- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Keith said to Mike:
Quote And you are a liar to be calling me dishonest when you have not proven anything except the opinions of a couple of scholars.
Give Mike a tile Keith. He can't take his integrity being called into question but he can surely question the integrity of others.
Mike has no business being a moderator because he participates way too much in way too many discussions to keep his objectivity.A moderator by definition does not participate or participates in the very least. A compotent moderator would never himself call someone's integrity into question but would correct those who do.
Get lost Mike! Find another playground! Or if you continue to play here then resign as moderator.
Jack
TO ALL,
It has been shown that after God created the first male and female of our species he called them both collectively “the adam.” The woman was more than an adam with her own individuality. She was also “the adam” together with her male counterpart.
Individuality was viewed within the context of community in ancient thought.
Quote Personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of “person” as used in the English language—it does not imply an “individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity.”[17] To the ancients, personhood “was in some sense individual, but always in community as well.”[17]p.186 In the Trinity doctrine, each person is understood as having the same identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures. The being of Christ can be said to have dominated theological discussions and councils of the church through the 7th century, and resulted in the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds, the Ephesine Formula of 431 AD, and the Christological statement of the Epistola Dogmatica of Leo I to Flavianus. From these councils, the following christological doctrines were condemned as heresies: Ebionism, Docetism, Basilidianism, Alogism or Artemonism, Patripassianism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrinityThe Son is identified as 'ho theos' (the God) WITH THE FATHER in Hebrews 1:8, 10.
Therefore, the God, your the God has anointed you” (Vs. 10).
If both the Son and the Father may be identified as 'the God' in the same breath, then there should be no problem with the Word being identified as '[the] God' with 'the God' in John 1:1.
I maintain with Brooks that a proper name by its very nature is definite. The word 'theos' used twice in John 1:1 is definite with and without the article because 'theos' is a proper name.
“Theoretically a proper name should not need an article because it is by its very nature definite” (Syntax of New Testament Greek, James A. Brooks, page 75).
Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 21 2011,08:02)
But those trinitarian scholars, are indicating “a god” as a possibility as in the context of a triune God imo.
That's fine. I'm asking if they're admitting it's possible PERIOD. I'm not asking why, or whether you agree with them. I'm asking if THEY are saying “a god” is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE in 1:1c.Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 21 2011,08:02)
You are indicating it was more.
I have not yet begun to “indicate” anything at all. You guys are having the debate without me so far.
Because I won't even begin until we've all agree that “a god” is a GRAMMATICALLY POSSSIBLE translation of 1:1c. Mark, did you know that Murray Harris goes on to say the “a god” translation is CONTEXTUALLY impossible because it would promote polytheism? You see, I'm not even discussing that right now. I just want everyone on board with the UNDENIABLE FACT that there is no Greek grammar rule in the history of the world that would prohibit the indefinite article in 1:1c. Once we're all on board, we'll start the actual debate about which translation is “correct” and why.Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 21 2011,08:02)
To add “a” is the subject of personal interpretation
Right you are. And it is added 8432 times in the AKJV. Again, I'm not asking if it's YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION that it SHOULD BE added, I'm only asking you to acknowledge that there's no rule of grammar that prohibits it.Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 21 2011,08:02)
Therefore, I do not think it was the correct translation to put the “a” before God,
Once again, it's not yet about what YOU THINK. It will be, soon enough, and we'll go through everyone's thoughts and reasons. But right now, it's only about whether it's GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE.Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 21 2011,08:02)
In the context you imply, it is not possible. In my opinion.
Once again, we have yet to begin discussing our opinions and context. We are only clearing the air about the “a” being GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE.Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 21 2011,08:02)
I answered you question honestly. Now please answer mine. What does it mean for you to believe it means “a God”? How many “Gods” would there be?(capital G)
You have yet to actually answer my question, Mark. The answer to my question requires a simple “YES” or “NO”. And the correct answer is in the words of the scholars I quoted. The question is only about if it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE. These two Trinitarians scholars both think it is CONTEXTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. But they both admit it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE. And that's all I'm asking about right now. In other words, Mark, do you know of any Greek rule of grammar that would PROHIBIT the “a” in 1:1c? If so, please quote that rule. If not, then just acknowledge what the accomplished and published Trinitarian scholars I quoted have acknowledged: That it IS GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE.Once we're all in agreement on this CLEAR, UNDENIABLE, and IRREFUTABLE FACT, I will answer any of your questions you ask during the course of our discussion about the CONTEXTUALLY CORRECT rendering of 1:1c, okay?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 21 2011,08:25) Prove the claim that every Greek Scholar teaches the “a” in grammar which includes context is possible in John 1:1c.
NO KEITH! Grammar does NOT include context. I posted the definition of grammar from Dictionary.com, and no mention of “context”. Not to mention that Murray Harris says it IS grammatically possible but not contextually possible.This is the whole quote. (Dennison found it. I only quoted the part that was printed in Wikipedia):
Murray J. Harris
“From the point of view of grammar alone, qeoV hn`o logoV could be rendered 'the Word was a god'…But the theological context, viz., John's monotheism, makes this rendering of 1:1c impossible“Do you see it, Keith? From grammar alone, it IS possible. Yet he feels that from the point of view of CONTEXT, it is not.
My question has NOTHING to do with context, and never has. My question has to do with GRAMMAR ALONE.
mike
Once again Jack,
You are posting the same things you've been posting. And not one of the things you've posted mentions any Greek rule of grammar that would PROHIBIT the indefinte article in 1:1c.
On the other hand, I have posted three very accomplished, learned and published scholars who say the indefinite article IS grammatically possible in 1:1c.
You know what really bites, Jack? The fact that you KNOW this to be true. You KNOW the “a” has been added over 1000 times in the NT. You KNOW there is no rule saying it can't be added in 1:1c. You KNOW all this, yet you still rebel. This is from my post to Dennison. It describes what you're doing to a “T”:
When someone starts from a position of being so afraid that an honest answer might jeopardize their “stronghold”, and so they must be deceptive or dishonest or diversive, then what does that really say about that person AND their “strong doctrine”?
If your doctrine was so “strong”, you would be able to admit the truth like your trinitarian brethren I've quoted, who have both FORGOTTEN more about the Greek language than you'll ever know.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 21 2011,08:33) Mike And you are a liar to be calling me dishonest when you have not proven anything except the opinions of a couple of scholars
No Keith,An OPINION is when those scholars tell us why they chose NOT to use the “a god” translation.
A FACT is when there is no rule of Greek grammar PROHIBITING the use of “a god”.
They have both published their OPINIONS, and this FACT.
Besides Keith, I'm not even asking you if these guys are right. I'm asking if, ACCORDING TO THEM, the “a god” translation is possible. And since they both CLEARLY say it is, then ACCORDING TO THEM, it is possible.
Am I wrong?
mike
From the “God among gods” thread:
Quote Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2011,19:37) Mike, Mike, Mike,
Looking at your question more closely, you are asking what your quoted 'experts' say about the 'a' being grammatically possible and not my opinion. Obviously, they say that it is…so yes, the 'experts' you quoted say that it is grammatically possible.
Praise Jah! Two weeks I've been asking. Kathi comes back, and within ONE DAY she is able to give the ONLY POSSIBLE answer to the question!Take note D, and Keith and Jack and Mark! See how it's done?
Thanks Kathi, and I assure you that you can Google either one of these guys and view the accolades and professorships and awards, etc. that they've been given. Btw, neither of them think “a god” is the way to go. In fact, Harris opines that “a god” is contextually impossible because it would promote polytheism. Nevertheless, there is no Greek rule of grammar prohibiting “a god”, which makes it completely grammatically possible. And that is rung #1. Once these “Jesus is God” people decide to answer the same question as honestly and directly as you did, we'll start the “race to the top of the ladder”.
If they don't answer after a couple of more days, I'll just write my own essay about it, and post it.
peace and love,
mikeSee how it's done, guys? An honest question deserves an honest answer.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,20:07) From the “God among gods” thread: Quote Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2011,19:37) Mike, Mike, Mike,
Looking at your question more closely, you are asking what your quoted 'experts' say about the 'a' being grammatically possible and not my opinion. Obviously, they say that it is…so yes, the 'experts' you quoted say that it is grammatically possible.
Praise Jah! Two weeks I've been asking. Kathi comes back, and within ONE DAY she is able to give the ONLY POSSIBLE answer to the question!Take note D, and Keith and Jack and Mark! See how it's done?
Thanks Kathi, and I assure you that you can Google either one of these guys and view the accolades and professorships and awards, etc. that they've been given. Btw, neither of them think “a god” is the way to go. In fact, Harris opines that “a god” is contextually impossible because it would promote polytheism. Nevertheless, there is no Greek rule of grammar prohibiting “a god”, which makes it completely grammatically possible. And that is rung #1. Once these “Jesus is God” people decide to answer the same question as honestly and directly as you did, we'll start the “race to the top of the ladder”.
If they don't answer after a couple of more days, I'll just write my own essay about it, and post it.
peace and love,
mikeSee how it's done, guys? An honest question deserves an honest answer.
Mikeonly a honest person can give a honest answer.
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 21 2011,20:54) Mike only a honest person can give a honest answer.
Pierre
Hi Pierre,You know, Kathi and I have gone round and round about many subjects we disagree on. We've gotten to the point that we had to break away from the discussion for awhile because we were both getting so mad and frustrated with each other.
But in all that time, she has never lied about anything we've discussed. She interprets some scriptures differently than I do, and therefore comes to a different understanding, but she doesn't ever lie. Nor do I.
I've asked a very straightforward question of these fellows on this thread, yet not one of them seems to be able to come up with the answer that Kathi gave, when it's the ONLY HONEST ONE AVAILABLE.
mike
Massage your ego all you want. GRAMMITICLY POSSIBLE. Out of your own words, you say “a” was ADDED. It is therefor impossible to translate WITHOUT ADDING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST IN THE LANGUAGE IT IS TRANSLATED FROM. Like you say, quite simple.
Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 22 2011,07:44) Massage your ego all you want. GRAMMITICLY POSSIBLE. Out of your own words, you say “a” was ADDED. It is therefor impossible to translate WITHOUT ADDING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST IN THE LANGUAGE IT IS TRANSLATED FROM. Like you say, quite simple.
Yes Mark,And since it IS grammatically possible to add the “a” 8432 other places, show me from your great Greek expertise how it is NOT grammatically possible to add in this one verse. Show me the Greek or English rule of grammar that prohibits it.
Can you do that? Or are you only able to blow smoke?
mike
Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 22 2011,07:45) No
If this “NO” is in response to my question, then you're falling behind the rest. Kathi has immediately answered truthfully. Keith has FINALLY answered truthfully. By holding out, you are doing two things:1. Drawing even more attention to the fact that you are unable or unwilling to answer a simple question truthfully because you don't like the truthful answer.
2. Turning me into a wall. In other words, either answer the question with the ONLY HONEST answer there is, or don't bother posting to me in this thread anymore. I have no time for people who aren't willing to be honest in the discussion.
mike
I brought this post over from the “God among gods” thread, so we can keep this discussion on the original thread.
Quote Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,17:12)
Since the answer wasn't what you wanted to hear you reworded it as your normal manner is too…
Yes Keith,That's how I have to do things with people like you. I've in fact re-worded it five different times. But the one you've finally answered TRUTHFULLY today is the one you've answered UNTRUTHFULLY at least twice already. And yet YOU have the gall to call ME dishonest for calling YOU dishonest? YOU were the one who was BEING dishonest. Thank you for finally ceasing to be mistaken instead of ceasing to be honest.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,17:12)
The answer would still be “NO” it is not “grammatically possible” BUT ACCORDING TO THESE FEW SCHOLARS, “YES” THEY SAY it could be.
I'll take that for now. I'll move this answer and my follow up question to the “Freak Greek” thread.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,17:12)
Now an honest question for you Mike…According to Dr Mantey is “a god” a grammatically permissible translation?
Hopefully you will not twist my words.
I don't play with words and avoid questions like you do, Keith. I don't have to play games like that, for I have the truth on my side. Please list the link to where you got this quote on the “Freak Greek” thread, and after reading it in context, I'll give you an immediate and HONEST answer. (The reason is that I don't think he's saying “a god” is grammatically impossible at all, but it's hard to tell from that sentence you quoted.)See ya on the Freak Greek thread. I only brought this subject to this thread because D was afraid to venture into the other thread. I don't want to have the same discussion in three or four different threads. You understand, right?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,17:12)
The answer would still be “NO” it is not “grammatically possible” BUT ACCORDING TO THESE FEW SCHOLARS, “YES” THEY SAY it could be.
And two of the three VERY ACCOMPLISHED scholars I quoted are die-hard Trinitarians who consider it a montrousity for 1:1c to be translated as “a god”. But they both acknowledge that it IS grammatically possible. And in light of the fact that you have NO Greek scholars saying it is a complete grammatical IMPOSSIBILITY to translate 1:1c as “a god”, we'll go with the general concensus of available scholars who have commented on it in clear, undeniable terms such as “cannot be faulted” and “is possible”.Now that we all know it IS a grammatical possibility, whether some of us like it or not, are we ready to move on?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,17:12)
According to Dr Mantey is “a god” a grammatically permissible translation?
I will await the link to see his quote in context, Keith. But right off the top of my head, I easily notice that the word “permissable” is not the word “impossible”. I'll give you an IMMEDIATE and HONEST answer as soon as you post the link.mike
This is a lot of hoop la for not really making a difference. The word was an only begotten God…the word was the only begotten God…the word was God, the only begotten one. All three ways are my paraphrase written in light of v. 18 to give an understanding why the articles aren't what's important here, imo. John 1:18 is a complimentary verse to show one God with the other God…one begotten and the other unbegotten. Both John 1:1 and John 1:18 present two different persons as theos and this understanding easily reconciles this. Ok!
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,12:27) This is a lot of hoop la for not really making a difference. The word was an only begotten God…the word was the only begotten God…the word was God, the only begotten one. All three ways are my paraphrase written in light of v. 18 to give an understanding why the articles aren't what's important here, imo. John 1:18 is a complimentary verse to show one God with the other God…one begotten and the other unbegotten. Both John 1:1 and John 1:18 present two different persons as theos and this understanding easily reconciles this. Ok!
Aye??Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2011,19:52) Mike,
The 'God' of 1:1b is the unbegotten God
Right. And that God was WITH the Word, right? So the Word was obviously not that God, right?mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
