Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 20 2011,14:19)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 19 2011,15:19) Was King David a root of Jesse also> YES, Well, there's half of the problem, Gene.  The correct answer is NO!  David was a BRANCH of his father Jesse, not a ROOT of him.    So much for MY ignorance of simple logic.   Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 19 2011,15:19) Mike as far as the word (IN) in John 1:14 goes, show me one scripture that says………….. No, no, no, Gene!  That is NOT how one deciphers scripture.  One doesn't say, “Well, I can't understand how the actual words of scripture make sense the way they are written, so I guess I'll just add words into those scriptures until they DO make sense TO ME”. MY understanding let's the words of scripture stay exactly how they are.  If YOUR understanding requires you to add your own words into the scripture, then YOUR understanding is from Bizzaro World. I will post this one in my new thread. peace, mike

Do you mean like when you say “give me the glory I had beside you?

Or do you mean when you say “Give me the glory I had in your peresence?”

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2011,11:56)

Hi Paladin, What claim to fame does the KJV have?  They have themselves made many changes from the old version to the new, right? Yet many people seem to think it is the “infallibly perfect” translation, and “written in stone”.  Could you tell me why? mike

differences between KJV translation from Majority text and translations from Westcott/Hort Greek text

KJV

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike…………….There are over 20,000 Grammatical error in the king James according to a Scholar named Mills and many additions to the text according to many other scholars, If you ever get time read the book “Misquoting Jesus” by a modern Scholar Erichman you might begin to see them in the text. Please don't post here that you go by the existing text and don't add you thought into you renditions of the text that simply is a lie you try to use to snow people and present yourself as some accurate quoter of scripture then they by saying your do not add you thought into them and require them to quote exact text, If you believe exact text them Please tell us How a WORD can BE FLESH, i know how a word can come to be (IN) Flesh but i never saw a FLESH WORD have you? When i put the word (IN) in there it is because of all the other Scriptures that show this that God was speaking (through) Jesus to us. No that Jesus himself was GOD or his word, but he spoke them (Gods words) to us. God the Father was (IN) Jesus speaking to Us, Or do you deny that too.

peace and love……………………………………….gene

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2011,13:41)

Quote (Paladin @ June 09 2011,07:04)

Jesus wants the glory of God himself, not the glory of being beside God.

Surely Jesus knows that God shares His glory with no one, right? [/quote]

Surely you know that man is the glory of God, right?

Quote

Paladin, if there is no Greek rule prohibiting 17:5 to have Jesus asking to be glorified IN THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE of his God (which there isn't), then all of this is just a waste of time.

I have been quoting Greek rules to you for several hundred pages now Mike, and you still will ignore all of them. I showed you that it was not Peter, nor was it John, but rather it was Mathew who told us Jesus was gennao of the spirit, and it was John who told us that which is gennao of the spirit, is spirit. Since “gennao” tells us of a person's origin,(it originates at the point of being “gennao”), and Paul tells us of the origin of his flesh, [Rom 1:3 “…Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;”] [“genomenon” of a woman” [Gal 4:4] there is no room in scripture for a pre-existent Jesus.

Quote

Think what you want to. I know that Jesus is the Word who was with God in the beginning, then became flesh, and dwelled among mankind with the glory of the only begotten from the Father.

No, Mike, you do not know that. You have a doctrine that needs that, because there is no scripture that says that. You cannot tie any scripture to any one man. John did not say “And the logos became a man” – John said “the logos became flesh.” And the reason John chose this terminology was specifically because he did not want to tie the logos to any specific one man.

I have shown you countless posts that prove Jesus is not the logos of God, but rather, the logos of God is a concept of
“Christ living in you.”

You take one word out of the logos of God and try to force it to mean the whole concept. I could do the same thing with
“you” and insist the logos of God is “you” because Paul says the logos of God is “Christ living in “you”.

I could even make the same argument you are making only substitute the word “living” because “living” is also one fourth of the concept “The logos of God.” “The Logos Of God” is the name of a concept, mike, it is not comprised of one word, but four.

“Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the logos of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” [Col 1:25-27]

Quote

He is the one through whom God created all things and ages. He was existing in the form of God, but then emptied himself and was made into a human being.

Wrong! “Have this mind in you which is also in Christ Jesus” is a present imperative, neither perfect, imperfect, nor aorist. “Was” is supplied by the translator, and is not in the passage. Jesus' mind is not gone, but is alive and well at the right hand of God, and Paul tells us to have the same mind Jesus has; the same Jesus who being in the form of God while a man (because it is present tense); and having been born to be a king [John 18:37]; could have commanded angels [Mat 25:53]; instead, emptied himself when he washed the disciples feet, taking upon himself the form of a servant and being found in fashion as a man.”

Paul does not say the Fatther “made him a servant” he says Jesus “took upon himself the form of a servant” which Jesus certainly did in John 13 when he washed the disciples feet.

And Paul does not say God made him in the fashion of a man, because “made” would then be active; nor does Paul say Jesus “made” himself in the likeness of a man, bur rather, because ginomai is in the middle deponent, should rather be translated “became” in likeness, a man; and in the next verse, tells he he was “found in fashion as a man.” “As” in that verse is Greek “ws” which is a particle of comparison; Paul is comparing what Jesus has made of himself, not with kings, but with common man.

Quote

And in 17:5, he is asking God to bring him back to his place beside Him, and restore the glory he had before the world was created through him.

See what I mean Mike,? And you claim you have no doctrinal needs. “Bring him back to his place beside him” is a doctrinal need; it is not found in the verse.

“Restore” is not in the verse.

“Before the world was created” is not in the verse.

If you “have no doctrinal needs” why are you so stuck on the wording of this doctrinal presentation?

“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” [John 17:5]

Jesus uses the preposition “para” twice in this verse, and both times it is dative, which points us to an indirect object; first,
“thine own self” meaning “I want to be glorified with the self of you” being the indirect object of Jesus' request; The second use of “para” is also dative, again pointing us to an indirect object, in this case “thee” – God the person being the indirect object of Jesus' request. And “pro” tells us that the glory he is referencing has been “before the world” exver since the world has bveen in existence. It has nothing to do with “before the creation of the world.”

Do you honestly believe God doesn't know how to reference
“before the creation of the world” if that is what he wants to say?

“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” [II Tim 1:9]

“In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” [Titus 1:2]

“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,”[Eph 1:4]

Quote

The rest of chapter 17 confirms this by Jesus saying he will soon be leaving the world and coming back to his Father. And instead of God giving him the glory he used to have, He exalted him to an even higher position and glory, and gave him rule over heaven and earth for a while.

Even Jesus himself knew we should “not look back” but constantly look forward. Why would he look back for glory that was promised?

“And Jesus s
aid unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” [Luke 9:62]

What you are doing Mike, is saying Jesus was pre-existent, therefore this verse proves he was pre-existent. It is circular reasoning, not exegesis. John 17:5 does not prove the point.

Quote

That is my understanding which is based, not on my own preferences (for I couldn't care less either way), but on what the scriptures clearly teach us.

Why don't you stop with the disclaimers that are obviously false? Your many pages of insistant rhetoric proves otherwise.

Quote

Paladin, our conversations bring out the worst in me, for you rarely, if ever, directly answer my points, but instead have me chasing you around a bunch of misunderstood Greek rules of grammar and many diversions to the actual points we're discussing.

Misunderstood by whom? If you want to see a case of
“misunderstood Greek grammar” look at the “rules” developed by Sharpe, and Colwell, who made up their own, which are not Greek grammar rules.

I have only shown you the proper application of the Greek grammar rules as they apply to the translated material.

Quote

I don't really care any more what you believe. We'll all know the truth eventually, (although some of us only for a brief moment before we're gone for good).

Of course you do Mike, why all the false disclaimers? People who really don't care don't come online to demonstrate how much they don't care. THAT would that they care.

[Pastry]

If there are that many errors in the KJ Bible, then you might as well throw the Bible in the garbage can. What makes anyone think that they are right and the translators who learned or even are Greek are wrong? Besides are they not then accountable for what they did? They will be punished twice as severe, and they want to take that chance? That is hard to believe……Also if they believe in the trinity, why did they then put those Scriptures in the Bible that proves that Jesus had a beginning as a Spirit Being and didn't always existed……Irene

[Paladin]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 11 2011,02:54)

Quote (Paladin @ June 10 2011,10:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 11 2011,01:15) Hi All I think the Greek of a world renowned Greek Grammarian like AT Robertson out ways any of the anti-preexistence chatter I have seen in this thread. John 17:5… With thine own self (para seautwi). “By the side of thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. Matthew 1:1 ) enjoyed before the Incarnation ( John 1:14 ). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father's side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (h eicon, imperfect active of ecw, I used to have, with attraction of case of hn to h because of doxh), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” (cf. verse John 24 ). It is small wonder that those who deny or reject the deity of Jesus Christ have trouble with the Johannine authorship of this book and with the genuineness of these words. But even Harnack admits that the words here and in verse John 24 are “undoubtedly the reflection of the certainty with which Jesus himself spoke” (What Is Christianity, Engl. Tr., p. 132). But Paul, as clearly as John, believes in the actual pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ ( Philippians 2:5-11 ). Blessings Keith What else would you expect from a trinitarian grammarian? A.T.Robertson: A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament; p-135 – “logos is applied to Christ in Jo.1:1…” Even ATR was wrong about that one. You will not find “Christ” in John 1 till verse 17; a bit late to say it is in verse 1. Hi Paladin So you say! Of course it is entirely possible for ATR to be a Trinitarian because he understands the Greek and the writer’s intent. In fact why is it that most all credible Greek Grammarians are Trinitarian?   WJ

For the same reason that Satan is the most well-known trinitarian of them all.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Paladin @ June 21 2011,08:25)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 11 2011,02:54) Quote (Paladin @ June 10 2011,10:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 11 2011,01:15) Hi All I think the Greek of a world renowned Greek Grammarian like AT Robertson out ways any of the anti-preexistence chatter I have seen in this thread. John 17:5… With thine own self (para seautwi). “By the side of thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. Matthew 1:1 ) enjoyed before the Incarnation ( John 1:14 ). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father's side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (h eicon, imperfect active of ecw, I used to have, with attraction of case of hn to h because of doxh), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” (cf. verse John 24 ). It is small wonder that those who deny or reject the deity of Jesus Christ have trouble with the Johannine authorship of this book and with the genuineness of these words. But even Harnack admits that the words here and in verse John 24 are “undoubtedly the reflection of the certainty with which Jesus himself spoke” (What Is Christianity, Engl. Tr., p. 132). But Paul, as clearly as John, believes in the actual pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ ( Philippians 2:5-11 ). Blessings Keith What else would you expect from a trinitarian grammarian? A.T.Robertson: A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament; p-135 – “logos is applied to Christ in Jo.1:1…” Even ATR was wrong about that one. You will not find “Christ” in John 1 till verse 17; a bit late to say it is in verse 1. Hi Paladin So you say! Of course it is entirely possible for ATR to be a Trinitarian because he understands the Greek and the writer’s intent. In fact why is it that most all credible Greek Grammarians are Trinitarian?   WJ For the same reason that Satan is the most well-known trinitarian of them all.

Paladin

Ha Ha! Your claim is circular. The facts are they know more about the Greek than you do.

Once again most all credible Greek scholars are Trintiarian.

Why should we believe you over them?

I know in whom I have believed and my Jesus is not a mere man as yours is. My Jesus claimed mere men were from beneath and he was from above.

Blessings!

WJ

[Paladin]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 22 2011,03:11)

Quote (Paladin @ June 21 2011,08:25) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 11 2011,02:54) Quote (Paladin @ June 10 2011,10:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 11 2011,01:15) Hi All I think the Greek of a world renowned Greek Grammarian like AT Robertson out ways any of the anti-preexistence chatter I have seen in this thread. John 17:5… With thine own self (para seautwi). “By the side of thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. Matthew 1:1 ) enjoyed before the Incarnation ( John 1:14 ). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father's side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (h eicon, imperfect active of ecw, I used to have, with attraction of case of hn to h because of doxh), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” (cf. verse John 24 ). It is small wonder that those who deny or reject the deity of Jesus Christ have trouble with the Johannine authorship of this book and with the genuineness of these words. But even Harnack admits that the words here and in verse John 24 are “undoubtedly the reflection of the certainty with which Jesus himself spoke” (What Is Christianity, Engl. Tr., p. 132). But Paul, as clearly as John, believes in the actual pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ ( Philippians 2:5-11 ). Blessings Keith What else would you expect from a trinitarian grammarian? A.T.Robertson: A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament; p-135 – “logos is applied to Christ in Jo.1:1…” Even ATR was wrong about that one. You will not find “Christ” in John 1 till verse 17; a bit late to say it is in verse 1. Hi Paladin So you say! Of course it is entirely possible for ATR to be a Trinitarian because he understands the Greek and the writer’s intent. In fact why is it that most all credible Greek Grammarians are Trinitarian?   WJ For the same reason that Satan is the most well-known trinitarian of them all. Paladin Ha Ha! Your claim is circular. The facts are they know more about the Greek than you do. Once again most all credible Greek scholars are Trintiarian. Why should we believe you over them? I know in whom I have believed and my Jesus is not a mere man as yours is. My Jesus claimed mere men were from beneath and he was from above. Blessings! WJ

“Mere” man is YOUR conclusion, not mine. I have never stated any such nonsense. The only place you will ever find
“mere man” in one of my posts, is when I quote it in someone else's post in rebuttal.

Now, let's test your statement.

How many trinitarian scholars are there?

How manynon-trinitarian scholars are there?

You must know this to make such a statement as

Quote

most all credible Greek Grammarians are Trinitarian

You cannot possibly make such a statement unjless you know how many are in each category; and give evidence that causes you to express your conclusion.

Otherwise it falls into the same category as the rest of your Greek testimony; i.e., rhetoric and speculation.

[Paladin]

Quote (Ed J @ June 19 2011,23:41)

Quote (Paladin @ May 11 2011,09:35) Jesus is called “son of God” 188 times in 74 verses in the N.T. Jesus is called “Son of man” 274 times in 97 verses in the N.T. Hi Paladin, We don't always agree, but we should always seek to agree (here's an example). This information (you gave) should “PROVE” to you there is something to my research. This, I believe, was your spirit trying to tell you to reconsider my research; which you initially scoffed at. (See Matt.21:28-30) “Son of God”(74) equals “74” and “Son of Man”(97) equals “97”. However, your information has proven to be 'faulty'.   … I checked! (1Thess.5:21) “Son of man” is written in 84 verses in the N.T.; and 192 verses in all. “Son of God” is written in 46 verses in the N.T.; and 47 verses in all. 1Thess.5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. TOO BAD your info wasn't correct, I could have used it! Your brother in Christ, Jesus! Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

I have no idea what you just said, but i thank you for the correction.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Paladin @ June 21 2011,11:31)

You cannot possibly make such a statement unjless you know how many are in each category; and give evidence that causes you to express your conclusion.

Hi Paladin

Sure I can, just as you can make the claim that you’re Greek is better and more honest than AT Robertson’s is.

You said..

Quote

What else would you expect from a trinitarian grammarian? A.T.Robertson: A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament; p-135 – “logos is applied to Christ in Jo.1:1…” Even ATR was wrong about that one. You will not find “Christ” in John 1 till verse 17; a bit late to say it is in verse 1.

Can you prove AT Robertson and the Trinitarian scholars are dishonest? Of course you can't, in fact you cannot provide one credible scholar that disagrees with AT Robertson’s Greek on John 1:1 and John 6:38. All you have is your own opinions based on your own doctrine.

I said “MOST” known Greek Grammarians are Trinitarian and the fact that you never quote anything but the Trinitarians Greek is proof of my statement.

You want exact numbers? Do your own research and you will see that most Biblical works like Biblical commentaries, dictionaries. concordances, and translations were done by Trinitarians. I thought you would know this.

Why don't you ever quote known credible sources for your own Greek assumptions and conclusions?

Quote (Paladin @ June 21 2011,11:31)

Otherwise it falls into the same category as the rest of your Greek testimony; i.e., rhetoric and speculation.

Ha Ha! And that is another circular statement especially since you have no backing by any experts of your own rhetoric and speculation.

You said…

Quote

For the same reason that Satan is the most well-known trinitarian of them all.

It is pitiful that you would make a broad statement like that! But such ad hominems come as a result of weak and broken down arguments.

We know who the accuser of the brethren is,  don't we?

Show us your proof and numbers that what you say are true, otherwise all you have is your own speculations and conclusions based on Paladins exclusive Greek and doctrine!

WJ

[terraricca]

Quote (Pastry @ June 22 2011,04:54)

If there are that many errors in the KJ Bible, then you might as well throw the Bible in the garbage can.  What makes anyone think that they are right and the translators who learned or even are Greek are wrong?  Besides are they not then accountable for what they did?  They will be punished twice as severe, and they want to take that chance? That is hard to believe……Also if they believe in the trinity, why did they then put those Scriptures in the Bible that proves that Jesus had a beginning as a Spirit Being and didn't always existed……Irene

Hi Irene

glad you are out for now and feeling not to bad,

yes you are right but some people here like to fencing for a bag of peanuts

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 20 2011,07:59)

Please tell us How a WORD can BE FLESH,

Gene,

I've already told you this 100 times. If the spokesman for the King of Abyssinia can be called “the word of the king”, then the spokesman for God could also be called “the Word of God”. And a SPOKESMAN of God, who was existing in the form of God, CAN literally BECOME FLESH.

Jesus IS the Word of God, Gene. Not one thing came into existence without him, and THEN he BECAME flesh, not “came to be IN someone who was flesh”. And later, he BECAME a life giving spirit.

How do you believe that God can turn flesh into spirit, but not spirit into flesh? Is God limited?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ June 21 2011,04:10)

Of course you do Mike, why all the false disclaimers? People who really don't care don't come online to demonstrate how much they don't care.

Paladin,

Read my words more carefully.  I will bold the important word in this statement for you:

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2011 @ 13:41)

I don't really care any more what you believe.

If ever you decide to take me up on the Q and A, 250 words or less debate, let me know.  I would LOVE to show you how mistaken you are one point at a time, but it's too time-consuming for me to do that in the public thread.  I've done it several times already, but every time I expend that much effort chasing you around and around until I've finally cornered you and proved you to be wrong, you don't admit it, but instead you ignore the point completely and start in with a DIFFERENT misunderstanding you have about the Greek language.

Let's take one of your more recent misunderstandings, for example:

You BOLDLY claimed that the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibited Jesus from talking about a glory he once had, but then didn't have.

I PROVED YOU TO BE WRONG, but what did you do?  Did you say, “Sorry Mike, I was mistaken.  Thanks for correcting me.” ?  No, you just pretended that we never even had that extremely long, drawn out discussion, and that I didn't jump through miles and miles of hoops and circling and diversions just to nail you down to the fact YOU WERE WRONG.  

But I DID expend that effort, man.  It DID take a lot of MY time and effort and study and prayer to answer your every little point AND diversion.  And for what?  For you to admit you were mistaken?  Or for you to walk on by like the discussion never even happened?  So why should I spend my time on someone like that?  You've done the same with “whether”, “I came down from heaven”, “above every name”, “his name is called” and many, MANY others.

So while I would dearly LOVE to point out your flawed understandings in your most recent post, I don't have the time, patience, or temperament to do it on this thread, where we are talking about many subjects at once – because you run me in miles of circles when we're only discussing ONE subject at a time.

So let me know if you're interested in learning with me in a Q and A, 250 words or less debate.  If not, then pay close attention to the word “YOU” in my quote above.

peace,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ June 20 2011,06:19)

The new tree is both a root and branch of the parent tree.

So then the ORIGINAL tree came FROM the NEW tree?  

A NEW tree is NEVER the ROOT of an already existing tree.  It can come FROM the roots of the older tree, but it is not the root OF that older tree.

And if Jesus was using BOTH words to claim the same thing, then he was in essence saying, “I am the descendent AND the descendent of David”.

When one uses the conjunction “AND” to list two identical things, people are quick to point out that he is being redundant.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ June 20 2011,06:21)

Do you mean like when you say “give me the glory I had beside you? Or do you mean when you say “Give me the glory I had in your peresence?”

Paladin,

Do you truly not know the difference between translating a Greek word into one of the many authenticated meanings OF that word, and ADDING your OWN words into the scriptures?

“In your presence” and “beside” ARE two of many legitimate definitions AND meanings of the word “para”. (See how that was redundant?)

It is these kinds of mind-numbing games that I've grown tired of.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2011,13:21)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 20 2011,07:59) Please tell us How a WORD can BE FLESH, Gene, I've already told you this 100 times.  If the spokesman for the King of Abyssinia can be called “the word of the king”, then the spokesman for God could also be called “the Word of God”.  And a SPOKESMAN of God, who was existing in the form of God, CAN literally BECOME FLESH. Jesus IS the Word of God, Gene.  Not one thing came into existence without him, and THEN he BECAME flesh, not “came to be IN someone who was flesh”.  And later, he BECAME a life giving spirit. How do you believe that God can turn flesh into spirit, but not spirit into flesh?  Is God limited?

Mike. YOU could be called the word of truth. But I have never heard you so called. Are you the word of truth?

It is not a matter of what some arbitrarily assigned title was for some remote emmisary, it is a matter of whether scripture ever assign “the logos of God” to Jesus, the man. It does not.

Some folks argue “Well, it could mean…” with a selection of possibilities that are never what “it” could mean.

another favored argument is “Well, it doesn't say it couldn't be…” with a selection of what it could possibly have been.

None of whih have anything to do with reality. The poiont of fact we need to focus on is, Jesus is never called “the logos of God” regardless of your emmisary who was called “the word of the king.”

Do you have any record of others who are called “the word of…(fill in your favorite title)?” How does that make a difference? What effect does the titles made by men have on the titles designed by God?

It is an empty argument.

[Ed J]

Quote (Paladin @ June 22 2011,04:50)

Quote (Ed J @ June 19 2011,23:41) Quote (Paladin @ May 11 2011,09:35) Jesus is called “son of God” 188 times in 74 verses in the N.T. Jesus is called “Son of man” 274 times in 97 verses in the N.T. Hi Paladin, We don't always agree, but we should always seek to agree (here's an example). This information (you gave) should “PROVE” to you there is something to my research. This, I believe, was your spirit trying to tell you to reconsider my research; which you initially scoffed at. (See Matt.21:28-30) “Son of God”(74) equals “74” and “Son of Man”(97) equals “97”. However, your information has proven to be 'faulty'.   … I checked! (1Thess.5:21) “Son of man” is written in 84 verses in the N.T.; and 192 verses in all. “Son of God” is written in 46 verses in the N.T.; and 47 verses in all. 1Thess.5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. TOO BAD your info wasn't correct, I could have used it! Your brother in Christ, Jesus! Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org I have no idea what you just said, but i thank you for the correction.

Hi Paladin,

Son of God has a “Theomatic” value of 74,
as the number 74 associates to “Jesus”(=74).
This was the point I was making: See this thread

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Paladin]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 22 2011,03:11)

Quote (Paladin @ June 21 2011,08:25) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 11 2011,02:54) Quote (Paladin @ June 10 2011,10:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 11 2011,01:15) Hi All I think the Greek of a world renowned Greek Grammarian like AT Robertson out ways any of the anti-preexistence chatter I have seen in this thread. John 17:5… With thine own self (para seautwi). “By the side of thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. Matthew 1:1 ) enjoyed before the Incarnation ( John 1:14 ). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father's side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (h eicon, imperfect active of ecw, I used to have, with attraction of case of hn to h because of doxh), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” (cf. verse John 24 ). It is small wonder that those who deny or reject the deity of Jesus Christ have trouble with the Johannine authorship of this book and with the genuineness of these words. But even Harnack admits that the words here and in verse John 24 are “undoubtedly the reflection of the certainty with which Jesus himself spoke” (What Is Christianity, Engl. Tr., p. 132). But Paul, as clearly as John, believes in the actual pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ ( Philippians 2:5-11 ). Blessings Keith What else would you expect from a trinitarian grammarian? A.T.Robertson: A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament; p-135 – “logos is applied to Christ in Jo.1:1…” Even ATR was wrong about that one. You will not find “Christ” in John 1 till verse 17; a bit late to say it is in verse 1. Hi Paladin So you say! Of course it is entirely possible for ATR to be a Trinitarian because he understands the Greek and the writer’s intent. In fact why is it that most all credible Greek Grammarians are Trinitarian?   WJ For the same reason that Satan is the most well-known trinitarian of them all. Paladin Ha Ha! Your claim is circular. The facts are they know more about the Greek than you do. Once again most all credible Greek scholars are Trintiarian. Why should we believe you over them? I know in whom I have believed and my Jesus is not a mere man as yours is. My Jesus claimed mere men were from beneath and he was from above. Blessings! WJ

Because I do not accept a translation that is based upon two manuscripts, one of which was “discovered” in a trash receptacle in the Vatican.

Westcott & Hort made the translation, and it became the most popular because it is the easiest to research.

ATR used is as the basis for his Greek Grammar. That is not “Scholarship” that is a disaster, scholastically.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ June 23 2011,07:16)

The poiont of fact we need to focus on is, Jesus is never called “the logos of God” regardless of your emmisary who was called “the word of the king.”

Okay then, let's do just that. Should I set up the debate thread?

[Ed J]

Hi Mike,

If Paladin agrees, should you not set it up as “groups”?

God bless  
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Author]

Posts