- This topic has 25,954 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 12 hours, 9 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,12:46) Taken from Wikipedia. After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb 'was' ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os′] is not the same thing as [ho the·os′] ('divine' is not the same thing as 'God').” Other scholars, such as Philip B. Harner elaborate on the grammatical construction found here (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87). Apart from Jehovah's Witnesses and some others, the understanding of the language of the original makes the “Word” emphatically “God,” as the absence of the definite article makes the “Word” God by nature; ie, not 'a' god, but the Word was God.
Some scholars have suggested that John made creative use of double meaning in the word “Logos” to communicate to both Jews, who were familiar with the Wisdom tradition in Judaism, and Hellenic polytheism, especially followers of Philo (Hellenistic Judaism).[citation needed] Each of these two groups had its own history associated with the concept of the Logos, and each could understand John's use of the term from one or both of those contexts.
Emphasis is mine.
t8Wikopedia?
If John meant divine or quality he could have used a different word in John 1:1c, but instead used the same word “theos” as in John 1:1b.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,12:46) Taken from Wikipedia. After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb 'was' ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os′] is not the same thing as [ho the·os′] ('divine' is not the same thing as 'God').” Other scholars, such as Philip B. Harner elaborate on the grammatical construction found here (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87). Apart from Jehovah's Witnesses and some others, the understanding of the language of the original makes the “Word” emphatically “God,” as the absence of the definite article makes the “Word” God by nature; ie, not 'a' god, but the Word was God.
Some scholars have suggested that John made creative use of double meaning in the word “Logos” to communicate to both Jews, who were familiar with the Wisdom tradition in Judaism, and Hellenic polytheism, especially followers of Philo (Hellenistic Judaism).[citation needed] Each of these two groups had its own history associated with the concept of the Logos, and each could understand John's use of the term from one or both of those contexts.
Emphasis is mine.
t8Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,12:46)
Apart from Jehovah's Witnesses and some others, the understanding of the language of the original makes the “Word” emphatically “God,” as the absence of the definite article makes the “Word” God by nature; ie, not 'a' god, but the Word was God.If the “Word was God by nature” then how could he be less than God?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:45) t8 You didnt answer the question?
We are not talking about the OT. We are talking about the NT.
Give me one example where the word “theos” is ascribed to any other being with the definite article besides the arch enemy of God!
WJ
2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/2co4.pdf
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,12:56) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:45) t8 You didnt answer the question?
We are not talking about the OT. We are talking about the NT.
Give me one example where the word “theos” is ascribed to any other being with the definite article besides the arch enemy of God!
WJ
2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/2co4.pdf
t8Are you comparing Yeshua with satan?
Give me one example where the word “theos” is ascribed to any other being with the definite article besides the arch enemy of God!
Yeshua is not an opposite.
Theos=true. Theos=false. Where is a true Theos with the article besides Yeshua found in the mouths of the NT saints?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:56) If the “Word was God by nature” then how could he be less than God?
OK, maybe we are making some progress now.If Adam was adam/man in nature how could he be less than Man?
Well there is only one Adam (well actually 2 if you count the second Adam) and there are billions of adams.
So Jesus is not God (the person) but in nature or quality he is theos.
Likewise the Devil is Satan, and devil can be any number of beings that possess Satan's nature or qualities. That apparently included Judas.
In other words, what I have said from the beginning, i.e., that Trinitarians cannot distinguish between identity and quality in this context.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,13:01) Are you comparing Yeshua with satan?
No of course not. I am showing you some language construction. It has nothing to do with likening God and Satan, except to say that they are 2 different beings who are both called theos and The theos too.But one is the God of this age, and the other is the God of all, over all, and through all. That God is the Father.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,13:01) Give me one example where the word “theos” is ascribed to any other being with the definite article besides the arch enemy of God! Yeshua is not an opposite.
I don't have to because theos as applied to judges or elohim as applied to angels is an authority/quality/thing given by the true God. But Satan is a theos and a father. He is the theos of this age and the father of lies. So he really is a God or the God of something. i.e., these things do not originate in YHWH.Not many are a God of something or the source of something. Usually it is either of YHWH or Satan. Although Yeshua to some degree can be an exception because he is our head and authority. So he can be our God relatively speaking, but not the God of the Father. Just as a landlord can have authority over a person who is renting, yet the Lord Jesus can have authority over the landlord.
As it stands, the Father is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. God made him both lord and Christ. The Father is the true God and the Most High God. And Jesus is not the God of the Father. In fact the word Father is used for a reason.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:52) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,12:46) Taken from Wikipedia. After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb 'was' ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os′] is not the same thing as [ho the·os′] ('divine' is not the same thing as 'God').” Other scholars, such as Philip B. Harner elaborate on the grammatical construction found here (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87). Apart from Jehovah's Witnesses and some others, the understanding of the language of the original makes the “Word” emphatically “God,” as the absence of the definite article makes the “Word” God by nature; ie, not 'a' god, but the Word was God.
Some scholars have suggested that John made creative use of double meaning in the word “Logos” to communicate to both Jews, who were familiar with the Wisdom tradition in Judaism, and Hellenic polytheism, especially followers of Philo (Hellenistic Judaism).[citation needed] Each of these two groups had its own history associated with the concept of the Logos, and each could understand John's use of the term from one or both of those contexts.
Emphasis is mine.
t8Wikopedia?
If John meant divine or quality he could have used a different word in John 1:1c, but instead used the same word “theos” as in John 1:1b.
WJ, pride only blinds a man.If you look closely at the Wikipedia article, it quotes two scholars, while also providing the sources which show that they claim to not have originated in Wikipedia. My point is that both do not say that the Logos is God the person but rather is talking in qualitative terms.
But notice how you judged by the appearance without considering what was inside? You saw Wikipedia and just discredited it immediately. I wonder if that is what I am up against with you? Is it that you see non-Trinitarian and judge immediately by forming a bias against me?
But surely you should judge by the words not by the label. Otherwise how will you ever find truth. Jesus was said to be from a cult. Would that have been enough for you to write Jesus off, or would you have been a bit more fair than that and not stumbled on the label?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:56) If the “Word was God by nature” then how could he be less than God?
If we partake in divine nature, then how can we be less than God?Hmmm.
Still cannot grasp the difference between identity and nature can you?
One is an actual person and the other is the quality or nature of the person. So there is Adam and there are adams. Same word, differing uses or non-use of the definite article.
Ask your question in this way:
If the “Adam is adam by nature” then how could he be less than Adam?
The answer is staring you in the face.
LU… you maintain that 2 Pet 1:1 say's Jesus is our savior and God, Do yopu also think that 2 PET 1:2 is also referencing Jesus as GOD also, and if not why?
The word (Word) is not a noun it is a descriptor and describes what was and it was with the ONLY TRUE GOD. Because just like your word describe who and what you are so does GOD's WORD describes who and what HE is. Do you think John was not smart enough to have simply said Jesus if thats what He meant to say. John was simply describing what was in the (BEGINNING) of everything and It was GOD the FATHER, Not Jesus. You and others are (not) reading the text simple as it is written you are constructing the text and forcing it to meet your ideologies of trinitarian or Preexsistences stance. All Greek words were in capital letters so there is no way any one could have made the Word appear as a Noun without changing the text. When we say the Word of God we are using the word as a descriptor of GOD, no a separate person as you and other presume it to be. IMO
peace to you………..gene
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:47) So now you misrepresent my words. I said there is no “credible translation”. And all of the translations disagree with you on biblegateway.com and blueletterbible.org.
It seems to me that you are saying that translators, and the majority doctrines of Christendom are beyond question and we should just accept what they have done as right.But I think it is better to challenge all things and because I do that, you just disagree and go with the status quo by default without actually seeing if it is indeed so. If I didn't challenge and test all things I would be just another accepting Trinitarian who tithes to a denomination and making little impact in the true battle between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness.
Luther challenged the accepted precepts of Christianity in his day and the reward was the bringing back of certain truths to the body. If you lived back then, would you just blindly follow the status quo and think Luther was a nutter for challenging the authority of the RCC? It is easy to say no in hindsight, but I really wonder if you would be any different given the way you act with anyone who differs from the accepted of this day.
Do you not think that accepted so-called creeds or foundational truths can actually be a product of man? Do you think we are now in perfect knowledge?
I have to disagree with your accepting stance. Satan is THE God of this age that you and me find ourselves in.
Do not underestimate our enemy. He is a lot older than both of us put together.
For me, I will trust in scripture (not necessarily the translation) before I will trust in the status quo.
The majority are actually wrong the majority of the time. History demonstrates this aptly and the narrow path is after all populated by less people than the wider path that leads to destruction.
Men change their science and beliefs as time progresses.
But you seem to feel a certain security by following the majority. But the world is under the sway of the evil one and following the majority will not ultimately protect anyone. Following the majority in the time of Jesus would have led you to reject Jesus.
In the end we will all face the creator and give an account. Saying things like “well most people had this view” is not really going to cut it, because we all have the ability and responsibility to test all things.
If our heart is true, then truth will not be hidden from us. But if we put our trust in man, we will be let down. That I can promise you.
To Gene.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 15 2008,14:07) The word (Word) is not a noun it is a descriptor and describes what was and it was with the ONLY TRUE GOD.
Actually, the Logos is associated with the definite article. Your argument ignores this.THE Logos.
THE God.If you think God is a person/identity, then that is because it is associated with the definite article. (In the beginning was THE God). The Logos is also associated with the definite article in like manner.
Check it out for yourself. I challenge you to find out what the connotations of using the definite article are. Start with talking to someone who's native tongue is Greek and then find out if it also applies to ancient Greek too.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,16:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,11:07) Hi David Ha Ha!
Have you ever heard me deny Yeshua as the Son of the Father?
To say that because Yeshua is the Son of God, he cannot also be God in nature, is like saying that because you are a son of your father means you are not human.
By saying that he is God, you are subtly saying that he is not the son of God because he is either God or God's son.Although I agree that you may not understand this because if you did, it could then be said that you may be deceiving people into believing that he was God at the expense of him being the son of God. I don't think that you are knowingly part of a conspiracy, but if people actually followed what you taught, then you would be responsible for them denying in essence that he is the son by reason of saying that he was God.
Quite strange how a belief in one thing in principle denies belief in another thing. Saying that you believe both isn't really honest nor reasonable because the first belief overrides the second one.
The end result is confusion and division.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,16:01)
By saying that he is God, you are subtly saying that he is not the son of God because he is either God or God's son.Hi t8
I merely quote scripture which says he is God. But when you read those scriptures you want to play word games.
You read them as he is “a god” or “divine” when the neither Greek construction nor biblical monotheism allows for this.
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all 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”), 1 Cor 8:4, 5
Do you see the “there is no God but one”.
and
“For even if there are so‑called gods, whether in heaven or on earth”
Yet you teach there are other “theos” putting Yeshua in the same catogory as satan. Notice Paul says there is only one “theos” and that all other “theos” whether in heaven or in earth are so-called theos.
You want us to believe that Yeshua is a god relatively speaking. Wait, here is how you put it earlier in this thread…
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,13:13)
“So he can be our God relatively speaking…”
Surely you don’t think Paul was meaning Yeshua is a so-called theos relatively speaking do you?For Paul calls Yeshua God.
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
With the definite article Paul declares that the appearing of Yeshua our great God and Saviour is our blessed hope.
The NET reads like this…
:13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing19 of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.20
The NET was translated by 25 scholars with access to over 60,000 translator’s notes, and this is what they say about Titus 2:13…
20tn The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 1:4.
Click here for the source.Yet you have closed your eyes to this scripture as well as John 1:1 and others by reducing them to mean…
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,13:13)
“So he can be our God relatively speaking…”
Is he our Great God and Saviour as the scriptures say, or should we believe you when you say…Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,13:13)
“So he can be our God relatively speaking…”
Should we believe you when you say that there is bias with the translators and the majority is wrong?Should we treat the inspired scriptures as you do when you said earlier…
Quote For me, I will trust in scripture (not necessarily the translation) before I will trust in the status quo.
What do you mean you trust the scriptures but not necessarily the translations? Do you read Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic? How is it that you can pick and choose the translation as it fits you and then accuse others like myself for being blind and of the whore when there are clearly scriptures supporting my belief? How hypocritical and how elitist is that? Only pride would cause a man to think that he alone has the truth, when there are scriptures that contradict him and Greek scholars who know far more than he does.Simon Peter also disagrees with you and calls Yeshua God.
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: 1 Peter 1:1
This scripture is with the definite article and unambiguously claims the Deity of Christ.
Again the NET reads…
From Simeon1 Peter,2 a slave3 and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God4 and Savior,5 Jesus Christ, have been granted6 a faith just as precious7 as ours.
Again the scholars who know far more than you and I about Greek construction comment on this verse.
The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4.
But you want us to believe you because you say they have bias.
Tell me t8 how it is unscriptural for me to call Yeshua my Lord and my God. Tell me how it is unscriptural for me to call Yeshua my Great God and blessed hope.
You should be careful how you accuse one of being blind and of the harlot for it may be that you are yielding to the so-called god of this world, the accuser of the brethren and thereby sticking your finger in the apple of God’s eye.
You are teaching men to be at odds with their brothers by isolating them as being of the whore and not of the church the body of Christ.
I think it is a serious thing to accuse someone of being of the whore because they disagree with you, especially when they believe in Yeshua and the scriptures and have bliblical proof for their belief. Some day you will give account for your teachings also, and don't think that you can escape his judgment if you lead one of his little ones to make Yeshua less in nature than who he is.
Yeshua is the visible “image of God” and to see him as less than God is to have a false image of God and therefore commit Idolatry.
The same honour given to the Father is to be given to the son, and this is not to make Yeshua into a small god or diminish him to just being a member of some “theos” club like ungodly men or satan.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isa 9:6
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John 1:18
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, Phil 2:6
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Heb 1:8
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. 1 John 5:20
So tell me t8, which of these scriptures accuse me of being in error by calling Yeshua my Lord and Great God?
Of course you would say that he is not “the” God, yet most of these have the definite article.
Why do you not call Yeshua your Lord and God t8?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2008,00:28) I merely quote scripture which says he is God. But when you read those scriptures you want to play word games. You read them as he is “a god” or “divine” when the neither Greek construction nor biblical monotheism allows for this.
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all 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”), 1 Cor 8:4, 5
Do you see the “there is no God but one”.
and
“For even if there are so‑called gods, whether in heaven or on earth”
You cannot see because prejudice has blinded your insight.There is one 'THE Theos' who is over all and through all.
There are many who have the title and attribute theos.
Likewise there is one THE Adam and there are many who have the attributes of THE Adam who are called adam.
Sorry if this offends you, but it is all there in the scriptures. It is you who needs to change, not scripture.
You are arguing against scripture with your philosophy. You are not actually arguing with me for the words I have spoken to you are in the scriptures. You can read them for yourself and the scriptures that I speak of have been given to you many times over.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2008,00:28) So tell me t8, which of these scriptures accuse me of being in error by calling Yeshua my Lord and Great God?
Actually there is nothing wrong in that statement. But if you say that Yeshua is YHWH and that Yeshua is the Most High God, which you have done in the past, then you are teaching falsely.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2008,00:28) Why do you not call Yeshua your Lord and God t8?
Yeshua is my lord and he is my theos and he is my head and he is my saviour. If angels can be elohim and judges who were given authority by God are called theos, then all the more Jesus who is in nature theos.But Yeshua is not YHWH, and he is not the Most High Theos. Yeshua said that his Father was his God and our God.
I believe Yeshua and I do not believe you.
If you do not believe Yeshua's own words, then calling him God isn't going to give you some points to counter your unbelief in his words.
John 6:29
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”How can you believe in the one whom God has sent if you do not agree with Yeshua's own words?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2008,00:28) You are teaching men to be at odds with their brothers by isolating them as being of the whore and not of the church the body of Christ.
I am teaching men that the influence of Babylon is alive and well and has made many drunk. When you teach Trinity, I see Babylon's influence.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2008,00:28) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
WJ. Whether you read that verse as- great theos, and saviour Jesus Christ.
or
- great theos and saviour, Jesus Christ.
Jesus is neither YHWH or the Most High God because the Most High God is Jesus Father. That is a truth that you really do not want to contest because you will then be opposing the Father who alone is the Most High God.
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.If you chose to oppose God and the words of his son, as well as scripture, then you are free to do so, but I certainly am not encouraging you to do that WJ. It is your doing.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 16 2008,01:13) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2008,00:28) Why do you not call Yeshua your Lord and God t8?
Yeshua is my lord and he is my theos and he is my head and he is my saviour. If angels can be elohim and judges who were given authority by God are called theos, then all the more Jesus who is in nature theos.But Yeshua is not YHWH, and he is not the Most High Theos. Yeshua said that his Father was his God and our God.
I believe Yeshua and I do not believe you.
If you do not believe Yeshua's own words, then calling him God isn't going to give you some points to counter your unbelief in his words.
John 6:29
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”How can you believe in the one whom God has sent if you do not agree with Yeshua's own words?
t8Yes of course.
You have a big “theos” and a little “theos” which is true Henotheism and Polytheism because according to Paul there is “no other theos” and all other “theos” whether in heaven or earth are “so-called” theos, and obviously Paul is not speaking of Yeshua.
Read it for yourself 1 Cor 8:4, 5
You also believe that the Big theos created all things through a little theos when scriptures clearly teach that “God alone” created all things. You also have more than one saviour when scriptures clearly teach there is only “one saviour”.
How do you answer these Biblical contradictions?
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 16 2008,01:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2008,00:28) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
WJ. Whether you read that verse as- great theos, and saviour Jesus Christ.
or
- great theos and saviour, Jesus Christ.
Jesus is neither YHWH or the Most High God because the Most High God is Jesus Father. That is a truth that you really do not want to contest because you will then be opposing the Father who alone is the Most High God.
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.If you chose to oppose God and the words of his son, as well as scripture, then you are free to do so, but I certainly am not encouraging you to do that WJ. It is your doing.
t8By the way, you still havent given me an example in the NT where the Apostles called any other being their God with the definite article.
Since you believe that there are many god's it would seem you could gives us at least one example.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 16 2008,01:31)
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.Interesting that Yeshua named himself right beside the Father as a prerequisite to having eternal life, by knowing him and the Father, wouldnt you say?
This same John who recorded this also recorded John 1:1 and John 1:18 and John 20:28 and 1 John 5:20.
Compare…
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know58 him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one59 is the true God and eternal lifep. 1 John 5:20
Again, in opposition to you the scholars who know far more than you say…
The pronoun This one (οὗτος, Joutos) refers to a person, but it is far from clear whether it should be understood as a reference (1) to God the Father or (2) to Jesus Christ. R. E. Brown (Epistles of John [AB], 625) comments, “I John, which began with an example of stunning grammatical obscurity in the prologue, continues to the end to offer us examples of unclear grammar.” The nearest previous antecedent is Jesus Christ, immediately preceding, but on some occasions when this has been true the pronoun still refers to God (see 1 John 2:3). The first predicate which follows This one in 5:20, the true God, is a description of God the Father used by Jesus in John 17:3, and was used in the preceding clause of the present verse to refer to God the Father (him who is true). Yet the second predicate of This one in 5:20, eternal life, appears to refer to Jesus, because although the Father possesses “life” (John 5:26, 6:57) just as Jesus does (John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6 (a self-predication by Jesus). If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.
Yet again you would have us believe you and appose the clear teachings of the scritpures while claiming even the experts are biased and blind and of the whore.
WJ
- great theos, and saviour Jesus Christ.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
