- This topic has 26,009 replies, 117 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (jammin @ April 26 2014,21:14) Mike Here is the analysis of barnes
barnes notes on the bible
The second opinion is, that the word is equivalent to nature, or being; that is, that he was in the nature of God, or his mode of existence was that of God, or was divine. This is the opinion adopted by Schleusner (Lexicon); Prof. Stuart (Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 40); Doddridge, and by orthodox expositors in general, and seems to me to be the correct interpretation.
Again, you have to read the whole thing for you to UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF IT. you are a moron mike hahahaha
jammin,Notice the words “nature OF God” and “his mode of existence was that OF God”.
The word “God” still refers to the BEING we know as “God”. The word “God” NEVER refers to a “nature” in any scripture. It always refers to the BEING we know as Jehovah.
Barnes is saying Jesus had the nature of JEHOVAH, and that his mode of existence was that of JEHOVAH.
Also, remember what I told you in my last post. Remember that TRINITARIAN scholars are BIASED by their TRINITARIAN beliefs, and do anything they can to force the scriptures to a TRINITARIAN conclusion.
All the while, they forget that Jesus is not God Himself, but the Son, Servant, Messiah, Lamb, Prophet, and Priest OF God.
In other words, they WANT so badly for this SERVANT of God to BE God, that they bend the rules of translation and common sense.
So it's really no wonder that the Trinitarian scholar Barnes would opt for the understanding that makes Jesus the God he is the Son of – no matter how ludicrous that understanding is.
Quote (kerwin @ April 26 2014,21:26) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2014,02:43)
The word “morphe” is often applied to the gods by the classic writers, denoting their appearance when they became visible to people……..
Mike,Any expert would tell you that Barnes has insignificant evidence to base his conclusion on as morph is only used two times in the exact same form in Scripture.
Yes Kerwin,That's why the scholars often find those same words in secular writings – to help them get the gist of what they truly meant in everyday Greek speech.
Note how Barnes uses the “classic writers” for added evidence of how the word was used, and what it meant.
Mike
The point is YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THOSE COMMENTARIES HAHAHA. you just cut and paste and trying to gave your fairy tale doctrine a wonderful explanation from those commentaries but it didnt work hahaha. Did you read what barnes said? You dont agree that the form refers to nature and you posted barnes note BUT HE SAID FORM IS NATURE AND THIS IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE VERSE
barnes notes on the bible
The second opinion is, that the word is equivalent to nature, or being; that is, that he was in the nature of God,
Mike
You dont understand again what barclay said. Hahahaha you are a moron. Ill post it again
Morphe (Greek #3444) is the essential form which never alters; schema (Greek #4976) is the outward form which changes from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance. For instance, the morphe (Greek #3444) of any human being is humanity and this never changes
Do you understand that? Haha. That is very basic for you not to understand. The form of any human being is HUMANITY
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 28 2014,03:36) W Quote (jammin @ April 26 2014,20:28) ….His already existing STATE OF EQUALITY with God…..
When Jamiesson says “with God”, who (not “what”) is the “God” he is talking about?
There is no argument about that boy. He is with God and that is his father. You dont have to question that if you are english. Unless you dont understand the word “WITH” HAHAHA.And do you understand what jamieson said about form??he said
…the former, “His being,” or NATURE,
Hahaha. You are a moron mike. I know you will not accept that because you only accept what you want to hear. Your brain cant accomodate magnificent words
Mike
hahaha you are really a moron.cant you see what matthew said???
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
Notice the two natures of Christ; his Divine nature, and human nature
Matthew will never say that if he is not referring to the human and divine nature of christ. The phil 2:6-7 refers to his nature God and human nature. He was existing in the form (nature) of God before he became Human ( nature of man).
Matthew said
Who being in the form of God, partaking the Divine nature, as the eternal and only-begotten Son of God, Joh 1:1,
Did you see that?? Matthew believes christ is eternal but YOU DONT. HAHAHA. GOD IS ETERNAL AND THAT IS HIS NATURE. HE IS DIVINE
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2014,23:28) Quote (kerwin @ April 26 2014,21:26) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2014,02:43)
The word “morphe” is often applied to the gods by the classic writers, denoting their appearance when they became visible to people……..
Mike,Any expert would tell you that Barnes has insignificant evidence to base his conclusion on as morph is only used two times in the exact same form in Scripture.
Yes Kerwin,That's why the scholars often find those same words in secular writings – to help them get the gist of what they truly meant in everyday Greek speech.
Note how Barnes uses the “classic writers” for added evidence of how the word was used, and what it meant.
Mike,I do not have access to those writings but I look at related words, as they are used in Scripture and yet I do not see where the those words are restricted as he states.
Mike
Haha hahaha. I told you to read the whole thing before posting here
Gill said
it is not to be supposed of him; or any accidental form, for there are no accidents in God, whatever is in God, is God; he is nothing but nature and essence, he is the , the JehovahIll repeat. He said. . .
he is nothing but nature and essence, he is the , the Jehovah,
Therefore it is very clear that the son and the father HAVE THE SAME FORM. The son is not the father. The father is not the son but they are both God by nature. They have ONE FORM. the son is God just like his father.
Me and my father are both human by nature. We have the same form. Im not my father but we are both man by nature. That morphe cant be altered because that is our form. Mankind Form. Our form.
Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2014,14:30) Quote (jammin @ April 27 2014,09:14) Mike Here is the analysis of barnes
barnes notes on the bible
The second opinion is, that the word is equivalent to nature, or being; that is, that he was in the nature of God, or his mode of existence was that of God, or was divine. This is the opinion adopted by Schleusner (Lexicon); Prof. Stuart (Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 40); Doddridge, and by orthodox expositors in general, and seems to me to be the correct interpretation.
Again, you have to read the whole thing for you to UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF IT. you are a moron mike hahahaha
Jammin,Do you know what the scholarly words mean? It looks to me like it was not written for lay persons like you and me.
A very good example is you and your father. You have the same form or nature. That is your human nature. You are both human.Mike
'
I suggest you study greek. According to your explanation, you have no formal study in greek. You are a great pretender hahaha. You posted commentaries AGAINST your belief. Your mistake was you did not read the whole thing that is why yo dont understand what you are saying. Hahaha.Quote (jammin @ April 28 2014,04:16) Therefore it is very clear that the son and the father HAVE THE SAME FORM. The son is not the father. The father is not the son but they are both God by nature. They have ONE FORM. the son is God just like his father. Me and my father are both human by nature. We have the same form. Im not my father but we are both man by nature. That morphe cant be altered because that is our form. Mankind Form. Our form.
Jammin,Have you finally got clear on your own doctrine?
Jesus exists in the form of his and our Father, the same one he called his God. He called those who believe his brothers.
Kerwin
The father said his son is God
Niv
Heb 1:8 but about the son he says, your throne, o God. . .10 . . .you laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Christ created the heavens and the earth. Only God can do that. He is truly God just like his father. Praise God!
[quote=kerwin,April 28 2014,10:09][/quote]
Quote Jesus exists in the form of his and our Father Kerwin,
JESUS CHRIST GLORIFIED,
SO HE IS NOT IN THE FORM OF HIS FATHER AND HIS GOD,BUT
HE IS
BOTH IN THE GLORY OF HIS FATHER AND OUR FATHER, HIS GOD AND OUR GOD!
that's what he said to Mardalene!
THEREFORE JESUS CHRIST IS
THE ONLY TRUE GOD,DIVINE WISE, AND JESUS CHRIST, HUMAN WISE
HE SAID:
WHEN I AM LIFTED UP ALL THINGS COME UNTO ME!
THEREFORE
BOTH HEAVENLY AND EARTHLY!
BOTH DIVINELY AND HUMANLY!
BOTH GOD AND MAN!
BOTH SPIRIT AND FLESH!
ALL IN HIM, AND ALL BY HIM,
TILL THE LAST DAY OF THE LORD!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (jammin @ April 27 2014,15:38) you just cut and paste and trying to gave your fairy tale doctrine a wonderful explanation from those commentaries but it didnt work
Actually,It worked out perfectly, jammin. It's not my fault that you are the only one on this site that can't understand those in depth commentaries.
It will be better for you if you just stick with the easy ones, like this one from Gill:
Who being in the form of God,…. The Father; being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.
Just stick to the ones that aren't too hard for you, okay? And in the meantime, we are all STILL waiting for a verse where the word “God” UNDENIABLY refers to a “nature/species” – instead of to a PERSON.
Quote (jammin @ April 27 2014,15:41) Mike You dont understand again what barclay said. Hahahaha you are a moron. Ill post it again
Morphe (Greek #3444) is the essential form which never alters…………
Read Mark 16:12, jammin.Did Jesus appear to them in a DIFFERENT morphe? YES.
Was Jesus' “essential form” altered? Or just his “outward appearance”?
Which one?
Quote (jammin @ April 27 2014,15:48) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 28 2014,03:36) W Quote (jammin @ April 26 2014,20:28) ….His already existing STATE OF EQUALITY with God…..
When Jamiesson says “with God”, who (not “what”) is the “God” he is talking about?
There is no argument about that boy. He is with God and that is his father.
Come on jammin,I can't do all of this for you. Listen closely:
If Jamiesson says “form of God” refers to Jesus' “already existing state of equality with God“, and the “God” Jamiesson mentions is the FATHER, and you AGREE WITH THAT………. then why do you keep saying “form of God” DOESN'T refer to “form of THE FATHER”?
Quote (jammin @ April 27 2014,15:51) Mike hahaha you are really a moron.cant you see what matthew said???
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
Notice the two natures of Christ; his Divine nature, and human nature
Matthew will never say that if he is not referring to the human and divine nature of christ. The phil 2:6-7 refers to his nature God and human nature. He was existing in the form (nature) of God before he became Human ( nature of man).
Matthew said
Who being in the form of God, partaking the Divine nature, as the eternal and only-begotten Son of God, Joh 1:1,
Did you see that?? Matthew believes christ is eternal but YOU DONT. HAHAHA. GOD IS ETERNAL AND THAT IS HIS NATURE. HE IS DIVINE
jammin,1. I agree that Jesus existed in two different natures. One was a spiritual divine nature, and the other was human flesh and blood nature.
Some of us will also someday share in that spiritual divine nature too. But that won't mean we'll BE God any more than sharing a divine nature means Jesus IS God.
2. I believe that Jesus is indeed the eternal Son OF God. Being “eternal” doesn't mean you are FROM ETERNITY.
Listen with your heart instead of with your comically flawed man-made doctrine:
Romans 6:9
For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.See? Jesus is NOW eternal. He was the first fruits of MANY who will someday be eternal.
Like I said, just stick to Gill's commentary. These other ones seem to be above your intelligence level.
Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2014,16:03) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2014,23:28) Quote (kerwin @ April 26 2014,21:26) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2014,02:43)
The word “morphe” is often applied to the gods by the classic writers, denoting their appearance when they became visible to people……..
Mike,Any expert would tell you that Barnes has insignificant evidence to base his conclusion on as morph is only used two times in the exact same form in Scripture.
Yes Kerwin,That's why the scholars often find those same words in secular writings – to help them get the gist of what they truly meant in everyday Greek speech.
Note how Barnes uses the “classic writers” for added evidence of how the word was used, and what it meant.
Mike,I do not have access to those writings but I look at related words, as they are used in Scripture and yet I do not see where the those words are restricted as he states.
Try the use in Mark 16:12, Kerwin. Is there any DOUBT that it means “outward appearance” in that verse?How about the secular classic writers use of the word? He says they often used the word to denote the APPEARANCE of the gods – WHEN they became VISIBLE to human eyes.
Do you have any reason to DOUBT that these writings exist?
It seems you don't want to believe him based solely on the fact that you don't want to believe him.
Quote (jammin @ April 27 2014,16:08) Mike Haha hahaha. I told you to read the whole thing before posting here
Gill said
it is not to be supposed of him; or any accidental form, for there are no accidents in God, whatever is in God, is God; he is nothing but nature and essence, he is the , the JehovahIll repeat. He said. . .
he is nothing but nature and essence, he is the , the Jehovah,
jammin,Don't go deeper than you can touch, for you have not yet learned how to swim.
Just stick with the very first words Gill wrote, okay?
Remember that Gill said the “God” mentioned was “THE FATHER”. Remember that Gill SUPPORTED his understanding by pointing us to the scripture that says Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God (who is also THE FATHER).
It is abundantly clear that you don't understand these other words from the commentators……. so you really shouldn't be posting them as if you DO understand them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
