he was not lying GOD the Father was with him , When Jesus spoke the words destory this temple and in three day I shall raise it up, that was not Jesus saying that it was God the Father that was literally in him speaking through him God was in Jesus in bodily form. Jesus' body was God the Father's temple he was living in and speaking his LOGOS through.
God who in times past has spoken to us through the prophets has in these latter days Spoken to us through a son. IMO
peace and love…………………………..gene
Just a tad correction here brother. The scri[ptures never say “Jesus is God, only that he was God, because the logos became something else, (flesh) which is not God.If you understnad the logos was a concept in God's mind, and when it began to come to fruition, it changed to include flesh, so that God could in the final stage, be “all in all.”
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2011,02:12) Quote (Paladin @ May 14 2011,20:20) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2011,15:24) Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,06:17)
Well, if “whether” means “even including” what does “even including” mean? “Whether” in this use is more akin to “excluding” as in “excluding all else.
1 Peter 2:13-14
Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good.
So Peter is saying we should shun all human ruling institutions unless they are specifically a king or a governor? YES or NO, please.mike
A King, or a governor, or those he commissions. That covers everything down to the cop on the corner beat.In other words, obey the law.
Hi Paladin,I agree that the point Peter is making is “Obey the Law!” But you mistakenly use the word “OR” in your statement when the actual words are “AS those he commisions”.
MY understanding of the word “whether” actually includes judges, elected officials, and “the cop on the corner beat”.
YOUR understanding of the word “whether” EXCLUDES everyone EXCEPT FOR kings and governors.
So please read it again using the word “AS”, instead of your substituted word “OR”, and tell me how it would include the cop on the corner beat with YOUR understanding of “whether”.
Once you come to the realization that Peter's use of “whether” did not limit the ones to whom we should subject ourselves to only kings and governors, you may be able to see that Paul's use of the same word in Col 1:16 did not limit the things created through Jesus to only the four things specifically mentioned.
And once you realize this, you perhaps will realize that when Paul wrote “ALL THINGS” were created through Jesus, “ALL THINGS” was exactly what he meant.
mike
Mike; your own post testifies against you.Quote whether[/u] to a king as supreme or to governors Quote (Paladin @ May 15 2011,06:05) Frustrations abound, and feelings are disturbed on all sides. I have caused my brother anguish, and for that Mike, I ask forgiveness. It was not my intent, but we all know about
“good intentions” when the result is not perceived to be that at all.
Hi Paladin,I appreciate your words and agree. We are much alike, and as I've mentioned before, we would make great comrades on many Biblical subjects.
You and Tim have brought up your concern that maybe I'm too quick to judge someone whose Biblical understanding differs from mine. Wm has mentioned the same to me in a pm a while back. But where is the line drawn? Consider this:
However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos is one in essence with God the Father.
Now………….am I to think of these people as children of God who just understand the scriptures differently than I do? Or am I allowed to view them as the agents of Satan that they are, who are willing to add their own words into the scriptures because their survey showed that the average person, reading the actual words of the scriptures, would not come to the conclusion they WANTED the average person to come to?
These are not “children of God” IMO. These are people who are willing to ignore the words of Moses and the words of John, who both warned us about adding to or taking away from God's words. And they do it for their own selfish reasons, resulting in many unwitting children of God being mislead into thinking the scriptures teach that the Son OF God is the God he is the Son OF.
Paladin, what you do is similar to what these 25 NETNotes scholars have done with John 1:1. You are willing to make the FALSE claim that “para” has a conotation of “by way of promise” in order to further you OWN understanding that Jesus refers to a “promised glory” in John 17:5. I have shown you to be wrong in this matter, yet you won't do the godly thing and admit you were mistaken. Instead you are willing further muddy the issue, and will most likely keep this up until you are convinced your original error is lost in a million words of posts.
You have done this to me before. I remember getting you down to the nitty gritty about John 6…………..but where are the answers to those 6 questions I asked you? Ah………….they've been “forgotten” or lost in the millions of words of post since then.
See, THIS is how I come to the conclusion that you are not someone who is simply “understanding the scriptures differently than I am”, but instead, someone who is willing to twist and avoid and falsify information to further his own goals.
So to you and Tim and Wm I say: I agree that many people start off with different understandings of many different scriptures. But when show the truth, they should willingly adjust their own pre-conceived notions to fit around the scriptures.
We are at this turning point right now with the word “whether”. I have showed you Peter's use of it, and the OBVIOUS fact that Peter was not excluding all law enforcement officials EXCEPT FOR kings and governors. Let's see if you humbly accept my findings and adjust your understanding, or if you try to lead me further down the twisting rabbit hole.
If you do the former, I can accept that we are two people with different understandings, and that the words of scripture will eventually equalize our differences.
If you do the latter, then I am justified in my opinion that you have already made up your mind about the matter, and no scripture will ever change it.
peace,
mikeAh………….and I see now that as I was making my last post, you had already made your decision about Peter's words. How sad.
So Paladin, are we to subject ourselves ONLY to ones who are kings “OR” governors? Or do you suppose your first understanding was correct and it includes even “the cop on the corner beat”?
My early opinion of you has been firmly established and is continually reaffirmed. And that is truly sad.
mike
Paladin,
I was not arguing that it didn't say “king OR governor”. I was arguing that it did not say “king OR governor OR those he commissions”.
Was I correct? Did you inadvertently replace the word AS with the word OR?
mike
Quote (Wispring @ May 14 2011,22:39) To Thread Readers, Google the grammatical use of wether. I did. It appears to mean when more than one thing is referred to or are offered as a choice for selection. I believe Paladin has that which is the formally correct usage of the word “wether” understood correctly.
With Love and Respect,
Wispring
Hi Wispring,Perhaps you should Google “whether”, instead of “wether”.
(Just kidding.) But since you piped in with your support of Paladin, maybe you would also be willing to help him out with Peter's use of the same word.Perhaps you are willing to believe that Peter intended us to subject ourselves ONLY to kings and governors, and no other authority God has placed over us?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2011,12:02) Paladin, I was not arguing that it didn't say “king OR governor”. I was arguing that it did not say “king OR governor OR those he commissions”.
Was I correct? Did you inadvertently replace the word AS with the word OR?
mike
Mikewen you subdue yourself to a king or high figure are you not subdue yourself to all is laws and lower authority as well,
like subdue to the president ,and what not following the civil laws ?
this is childish in thought.
Pierre
I agree Pierre. Peter was not excluding the rest of “EVERY HUMAN INSTITUTION” by mentioning only two positions of power specifically.
Just as Paul was not excluding the rest of “ALL THINGS” by specifically mentioning only four of the things that were created by Jesus in Col 1:16.
The lower levels of government are also included by the words “EVERY HUMAN INSTITUITION”, even though only two positions were specifically mentioned for emphasis.
Just as the rest of creation is included by the words “ALL THINGS”, even though only four things were specifically mentioned to emphasize the full extent of things created by Jesus. The point was, “EVEN rulers and powers and authorities”…………….not “ONLY rulers and powers and authorities”.
mike
Mike
many will be surprised by finding out what it cost not to have listen to the son of God and the saints he as send and above all his words.
this would be like rejecting the Creator of the all universe,our God.
Pierre
Right now, I would be happy to refute someone's false claim and just have them actually acknowledge they were mistaken, and adjust their beliefs accordingly.
The Lord knows that I've done that same thing many times since joining HN.
Mike! I also found that when one confronts Paladin with an error He does not respond. that He did when I pointed out that I take what Isaiah says about precepts upon precepts line upon line. Paladin has not responded to say He was wrong. And I really don't expect him to either. That too is te second time He did that. So i don't trust Him at all, unless He stands up to His error….Peace Irene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2011,07:22) Right now, I would be happy to refute someone's false claim and just have them actually acknowledge they were mistaken, and adjust their beliefs accordingly. The Lord knows that I've done that same thing many times since joining HN.
And I agree……Peace IreneQuote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2011,02:38) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 15 2011,09:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 15 2011,03:49) FULLY God? Here's some of what the NETNotes scholars say about their own translation:
Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos is one in essence with God the Father.
Mike……….The word or LOGOS is fully GOD and was and is (IN) Jesus, all seven Spirits of GOD indwell Him and all who have God Logos (IN) them have GOD in them also through the CHRISTOS or anointing Logos of GOD.John 1:14……..> And the LOGOS was made (came into being) in flesh.
Mike what part of Jesus word do you not believe, when he said the FATHER WAS IN HIM . If you could come to see as Thomas finely did when he said my Lord and my God. Why can't you understand that GOD the Father was actually in working through him reconciling the world back to him. Take what Thomas said literally God the Father was indeed in Jesus and speaking his words through him. That does not make Jesus the God that was (IN) him though. When Jesus said he was not alone he was not lying GOD the Father was with him , When Jesus spoke the words destory this temple and in three day I shall raise it up, that was not Jesus saying that it was God the Father that was literally in him speaking through him God was in Jesus in bodily form. Jesus' body was God the Father's temple he was living in and speaking his LOGOS through.
God who in times past has spoken to us through the prophets has in these latter days Spoken to us through a son. IMO
peace and love…………………………..gene
Gene,Read the rest of the NETNotes info I posted. These are hardcore Trinitarians who are willing to add words to the scriptures in an effort to further promote THEIR “truth”, and not necessarily the TRUTH of the scriptures.
Yet even these hardcore Trinitarians recognize that the words “with God” in John 1:1b completely prohibit the logos from actually BEING the God he was WITH.
Gene, John 1:1 speaks of TWO, not ONE. It speaks of one with the title of “god” who happened to be WITH one who had the title of “THE god” in the beginning.
You have fallen prey to one of the best Trinitarian scams ever. First, they omit the definite article “THE” from before the god mentioned in 1:1b, and then cap the “G” in the god mentioned in 1:1c, making it seems as if 'THE GOD' could sensibly be said to be WITH “THE GOD”.
Don't feel bad………….many fall for this charade. But I'm here to tell you that there are TWO beings called theos in John 1:1, and only one of those two is referred to as THE theos.
mike
You are tracking on the wrong issue here Mike. There is not an issue of how many “theos's” are involved, but the issue is in the use of “was” over “is;” een over eimi.Ho logos was with theon; ho logos was theos.
theon is simply the case of the direct object telling us with whom ho logos was; theos is the same person as theon, only in the nominative case. This is how we know Sabellianism is wrong, because theon and theos are one and the same person.
When we are told “ho logos een theos” we are told that it is not the case that ho logos eimi theos. [The word was God; not the world is God.] Because the logos changed when it became flesh God did not change; the terms are inconvertible.
There is no verse anywhere in scripture that tells us the logos is God. We do however, have a verse that tells us the reema is the Spirit of God; so that you have in total, the logos was God, the reema of God is the Spirit, the comforter that was promised.
You claim
Quote But I'm here to tell you that there are TWO beings called theos in John 1:1, and only one of those two is referred to as THE theos. There is no “ho theos” in John 1:1, only ton theon, and theos without the article. And “ho logos een pros ton theon” the logos was with the God. So ho logos was not the same one with whom he was with.
At no point does ho logos reach that state of being that it is said and recorded ho logos eimi theos. The word is God.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2011,14:22) Right now, I would be happy to refute someone's false claim and just have them actually acknowledge they were mistaken, and adjust their beliefs accordingly. The Lord knows that I've done that same thing many times since joining HN.
Mikeagreed but with one correction ;and hope that they may adjust their beliefs accordingly.
you need the holy spirit to do that.
Pierre
Quote (Paladin @ May 15 2011,16:11) And “ho logos een pros ton theon” the logos was with the God. So ho logos was not the same one with whom he was with.
Hi Paladin,Isn't that what I just said to Gene? Ho logos is NOT the same One that he was with. Therefore TWO are mentioned in John 1:1, and only ONE of them is “ton theon” (THE God). So who is this other one that is also called by the title “theos”?
I know of someone who is called by the name “the Word of God” and is also referred to by the title “theos” in other scriptures.
Could this person be the same person who is referred to as “theos” and “ho logos” in John 1:1? Well, we know that the Word described in John 1:1 had the glory of an only begotten from the Father. How about the Word described in Rev 19?
mike
When the dust settles from this highly energized debate all I hope is that both Mike and Paladin continue on this site. I try to learn with pro's and con's of truth. You are both highly respected by all who read and hear. Sometimes we can major on a minor and its hard to let go. God has blessed you both. Your blessing is needed in this world and on this site. There are others that excell, but I won't list. There is much understanding needed of what Jesus actually did on earth and what it means today, now and into the future. Love to all and blessings from God, TK
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2011,04:24) Ah………….and I see now that as I was making my last post, you had already made your decision about Peter's words. How sad. So Paladin, are we to subject ourselves ONLY to ones who are kings “OR” governors? Or do you suppose your first understanding was correct and it includes even “the cop on the corner beat”?
My early opinion of you has been firmly established and is continually reaffirmed. And that is truly sad.
mike
Quote whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. Peter is simply pointing out that the king is supreme, and all others are commissioned, whether governors, or cops on the beat. And no, Mike, you misunderstand when I give my opinion on a matter, I am not crediting it to what Peter said, but what I understand the proper application to be of what Peter did say.
Quote My early opinion of you has been firmly established and is continually reaffirmed. And that is truly sad. Yes, Mike, I agree with you – your early opinion of me is quite truly sad. Perhaps you should modify it so you can cheer up.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2011,05:02) Paladin, I was not arguing that it didn't say “king OR governor”. I was arguing that it did not say “king OR governor OR those he commissions”.
Was I correct? Did you inadvertently replace the word AS with the word OR?
mike
Mike, when the Apostles had completed their speeches in Acts 2, they continued to speak “many other words “to retell” the same story.That is my use of “or” where Peter said “as.” I was showing you (well, trying to show you at least) that Peter is saying that supreme kings commission all lessor men through authority bestowed by his supreme authority. That are all authorities, just some with more, some with less.
The king as supreme, all others as commissioned.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2011,11:10) Quote (Paladin @ May 15 2011,16:11) And “ho logos een pros ton theon” the logos was with the God. So ho logos was not the same one with whom he was with.
Hi Paladin,Isn't that what I just said to Gene? Ho logos is NOT the same One that he was with. Therefore TWO are mentioned in John 1:1, and only ONE of them is “ton theon” (THE God). So who is this other one that is also called by the title “theos”?
I know of someone who is called by the name “the Word of God” and is also referred to by the title “theos” in other scriptures.
Could this person be the same person who is referred to as “theos” and “ho logos” in John 1:1? Well, we know that the Word described in John 1:1 had the glory of an only begotten from the Father. How about the Word described in Rev 19?
mike
Mike! No answer to your question… I was looking forward to how Paladin explains Rev. 19…. That is always the Scripture that i use to prove that The Word of God is Jesus….. Also I am still waiting about the precepts. No answer either….. It gets rather tiresome to ask over and over again. but I guess your used to it with Keith…..I am still learning….Peace Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
