- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Aug. 01 2007,06:28) WJ; Are you saying you are not a modalist? What is your definition of a modalist?
Steven
SteveI am not a modalist.
Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Aug. 01 2007,06:39) WJ; Do you believe that Jesus is equal with the Father?
Steven
SteveOntologically. Yes!
Is your father greater than you? Maybe, maybe not.
But you are both nevertheless equal in nature. You are both 100% human.
Jesus is the “Monogenes” 'Unique', Son of God. He is God in the flesh. He is the Word/God who took on the likeness of sinfull flesh.
God and man.
Jesus is not greater than the Father in rank, authority, or position.
But he is like his Father in that he is God! He sits at the right hand of the Father, not above him, nor beneeth him.
WJ;
Are you saying Christ is equal with God? By the way, thanks for the quick lesson on modalism. Seriously, from what I've read some call it sabellianism, or Oneness, too.
Steven
WJ;
Ontologically refers to metaphysics, the relationships of beings. Where did Christ say with this qualification that he was equal with God? I use the KJV Bible, it reads without any qualification that “the Father is greater than I am” You may be interjecting here. I'm trying to be kind here considering the truth that I do not have all truth, but you are stating a conclusion which contradicts scripture. That's what I have an issue with. I would guess there is a seminary in your background of your study of the scriptures. No offense, but you're using terminology which is foreign to scripture to propose a belief you cannot support with a scripture. That's always a tell.
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Aug. 01 2007,07:23) WJ; Ontologically refers to metaphysics, the relationships of beings. Where did Christ say with this qualification that he was equal with God? I use the KJV Bible, it reads without any qualification that “the Father is greater than I am” You may be interjecting here. I'm trying to be kind here considering the truth that I do not have all truth, but you are stating a conclusion which contradicts scripture. That's what I have an issue with. I would guess there is a seminary in your background of your study of the scriptures. No offense, but you're using terminology which is foreign to scripture to propose a belief you cannot support with a scripture. That's always a tell.
SteveYou say…
Quote
“the Father is greater than I am”Yes the Father is greater than Jesus. But in what way?
Luke 22:27
For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.Was Jesus saying he was a lessor being than those whom he served? No he is 100% human as they were.
Jesus is the “Express Image of the invisible God”. God manifest in the flesh.
He is both God and man. Phil 2
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 29 2007,09:48) Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 29 2007,09:32) Hi w,
You say
“But as you know Trinitarians believe that Jesus also is the one true God as well as the Spirit.God the Father, God the Son, And God the Spirit!”
And then you ask of others.
“Do you think they were Polytheist? “
Ask yourself first.
No NH!
Trinitarians are not Polytheist Nor are they Modalist.
One God, Three persons, One Spirit!
You should believe all the scriptures!
If God is 3 persons then God is 'they' not 'him'.You said 3 persons.
But saying 'them' means that you are a polytheist, so you don't say it, but you mean it, teach it, and argue for it, you just don't say 'them'.
Not the most sophisticated deception, but a deception nevertheless.
God is 'him', 'his'.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 31 2007,11:57) kejonn You say..
Quote
John knew the true God. Paul knew the one God. Both knew He is the Father. Shame people ignore them.Interesting. And yet you say Jesus is “a god”!
John knew who Jesus was…
Why do you think he says we are in Jesus Christ, this is the true God and Eternal life! Why didnt he just leave him out of the 20th verse.
Dunno. Me and John don't talk to each other
. Seriously though, 1 John 5:20 is oddly written by English standards. But the NT is chock full of Yeshua so it is easy to why he is in so many verses! Hey but look at the verse again, this time alongside another verse written by John:1Jo 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
Jhn 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Since most scholars agree that the same John wrote both verses, why do they not agree? I know you think they do because of your belief in the Trinity, but if one doesn't approach them with such a viewpoint, it is seen that the Father is the true God in John 17:3.
Also, check on 1 John 5:20 in the NIV (emphasis mine)
1Jo 5:20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true–even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
As I know I've pointed out before, the pattern of pronoun usage belongs to the Father: “him”, “him”, “his”. All the Father. So why would it then switch the pronoun to Yeshua? That would be some poor English and special pleading on the part of those who only want to see it the Trinitarian way.
Finally, both instances of “true” in the first sentence of the verse was applied to the Father. Why then would the third be applied to Yeshua? Again, way out of context.
Quote How can millions of believers be “In Jesus” and “In God” at the same time if he is not God?
'Cause it was God's will to allow this to take place through the sacrificial life and death of His Son? Are the reasons that are plainly given in scripture not sufficient to explain this? I think so. None of them say this is necessary that they both be God. How can we be in them if we are not God if you continue to apply this logic? Because like Yeshua, we are reborn to a spiritual birth and given the adoption.Please provide scripture that supports your belief that Yeshua must be God for this to be possible.
Quote How can this Jesus call to men everywhere at the same time saying “Come unto me” if he is not God?
Because the Father draws them?Jhn 6:44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
Jhn 6:65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
Quote How can this Jesus dwell in the hearts of every born again child of God and be every where at the same time where 2 or 3 are gathered together in his name, if he is not God?
Because it was his Father's will for this to be so?Mat 18:19 “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”Jhn 14:26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
1Cr 6:17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Quote How could this being lay the foundations of the world if he is not God? Have you considered what these things mean and how big this Jesus is to be able to fill all things and to uphold all things by the word of “his power” and that by this being all things consist and had their origins?
Yes, but I also know his source. How about this verse:Mat 17:20 And He said to them, “Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
Hmmm, if we can do such feats through faith, we must be God hmmmm? Yeshua said nothing would be impossible for us with faith the size of a mustard seed. How much more will the Son be given power from his Father if nothing is impossible for us?
Quote Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Jn 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.Look again my friend. The apostles didnt call any other “Theos” in a true sense but the Father and the Son.
If Yeshua was truly God in the flesh, instead of Christ in the flesh, why would this happen?Mat 28:17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
Could anyone doubt God in the flesh? But they could doubt that he was truly Messiah, because many of the things predicted of the Messiah had not – to them – come true. He did not deliver them from governmental oppression. He did not deliver them from the rule of the Romans.
Quote You have yet to show that the Apostles were polytheist and believed that there was more than one God!
How many Apostles said this? How many said he was co-equal with his Father? How many said he was God Almighty? How many said the Holy Spirit was God? How many said Yeshua was “the God”. Did not the writer of acts call Herod “theos” in Acts 12:22?Qu
ote1 Cor 8:4
Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
1Cr 8:5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
1Cr 8:6 yet for us there is {but} one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we {exist} for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we {exist} through Him.How do you explain this kejonn?
That there is no God but one, the Father? I don’t have to explain anything since it is written in plain English (from the Greek) for us in 1 Cor 8:6.Quote There is no other God but one. Yet we see the Apostles calling him God.
Then why did Paul write “yet for us there is but one God, the Father”? Why the confusion? If he believed as you, he would have said “one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. But alas, he only wrote “one God, the Father”.Beyond that, who is “us” in verse 8:6? The church, Christians. The Father is our God, Yeshua is our Lord. Paul was writing to the church at Corinth.
Quote You have shown nothing to say Jesus is not God. You continue to ignore that “God alone” made the heavens, yet say that he did it through Jesus the Word, Implying that there was another being less than God with God that God made all things through.
Not a separate being until Yeshua. The Word was an extension of God’s power. Just as the Holy Spirit is. But the Word became flesh and separated himself from God. “The Word was God”, “the Word became flesh”. Does the Bible say he relinquished his flesh after resurrection? No. He was still flesh when he ascended to his Father to sit at the right hand of God. How else would Stephen be able to recognize him?He took on the form of a bond-servant for the sake of mankind so that we could be reconciled with the God of all things, YHWH. Yeshua is the last Adam.
Quote You show the early Fathers calling the Father the One God and creator and yet the same Fathers calling Jesus the creator.
Yes, and if you read further, they say he did this as the Word of God. His Father spoke, the Word created.Quote Yet some how you think that they are saying the Father only is God and that the Son is a lessor god in contrast to the Hebrew scriptures.
Why does Hebrews merely say he has been made much better than the angels yet does not say he equals his Father? Would it not have been as simple to say that for the writer of Hebrews? But the writer did not. By this, he gives us the obvious hierarchy: Father > Son > Angels > Man.Quote Again, 1 John 5:20 includes Jesus as the One true God, or why did he place him in there with the Father?
Uh, did you not see “eternal life”? The concept of eternal life did not come along until the NT with the New Covenant. Since belief in the Son as Lord and Savior is necessary for our adoption as sons of God, it would seem silly to leave Yeshua out of the equation in 1 John 5:20. But I showed you how other translations render this verse (more than the NIV does it BTW) and the pattern of pronoun usage and the use of “true” twice in reference to the Father makes it blatantly obvious who the true God is. Unless of course you must cling to a faulty view so that you theology is intact.Quote Your rants will not change the thousands of years the truth of God has shouted Jesus is God.
Huh? Where? By the Catholic Church? They also worship Mary. Do you? The thousands of years that the scripture has been around screams that “true God” belongs to the Father. I don’t think we need creeds of men to determine the truth…scripture suits me just fine.Quote Maybe he is not your lord and God, I dont know. But he is mine. And I am not a polytheist! How many gods do you have?
Yeshua is my Lord, the Father is my God. I pray to the Father in Yeshua’s name. I have only on God, and He is defined just as He was thousands of years ago in Dt 6:4. If I have two Gods, then I would be confused as to which one deserves my prayers and the glory. I do honor and praise Yeshua, but more so I thank the Father who sent His only begotten Son. I do not praise, worship, or pray to the Holy Spirit.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 31 2007,13:17) Kejonn You say…
Quote Wait…no Holy Spirit? Where is the 3rd “person” of the Triune God in this? Oooppps. Binity again. I thought you were more tactful than that! To resort to such logic.
Logic? We don't need no steenkin' logic. Anyways, there is no logic or even tact to assuming that the Holy Spirit is a seperate “person” of God. The Holy Spirit is never called God. Not once. You can make the claim that Yeshua was called “theos” but where do we see that the Holy Spirit was called “theos”? If there is anything I strongly disagree with in the Trinity it is the idea of the Holy Spirit being a “person” of God.Quote HMM. Let me see… Thomas said unto him…
“My Lord and my God”. Oops. Thomas forgot to mention the Father and the Spirit so I guess they are not God.
Uh, you forgot the whole context of what I was talking about. Here was your quote that I was addressingQuote John who also recorded John 1:1 “The Word was God”, also recorded 1 John 1:1,2. 1 John 1:
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)John starts his epistle with the Word who is God, saying that this Word is the “Eternal Life” that was manifested to us, and in vrs 3 he says our fellowship is with the Father and with the Son. Then he ends the Epistle calling the Father and Jesus the True God and Eternal life, and that we are in this one true God.
See, you mention Father, Son, Word, God…but no Holy Spirit. So my response about binity was to this quote.
Quote Lets see Jesus is true. Jesus is God HMMM. So are you saying Jesus had a beginning?
He was begotten wasn't he? He had a source (the Father) did he not? So yes, he had a beginning. Only the Father is unbegotten.Quote Show me the scripture. Look at the greek for the beginning my friend. It means he is the “Origin”?
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation
“protokos” = “firstborn”. To be firstborn, one must have an origin or a beginning. Was God ever called “firstborn”? He may be before all other things, but he had to be begotten of God.Quote Jesus is called the Word because the word was spoken by him who laid the foundation of the earth. Hebrews 1:10.
Yep.Quote You say… Quote Still comes from the authority and power of the Father Yea, and what is your point?
Jesus is both God and man my friend. Jesus left his Glory he shared with the Father as God! Phil 2
Yep. Did he regain it all? He was not man before his earthly birth, he is now for eternity. He was made much better than the angels but that does not mean equal with the Father.Quote He emptied himself and took on the likeness of sinfull flesh. Strange. I feel like I have been around this mountain with you before. 
He has been restored to his original position. Check it out.
Heb 1:3
Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
You forgot “made much better than the angels”. Not “made to be equal with God”. Strange, why DOES Hebrews 1 have so much about angels anyway?Quote It aint no little god that upholds all things by the word of his power. BTW. “All things consist” by this little god.
Hey, now you're calling him a little god. What's up with that?Quote You say… Quote And yet you missed that the vine cannot live without the husbandman (vinedresser). What are you saying here? That the Father is not in the Son and the Son is not in the Father.
No, that the Father is the vinedresser and the Son is the vine. The verse says so. The vine cannot thrive without the care of the vinedresser.Quote What is this supposed to be proof that Jesus is not the Word/God in the flesh?
Did I say that? Your supposition, not mine. Vine = Son, Vinedresser = Father, branches = us. Simple.Quote Jesus is the vine because he is also a man. We were grafted into the vine because of his humanity. He is God manifest in the flesh. Only Jesus could say “If you have seen me you have seen God”
You betcha. He was sent by the Father to be the image of the invisible God. It would be hard for our fleshly eyes to see an invisible God.Quote You say… Quote
God Almighty is just and true. Are you trying to say they are singing about Yeshua here? If so, Moses needs to be in the Godhead too — “the song of Moses the servant of God”.Absolutly. The song of Moses is the song of the Lamb.
Its a song about YHWH the deliverer, the Saviour of his people.
Who is the Saviour and deliverer?
YHWH. But you need to understand that savior in the OT was not the same as savior in the NT. YHWH delived (“saved”) His people from the bondage of other men in the OT. He alone was their savior. Yeshua became the savior of our souls. Eternal life was not an OT concept. Most Jews did not believe in eternal life. They believed in earthly deliverence from bondage.Still, the Son was sent by the Father, so the ultimate source of salvation, both in the OT and NT is the Father. “For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son”. Yeshua was sent, he did not come on his own. Thereofre, he does nothing of himself. Salvation is only hiis to give because the Father willed it.
Jhn 17:6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.
Jhn 17:7 “Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;
Jhn 17:8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received {them} and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.Quote Since you dont think they are singing the praises of Yeshua then maybe you should look here… Rev 5:
[6] And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
[7] And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
[8] And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
[9] And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
[10] And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
[11] And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;
[12] Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.
[13] And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
[14] And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.As usual the Son right next to the Father being worshipped as God!
Uh, it does not say he was worshiped as God. You imply that according to your theology. In essence, you are adding to the book of Revelation. Now you know that is a “no no” don't you?Show me where it says he was worshiped as God. I do know that the Father calls for His Son's worship, so why should we be surprised here?
Hbr 1:6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”
So you see, all can be explained tidily by scripture. No special pleading or implication needed. God is not the author of confusion.
To Kejonn;
Right on! Right on! Right on!
King Solomon couldn't of said it better himself (well perhaps). Tis a word fitly spoken, like apples of gold in pictures of silver.
Steven
Mr. Steve,
Trinitarians like the word “ontology”
. Which, BTW, is another word we don't find in the Bible, but that is neither here nor there. It really is rather bizarre and just adds another bit of mystery to an already confusing subject. Did you know it is used heavily in philosophy? In philosophy, ontology (from the Greek ὤν, genitive ὄντος: of being (part. of εἶναι: to be) and -λογία: science, study, theory) is the study of being or existence and forms the basic subject matter of metaphysics. It seeks to describe or posit the basic categories and relationships of being or existence to define entities and types of entities within its framework.
Philosophy, philosophy…where have I seen that word used in scripture….oh here it is.
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
Hmmm. Philosophy (ontology). Tradition of men (creeds, extra-biblical doctrines). Elementary principles of this world (trying to explain God outside of scripture using non-biblical terms). Rather than according to Christ (Christ never claimed to be God. NEVER.)
Whoops.
Hmmm
WJ;
You finally admit that the Father is greater than Jesus. Let the heavens rejoice! Let the angels sing! However, you pose a question, too. In what way is the Father greater than Jesus? Let's just think about that for a moment in scriptural terms. Christ received his authority from the Father so the Father is greater in authority because there's no record in scripture of Christ granting authority to his Father. Christ received his life from the Father so he is greater with respect to the power of life. Only the Father knows when Christ will return so he's greater in knowledge. Christ worships the Father, the Father does not worship the Son, so the Father is greater in worship. Christ said he must be about his Father's business so the Father is greater with respect to the business of God. Christ summed it up for us really when he said that he could do nothing of himself. So how is the Father greater than Jesus?
You name it. The Son can do nothing in himself without God the Father.
ANSWER – IN ALL THINGS. ANSWER – WHATEVER GOD WANTS JESUS TO DO HE DOES, NOTHING MORE OR LESS. CHRIST IS UNDER COMMANDMENT FROM GOD ALMIGHTY IN ALL THINGS.Now before you get on your seminary book, do not begin to say within yourself what about form, degree, and substance.
Form- Christ is in the Form of God, but he is not the Father.
Degree- Christ is Lord of heaven and earth subject to the Father in all things.
Substance- Christ was eternally begotten by the Father in the heavens before the incarnation. Spiritually, he is fully the substance of the Almighty God subject to the limitations setforth above. When and How? According to his good pleasure eternally. You cannot site a time in scripture when Christ was not. However, when it is said that the Father created all things by Christ Jesus it is accepted that Christ did not create the Father. Hence, sometime eternally the Son came forth from the Father before the foundation of the world and the fullness of the Father was given to his Son according to the counsel of his own will. Basically, what that means is God's way of saying that's not for you to know or in the vanacular- it's none of your business. Our mission is to declare the truth of salvation of God through Christ, not to explain what God has clearly kept from our sight. We can only declare what we have seen and heard from the mouth of all of God's holy prophets since the world began, not before.
Take care,
Steven
Kejonn;
Nice job on linking ontology with Colossians 2:8. I've read the scripture many times and have seen an application for it until now. Trinitarians are huge philosophers. They love form, degree, and substance. Probably because it's so abstract that it easily confuses the masses and allows them to maintain their heresy. When a verse doesn't fit they just pull out “well that means in degree, but not in substance”. Most believers aren't knowledgeable enough to disect the error of their logic, but you did. Way to go.
Take Care
Steven
Steve,
Kudos on your prior post as well. I won't be so strong worded as you were in your response to me though — I don't like to use the words “heresy” and such when I speak about the Trinity. After all, for many centuries, those who did not believe in th Trinity were considered heretics. I would only consider something heresy if it was contrary to the Bible or took ideas way out of context.
The Trinity does not do that per se. Yeshua is called God on many occasions. But I think the biggest failure of the dogma lies with the Holy Spirit as the 3rd person of the Trinity. There really is no good support for this IMHO.
Kejonn;
Of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the least contended person of the Godhead. We simply have very little scripture on the holy spirit. I believe the Holy Spirit is a distinct person because Christ referred to him as “He” and he will not speak of “Himself” thereby distinguishing him as a separate person in the Godhead.
The Holy Spirit was used in the conception of Christ as a man, not when the Son of God was begotten by God in Heaven.
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Aug. 01 2007,14:33) Kejonn; Of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the least contended person of the Godhead. We simply have very little scripture on the holy spirit. I believe the Holy Spirit is a distinct person because Christ referred to him as “He” and he will not speak of “Himself” thereby distinguishing him as a separate person in the Godhead.
True, but only to the extent that it has been translated as such. Let's look at John 16:13Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
The first “he” is “ekeinos”, the next 2 are implied. “ekeinos” means “he, she it, etc.” From Strong's
rom ekei – ekei 1563; that one (or (neuter) thing); often intensified by the article prefixed:–he, it, the other (same), selfsame, that (same, very), X their, X them, they, this, those. See also outoV – houtos 3778.
So the translators took liberties and assumed “he” was the best rendering for “ekeinos” for the Holy Spirit. The breakdown of the various translations of the word in the KJV is “that” 99, “those” 40, “he” 40, “the same” 20, “they” 14, misc 38.
The next independent pronoun (that is, not implied) is “himself” or “heautou” which can be himself, herself, itself, themselves. The rest of the pronouns in the verse are implied and don't have separate Greek words.
Now I don't know of a translation that uses “it” in relation to these Greek pronouns, but one can see where the translators took some certain liberties. One simple Greek word translated a certain way can change a whole theology.
Scary.
As a follow-up to the last verse, if the Holy Spirit is a separate person of God, what of these verses?
Jhn 17:21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
Jhn 17:23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.
Odd. For one thing, no mention of the Holy Spirit in us. Yet if the Holy Spirit is an extension of God's essence, His own personal spirit, that explains how God and Yeshua can be in us. If the Holy Spirit is a separate person, then this because less plausible.
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 02 2007,14:30) Quote (Mr. Steve @ Aug. 01 2007,14:33) Kejonn; Of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the least contended person of the Godhead. We simply have very little scripture on the holy spirit. I believe the Holy Spirit is a distinct person because Christ referred to him as “He” and he will not speak of “Himself” thereby distinguishing him as a separate person in the Godhead.
True, but only to the extent that it has been translated as such. Let's look at John 16:13Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
The first “he” is “ekeinos”, the next 2 are implied. “ekeinos” means “he, she it, etc.” From Strong's
rom ekei – ekei 1563; that one (or (neuter) thing); often intensified by the article prefixed:–he, it, the other (same), selfsame, that (same, very), X their, X them, they, this, those. See also outoV – houtos 3778.
So the translators took liberties and assumed “he” was the best rendering for “ekeinos” for the Holy Spirit. The breakdown of the various translations of the word in the KJV is “that” 99, “those” 40, “he” 40, “the same” 20, “they” 14, misc 38.
The next independent pronoun (that is, not implied) is “himself” or “heautou” which can be himself, herself, itself, themselves. The rest of the pronouns in the verse are implied and don't have separate Greek words.
Now I don't know of a translation that uses “it” in relation to these Greek pronouns, but one can see where the translators took some certain liberties. One simple Greek word translated a certain way can change a whole theology.
Scary.
KejonnAhh so it is the translators again?
I suppose you have the credentials to doubt the hundreds of scholars also?
Since you mention the pronouns and say it could have been translated other ways, well lets see if it can.
First of all you have no proof the translators were taking liberties. You only cast shadows on the scriptures which we believe to be God breathed.
Secondly the Translators had reason why thay used the pronouns they did in order for the verses to grammatically make sense.
For instance lets see if your proposed interpretation works.
Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when “it”, the Spirit of truth, is come, “it” will guide you into all truth: for “it” shall not speak of “itself”; but whatsoever “it” shall hear, [that] shall “it” speak: and “ii” will shew you things to come.
Sounds like the twilight zone to me!
I am beginning to understand what CB means when he seems to accuse of JWs. For there is a translation that does translates it as you imply it should be.
NWT Scary HUH?
But since you go into the greek lets look at some of the words surrounding the questioned pronouns.
The verse says the Spirit of truth will…
”Come”… erchomai, which means…
1) to come
a) of persons
1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning
2) to appear, make one's appearance, come before the publicThis word is used AV — come 616, go 13, misc 13, vr come 1
It is used almost invariably in association with a person in the NT.
The verse says the Spirit of truth will…
“Guide”… hodēgeō, which means… 1) to be a guide, lead on one's way, to guide
2) to be a guide or a teacher
a) to give guidance toThis word is used AV — lead 3, guide 2
100 percent used in association with a person.
The verse says the Spirit of truth will…
“Speak”… laleo, which means…
1) to utter a voice or emit a sound
2) to speak
a) to use the tongue or the faculty of speech
b) to utter articulate sounds
3) to talk
4) to utter, tell
5) to use words in order to declare one's mind and disclose one's thoughts
a) to speakAV — speak 244, say 15, tell 12, talk 11, preach 6, utter 4, misc 3, vr speak 1
Almost invariably it involves a person with a tongue.
The verse says the Spirit of truth will…
“Hear”… akouō, which means…
1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf
2) to hear
b) to attend to, consider what is or has been said
c) to understand, perceive the sense of what is said
3) to hear something
a) to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence
b) to get by hearing learn
c) a thing comes to one's ears, to find out, learn
d) to give ear to a teaching or a teacher
e) to comprehend, to understandAV — hear 418, hearken 6, give audience 3, hearer 2, misc 8
Again, almost invariably associated with a person.
The verse says the Spirit of truth will…
“Shew” anaggello,
1) to announce, make known
2) to report, bring back tidings, rehearseAV — tell 6, show 6, declare 3, rehearse 1, speak 1, report 1
100% associated with a person who has a tongue.
While we are at it lets look at the 14th verse.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.
The Spirit of truth will…
“Glorify” doxazo,
1) to think, suppose, be of opinion
2) to praise, extol, magnify, celebrate
3) to honour, do honour to, hold in honour
4) to make glorious, adorn with lustre, clothe with splendour
a) to impart glory to something, render it excellent
b) to make renowned, render illustrious
1) to cause the dignity and worth of some person or thing to become manifest and acknowledgedAV — glorify 54, honour 3, have glory 2, magnify 1, make glorious 1, full of glory 1
100% associated with a person.
The Spirit of truth will…
“Receive” lambano,1) to take
a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it
1) to take up a thing to be carried
2) to take upon one's self
b) to take in order to carry away
1) without the notion of violence, i,e to remove, take away
c) to take what is one's own, to take to one's self, to make one's own
1) to claim, procure, for one's self
a) to associate with one's self as companion, attendant
2) of that which when taken is not let go, to seize, to lay hold of, apprehend
3) to take by craft (our catch, used of hunters, fisherman, etc.), to circumvent one by fraud
4) to take to one's self, lay hold upon, take possession of, i.e. to appropriate to one's self
5) catch at, reach after, strive to obtain
6) to take a thing due, to collect, gather (tribute)
d) to take
1) to admit, receive
2) to receive what is offered
3) not to refuse or reject
4) to receive a person, give him access to one's self,
a) to regard any one's power, rank, external circumstances, and on that account to do some injustice or neglect something
e) to take, to choose, select
f) to take beginning, to prove anything, to make a trial of, to experience
2) to receive (what is given), to gain, get, obtain, to get backAV — receive 133, take 106, have 3, catch 3, not tr 1, misc 17
Almos
t invariably associated with a person.I don’t think the translators had an agenda. Do you?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
