Exposing freak greek

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2011,10:37)

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

God is eternal and infinite and his Glory has always been radiant because the scriptures tell us he changes not.

Your above statement seems to imply that some time in eternity the Father changed and his Glory changed by becoming radiant or that would also imply a beginning to the “radiance of his Glory”. Did God “begat” his radiant Glory?

I don't think so.

Hebrews 1:3 is proof that Jesus was always with the Father because he has always been the “radiance of God's glory” and the exact representation of his being…”, because the Father has never been without his Glory or radiance.

Blessings Keith

March 26, 2011 at 9:05 pm#240643

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 25 2011,09:33)

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

Hi Keith,

First, I HAVE quoted Jason DeBuehn, who has many credentials and is NOT a Trinitarian.

Second, your own argument works against you. For it is the Trinitarian scholars I'm quoting who support MY claim that “a god” is grammatically possible. What does that tell you?

Listen Keith, this has been a lesson in frustration for me. Every one of us here knows that adding the “a” is as much of a grammatical possibility in 1:1c as it is in the other 1000 NT scriptures we add it to. Sadly, not all of us here are willing to admit this truth. In fact, you've had to reach far by including “context” into your definition of “grammatically possible”, just to keep from admitting the truth. For you KNOW that word for word, “a god” in 1:1c breaks no Greek or English grammar rules whatsoever.

I agree that context is what dictates whether or not we should add the “a” ANYWHERE in scripture. But context does not dictate whether or not it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to add it. And I am discussing that context right now with Kathi to determine whether or not the “a” SHOULD BE added.

I am aware that your OPINION is the same as many Trinitarian scholars – that we should not add the “a” in 1:1c. But those opinions are based on two main reasonings:
1. Jesus IS the God that he is also the Son of.
2. There is only one god mentioned in scripture at all, and for Jesus to be “a god” would promote polytheism.

But both of these reasonings are faulty and unscriptural to start with, so basing one's OPINION on these faulty assumptions will ultimately result in a faulty opinion about 1:1c.

I have no problem with you jumping into the SHOULD BE discussion, as long as you don't continue to argue that the “a” CAN'T BE added. Because the fact is that it most certainly CAN BE added, and we are now discussing whether or not it SHOULD BE.

I am done with the “CAN BE” versus “CAN’T BE” argument, for I have been supported by at least three experts in the Greek language. You, on the other hand, have been supported by NO Greek experts that list any rule of Greek or English grammar prohibiting the addition of the “a” in 1:1c. All of your scholars voice their opinion that the “a” SHOULDN’T BE” added, but not one of them claims that it CANNOT BE added, based on grammar alone. We have therefore moved on to the “SHOULD BE” versus “SHOULD NOT BE” arguments. Join in if you like, but this is the last time I’ll address the “Can” versus “Can’t” argument. It has been settled………whether you like it or not.

mike

March 26, 2011 at 9:14 pm#240644

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2011,09:46)

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.'

Hi Kathi,

So far in this thread, we have agreed that TWO gods are mentioned in John 1:1. You have pointed out that 1:18 clarifies Jesus as the only BEGOTTEN god, while “THE god” in 1:1 is most undoubtedly the only UNBEGOTTEN god, the Father.

Therefore, the Father is A god who is mentioned in 1:1, and Jesus is A god who is mentioned in 1:1, thereby supporting YOUR claim that 1:1b makes it clear that TWO are mentioned. Are we on the same page so far?

You have voiced your opinion that adding the “a” in 1:1c would “confuse” things. I fail to understand why you think this, considering that you admit TWO gods are mentioned in that verse. I have shown you with my Adam and Cain analogy how omitting the “THE” and the “A”, and capping both “Adams” makes it sound like Cain was the same being as Adam, even though that is not what is meant.

If John 1:1 speaks only of TWO gods, and no more, then why would adding the “a” confusingly imply others? It would simply imply that the Word was with THE God, and was himself also “a god”, or “mighty one”. And is that wrong? Is Jesus a god who is not the Father?

mike

March 26, 2011 at 9:26 pm#240645

Blocked

Hi All,

I haven't yet begun to discuss the theos in 1:1c without the “a” added. I will, but for now I'm only clarifying that the “a” can be added for clarity without breaking any rules of grammar. And adding the “a” does nothing but clarify that Jesus was a god who was with the god in the beginning.

This is the scriptural truth of the matter, is it not? Am I scripturally wrong in saying that Jesus is the only begotten god and the Father is the only unbegotten God?

mike

March 26, 2011 at 9:54 pm#240651

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,16:05)

Second, your own argument works against you. For it is the Trinitarian scholars I'm quoting who support MY claim that “a god” is grammatically possible. What does that tell you?

Mike

Only “one” uses the words “grammatically possible”, and most all of the scholars concluded it “cannot” be translated “a god”.

What does that tell you?

March 26, 2011 at 10:01 pm#240652

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,16:26)

Am I scripturally wrong in saying that Jesus is the only begotten god and the Father is the only unbegotten God?

Mike

Yep, because that would be “two true gods” with each other and we know there is “Only One True God” and none other beside him. That is the scriptural truth.

March 26, 2011 at 10:12 pm#240655

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,16:05)

Yea and I have also shown you where a scholar has said it is not “grammatically permissible” to translate it with an [a] and you are just closing your eyes to his testimony and won't answer questions about it though I answered yours.

Anyway you are creating another straw man above because we have also shown you many scriptures where theos (God) is referring to the One True God where the [a] is not added.

You should tell the whole story.

March 26, 2011 at 10:54 pm#240670

mikeangel

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,09:01)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,16:26)

Am I scripturally wrong in saying that Jesus is the only begotten god and the Father is the only unbegotten God?

Mike

Yep, because that would be “two true gods” with each other and we know there is “Only One True God” and none other beside him. That is the scriptural truth.

Amen brother. It is nice to sit back and watch you defend truth. Jesus is God, the word made flesh,not an angel. Thank- you for defending him. He deserves it, especially after being tortured and slaughtered for us, even though he was the word made flesh. Glory to him, his Father, and the Spirit who inspired the word, one God for ever and ever, Amen. Peace-Mark

March 26, 2011 at 11:12 pm#240680

Baker

Participant

Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 27 2011,09:54)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,09:01)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,16:26)

Am I scripturally wrong in saying that Jesus is the only begotten god and the Father is the only unbegotten God?

Mike

Yep, because that would be “two true gods” with each other and we know there is “Only One True God” and none other beside him. That is the scriptural truth.

Hi! that might be true, but there are also Scriptures that say that Almighty God is greater then Jesus. God is a title, in Ancient times many were called God. Satan too is called God of this world.

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

Jhn 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Also i don't believe Jesus is an Angel, because of this Scripture

Hbr 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Hbr 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

Hbr 1:8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hbr 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Hbr 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Hbr 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

Hbr 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

Hbr 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Hbr 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Peace and Love Irene

March 26, 2011 at 11:31 pm#240690

Participant

Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 26 2011,17:54)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,09:01)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,16:26)

Am I scripturally wrong in saying that Jesus is the only begotten god and the Father is the only unbegotten God?

Mike

Yep, because that would be “two true gods” with each other and we know there is “Only One True God” and none other beside him. That is the scriptural truth.

Thanks Brother!

March 27, 2011 at 12:13 am#240758

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,16:14)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2011,09:46)

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.'

Hi Kathi,

mike

Hi Mike,
Yes, I think we are on the same page about one begotten God and one unbegotten God. I capitalize the 'g's' and you don't and I would feel better if you did because I am not sure you really understand Jesus as the begotten God is in the theos nature with the Father and all other called theos are not. Do you see that?

Also, I would like to ask you to answer this question with a yes or a no:

If the verse said:
In the beginning was the word and the word was with the man and the word was man.
Would you admit that putting an 'a' before the last 'man' is unnecessary?

Kathi

March 27, 2011 at 3:23 am#240768

from: http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/nicene_creed.htm

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,17:01)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,16:26)

Am I scripturally wrong in saying that Jesus is the only begotten god and the Father is the only unbegotten God?

Mike

Yep, because that would be “two true gods” with each other and we know there is “Only One True God” and none other beside him. That is the scriptural truth.

Keith,
If Mike is wrong in saying this then so are many other early church fathers. Do we need to revisit this? Do you remember that the term 'unbegotten God' and 'begotten God' were frequently used by the early church fathers?

How many 'unbegotten Gods' do Mike and I speak of?
How many 'begotten Gods' do Mike and I speak of?

Do we speak of more than one 'unbegotten God?'
I don't think so.

Don't forget the Nicene Creed. Who does the Nicene Creed say is the one God? Who does the Nicene Creed say is the true God from true God…the light from light? Saying 'true God from true God is speaking of two that are true God, Keith. You can't deny that. It is really a beautiful relationship they have.

Mike and I are saying the same thing as this, I am anyway, I don't want to speak for Mike.

Quote

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things came into existence,
Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from the heavens,
and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became man,
and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried,
and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures
and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father,
and will come again with glory to judge living and dead,
of Whose kingdom there will be no end;
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver,
Who proceeds from the Father,
Who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified,
Who spoke through the prophets;
in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.
We confess one baptism to the remission of sins;
we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen

Do I need to quote the early church fathers who speak of the Son as God simply because He is the only begotten Son of God? I can, you know that…I have already shown you.

Lovingly,
Kathi

March 27, 2011 at 3:33 am#240770

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,16:03)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2011,10:37)

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

God is eternal and infinite and his Glory has always been radiant because the scriptures tell us he changes not.

I don't think so.

Blessings Keith

Keith,
I think that the light of the Son was within the Father, not missing…and then before day one was designated as the first day, the Father beget that Son and referred to that as letting there be light. The Son wasn't non-existent before that, He just hadn't come from the Father yet, He was within the Father…shining within the Father, then begotten and shining from the Father. The Father always had His radiance, it/He was just not coming from Him till the Father beget His Son, imo.

Kathi

March 27, 2011 at 3:38 am#240771

from: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.i.vii.vii.html

Participant

Keith and Mark,
Read this and see:

Quote

The terms “unbegotten” and “begotten” are interchangeable with the terms Father and Son. This follows from the relation of a substantive to its adjective. In whatever sense a substantive is employed, in the same sense must the adjective formed from it be employed. Consequently, if the first person of the Trinity may be called Father in a sense that implies deity, he may be called Unbegotten in the same sense. And if the second person may be called Son in a sense implying deity, he may be called Begotten in the same sense. The Ancient church often employed the adjective, and spoke of God the Unbegotten and God the Begotten (Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 25, 53; ii. 12, 13. Clem. Alex. Stromata v. xii.). This phraseology sounds strange to the Modern church, yet the latter really says the same thing when it speaks of God the Father, and God the Son.—W.G.T.S.]

March 27, 2011 at 5:00 am#240778

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 25 2011,11:40)

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

Jack,
Arians believe that the Son came into being from nothing. I don't believe that. When I say came into being, I just mean coming into being in the begotten as an offspring sense. I believe He existed within the Father before He was begotten from the Father.

I answered the rest in the firstborn thread.

Love to you too,
Kathi

March 27, 2011 at 10:26 am#240799

Kangaroo Jack Jr.

Participant

Mark said:

Quote

Amen brother Mark,

Christ was tortured for us and some of the anti-trinitarians here would have participated in torturing Him. Furthermore, Hebrews 1 says that God never said to an angel, “You are My Son, today I Hve begotten You.” Therefore, Christ was/is not an angel.

He is the eternal Word who became Son for our redemption. Praise Him!

March 27, 2011 at 3:49 pm#240813

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,15:54)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,16:05)

Second, your own argument works against you. For it is the Trinitarian scholars I'm quoting who support MY claim that “a god” is grammatically possible. What does that tell you?

Mike

Only “one” uses the words “grammatically possible”, and most all of the scholars concluded it “cannot” be translated “a god”.

What does that tell you?

Yes Keith,

One of those TRINITARIAN scholars use the words, “based on GRAMMAR alone”, 1:1c COULD BE rendered as “a god”. And that is all I was asking in the first place.

The other TRINITARIAN scholar said “a god” was a “POSSIBLE” translation of 1:1c, and emphasized this POSSIBILITY with the words, “As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” Again, that is the only thing I was asking in the first place.

The third scholar, the only one I quoted who isn't a Trinitarian said this: “In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject.” Professor BeDuhn is saying that the reasoning the JW's showed supporting their decision to translate 1:1c as “a god” is PERFECTLY CORRECT ACCORDING TO THE BEST SHOLARSHIP DONE ON THIS SUBJECT.

As for YOUR scholars, many have mentioned their OPINION that John would have been promoting polytheism if he meant “a god”, and therefore, it cannot CONTEXTUALLY be rendered that way. But their OPINION is based on faulty reasoning, since many are called gods in the scripture – so why not Jesus?

Keith, does calling a vice regent of God a “god” promote polytheism? YES or NO? Before you answer, remember that many men and angels who were on God's side were called “god” in the scriptures. And surely God Himself was not inspiring the writers of scripture to promote polytheism, was He?

mike

March 27, 2011 at 4:17 pm#240814

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,16:12)

Good, I'm glad you brought this point to the right thread. You have NOT quoted anything from Dr. Mantley's book on Greek grammar to ask me about. This is what has happened:
1. Dr. Mantley wrote a book on Greek grammar.
2. The JW's used his words from that book to SUPPORT their “a god” translation.
3. Dr. Mantley, being a Trinitarian, took offense to this and wrote the JW's a letter.
4. His letter says that he used no ENGLISH grammar in his book to make them think that he thought “a god” was a “permissible translation”.

And that's it. You haven't show what he originally wrote about John 1:1 in his book on Greek grammar. But apparently whatever he wrote was good enough for the JW's to quote it and use it as SUPPORT of their “a god” translation in the first place. Face it Keith, if his book said “a god” was a grammatical impossiblity, do you think the JW's would have quoted his words as SUPPORT in the first place?

And now he has probably taken a lot of heat from other Trinitarian “powers”, and is mad at himself for the wording in his book, and so is taking that out on the JW's. But even in his letter to the JW's, he still does not say “a god” is impossible, only that he doesn't consider it a “permissible” translation. Get it? HE wouldn't personally PERMIT it, were it up to him. That says nothing about the grammatical possibility of “a god”. And if you really want to get technical, Dr. Mantley doesn't even tell the JW's that “a god” ISN'T permissible. He only says that he used no ENGLISH GRAMMAR in his book to advocate that it WAS.

So I have answered your question at least FOUR times now. I have explained this to you at least THREE times now. So either quote what Dr. Mantley actually said about “a god” in his book about Greek grammar so I can comment on it, or let it go.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,16:12)

Anyway you are creating another straw man above because we have also shown you many scriptures where theos (God) is referring to the One True God where the [a] is not added.

You should tell the whole story.

Ah, but therein lies the crux of the situation, Keith. We should not add the “a” when the “theos” in question refers to “The One True God”, should we? But the question is whether or not 1:1c actually refers to “the One True God” in the first place. Origen wrote that John most undoubtedly knew the niceties of the Greek language, and used the definite article for only ONE mention of theos for a reason. Origen thus concluded that “ho theos” refers to the “only true God”, while the anarthrous “theos” did not. (I posted his writing on the subject for Kathi, a couple of pages back, if you're interested.)

And there is one more very important point you are missing in this equation, but I'll answer it in my response to Mark's post, so I can kill two birds with one stone.

mike

March 27, 2011 at 4:30 pm#240816

SimplyForgiven

Participant

Mike,

Quote

Face it Keith, if his book said “a god” was a grammatical impossiblity, do you think the JW's would have quoted his words as SUPPORT in the first place?

And now he has probably taken a lot of heat from other Trinitarian “powers”, and is mad at himself for the wording in his book, and so is taking that out on the JW's. But even in his letter to the JW's, he still does not say “a god” is impossible, only that he doesn't consider it a “permissible” translation. Get it? HE wouldn't personally PERMIT it, were it up to him. That says nothing about the grammatical possibility of “a god”. So I have answered your question at least FOUR times now. I have explained this to you at least THREE times now. So either quote what Dr. Mantley actually said about “a god” in his book about Greek grammar so I can comment on it, or let it go.

Thats all speculations and a bogus imagination. You have no warrents to prove anything you just said.
Not only that, your Question is Loaded, Its commonsense that one can respond by saying “Face it Mike the JW's probably did that in purpose to DECEIVE.” What Makes you think that the JW's all of the sudden are not corrupted?
How are you so sure Mike that they are not willing to mold everything along thier path to fit thier theology?

March 27, 2011 at 4:44 pm#240820