- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Kathi,
1. Than again, the bibles states that sin entered through one man, and that we are all redeemed by one man as well.
Paul makes many comparisons between Adam and Jesus, and also calls Jesus the second Adam. So how was Adam not in the exact representation of Gods nature if he was created in Gods image?
And also, we are also predistend to be in that image through christ. Rom8:29
2. Its basically saying that the word IS GOD. unless you want to apply that verse two refers to the beggining of God existance.
3. Eternity is beyond time, therefore timeless. So than when was Jesus begotten according to you?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 03 2011,10:34) Hi Kathi, I agree. Keith? Jack? Dennison? Mark? Any comment on who “THE God” is in 1:1b?
mike
“The God” is THE GOD.
duh.Quote (Lightenup @ April 01 2011,22:40) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 01 2011,00:47) Quote (Lightenup @ April 01 2011,10:40) Dennison, Quote I also believe that Jesus is refferred to as the outstretched arm thingy. Great!
Quote 1. Species? Define that.
Well, a species is a type of kind. Like a human species…eneryone is human in the human species. A canine species, all animals in the canine species are canine. In the deity species…all are deity in the deity species. Get it?Quote 2. Are you stating that its impossible for the Almighty God to do anything physical? or demonstrate himself physically? I think that God the Father is all powerful and can demonstrate Himself physically.
Quote 3. But he wasnt revealed as the Father until the New Testament through Jesus Christ, so therefore Christ wasnt presented as the Son until the New testament as well, so therefore what “are” they before hand? They were always Father and Son, that was just not revealed till the NT.
Quote 4. If Jesus is the Son of Man, than what Man is his Father?
Adam???
Mary was man as in mankind. She contributed to His flesh nature.Well, I can't keep my eyes open so…g'nite Dennison,son
Nice having a conversation with you!
Kathi
1. So are angels part of the Species? and wasnt adam created in the image of God, so therefore also the same species?2. So would you not consider that could be Jesus?
3. In what sense were they always Father and Son?
4. Of course we know that Mary contributed to his flesh nature, but the question is specfic. If we conclude that just because Jesus is called the son of God, than it means that God is his father, than who is the Father in regards when Jesus calls himself the Son of Man?
In other words, I believe he is referring to his nature and not his exact identity.Lol, Nice. You know in Japan its mandatory for strangers to call me “Dennison-son” out of respect.
lol.
nice haveing a convo with you too Lady,
Thanks for reminding me Dennison-sonQuote 1. So are angels part of the Species? and wasnt adam created in the image of God, so therefore also the same species? No, definitely not, the angels are not part of the species. Adam was created in His image but did not have the exact representation of His nature…that was only the only begotten Son of God.
Quote 2. So would you not consider that could be Jesus? John 1:1 tells us one was with the other in the beginning.
Quote 3. In what sense were they always Father and Son? The Father contained the Son within Him from eternity, the Son was the image of the Father and not the Father, the Son was the exact representation of the nature of the Father, the Son was begotten from the Father before the ages. He who was within was begotten (came out).
Quote 4. Of course we know that Mary contributed to his flesh nature, but the question is specfic. If we conclude that just because Jesus is called the son of God, than it means that God is his father, than who is the Father in regards when Jesus calls himself the Son of Man?
In other words, I believe he is referring to his nature and not his exact identity.God is His Father in both the Son of God before the ages and Son of Man born from Mary. He was fathered by God as the Son before the ages because the Father contained Him within Him as explained above and that which was within Him was like Him. He was fathered by God as the Son of Man because He was supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit. His human nature came from Mary, His divine nature always existed within the one that beget Him.
There are your answers to that list
On to the next list…Kathi
Dennison,You said:
Quote Hi Kathi,
1. Than again, the bibles states that sin entered through one man, and that we are all redeemed by one man as well.
Paul makes many comparisons between Adam and Jesus, and also calls Jesus the second Adam. So how was Adam not in the exact representation of Gods nature if he was created in Gods image?
And also, we are also predistend to be in that image through christ. Rom8:29
2. Its basically saying that the word IS GOD. unless you want to apply that verse two refers to the beggining of God existance.
3. Eternity is beyond time, therefore timeless. So than when was Jesus begotten according to you?1. God, the Father and the begotten God are not man nature. They have divine nature. Adam has human nature. The begotten God became human nature also, without, of course, losing His divine nature. Man is made in the image of God but that doesn't mean that man is also God. Obviously.
The Son always was the exact representation of the Father's nature…that w
as His eternal nature and His original nature. Anyone who 'will' partake of the nature will not have it as their 'original' nature. No one can become God/a God.2. The ''was' is very important to refer to the beginning and it is also true in the present. I do think that John was stressing that the 'word' WAS divine nature even way back in the beginning.
3. If eternity is beyond time then we are already in heaven
I think there is a sense of time in heaven but it is different. Here we have days/nights/months/years. In heaven, if we aren't there yet, then there is a sense of time in heaven.I think He was begotten when God said “Let there be light” Gen. 1:3…and I think that He existed within the Father before that, even from eternity. The one who was in…came out…begotten…ta da!
Catch ya later…Kathi
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,02:49) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,19:22) Now that we all know it IS a grammatical possibility, whether some of us like it or not, are we ready to move on?
MikeI have never agreed that it is Grammatically possible but only that “they say” it is possible.
So move on if you like, but get your facts straight.
WJ
There is NO indefinite article in scripture but translators add them in to make verses intelligible in English.If you disagree with adding in the indefinite article, then to be fair you would also have to equally disagree with all other verses that contain “a” or “an”.
So is it your stance that you disagree with adding in indefinite articles in English translations? And if not, then why do you get to pick and choose which verses are allowed them and which are not?
Quote (t8 @ April 05 2011,19:29) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,02:49) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,19:22) Now that we all know it IS a grammatical possibility, whether some of us like it or not, are we ready to move on?
MikeI have never agreed that it is Grammatically possible but only that “they say” it is possible.
So move on if you like, but get your facts straight.
WJ
There is NO indefinite article in scripture but translators add them in to make verses intelligible in English.If you disagree with adding in the indefinite article, then to be fair you would also have to equally disagree with all other verses that contain “a” or “an”.
So is it your stance that you disagree with adding in indefinite articles in English translations? And if not, then why do you get to pick and choose which verses are allowed them and which are not?
OK t8Do you disagree that John 1:1c should be anarthrous?
Because what you just explained is a two edged sword because the same stands true for the definite article.
Does Mike and the NWT get to pick an [a] for John 1:1c?
WJ
WJ, definite articles exist in the Greek text and indefinite ones do not.
There is no definite article in John 1:1c, that is a given.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,15:32) Mike,
The verse includes 1:1b with 1:1c to make that distinction.
If we changed the word 'God' to man it would read:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man. You don't need an 'a' or a 'the' in the 'c' part of the verse.
That is true.This is Keith's view:
a) In the beginning was the woman,
b) and the woman was with the man
c) and the woman was the man (person)
Keith's view excludes Adam from being THE man.This is Mike's view:
a) In the beginning was the woman,
b) and the woman was with the man
c) and the woman was a man (a literal person among mankind)
Mikes view can be taken to mean that the woman is one person among mankind.This is what the Greek says and I take it as to what you are saying:
a) In the beginning was the woman,
b) and the woman was with the man
c) and the woman was man (mankind/flesh nature)
This last view says that Eve is part of mankind.I believe that the third option is true to the text, but I also admit that scholars do add in an indefinite article in similarly constructed verses in order to make it intelligble for English speakers.
Personally, I hold know respect whatsover for Keith's view as there is definitely no definite article.
And the difference between Mike's view and the latter view is that Mike is saying that Eve is a man (which is true if you consider that man means mankind), but the verse itself (John 1:1c) is not actually singling our Eve as one man, rather I think it is closer to the truth to say that it is saying that Eve is part of mankind in that she has human nature.Of course I am using this as a parable to understand the construct of John 1:1 and am not arguing for or against a literal understanding of the above because that would be off topic.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,12:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 03 2011,10:34) Hi Kathi, I agree. Keith? Jack? Dennison? Mark? Any comment on who “THE God” is in 1:1b?
mike
“The God” is THE GOD.
duh.
Hi D,And how many “THE GODS” are there?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2011,06:35) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,12:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 03 2011,10:34) Hi Kathi, I agree. Keith? Jack? Dennison? Mark? Any comment on who “THE God” is in 1:1b?
mike
“The God” is THE GOD.
duh.
Hi D,And how many “THE GODS” are there?
mike
There is only One God Mike.But according to you there are many, so im sure you disagree.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 05 2011,18:38) Quote (t8 @ April 05 2011,19:29) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,02:49) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,19:22) Now that we all know it IS a grammatical possibility, whether some of us like it or not, are we ready to move on?
MikeI have never agreed that it is Grammatically possible but only that “they say” it is possible.
So move on if you like, but get your facts straight.
WJ
There is NO indefinite article in scripture but translators add them in to make verses intelligible in English.If you disagree with adding in the indefinite article, then to be fair you would also have to equally disagree with all other verses that contain “a” or “an”.
So is it your stance that you disagree with adding in indefinite articles in English translations?And if not, then why do you get to pick and choose which verses are allowed them and which are not?
OK t8Do you disagree that John 1:1c should be anarthrous?
Because what you just explained is a two edged sword because the same stands true for the definite article.
Does Mike and the NWT get to pick an [a] for John 1:1c?
WJ
Hi Keith,Why didn't you answer t8's question? This debate didn't start by me insisting “a god” was the only way it could or should be. It started with Jack calling me out about “a god”.
All I set out to prove is that “a god” was grammatically possible. And I've solidly done that. So now is the time for discussing our PREFERENCES, since we know that GRAMMATICALLY, “a god”, “the god”, and “god” are all possible.
I prefer “a god”, because I know that Jesus is a god who was with the God in the beginning, but who was not that God he was with. Kathi agrees with this, but for some reason feels the capitalized “God” in part c says this just the same as using “a god” would.
You seem to prefer “the God”, which goes against even the Trinitarian scholars, due to part b. From NETNotes:
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
Keith, do you see that there are THREE possibilities, not TWO? Do you see that one of those possibilities is “a god”?
Do you further notice that of the three discussed, the Trinitarian NETNotes scholars only rule out one of them? Did you notice it was YOUR possibility that is ruled out by these Trinitarian scholars? It was NOT my possibility nor t8's possibility. Funny, huh?
Anyway, would you mind answering my question? I was asking who you thought the God in part b was.
I was also expecting a DIRECT answer to this post:
Quote Could the word “god” in part c be something as simple as calling the Word “mighty”, like elohim is translated here: Genesis 23:6
NET © “Listen, sir, you are a mighty prince among us! You may bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs. None of us will refuse you his tomb to prevent you from burying your dead.”NIV ©
“Sir, listen to us. You are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs. None of us will refuse you his tomb for burying your dead.”NASB ©
“Hear us, my lord, you are a mighty prince among us; bury your dead in the choicest of our graves; none of us will refuse you his grave for burying your dead.”NRSV ©
“Hear us, my lord; you are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our burial places; none of us will withhold from you any burial ground for burying your dead.”NKJV ©
“Hear us, my lord: You are a mighty prince among us; bury your dead in the choicest of our burial places. None of us will withhold from you his burial place, that you may bury your dead.”All those bolded “mightys” are the word “elohim”.
Keith, you answered this question, but mistakenly thought the word “prince” was the word “elohim”. But instead, the word “elohim” is translated simply as “mighty”. Could this be also the meaning of 1:1c? Could John be saying the Word was mighty?mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 05 2011,19:42) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2011,06:35) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 03 2011,12:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 03 2011,10:34) Hi Kathi, I agree. Keith? Jack? Dennison? Mark? Any comment on who “THE God” is in 1:1b?
mike
“The God” is THE GOD.
duh.
Hi D,And how many “THE GODS” are there?
mike
There is only One God Mike.But according to you there are many, so im sure you disagree.
Okay,So how could the only God be WITH the only God in the beginning? Read the last part of the green text in my last post to Keith. Intelligent people are quite sure the Word can't possibly be THE GOD that he was WITH. What do YOU think?
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ April 06 2011,07:03) Hi Dennison,
Just wondering if you have a response to my last post on the previous page.
Kathi
Hi Kathi,I read the post, and I read it again, and re-read it. and I have a huge headache and I can't seem to come up with a response.
I have been very busy the past two days, But note that i have read your response and Will respond as soon as I can.
but the longer i stay on the boards the sicker I get literally, so I have to take breaks for my own health.
I know its odd, but Im quite serious.
Let me sleep on it.Thx Ma! talk to ya tommorow!
Ok Dennison-son,
I hope you feel better soon. Maybe you should spend more time reading “Chicken Soup for the Soul” than message boards.Sorry you are ill.
Kathi
Bump for Keith:
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 05 2011,18:38) Quote (t8 @ April 05 2011,19:29) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,02:49) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,19:22) Now that we all know it IS a grammatical possibility, whether some of us like it or not, are we ready to move on?
MikeI have never agreed that it is Grammatically possible but only that “they say” it is possible.
So move on if you like, but get your facts straight.
WJ
There is NO indefinite article in scripture but translators add them in to make verses intelligible in English.If you disagree with adding in the indefinite article, then to be fair you would also have to equally disagree with all other verses that contain “a” or “an”.
So is it your stance that you disagree with adding in indefinite articles in English translations?And if not, then why do you get to pick and choose which verses are allowed them and which are not?
OK t8Do you disagree that John 1:1c should be anarthrous?
Because what you just explained is a two edged sword because the same stands true for the definite article.
Does Mike and the NWT get to pick an [a] for John 1:1c?
WJ
Hi Keith,Why didn't you answer t8's question? This debate didn't start by me insisting “a god” was the only way it could or should be. It started with Jack calling me out about “a god”.
All I set out to prove is that “a god” was grammatically possible. And I've solidly done that. So now is the time for discussing our PREFERENCES, since we know that GRAMMATICALLY, “a god”, “the god”, and “god” are all possible.
I prefer “a god”, because I know that Jesus is a god who was with the God in the beginning, but who was not that God he was with. Kathi agrees with this, but for some reason feels the capitalized “God” in part c says this just the same as using “a god” would.
You seem to prefer “the God”, which goes against even the Trinitarian scholars, due to part b. From NETNotes:
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
Keith, do you see that there are THREE possibilities, not TWO? Do you see that one of those possibilities is “a god”?
Do you further notice that of the three discussed, the Trinitarian NETNotes scholars only rule out one of them? Did you notice it was YOUR possibility that is ruled out by these Trinitarian scholars? It was NOT my possibility nor t8's possibility. Funny, huh?
Anyway, would you mind answering my question? I was asking who you thought the God in part b was.
I was also expecting a DIRECT answer to this post:
Quote Could the word “god” in part c be something as simple as calling the Word “mighty”, like elohim is translated here: Genesis 23:6
NET © “Listen, sir, you are a mighty prince among us! You may bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs. None of us will refuse you his tomb to prevent you from burying your dead.”NIV ©
“Sir, listen to us. You are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs. None of us will refuse you his tomb for burying your dead.”NASB ©
“Hear us, my lord, you are a mighty prince among us; bury your dead in the choicest of our graves; none of us will refuse you his grave for burying your dead.”NRSV ©
“Hear us, my lord; you are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our burial places; none of us will withhold from you any burial ground for burying your dead.”NKJV ©
“Hear us, my lord: You are a mighty prince among us; bury your dead in the choicest of our burial places. None of us will withhold from you his burial place, that you may bury your dead.”All those bolded “mightys” are the word “elohim”.
Keith, you answered this question, but mistakenly thought the word “prince” was the word “elohim”. But instead, the word “elohim” is translated simply as “mighty”. Could this be also the meaning of 1:1c? Could John be saying the Word was mighty?mike
Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2011,21:03) Hi Dennison,
Just wondering if you have a response to my last post on the previous page.
Kathi
Son-Long headache
Madre,
A very long headache. Actually im making most of my short posts while im working.
And at night i do my longer posts. but it just so happens i have a headache right now.
Terrible headache…blehhhh
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
