- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 18 2010,08:13) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 17 2010,16:00) Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110 A.D) Ignatius, who is Theophorus, to the Church which has received grace through the greatness of the Father Most High. (Third Epistle).
I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born [only] in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance, others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all. (To the Tarsians, II).
And that He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was “the first-born of every creature,” and God the Word, who also created all things. For says the apostle, “There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things”. And again, “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (To the Tarsians, IV).
And that He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son, He says, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. And again, “When all things shall be subjected unto Him, then shall He also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” Wherefore it is One [God] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [His Son] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject [to the former]. (To the Tarsians, V; cf. 1 Cor 15:24-28).
How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me.
(To the Tarsians, VI).
t8It seems a little dishonest to quote “Ignatius” from the spurious writings.
WJ
Yes you appear to be right.
I knew one of them was considered of spurious origin but couldn't remember which one. I chose 3. I put forward this letter instead which has a similar message.It is from Justin Martyr (ca. 150 A.D) First Apology
Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten. (23).
For what is called by the Divine Spirit through the prophet “his robe,” are those men who believe in him in whom abides the seed of God, the Word. And what is spoken of as “the blood of the grape,” signifies that he who should appear would have blood, though not of the seed of man, but of the power of God. And the first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word, who is also the Son; and of Him we will, in what follows, relate how He took flesh and became man.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 18 2010,08:12) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 17 2010,15:58) “That they may know You the only true God; “but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply “the” theos but rather theos.
Yes t8Origen was an “Arian” and considered a Heretic because of teachings like the following…
After his return from Athens, he succeeded in converting Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, from his adoptionistic (i.e., belief that Jesus was born human and only became divine after his baptism) views to the orthodox faith; yet in these very years (about 240) probably occurred the attacks on Origen's own orthodoxy which compelled him to defend himself in writing to Pope Fabian and many bishops. Neither the source nor the object of these attacks is known, though the latter may have been connected with Novatianism (a strict refusal to accept Christians who had denied their faith under persecution). Wiki
Little wonder of his treatment of John 1:1, by turnining the text to meaning “The Word was Divine”.
The definite article not being present with John 1:1c argument is a red herring because there are many many times the word God in refering to the Father does not have the article present.
WJ
See how your view is tainted WJ.It matters little if he was an Arian or not. If was a Trinitarian, then would you make the same judgement? (Even though they weren't invented or established yet)
What matters in my post is his treatment of John 1:1 regarding the language and use and lack of of the definite article. It is that you should be challenging and not the label he has been given by some.
Also, it seems very weird that he treats John 1:1 the way he does and then believes that Jesus was born human and only became divine after his baptism. I would suggest that if this is what he said, then it seems highly likely that he was referring to Jesus after he emptied himself and took on the form of man. After all, Origen does say that the Word was divine and the Word is Jesus Christ. And it makes sense that he partook of divine nature after baptism. That seems logical considering his views on John 1:1.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
Quote For quite some time, Origen was counted as one of the most important church fathers and his works were widely used in the Church. His exegetical method was standard of the School of Alexandria and the Origenists were an important party in the 4th century debates on Arianism.
From what I can tell, he was influential, but some of his followers got into disrepute. So what if that is the case. You could say the same thing with Jesus Christ.When he died, he left no pupil who could succeed him, nor was the church of his period able to become his heir, and thus, his knowledge was buried. – Wikipedia.
Anyway, the conclusion I can draw from your post is that you do not understand or accept the usage of definite articles in Greek. And thus, you are free to make something personal or qualitative depending on your view. I can appreciate your desire to want this freedom because it helps you in your quest to promote your doctrine about Christ being God himself, but it is not an honest way to interpret scripture.
I merely quote Origen's view on the use of the definite article and you turn around and attack the man, by saying that he is considered a heretic (and I take it that this is your view too), and rubbish his view on John 1:1. It seems some other here think you have done the same thing with them.
Is this the way of truth? And why would God reveal anything to anyone who was not child-like and innocent in their ways.
William Tyndale, “Angliae Apostolus”, humanist, translator, and Protestant martyr, was born about 1494 in Gloucestershire. He was educated at Oxford and Cambridge. About 1522 he planned to translate the Bible. After church authorities in England prevented him from his project he went to Germany in 1524. He landed at Hamburg and soon left for Wittenberg where he was registered under an assumed name (Guillelmus Daltin ex Anglia) at the university. Despite some controversy there is now little doubt that he met Martin Luther who was also in the city at that time. From Wittenberg he moved to Cologne where he completed his New Testament translation in 1525. The printing was begun at Cologne but, when Catholic authorities suppressed it, carried out at Worms in 1526. The first copies were smuggled into England in the same year. Church authorities burned all the copies they could trace. Of the Cologne edition only a single fragment has survived, of about 6000 copies of the Worms edition, only three (British Library, St. Paul's Cathedral Library, Württembergische Landesbibliothek Stuttgart). Tyndale never returned to England and spent the rest of his life in Antwerp where he began the translations of the Pentateuch, Jonah and the historical books (from Joshua to the Second Book of Chronicles). Tyndale's translation was the basis for the King James Version of 1611. In 1535 he was accused of heresy and imprisoned at Vilvorde near Brussels. There he was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536.
http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch….tr.htmlIn 1510, William Tyndale arrived to study at Cambridge University and studied Greek under Desiderius Erasmus, who in a few years would publish the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. While studying there, he developed a passion that would consume him for the rest of his life: a desire to produce for the common people of England a translation of the Bible based not on Latin, but on the original Greek and Hebrew. “He once said to one of his opponents: “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plow shall know more of the scriptures than thou doest” (Lightfoot, 77).
After Erasmus completed his printed Greek New Testament in 1516, Tyndale set out to translate it. He left England and completed the translation in Hamburg, and began to have it printed in Cologne. But Tyndale’s work associated him with the reformer Martin Luther, who had just completed a German translation of the Bible. Thus when the Pope’s supporters realized what was happening, they threatened Tyndale’s life, forcing him to flee Cologne with the sheets of his partially printed New Testament. He went to Worms, where the people were sympathetic to the reformation, and completed the printing there.
In 1526, the first copies were smuggled into England, where they were bought enthusiastically. The religious establishment in England immediately condemned the popular translation and burned copies of it in public ceremonies. In the meantime, Tyndale was working on his translation of the Old Testament. He released the first five OT books in 1530 and several other OT books in succeeding years.
It appeared that official opposition to his translation had subsided, and Tyndale returned to England. But he was betrayed by the Romanists who remained there, and was imprisoned in 1534. “In 1536, after spending months in prison, he was strangled and burned at the stake, crying, ‘Lord, open the King of England’s eyes’” (Lightfoot, 78).
http://www.hgenterprises.net/Spokane….ble.htmCurious isn’t it that the Catholics thought Tyndale a heretic. The same Catholics that insisted all translation be made from the Latin Vulgate whose translation says “him” instead of “it”. Curious also that over 300 times the word “logos” is used in scripture and only a very few places do the Trinitarians try to force it to read him. The rest of the time they are content to use the actual meaning of the word a statement speech or idea expressed. In other words logos is an “it”. I think a good rule of thumb is that if the Catholic Church is against it we should probably follow it.
And here is how Tyndale translated John 1:1-3
¶ In the beginning was that word, and that word was with god: and god was that word. The same was in the beginning with god. All things were made by it, and without it, was made no thing, that made was. In it was life, And life was the light of men, And the light shineth in the darkness, and darkness comprehended it not.
http://www.faithofgod.net/WTNT/john_1.htmlQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2010,05:45) Quote (martian @ Aug. 12 2010,07:52) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 11 2010,11:59) To All, In written grammar there is what is called the article.
In the English we have a total of Three articles; both the
definite and the indefinite. The word THE is the definite article.
The definite article is used to define something or someone that is
definite. A and AN are both indefinite articles being less specific. There
is only one article in Hebrew [ה], it is definite and pronounced Hä and Hey.
It's used twice in GOD’s Holy Name יהוה pronounced YÄ-hä-vā and spelled YHVH
in English. There's at least 12 different articles in Greek; and all of them are definite.
The determining factor for which one that is used is based upon whether the case is Dative,
Nominative, Genitive, Vocative, or Accusative. Some of the Greek articles are ο, τον, του, and τω.Conclusion: Each and every time “an indefinite article” is used in The Scriptures it is ALWAYS used at
the translators discretion; nothing to build doctrine on! (Isaiah 55:8-9) And in like manor ALL personal
pronouns (He, She, Him, Her, His & it) ALL originate form ONE GREEK WORD: [αὐτός] (autos) ow-tos'!Neither The Hebrew Masoretic Texts nor the Greek language have a word for “OF”; added ONLY IN ENGLISH!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I am sorry, I do not get your point?
Hi Martian,Seems you assert 'it' is the proper translation based on William Tyndale as a translator.
Re-read my Post so 'you' can begin to grasp “the bigger picture”; OK?
How could you have possibly of missed my point?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Bump for MartianQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2010,19:13) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2010,05:45) Quote (martian @ Aug. 12 2010,07:52) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 11 2010,11:59) To All, In written grammar there is what is called the article.
In the English we have a total of Three articles; both the
definite and the indefinite. The word THE is the definite article.
The definite article is used to define something or someone that is
definite. A and AN are both indefinite articles being less specific. There
is only one article in Hebrew [ה], it is definite and pronounced Hä and Hey.
It's used twice in GOD’s Holy Name יהוה pronounced YÄ-hä-vā and spelled YHVH
in English. There's at least 12 different articles in Greek; and all of them are definite.
The determining factor for which one that is used is based upon whether the case is Dative,
Nominative, Genitive, Vocative, or Accusative. Some of the Greek articles are ο, τον, του, and τω.Conclusion: Each and every time “an indefinite article” is used in The Scriptures it is ALWAYS used at
the translators discretion; nothing to build doctrine on! (Isaiah 55:8-9) And in like manor ALL personal
pronouns (He, She, Him, Her, His & it) ALL originate form ONE GREEK WORD: [αὐτός] (autos) ow-tos'!Neither The Hebrew Masoretic Texts nor the Greek language have a word for “OF”; added ONLY IN ENGLISH!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I am sorry, I do not get your point?
Hi Martian,Seems you assert 'it' is the proper translation based on William Tyndale as a translator.
Re-read my Post so 'you' can begin to grasp “the bigger picture”; OK?
How could you have possibly of missed my point?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Bump for Martian
Hello Ed,Maybe you might have an opinion:
What was Yashua's name before it was Jesus?
Does “Word” sound like it might fit into the language scheme as well as God's overall plan?
The Professor
Martian………….notice how what you quoted from Tyndale goes along with what Jesus said about the Word, “the words i am telling you ARE Spirit and Life, and he said those words were not his words. All things were indeed made by (IT) The Word of GOD. Not Jesus the Man, but the Words GOD Spoke is what created everything because the power of GOD was in those Words.. GOD and His Words are one and the same thing.
peace and love to you and yours…………………………gene
Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 18 2010,11:54) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2010,19:13) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2010,05:45) Quote (martian @ Aug. 12 2010,07:52) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 11 2010,11:59) To All, In written grammar there is what is called the article.
In the English we have a total of Three articles; both the
definite and the indefinite. The word THE is the definite article.
The definite article is used to define something or someone that is
definite. A and AN are both indefinite articles being less specific. There
is only one article in Hebrew [ה], it is definite and pronounced Hä and Hey.
It's used twice in GOD’s Holy Name יהוה pronounced YÄ-hä-vā and spelled YHVH
in English. There's at least 12 different articles in Greek; and all of them are definite.
The determining factor for which one that is used is based upon whether the case is Dative,
Nominative, Genitive, Vocative, or Accusative. Some of the Greek articles are ο, τον, του, and τω.Conclusion: Each and every time “an indefinite article” is used in The Scriptures it is ALWAYS used at
the translators discretion; nothing to build doctrine on! (Isaiah 55:8-9) And in like manor ALL personal
pronouns (He, She, Him, Her, His & it) ALL originate form ONE GREEK WORD: [αὐτός] (autos) ow-tos'!Neither The Hebrew Masoretic Texts nor the Greek language have a word for “OF”; added ONLY IN ENGLISH!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I am sorry, I do not get your point?
Hi Martian,Seems you assert 'it' is the proper translation based on William Tyndale as a translator.
Re-read my Post so 'you' can begin to grasp “the bigger picture”; OK?
How could you have possibly of missed my point?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Bump for Martian
Hello Ed,Maybe you might have an opinion:
What was Yashua's name before it was Jesus?
Does “Word” sound like it might fit into the language scheme as well as God's overall plan?
The Professor
Hi David,The systems of religion and traditions of men communicate…
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.John 1:1…
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.English ↔ Hebrew ↔ Greek
“Word of God”(86) = (האלהים](86] = [ο λογος](86)th Prime Hō Lōgôs
“Word of God” ↔ “GOD” ↔ “The Word”I hope me carefully lining this up for you will help you to see “Bible Truth”!
Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Aug. 17 2010,17:13) Anyway, the conclusion I can draw from your post is that you do not understand or accept the usage of definite articles in Greek.
t8You can trust his views if you like, but I don't. Of course I have bias because I know in whom I have believed. Would you say you do not have bias, if so that would not be a true statement would it?
Anyway the definite article argument once again is a misnomer and to insist on it being a valid argument is disingenuous at best.
There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John. John 1:6
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: John 1:12
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:13
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.John 1:18
The above scriptures are anarthrous (lacking the article) yet it is unquestionable that the word Theos (God) is God.
The following explains this very well…
Greek scholars are in general agreement that the wording “The Word was God” or “the Word was divine” is the correct way to understand the last clause of John 1:1. Competent scholarship does not support the argument that the lack of a definite article in a predicate nominative indicates an indefinite reference. “To say that the absence of the article bespeaks of the nonabsolute deity of the Word is sheer folly. There are many places in this Gospel where the anarthrous [used without the article] theos appears (e.g., 1:6, 12, 13, 18), and not once is the implication that this is referring to just 'a god’” [Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, editor, volume 9, page 30]. Source
As you can see the lack of the definite article argument in referring to the Word in John 1:1c is a red herring and a smokescreen.
The word “Theos” God does appear with the definite article in referring to Jesus also in John 20:28 – 1 John 5:20 and in most Greek text Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
Do you accept the usage of the definite article in the above verses t8?
Thanks for listening…
WJ
Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 18 2010,11:54) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2010,19:13) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2010,05:45) Quote (martian @ Aug. 12 2010,07:52) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 11 2010,11:59) To All, In written grammar there is what is called the article.
In the English we have a total of Three articles; both the
definite and the indefinite. The word THE is the definite article.
The definite article is used to define something or someone that is
definite. A and AN are both indefinite articles being less specific. There
is only one article in Hebrew [ה], it is definite and pronounced Hä and Hey.
It's used twice in GOD’s Holy Name יהוה pronounced YÄ-hä-vā and spelled YHVH
in English. There's at least 12 different articles in Greek; and all of them are definite.
The determining factor for which one that is used is based upon whether the case is Dative,
Nominative, Genitive, Vocative, or Accusative. Some of the Greek articles are ο, τον, του, and τω.Conclusion: Each and every time “an indefinite article” is used in The Scriptures it is ALWAYS used at
the translators discretion; nothing to build doctrine on! (Isaiah 55:8-9) And in like manor ALL personal
pronouns (He, She, Him, Her, His & it) ALL originate form ONE GREEK WORD: [αὐτός] (autos) ow-tos'!Neither The Hebrew Masoretic Texts nor the Greek language have a word for “OF”; added ONLY IN ENGLISH!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I am sorry, I do not get your point?
Hi Martian,Seems you assert 'it' is the proper translation based on William Tyndale as a translator.
Re-read my Post so 'you' can begin to grasp “the bigger picture”; OK?
How could you have possibly of missed my point?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Bump for Martian
Hello Ed,Maybe you might have an opinion:
What was Yashua's name before it was Jesus?
Does “Word” sound like it might fit into the language scheme as well as God's overall plan?
The Professor
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Edit))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Hi David,The systems of religion and traditions of men communicate…
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.John 1:1…
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.English ↔ Hebrew ↔ Greek
“Word of God”(86) = (אלהים](86] = [ο λογος](86)th Prime Hō Lōgôs
“Word of God” ↔ “GOD” ↔ “The Word”I hope me carefully lining this up for you will help you to see “Bible Truth”!
Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org[/quote]Quote (martian @ Aug. 17 2010,17:59) Curious isn’t it that the Catholics thought Tyndale a heretic. The same Catholics that insisted all translation be made from the Latin Vulgate whose translation says “him” instead of “it”.
MartianWhat is curious is that after 450 years plus there is not an accepted translation since then that reads John 1:1 that way.
We are living in the 21st century and have access to so much more information about our history and the Biblical languages.
Its obvious that no Translation like that would survive the scrutiny of the cream of Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic scholarship based on the availability of information and the massive amount of knowledge in the Biblical languages available today. Not to mention the availability of over 5000 manuscripts including the Dead Sea scrolls which none of those men had access to.
But who knows, maybe you could rewrite the scriptures and create your own Bible because from what I have seen of your treatment of the scriptures you might win a few over.
You could call it the AU Version which is short for “The Arian or Unitarian version”.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 18 2010,15:39) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 17 2010,17:13) Anyway, the conclusion I can draw from your post is that you do not understand or accept the usage of definite articles in Greek.
t8You can trust his views if you like, but I don't. Of course I have bias because I know in whom I have believed. Would you say you do not have bias, if so that would not be a true statement would it?
Anyway the definite article argument once again is a misnomer and to insist on it being a valid argument is disingenuous at best.
There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John. John 1:6
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: John 1:12
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:13
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.John 1:18
The above scriptures are anarthrous (lacking the article) yet it is unquestionable that the word Theos (God) is God.
The following explains this very well…
Greek scholars are in general agreement that the wording “The Word was God” or “the Word was divine” is the correct way to understand the last clause of John 1:1. Competent scholarship does not support the argument that the lack of a definite article in a predicate nominative indicates an indefinite reference. “To say that the absence of the article bespeaks of the nonabsolute deity of the Word is sheer folly. There are many places in this Gospel where the anarthrous [used without the article] theos appears (e.g., 1:6, 12, 13, 18), and not once is the implication that this is referring to just 'a god’” [Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, editor, volume 9, page 30]. Source
As you can see the lack of the definite article argument in referring to the Word in John 1:1c is a red herring and a smokescreen.
The word “Theos” God does appear with the definite article in referring to Jesus also in John 20:28 – 1 John 5:20 and in most Greek text Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
Do you accept the usage of the definite article in the above verses t8?
Thanks for listening…
WJ
The nominative does not need the definite article. Example: John 1:6 says that John the baptist was a man “sent from God.” There is no definite article. It is not required when the noun is written in the nominative case.Roo
To all,
It is irrelevant if Martin knows Greek. The question is if William Tyndale knew Greek when he chose the translation he did. Martin gave his reasons for preferring Tyndale's translation over John Wycliffe's in this matter. In conclusion if you prefer Wycliffe's then state why instead of making an irrelevant point. I am interested in hearing.
I do know that time has passed since William Tyndale translated scripture and therefore it is quite possible additional manuscripts have been found. In addition experts in Greek may dispute the correct translation.
WJ………..So you fill free to just change the words written in John 1:1 from the Word “WORD” to Jesus right even though the Apostle John Wrote “WORD” There. But you claim to not have changed the “WORDS” to fit your Trinitarian and Preexistence views, isn't that somewhat of a Joke?
KJ………..Do you also think John was so stupid that he forgot how to spell Jesus' name and could only come up with the Word “WORD” there also. Haven't you ever thought if John meant to mean Jesus he would have just wrote Jesus? My how Trinitariand and Preexistences can just force the written text to mean what in fact in not written and so brazen about it they have no shame.
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 18 2010,20:10) To all, It is irrelevant if Martin knows Greek. The question is if William Tyndale knew Greek when he chose the translation he did. Martin gave his reasons for preferring Tyndale's translation over John Wycliffe's in this matter. In conclusion if you prefer Wycliffe's then state why instead of making an irrelevant point. I am interested in hearing.
I do know that time has passed since William Tyndale translated scripture and therefore it is quite possible additional manuscripts have been found. In addition experts in Greek may dispute the correct translation.
Thank you and that was my point exactly. A novice student of manuscripts and translations will tell you that an earlier translation should be given more credence then a later one. Couple that with the persecution and squashing being done by the Catholic Church and it does raise the question of the proper translation.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 19 2010,00:40) KJ………..Do you also think John was so stupid that he forgot how to spell Jesus' name and could only come up with the Word “WORD” there also. Haven't you ever thought if John meant to mean Jesus he would have just wrote Jesus? My how Trinitariand and Preexistences can just force the written text to mean what in fact in not written and so brazen about it they have no shame.
There is no reason from a language standpoint to infer Jesus in any of the scriptures that are changed from “word” to “Jesus”. Some will say context but that is in reality only derived by reading a preconceived idea into the context. The tendency to use doctrine to define words is so prevelent that even dictionaries will define Jesus as the word though there is no precedent in historical language of the time or liguistics of the text. the Catholics and their present supporters have done a good job of snowing Christians.Quote (martian @ Aug. 19 2010,00:46) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 19 2010,00:40) KJ………..Do you also think John was so stupid that he forgot how to spell Jesus' name and could only come up with the Word “WORD” there also. Haven't you ever thought if John meant to mean Jesus he would have just wrote Jesus? My how Trinitariand and Preexistences can just force the written text to mean what in fact in not written and so brazen about it they have no shame.
There is no reason from a language standpoint to infer Jesus in any of the scriptures that are changed from “word” to “Jesus”. Some will say context but that is in reality only derived by reading a preconceived idea into the context. The tendency to use doctrine to define words is so prevelent that even dictionaries will define Jesus as the word though there is no precedent in historical language of the time or liguistics of the text. the Catholics and their present supporters have done a good job of snowing Christians.
Duh, verse 14 says that the Word became flesh and was called the “only Son.” If this was not Jesus then who was it? Again duh!the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 19 2010,00:50) Quote (martian @ Aug. 19 2010,00:46) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 19 2010,00:40) KJ………..Do you also think John was so stupid that he forgot how to spell Jesus' name and could only come up with the Word “WORD” there also. Haven't you ever thought if John meant to mean Jesus he would have just wrote Jesus? My how Trinitariand and Preexistences can just force the written text to mean what in fact in not written and so brazen about it they have no shame.
There is no reason from a language standpoint to infer Jesus in any of the scriptures that are changed from “word” to “Jesus”. Some will say context but that is in reality only derived by reading a preconceived idea into the context. The tendency to use doctrine to define words is so prevelent that even dictionaries will define Jesus as the word though there is no precedent in historical language of the time or liguistics of the text. the Catholics and their present supporters have done a good job of snowing Christians.
Duh, verse 14 says that the Word became flesh and was called the “only Son.” If this was not Jesus then who was it? Again duh!the Roo
The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us and was called the “only Son.” If this was not Jesus then who was it? A thousand times duh!the Roo
JK………..”Dude”……If you understood the “WORD” was GOD and GOD was (IN) Jesus instead of (BEING) Jesus it would be clear for you, “GOD (IN) ALL and (THROUGH) ALL”, GET IT “DUDE”. THE WORD WAS GOD THE FATHER THAT WAS (IN) JESUS. “THE FATHER WHO IS (IN) ME (HE) DOTH THE WORKS”. Now where doest it say that the father that was (IN) Jesus was Jesus himself “DUDE”?.
peace and love…………………….gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 19 2010,01:06) JK………..”Dude”……If you understood the “WORD” was GOD and GOD was (IN) Jesus instead of (BEING) Jesus it would be clear for you, “GOD (IN) ALL and (THROUGH) ALL”, GET IT “DUDE”. THE WORD WAS GOD THE FATHER THAT WAS (IN) JESUS. “THE FATHER WHO IS (IN) ME (HE) DOTH THE WORKS”. Now where doest it say that the father that was (IN) Jesus was Jesus himself “DUDE”?. peace and love…………………….gene
Gene,
The word “Logos” (Word) is just a name. It simply tells us something about Christ. You Rationalists are complicating things. Verse 14 CLEARLY says that the Word became flesh and that He TABERNACLED AMONG US and that He was God's “only Son.”Does not Jesus fit the bill here?
KJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
