Exposing freak greek

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Wispring @ Mar. 24 2011,03:58)

Hi Mike, hehe. I have a thought as to where you are going with this, but, since you are “in the temple” I will wait and see.                                                                    With Love and Respect,                                                                              Wispring

Hi Wispring,

Welcome aboard sailor! I'm swamped and in need of another bailer!

mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,17:22)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,17:11) Ok Keith, I thought that is what was meant.  So the 'everything' pertains to nature only, right? Kathi Hi Kathi Nature, qualities, attributes, being, essence, substance, Yes. The essence of God (or that which distinguishes God from creation) is “Eternal”. Jesus is “…the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature”…, (being, essence, substance), the NIV has it “being”“. Heb 1:3 God the Father has never been without the “radiance of His Glory”, has he? As Thayer states… One prime example to consider is Thayer’s comments on Colossians 2:9 which states that “…in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” In his Greek English Lexicon, “Thayer notes that the Greek word for Deity (theotes) used in this verse means “deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col. ii.9.”11. Source So whatever “being”, God is, Jesus is.   WJ

Hi Keith,
It is that word 'being' that I need clarification on because, for example, you said:

Quote

I am everything in nature my Father was and is, “man”.

Are you saying that the Son is the same being that the Father is or the same type of being that the Father is?

Also, could you please clarify who the 'God' is in John 1:1b which has the definite article with theos?  Is the God, in your understanding, the triune God who is made up of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?  Or is the 'God' in 1:1b the Father?  

Kathi

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,08:36)

That means that over 1000 scholars signed off their reputations that the correct rendering of John 1:1c is anarthrous.

And we all know that majority rules, right?  Which makes me wonder why the road leading off into everlasting life is narrow, and few are the ones finding it………instead of broad, with the MAJORITY finding it – like the road leading off into destruction.

Keith, you haven't yet posted what Dr. Mantley even says about 1:1 in his book on Greek grammar.  Do that first, and then we'll talk.  (I'll bet, since whatever he said was used by JW's to support their “a god” translation, it isn't as damaging to my view as you lead us to believe.  )

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,16:08)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,16:53) Was the theos in 1:1b the Heavenly Father? Kathi No. But being a Father has nothing to do with being human in nature.

So Keith,

1:1 can't possibly mean that Jesus was “EVERYTHING that God was the Word was”, because as Kathi points out, the Word was not a Father.  There are many other things the Father is that the Word is not, but for right now, just tell me this:  HOW DO YOU KNOW?  I mean, what scripture is it that tells you the simple single word “theos” in 1:1c means “EVERYTHING that God was the Word was”?

And how do you reconcile this against the many scriptural facts that prove it flawed?  For example, the fact that Jesus is a BEGOTTEN god, while the Father is from everlasting to everlasting?  Or the fact that death at one time DID hold power over Jesus, while death has NEVER held any power over the Father?  Or the fact that the Word worships the same God as we do and calls Him “my God” to this very day?

These are just a couple off the top of my head………..there are many more.  I think your “EVERYTHING that God was the Word was” claim is merely wishful thinking on your part without one ounce of support.  

mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 24 2011,19:11)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,23:17) Regarding this: Quote “In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with Adam, and Cain was Adam.” Uggg! Is this going to go on and on because this is not a perfect comparison It's not “PERFECT”?    What a cop out!  I was hoping you'd be willing to acknowledge what this exercise teaches us.  We started with an IDEA that Cain, who is the son of Adam, was with Adam in the beginning, and was also a member of mankind.  He was the son of Adam, not Adam himself.  And as Cain's father, Adam was undoubtedly older, smarter, and stronger.   But what we ended up with was a confusing sentence that claimed not only that was Cain WITH Adam, but Cain also WAS Adam.  Can you not see that?  And if you can, can you not acknowledge it? But let's see…………Adam was A man.  Cain was A man.  And since we CAN add the indefinite article “a” to the Greek words when needed for clarification, doesn't it convey the original IDEA better to say, “Cain was with THE Adam, and Cain was AN adam”?  See?  No more confusion about Cain possibly being WITH Adam and BEING Adam at the same time. Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,23:17) Bottom line, the word was God.  God should be capital because that particular word carries a sense of divinity when capitalized and other than divinity when not capitalized, as I would read it. Okay then, I would expect you to use Moffatt's translation any time you quote John 1:1.  Because YOU think the theos in 1:1c simply means “divine”, so go ahead and say it that way.  Why make pointed statements like, “Bottom line, the word was God” and “God should be capital” when you think that second theos only means divine?  If you don't think it refers to “THE God”, then why insist on a wording and a capital “G” that confuses many into thinking it DOES refer to “THE God” of 1:1b? The problem is that what YOU think is not what most trinitarians have been brainwashed to think.  They have been brainwashed to think 1:1 is absolute proof that Jesus IS “THE God” mentioned in 1:1b.  And this brainwashing has been even more effectively enforced by the additions of words that have no place in John 1:1.  It isn't bad enough that they omit the “THE” of 1:1b, omit the much needed “A” of 1:1c, and cap the “G” in the god of 1:1c.  No, that's not enough for these twisters of scripture.  Now they're starting to add their own words in.  The CEV says, “the Word was TRULY God”.    Where did the word “TRULY” come from?  The NET says “FULLY God”.   Now you know who I'M fighting against………and why.  Not someone like you, who understands Jesus is a god who is NOT the Most High God Jehovah, and therefore understands the theos in 1:1c as conveying “divinity”.  No, I fight against these butchers of scripture for whom “enough” will never be “enough”.  They will just keep butchering and butchering.  Check out the NIV.  In two years, they've reworded many of their renderings to make their version more “trinity friendly”.  Compare a 1980's NIV with the online one of today.  What a crock! mike

Hi Mike,
You may feel like I have not answered your every thought and it is not because I don't love you, but it is because I don't want to keep going around and around with this. The addition of an 'a/an' in John 1:1c opens the possibility of there being others. Two are already established in 1:1b and there is no need of adding the 'a/an' because there aren't others. You know that the NWT thinks of the Son in this way, as among the other small g gods, so obviously the addition of the 'a' lends the verse to their understanding more than without the 'a' not that the 'a' has to mean their understanding. In other words, the 'a' and the small 'g' more easily opens up the door to those who want to place the “Word” in the group of small 'g' gods…the Word does not belong there. That is why I believe the 'a' should be left out. I do agree that the article should be put in the 1:1b part.

Quote

Now you know who I'M fighting against………and why.  Not someone like you, who understands Jesus is a god who is NOT the Most High God Jehovah, and therefore understands the theos in 1:1c as conveying “divinity”.

Let me clarify what I understand…Jesus is God as the only begotten God…very God of/from very God, not a god as you want to insist. Also, I believe that the only begotten Son is the Most High God Jehovah, the Son and He is not the Most High God Jehovah, the Father. Please take note of this Mike, thanks.

Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,17:22)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,17:11) Ok Keith, I thought that is what was meant.  So the 'everything' pertains to nature only, right? Kathi Hi Kathi Nature, qualities, attributes, being, essence, substance, Yes. The essence of God (or that which distinguishes God from creation) is “Eternal”. Jesus is “…the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature”…, (being, essence, substance), the NIV has it “being”“. Heb 1:3 God the Father has never been without the “radiance of His Glory”, has he? As Thayer states… One prime example to consider is Thayer’s comments on Colossians 2:9 which states that “…in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” In his Greek English Lexicon, “Thayer notes that the Greek word for Deity (theotes) used in this verse means “deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col. ii.9.”11. Source So whatever “being”, God is, Jesus is.   WJ

Hi Keith,
I understand that the essence of God must be eternal or it is the essence of something else. Perhaps the essence of God was always in the form of a son within the form of a Father but the essence in the form of a Son was kept within the Father until it was begotten during eternity. In that manner, the Father was always a Father but the Son had not been begotten yet. Why would the Son need to have been begotten before He was needed to be begotten?

Kathi

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,19:34)

Two are already established in 1:1b and there is no need of adding the 'a/an' because there aren't others.

Two WHAT?

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,19:34)

Jesus is God as the only begotten God…very God of/from very God, not a god as you want to insist.

See?  Your answer to my first question will show how your second quote is flawed.  

Psalm 68:20
Our God is a God who saves; from the Sovereign LORD comes escape from death.
Jehovah is A god.  Jesus is A god.  Satan is A god.  Scriptures say so, and so do you.  You say that Jesus is the only begotten god, who is NOT the only unbegotten God, right?  So what do we have?  TWO gods, one begotten, the other not.

I await your response to my post that followed this one you responded to.

mike

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 24 2011,13:03)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 24 2011,18:51) Anything can be made Possible, But Truth is Distinctly a Fact SF, Exaxtly! Mike is just trying to keep this “possibilities” diversion going to escape the truth. KJ

KJ,

Actually its a never ending cycle of Possibilities that not one of you have to waste your time on.

In other words, your spending your time on debating what “could be” when its NOT.

Its as simple as that.
You dont need to prove the scholars or bring up any other line of reasoning.

In fact dont even defend yourself, because it is what it is.

All you guys are doing is playing Twister with the likes of a old man who is so colorblind that he expects you to make him believe Blue is blue.

Why waste your time? IF he believes so much in is theory, than let me him prove it. THAN lets get to it, and destroy the alternative theology.

KJ and Keith you guys waste so much time defending yourselfs when somtimes the best Defense is an Offense.
Right now, find out what Mike believes send it swimming with the Fishes and let it be the end of it.

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2011,05:28)

Quote (Wispring @ Mar. 24 2011,03:58) Hi Mike, hehe. I have a thought as to where you are going with this, but, since you are “in the temple” I will wait and see.                                                                    With Love and Respect,                                                                              Wispring Hi Wispring, Welcome aboard sailor!  I'm swamped and in need of another bailer!   mike

Ya Mike believes he is one of Many gods

[kerwin]

To all,

This is a vain argument since the Hebrew word “elohim” is translated to the Greek word “theos” and “elohim” can mean either “God” or “a god”.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 24 2011,21:14)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,19:34) Two are already established in 1:1b and there is no need of adding the 'a/an' because there aren't others. Two WHAT? Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,19:34) Jesus is God as the only begotten God…very God of/from very God, not a god as you want to insist. See?  Your answer to my first question will show how your second quote is flawed.   Psalm 68:20 Our God is a God who saves; from the Sovereign LORD comes escape from death. Jehovah is A god.  Jesus is A god.  Satan is A god.  Scriptures say so, and so do you.  You say that Jesus is the only begotten god, who is NOT the only unbegotten God, right?  So what do we have?  TWO gods, one begotten, the other not. I await your response to my post that followed this one you responded to. mike

Mike,
If theos was never translated and capitalized then perhaps we wouldn't be butting heads so much on this but since they have made a distinction by capitalizing the G or not then we have to come to an understanding as to what the deciding factor should be in whether or not the 'g' gets capitalized.  True?

I think capital 'G' when theos is about supreme deity.  I see the Father as supreme deity as the Father; and the Son as supreme deity as the Son of that Father.  They are two supreme persons but only one is the Father and the other is the Son…together they are in an intimate unity within one Godhead, they are in agreement with one truth and one love, one nature…and more.  As the Father, there are roles that He has that the Son doesn't have and as the Son, there are roles that the Son has that the Father doesn't.

Kathi

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 24 2011,19:11)

And this brainwashing has been even more effectively enforced by the additions of words that have no place in John 1:1.

Mike

You mean like the indefinite article [a]?  Whose brain washed?  

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 24 2011,19:33)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,08:36) That means that over 1000 scholars signed off their reputations that the correct rendering of John 1:1c is anarthrous. And we all know that majority rules, right?

Mike

It has nothing to do with the majority. It has to do with their knowledge of the Biblical languages of which you know very little about.

You think you know more than “thousands” of experts in the languages and Hebrew culture. That is pure arrogance IMO.

You can't even find any “anti-trin” scholars with any credentials to support you.  

WJ

[Lightenup]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,21:03)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,17:22) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,17:11) Ok Keith, I thought that is what was meant.  So the 'everything' pertains to nature only, right? Kathi Hi Kathi Nature, qualities, attributes, being, essence, substance, Yes. The essence of God (or that which distinguishes God from creation) is “Eternal”. Jesus is “…the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature”…, (being, essence, substance), the NIV has it “being”“. Heb 1:3 God the Father has never been without the “radiance of His Glory”, has he? As Thayer states… One prime example to consider is Thayer’s comments on Colossians 2:9 which states that “…in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” In his Greek English Lexicon, “Thayer notes that the Greek word for Deity (theotes) used in this verse means “deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col. ii.9.”11. Source So whatever “being”, God is, Jesus is.   WJ Hi Keith, I understand that the essence of God must be eternal or it is the essence of something else.  Perhaps the essence of God was always in the form of a son within the form of a Father but the essence in the form of a Son was kept within the Father until it was begotten during eternity.  In that manner, the Father was always a Father but the Son had not been begotten yet.  Why would the Son need to have been begotten before He was needed to be begotten? Kathi

Keith,
You asked:

Quote

Jesus is “…the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature”…, (being, essence, substance), the NIV has it “being””. Heb 1:3 God the Father has never been without the “radiance of His Glory”, has he?

I don't think that the Father is ever without the Son but I think that the Son was not always being 'shone.' Sort of like the difference between a star and our sun. The light of the star does not reach our planet and the light of the sun does. The star is like God with the Son within Him and the sun is like God with the Son shining forth from Him (begotten). Without any heavenly bodies to receive the light, what good is the light? God the Father begets the light (His radiance/His Son) when there is creation to receive it/Him. Why would the Father beget His radiance/Son when there is no creation to receive it/Him. I think that the Father beget His Son when He was about to bring other things into existence, through that Son, that needed Him and needed for the Son to reveal God to them and hold everything together and to save that creation if need be.

These things are my opinion but maybe they can help you see where I am coming from.

Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 24 2011,19:25)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,22:18) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,23:55) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,22:18) Saying that 'John was man' speaks more to his nature than 'John was a man' although both could mean the same thing.  That is what I perceive anyway. But either way, adding the “a” wouldn't add “confusion”, like you said, right?  If so, how? Mike, Enough with all these unlike examples. Please answer the question, Kathi.  If I wanted to say that John was a member of the human race, how would “He is a man” be more confusing than “He is man”? Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,23:47) The focus on adding the 'a' in John 1:1c has obviously created confusion, otherwise there wouldn't be all this fuss about it.  The confusion is cleared up with v. 18. Very good.  Let's move on to 1:18, shall we?  What does 1:18 tell us?  Does it tell us that Jesus is A god who is NOT the Only Unbegotten God? Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,23:47) Can we go from point a directly to point b without going on rabbit trails I would like to hear you acknowledge that adding the “a” in 1:1c would NOT add confusion, but actually clear it up.  Or else I would like to know HOW it would cause confusion.  You see, if 1:18 tells us Jesus is a god who is not THE God, then why not just say that same thing right up front with 1:1?  Can you think of any solid reason not to? mike

Mike,
John 1:18 says that Jesus is 'the' God, the begotten God to be specific and yes that would mean that He is not the unbegotten God, that would be His Father.  It uses the article 'the' not 'a.'

I think that I have addressed your 'a' points elsewhere.  The 'a' opens the door to a sense of there being more than the two spoken about.  That is fine when there are more than those in the context as in your example with mankind but it isn't fine when it is about supreme deity when there are only the two, imo.

That should answer your questions for the most part anyway.  If you have anything else it is better to ask one thing at a time to me…ok?  I know how easily one thing leads to another though.

Kathi

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Kathi said:

Quote

I don't think that the Father is ever without the Son but I think that the Son was not always being 'shone.'

HI Kathi,

This is because Jesus was the Word PRIOR to His becoming Son. You have rejected this in the past but your statement above seems to support what I have said. To say that the Son was not always being shown is tantamount to saying that He was not always the Son because the Son could not have been the 'Son' and not ALWAYS have shone. Therefore, the 'Word' is what He ALWAYS HAS BEEN and the 'Son' is what He BECAME for our salvation.

John does NOT say “In the beginning was the Son.” He said, “In the beginning was the Word” and then goes on to explain that He BECAME the Son.

The 'Word' is what Jesus is in relation to Himself. The 'Son' is what He is in relation to the plan of redemption.

KJ

[Lightenup]

Hi Jack,
I see the word as “let there be light,” the first word from God spoken as recorded in the Bible as you probably remember. So we understand the 'word' differently. We also differ on the idea of sonship. I believe that He was the Son in the beginning like orthodox Christianity…a true son, not something that became a Son.

Kathi

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2011,03:18)

Hi Jack, I see the word as “let there be light,” the first word from God spoken as recorded in the Bible as you probably remember. So we understand the 'word' differently.  We also differ on the idea of sonship.  I believe that He was the Son in the beginning like orthodox Christianity…a true son, not something that became a Son. Kathi

Hi Kathi,

First, your explanation does not solve the problem that the Son must ALWAYS have shown.

Second, true Christians believe that Christ BECAME Son.

Third, I know you don't like to hear this but you are still an Arian because you believe that Jesus came into being. So if you can depart fron historic orthodoxy on a given point then so can I.

Fourth, see my take on the whole thing below. Copied from “firstborn' thread:

Mike said:

Quote

God the Father caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus BY MEANS OF His Holy Spirit.  That is why God the FATHER was the Father of the human Jesus, and not the Holy Spirit.

Okay let's get this straight. David was APPOINTED as God's firstborn Son in his time. Then Solomon David's immediate son was APPOINTED as God's Firstborn Son in succession. Then the method abruptly changes without any word in scripture and David's ultimate son the Christ becomes God's Firstborn Son in His time by impregnanting Mary.

First David: Becomes God's Firstborn Son by Divine APPOINTMENT (Ps. 89)

Second David: Becomes God's Firstborn Son by Divine APPOINTMENT (2 Samuel 7)

Last David: Becomes God's Firstborn Son by Divine IMPREGNANTING and not by appointment like His fathers before Him?

Love ya,

Jack

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 25 2011,01:54)

To all, This is a vain argument since the Hebrew word “elohim” is translated to the Greek word “theos” and “elohim” can mean either “God” or “a god”.

Hi Kerwin,

You are right about the Hebrew and Greek words.  You are wrong about this discussion being in vain.  For once we know that the Word was “A god” who was with THE God in the beginning, then there is no chance the Word is THE God he was WITH.

I know exactly what I'm doing here.  Unfortunately, getting these guys to budge one inch from there comically flawed man-made doctrine and accept the truth of the scriptures takes time.  They dig their heels in and spout all kinds of nonsense.  And they are good at it for they have had a lot of practice at pretending nonsensical things actually make sense.  That quality is required to be a Trinitarian.  

mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 25 2011,02:54)

To all, This is a vain argument since the Hebrew word “elohim” is translated to the Greek word “theos” and “elohim” can mean either “God” or “a god”.

Hi kerwin

Nah, its not in vain. But you are right the word “eloyim” can mean God or god depending on context.

There are several definitions for the word and it should be translated accordingly.

Unlike some that think the Bible is a Polytheistic book and that when it is applied to men it should be tranlsated “a god”, because they believe the Bible teaches there are many “gods”.

However the truth is the word should be translated according to the context like if it is talking about a false idol or god then it should be translated as “a god”. If it is speaking of a judge it should be translated as a judge and not “a god” which would violate the theme of the Bible that there is “Only One True God”.

Some here are so proud and arrogant that they think they know more than the experts that brought us the scriptures.

They prance around like they are some sort of god (ha ha) accusing others of being stupid and dumb while demanding answers and yet they give none. It is rather sad how they discredit scholars and biblical teachings that are taught in the Bible while at the same time belittle the others who teach the same things.

What is even more amazing is how they think they know so much and act as if they alone are right and everyone else is wrong especially when they have had only a few years of self taught Bible study.  

Constant accusations that are untrue are cast at others like others are being dishonest just because they may disagree with them while in truth they are the one being dishonest.

Through false Christians Satan is the accuser of the Brethren and it is his job to condemn others of being dishonest even when they have no proof of such.

When the Holy Spirit opens a mans eyes to see “what” Jesus and “who” Jesus really is, then they like Thomas will proclaim “My Lord and My God”, (John 20:28) and just as he said to Thomas in response to his words….

“…blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.“

Believed what? That Jesus is “Lord and God”.

Thomas saw the “physical Jesus” he called his Lord and God and we by the revelation of the Holy Spirit see “Jesus” is also our Lord and our God.  

WJ

[Author]

Posts