- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Galatians 4:14
and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.
Mike, Its obvious Paul seperated the two statements. He emphasizes how they treated him as if he was an Angel or Chirst Jesus himself.
Its two seperate statements. Maybe you have alot to Learn OLD man.Quote You guys always want to take this “one god” stuff so literallly, despite the many other gods mentioned in scripture. Come on Mark, how can Jehovah be the “God OF gods” if there aren't any other gods for Him to be the God OF?
Im stilll waiting to argue this point…………………………….Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2011,18:13) 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?
Hi Kathi,Yes, it is unnecessary to add the “a” the way YOU worded it. On the other hand, adding the “a” wouldn't change one single thing about the meaning of your sentence, would it?
But now let's do it the way the trinni's do it:
“In the beginning was the word and the word was with Man, and the word was Man”.
Can you see the difference? You included the definite article in part b while they do not. They cap both “mans” while you didn't. Now assuming that “Man” could be used as a proper name describing only one person, as “God” can, it is starting to sound like the word was both WITH the one person known as “Man”, and WAS the one person known as “Man”.
Your turn:
“In the beginning was the word and the word was with the god, and the word was a god”.
Does this translation sum up what John was saying? Was he saying that Jesus was a god who was with THE God in the beginning, or not? Because he obviously was NOT saying the Word was THE God that he was WITH, right?
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2011,21:23) 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?
MikeYep, 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.
WJ
Keith,
If Mike is wrong in saying this then so are many other early church fathers.
Hi Kathi,Good post. Keith also always seems to forget that our “only true God” is the Father. So if he wants to take it literally, he must accept that Jesus is not a “true god” at all. Because there's no way to work “the Father AND I” into John 17:3 or 1 Cor 8:6.
I understand “only true” to be equivalent to saying “God of gods” or “God Most High” or “God Almighty”. I don't understand it to mean there are no other true gods at all. That would make no sense in light of the gods mentioned in scripture who were vice regents OF God Almighty. Are we to think they aren't “true” or “real”, when they faithfully served their God? It would be the same as saying Jesus isn't “true” or “real”, because he's definitely not THE FATHER, who is the One said to be the “only true God”. He is instead, like the others, a vice regent and servant OF his God. Scripture bears this out.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 27 2011,04:26) 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.
Hebrews 1 says nothing of the sort, Jack.It asks to which one of the angels did God say this…………
Well, only one of them – Jesus.
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 27 2011,10:30) 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?
Hi D,Apparently you and I have different levels of commonsense then. I've seen no claim that the JW's MISQUOTED Dr. Mantley, have you?
Apparently the words Dr. Mantley said were good enough for the JW's to quote in support of “a god”, and no one's claiming a misquote.
But if you find the words Dr. Mantley wrote about John 1:1 in his book, then post those words and we'll discuss it.
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 27 2011,10:48) Galatians 4:14
and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.
Mike, Its obvious Paul seperated the two statements. He emphasizes how they treated him as if he was an Angel or Chirst Jesus himself.
Its two seperate statements. Maybe you have alot to Learn OLD man.
Hmmmmmmm………….“You welcomed me as if I was a leader of the free world, as if I was Barak Obama himself.” Am I saying Barak IS a leader of the free world, or he ISN'T?
“You welcomed me as if I was a professional football player, as if I was Peyton Manning himself.” Am I saying Peyton IS a professional football player, or that he ISN'T one?
I don't see the word “OR” in Paul's sentence, causing a “separation”, do you?
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 27 2011,10:50) Quote You guys always want to take this “one god” stuff so literallly, despite the many other gods mentioned in scripture. Come on Mark, how can Jehovah be the “God OF gods” if there aren't any other gods for Him to be the God OF?
Im stilll waiting to argue this point…………………………….
Well, what are you waiting for? It's being discussed all around you. If you feel froggy, jump.mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,12:13) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2011,18:13) 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?
Hi Kathi,Yes, it is unnecessary to add the “a” the way YOU worded it. On the other hand, adding the “a” wouldn't change one single thing about the meaning of your sentence, would it?
But now let's do it the way the trinni's do it:
“In the beginning was the word and the word was with Man, and the word was Man”.
Can you see the difference? You included the definite article in part b while they do not. They cap both “mans” while you didn't. Now assuming that “Man” could be used as a proper name describing only one person, as “God” can, it is starting to sound like the word was both WITH the one person known as “Man”, and WAS the one person known as “Man”.
Your turn:
“In the beginning was the word and the word was with the god, and the word was a god”.
Does this translation sum up what John was saying? Was he saying that Jesus was a god who was with THE God in the beginning, or not? Because he obviously was NOT saying the Word was THE God that he was WITH, right?
mike
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the 'yes' as to the 'a' being unnecessary.You said:
Quote Yes, it is unnecessary to add the “a” the way YOU worded it. On the other hand, adding the “a” wouldn't change one single thing about the meaning of your sentence, would it? Normally the 'a' wouldn't change anything Mike, but in this case, it has opened the door for those who want to push a doctrine that the Only Begotten Son is not like His Father, yet, He is like His Father. Maybe your concern about John 1:1 shouldn't be about the 'a' being added but the 'the' in 1:1b and that it shouldn't be missing. I noticed that the NWT does not have the 'the' in part b either. So, if the 'the' is there in the English like it is in the Greek there shouldn't be all this contention…no need to add the 'a' that isn't there in the Greek especially if the 'the' is there in the 'b' part.
Quote
“In the beginning was the word and the word was with the god, and the word was a god”.Does this translation sum up what John was saying? Was he saying that Jesus was a god who was with THE God in the beginning, or not? Because he obviously was NOT saying the Word was THE God that he was WITH, right?
I don't think that it was John's intention to say it as you have written it with an 'a.' I think it was John's intention to say it with a 'the' in part 'b.' I agree that he was not saying the word was the God that He was with, yes!
Can you say this:
The only begotten God is the true God from the true God?
And:
That the word 'true' can mean that the person was God by nature and not be designation and that there are only two that are truly God in that sense?Thanks,
KathiMike,
you said:Quote He is instead, like the others, a vice regent and servant OF his God. Scripture bears this out. This is what I am talking about when I speak of those who push doctrines placing the only begotten God in the same pot as the others. The only begotten God is called an angel, He is called an apostle and many other things. Does that mean that He is one of the many apostles, or one of the many angels? He is also called the good Shepherd and pastors are called to 'shepherd' the flock and we know that the begotten God, the good shepherd is not one of the many pastors…right?
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,12:08)
Normally the 'a' wouldn't change anything Mike, but in this case, it has opened the door for those who want to push a doctrine that the Only Begotten Son is not like His Father, yet, He is like His Father. Maybe your concern about John 1:1 shouldn't be about the 'a' being added but the 'the' in 1:1b and that it shouldn't be missing. I noticed that the NWT does not have the 'the' in part b either. So, if the 'the' is there in the English like it is in the Greek there shouldn't be all this contention…no need to add the 'a' that isn't there in the Greek especially if the 'the' is there in the 'b' part.
I agree that printing the word “THE” in part b would solve the problem as easily as adding the word “a” in part c would…………..but only if you don't cap both G's. I also don't see how adding the “a” in part c would somehow imply that Jesus wasn't “like” his God.Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,12:08)
I agree that he was not saying the word was the God that He was with, yes!
Very good! We are in agreement on this. Now since we know that “God” is used many times as a proper name of Jehovah in scripture, then why even cause confusion by saying “and the Word was God”? Most people don't look into the scriptures like you and I do. Let's face it, most people have never even read the Bible all the way through one time.So saying “the Word was with God” conjures up the right message, that the Word was with the one being of God Almighty. But saying “and the Word was God” conjures up the wrong image – that the Word is the same One who is called “God” in part b because the Word is also called “God” in part c. Say the Word was a canine, who was with “Dog, the Bounty Hunter” in the beginning, (that is a T.V. show, in case you didn't know):
“In the beginning, the Word was with Dog, and the Word was Dog”.
See how this doesn't convey that the Word was a dog who was with the one NAMED “Dog”? It confusingly conveys that the Word was with the one named “Dog”, and also WAS the one named “Dog”.
Adding the definite article in part b doesn't really solve the problem if you're going to cap both “Gods”. Because it still leaves one with the understanding that the Word is THE God, even though that is not what was said by John, nor is it the truth of the matter.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,12:08)
Can you say this:
The only begotten God is the true God from the true God?
I can say the Jesus is the only begotten god, and therefore the only true god who came directly from God Himself. Do you see the word “Himself”, Kathi? It's silly to say “God Himself” when there are two “Gods” with a capital “G”. If Jehovah is “God Himself” and Jesus is “God Himself”, then don't you see how that's confusing?Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,12:08)
and that there are only two that are truly God in that sense?
Yet you are doing what Keith is doing. You are trying to add Jesus into the statements that there is only ONE true God. But both statements to this effect clearly say THE FATHER is the only true God. You are trying to equate Jesus TO the Father, when the Father asks, “Who is my equal?”But let's keep this thread and discussion to the John 1:1 translation, and scriptures shed light on it, okay?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,22:58) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 27 2011,10:48) Galatians 4:14
and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.
Mike, Its obvious Paul seperated the two statements. He emphasizes how they treated him as if he was an Angel or Chirst Jesus himself.
Its two seperate statements. Maybe you have alot to Learn OLD man.
Hmmmmmmm………….“You welcomed me as if I was a leader of the free world, as if I was Barak Obama himself.” Am I saying Barak IS a leader of the free world, or he ISN'T?
“You welcomed me as if I was a professional football player, as if I was Peyton Manning himself.” Am I saying Peyton IS a professional football player, or that he ISN'T one?
I don't see the word “OR” in Paul's sentence, causing a “separation”, do you?
mike
1st example.
Technically Barrack Obama is not a leader of the free world, so it doesnt make sense.And your second example the person in question is saying man your treating me like a football player, (doesnt mean like your a good football player) and than further emphasizes to relate to Peyton (is he really good football player or something?) which i could guess is a superstar.
First of all He is talking about two different things.
1. Paul is talking about these people are treating him as if he were an Angel of God.
2. Than he mentions Christ Jesus, (which he refers to the Messiah, the Only begotten Son of God)So its a big diffference
I can use another example as well.
You cheer for me as if i were a Rock Star, as if I were the American Idol.
I like the KJV better which better presents my point
14And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.Clearly these two things are not the same.
Consider Matthew 10:40The Point is that Jesus is not a Angelic Being.
Well than again how do you define Angel.
Mike,
I am not doing what Keith is doing. I am not saying that Jesus is the one true God, I am saying that Jesus is the one true God from the one true God. There is a difference.I do believe that we have hashed out John 1:1 and come to the conclusion that the 'the' should have been included in part b and that the 'a' is unnecessary in part c. the capital 'G' is necessary to designate that which pertains to true deity and a small 'g' would designate that which pertains to theos that is less than true deity, imo.
So, I think we agree on this except you prefer both 'g's' to be small letters and I would like them to be both capital letters.
I await your response to my post about angels and apostles, shepherds and pastors.
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,12:22) Mike,
you said:Quote He is instead, like the others, a vice regent and servant OF his God. Scripture bears this out. This is what I am talking about when I speak of those who push doctrines placing the only begotten God in the same pot as the others. The only begotten God is called an angel, He is called an apostle and many other things. Does that mean that He is one of the many apostles, or one of the many angels? He is also called the good Shepherd and pastors are called to 'shepherd' the flock and we know that the begotten God, the good shepherd is not one of the many pastors…right?
Kathi
I see your point Kathi,T8, Irene, Pierre and I find ourselves in an awkward position on HN. One one battle front, we go to war against those who claim Jesus was never anything more than a human being exactly like us. And we have to put up with Gene saying we are Gnostics, antichrists and Trinitarians, and asking why we don't just take the next step and worship Jesus as God.
On the other battle front, we go to war against people who want to claim Jesus is equal to the God who begot him, or even that he is that God himself. And we have to put up with Jack saying we would have been part of the group who tortured and killed Jesus because we want to make him less than what he is.
Thankfully, the position we are in is the scripturally correct one, and I will happily defend our understanding using the very scriptures we gained that understanding from.
So here is the SCRIPTURAL TRUTH of the matter, as supported by ALL of the scriptures:
Jesus IS an angel of God. He is ONE of the many messiahs of God, and a SERVANT of his God. He emptied himself of the spirit nature he had, was made as a human being, taught about the coming kingdom of HIS GOD, and was tortured and murdered. He did all this at the COMMAND of his God, who sent him to do it in the first place. He worships his God, obeys his God, and puts his God's will first in his mind, over his own concerns. In fact, he directed all worship TO his God, and gave all the credit for the fine works he did, also to his God. Jesus is very much LIKE his Father and God, as many sons are very much LIKE their own fathers. Jesus did not sacrifice anything that wasn't freely given to him in the first place…….his life. It was his God who loved us so much that He chose to sacrifice something that was truly His, His much beloved, only begotten Son.
On the other side of the coin, Jesus is much MORE than any other angel of God, for he is the only begotten Son of God Himself, and all the other angels were created through him. He is the second most powerful being in existence, headed up only by his own God. We owe him our thanks, honor, and praise for the sacrifice he made in our behalf. We do NOT, however, owe him the slap in the face of disregarding his very own teaching on worship, by trying to worship him as if he IS God Almighty. He is God's Son, Priest, Servant, Messiah, Sacrificial Lamb and the Mediator BETWEEN mankind and God Himself. He is NOT God Himself, and should not be made to be equal to, or a part of, God Himself.
Every single thing I just posted is absolutely 100% scriptural. There is no denying any of it, and the sooner everyone comes to actually BELIEVE what the words of scripture plainly teach us, the sooner there will be more t8s and Irenes and Pierres and Mikes.
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 27 2011,13:36) The Point is that Jesus is not a Angelic Being. Well than again how do you define Angel.
Hi D,I'm sorry you are unable to understand my analogies, which say the same basic thing Paul said. I can help you no more on this without taking you as a pupil and teaching you basic understanding skills. I have neither the time nor the patience for an undertaking of that magnitude.
I define “angel” the same way Strong and all the other scholars define it: messenger.
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2011,22:23) 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?
MikeYep, 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.
WJ
Keith,
If Mike is wrong in saying this then so are many other early church fathers. Do we need to revisit this?
KathiWe can revisit it if you want. I have already shown you that most of the Forefathers disagree with your contention that Jesus had a beginning and that there is “Only One God” not 2 or three.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2011,22:33) 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 KathiGod 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
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
Translated as God procreated or brought birth to “a God”.
Sorry that is what it is and that is not what the Forefathers believe “eternally begotten” means does it?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2011,00:48) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 27 2011,13:36) The Point is that Jesus is not a Angelic Being. Well than again how do you define Angel.
Hi D,I'm sorry you are unable to understand my analogies, which say the same basic thing Paul said. I can help you no more on this without taking you as a pupil and teaching you basic understanding skills. I have neither the time nor the patience for an undertaking of that magnitude.
I define “angel” the same way Strong and all the other scholars define it: messenger.
mike
Oh please mike get over yourself.You interpret scripture based on your preconceived belief not that scriptures have taught you anything else otherwise.
You believe they say the same thing as Paul says, not that it does. I already showed you the KJV translation.
Angels can be viewed as a Beings, or simply as messengers.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,13:36)
I am not saying that Jesus is the one true God, I am saying that Jesus is the one true God from the one true God. There is a difference.
But you word it confusingly, just to keep people from thinking less of Jesus. It is very confusing to say “Jesus is NOT the one true God, but he IS the one true God……..”.
We can more effectively and less confusingly say Jesus is a real god who was the only god directly begotten from the “One True God”.Dont forget that it was the words of Jesus himself who called the Father the “ONLY True God”. I don't claim Jesus as a “false god” by any means, but why would you insist on taking the very word “true” that Jesus used ONLY for the Father, and applying it to Jesus as well, thereby making Jesus' own words null and void?
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,13:36)
I do believe that we have hashed out John 1:1 and come to the conclusion that the 'the' should have been included in part b and that the 'a' is unnecessary in part c.
We may have gone as far as we can with 1:1, but we are not in agreement on it. I feel that the definite article and capital “G” in part b, along with the indefinite article and lower case “g” in part c is what John was teaching.But just to finish up, please address my “Dog the Bounty Hunter” analogy. Show me how capping both “Ds” does NOT confusingly imply that the Word WAS the “Dog” he was with.
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2011,22:38) 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.] from: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.i.vii.vii.html
KathiI find it amazing that like Mike you also use “Trinitarian” quotes to prove the opposite of their conclusions.
The next page of your source says (emphasis mine)…
Chapter 8.—Whatever is Spoken of God According to Substance, is Spoken of Each Person Severally, and Together of the Trinity Itself. One Essence in God, and Three, in Greek, Hypostases, in Latin, Persons.
9. Wherefore let us hold this above all, that whatsoever is said of that most eminent and divine loftiness in respect to itself, is said in respect to substance, but that which is said in relation to anything, is not said in respect to substance, but relatively; and that the effect of the same substance in Father and Son and Holy Spirit is, “that whatsoever is said of each in respect to themselves, is to be taken of them, not in the plural in sum, but in the singular“. For as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, which no one doubts to be said in respect to substance, yet we do not say “THAT THE VERY SUPREME TRINITY ITSELF IS THREE GODS, BUT ONE GOD. So the Father is great, the Son great, and the Holy Spirit great; yet “NOT THREE GREATS, BUT ONE GREAT”. For it is not written of the Father alone, as they perversely suppose, but of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, “Thou art great: Thou art God alone.”573573 Ps. lxxxvi. 10 And the Father is good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; yet not three goods, but one good, of whom it is said, “None is good, save one, that is, God.” For the Lord Jesus, lest He should be understood as man only by him who said, “Good Master,” as addressing a man, does not therefore say, There is none good, save the Father alone; but, “None is good, save one, that is, God.”574574 Luke xviii. 18, 19 For the Father by Himself is declared by the name of Father; “BUT BY THE NAME OF GOD, BOTH HIMSELF AND THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, BECAUSE THE TRINITY IS ONE GOD. Source
So you see they do not agree with your understanding of the words “unbegotten” and “begotten” Gods. You want to go down that road we can but I assure you that the final conclusion of the church was Jesus is “One God” with the Father and the Holy Spirit and that Jesus had no beginning. The Athanasian Creed does the final blow to the Arians and the RCC has not tossed out the Nicene Creed which only means that their understanding of the two agrees whereas yours doesn't.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
