- This topic has 25,924 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 21 hours, 54 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
Berean,
Apply God’s word with God’s word and the truth should be obvious.
Our heavenly Father’s word from the beginning was that a man was going to come and execute God’s purpose which was salvation and life.
Our heavenly Father’s word was that He created all things alone, by himself, and that He promised to give a HUMAN BEING dominion overall that He created.
Our heavenly Father’s word was of a man to come who would shed his blood to bring forth salvation, and because he obeyed God’s command unto his death, God promised to give him a portion with the great, and have him divide the spoil with the mighty.
Apply God’s word with God’s word, such is how truth is established. When God made all things by Himself He would be doing so BY REASON OF and FOR the very man who He said that He was going to give it to. That man would bring forth salvation and life, so without this man God would not have made the worlds.
Bearan this is a TRUTH I don’t see how anyone can possibly deny, even if it does not fit their current doctrine of beliefs.
Our heavenly Father SPOKE IT in the beginning, He purposed it and said that He would do it.
Hi Jodi
OK for”the most popular”
Strong mention first
primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal, or occasional):
first on the list:
Matthew 1:22
22
touto de olon gegonen ina plhrwqh to rhqen upo tou kuriou dia tou profhtou legontoV
1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,YHWH of hosts sends YHWH=God’s word. One serves the other. The Lord of lords serves the God of gods, both are inter-dependently our one God not independently as if two gods. They are both perfect and both eternal yet different in relationship…one is the father and one is the son. That perfect relationship is demonstrated perfectly from the beginning as one submits to the other since the relationship is true father/son. A perfect son would cease from being perfect if he did not submit to his perfect father. A perfect son’s submission does not imply any type of weakness or lack of wisdom but actually implies strength and wisdom. I a human were to completely be submissive to God, that would be reckoned to to him/her as their wisdom and strength.
Blessings, LU
Berean: IN THE BIGINNING WAS “THE WORD” AND “THE WORD” WAS WITH THE GOD AND “THE WORD “WAS GOD.
That’s right, B! You understand how the definite article was used there by John – who was proficient in the subtleties of the Greek tongue. What does it mean that John used the definite article once in front of the word “god” – but not the second time? “The word was with THE god, and god was the word”. Not “and THE god was the word”, right? What does that mean? It is significant because koine Greek didn’t use an indefinite article like we do in English. Neither did the Hebrew or Aramaic languages for that matter. So every single time in the Bible that we read “a” or “an” in English – it was added by a translator so that the words make sense to English speaking people. Understand? So when John used the definite article for the first “god”, it means he was telling us that the word was with THE God. But his omission of the article in the second instance of “god” tells us that the word wasn’t THE God… but A god. That is the proper translation of John 1:1.
Did you know that the first language that translated the Greek NT and that uses an indefinite article was the Coptic language? Did you know they translated John 1:1 as “the word was with the god, and the word was a god”?
Now see this, from the 25 Trinitarian Bible scholars who translated the NET Bible…
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite.
Did you understand that? In short… even though the Greek language used a definite article and John would have used it if he intended to say the word was THE god, a man named Colwell decided that we can just add the definite article that the writer omitted if it serves our purpose. So although John didn’t write that the word was THE god, Colwell wants to pretend that he did. On the other hand, the Greek language did NOT use an indefinite article, and so we HAVE TO add those in when appropriate for an English translation. So the bottom line is that the most natural translation of John 1:1c is “and the word was a god”. That wording exists in hundreds of Bibles, and the only argument opponents have is, “but there is only ONE god!”. Of course that is a faulty tradition that is rejected by many Bible teachings. Greek grammar expert Origen wrote…
We next notice John’s use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God…
Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked… The true God, then, is “The God.”
So if it weren’t for the false notion that the Bible teaches of only one god, and for the false notion that God’s servant Jesus is also the very God he serves, all English translations would have, “and the Word was a god” – as it should be.
The correct teaching is that the Word was with THE God in the beginning, and was himself a god.
Hi Berean,
YOU:
IN THE BIGINNING WAS “THE WORD” AND “THE WORD” WAS WITH THE GOD AND “THE WORD “WAS GOD.
HERE IS THE TRUE WORD
OF GOD NOT THE JODI’S WORDS
WHICH ARE PERVERTED BY A SES SEDUCTOR SPIRIT THAT MISLEADS UNSETTLED SOULS…
ME:
Before the world began God promised eternal life. — that’s not my word, but God’s
In the beginning God promised that a man would come and execute God’s purpose. — that’s not my word, but God’s
In the beginning God promised to place salvation in Zion for Israel His glory. — that’s not my word, but God’s
In ancient of days God promised that one would come out of the tribe of Judah who would be a ruler over Israel. –that’s not my word, but God’s
Of David’s seed God according to His promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: —that’s not my word, but God’s
Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
We have life through a man who executed God’s purpose, this man was declared by God from the beginning in God’s word.
The one who God gives the works of His hands to, for him to have dominion over, is a HUMAN BEING, that is God’s WORD, not mine Berean.
This is the SAME HUMAN BEING who God declared from the beginning would one day come. God made all things as He says by himself, ALONE and He would have done so FOR the very HUMAN BEING He had promised to give it to!!!
Berean: 1223
dia
dia
dee-ah ‘a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through
What if we sounded all those
passages where there’s the word “dia”
I’ve already checked a few of them
Good point. I’d guess that the vast majority of them would be translated as “through” – which is the most common meaning of the Greek word “dia”. Even the ones translated as “by” actually mean “through”. For example, “He sent it BY mail” = “He sent it THROUGH mail”.
Hi Mike
You
The correct teaching is that the Word was with THE God at the beginning, and was himself a god.
Me
no Mike i definitely disagree with that .
The Son of God was GOD OR IF YOU PREFERRE OF THE SAME NATURE AS GOD (THE FATHER) Just as a human son is of the same nature as his human father.
God bless
Hi All,
It is absolute truth to say that God is Life.
It is absolute truth to say that in the Beginning God’s WORD was a promise of eternal LIFE.
It is absolute truth to say that in the Beginning was God’s WORD that a man would come to execute His purpose.
It is absolute truth to say that a man who could do nothing of himself brought us life through obeying God going to the cross shedding his blood, and that this was the work that God gave Jesus of Nazareth to do upon sending him out after he had been anointed with God’s Spirit in full measure.
It is absolute truth to say that the man approved of God, Jesus of Nazareth, was slain according to the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God.
Applying all this together the below is thus absolute TRUTH,
In the beginning was God’s WORD of LIFE, and that WORD was unto God, and that WORD was God, for God is LIFE.
In the beginning was God’s WORD of a man to come who would execute God’s WORD of LIFE, by God’s foreknowledge he would be slain shedding his blood to bring us salvation.
God’s WORD from the beginning of LIFE, is itself the WORD of this man being slain.
Mike, the reason the article is not there for the second theos in John 1:1 is because of a Greek grammar reason. When there are two words in one clause written in the nominative case, the Greek word that has the article is the word that does the action, the Greek word that doesn’t have the article does not do the action “was” in this case. The Word was…the “Word” is doing the action of “was” and we know that because it has the article. This is not about making a distinction as to a bigger theos and a smaller theos. The context shows two distinct theos. The absence of the article with the second theos is due to grammar, not lowering the status of the second. You do realize that God the Father is written in sentences without the article when it calls Him “God” at times, right. This happens in the same first chapter of John as the verse that has the article in John 1:1.
John 1:18 is an example of this in the first clause: No one has seen God at any time… Do you see that it doesn’t say “no one has seen THE God at any time”? According to you, should that be translated as “no one has seen a god at any time”?
LU
5
oi de eipon autw en bhqleem thV ioudaiaV outwV gar gegraptai dia tou profhtou
2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,Jodi
You
Apply God’s word with God’s word and the truth should be obvious.
Our heavenly Father’s word from the beginning was that a man was going to come and execute God’s purpose which was salvation and life.
Our heavenly Father’s word was that He created all things alone, by himself, and that He promised to give a HUMAN BEING dominion overall that He created.
Our heavenly Father’s word was of a man to come who would shed his blood to bring forth salvation, and because he obeyed God’s command unto his death, God promised to give him a portion with the great, and have him divide the spoil with the mighty.
Apply God’s word with God’s word, such is how truth is established. When God made all things by Himself He would be doing so BY REASON OF and FOR the very man who He said that He was going to give it to. That man would bring forth salvation and life, so without this man God would not have made the worlds.
Bearan this is a TRUTH I don’t see how anyone can possibly deny, even if it does not fit their current doctrine of beliefs.
Our heavenly Father SPOKE IT in the beginning, He purposed it and said that He would do it.
Me
don’t worry about it.
You apply yourself to do itJodi: Jesus is said to be flesh and bone not flesh and blood.
Flesh and bone is just the more popular Greek idiom, as compared to our more popular version, “flesh and blood”. They both mean the same thing… flesh, blood, bone, muscle, nerves, heart, teeth, eyes, etc.
But are you suggesting that Jesus was raised from the grave as a bloodless human being?
Hi Mike,
Luke 3:23 King James Bible
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli…The passage is telling you that Jesus IS the son of Joseph, and it is telling you that the people thought he was the son of Joseph. That which the people thought he was he was.
Mathew15
15
kai hn ekei ewV thV teleuthV hrwdou ina plhrwqh to rhqen upo tou kuriou dia tou profhtou legontoV ex aiguptou ekalesa ton uion mou2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Kathi: …the Greek word that has the article is the word that does the action…
“and the word was with the god”. What action is “the god” performing here?
Kathi: The context shows two distinct theos.
Correct. There are two completely different gods mentioned in John 1:1. John only calls one of them “THE god”. So as Origen concludes – after spelling out that John knew what he was doing by using the definite article on only one of the gods, “the true God then, is THE God.”
Origen goes on to talk about how both of the gods are equal in this manner and that manner – but none of that comes from scripture. What does come from scripture is that John wrote about two gods, one of whom was with THE God in the beginning.
Kathi, what are your thoughts on the prayer in Acts 4? The apostles clearly prayed to the ONE who created the heaven, the earth, the sea, and EVERYTHING in them… and then mentioned Jesus as the holy servant OF that ONE.
Who created everything? Who is the servant of He who created everything? No philosophical mumble-jumble please. Just a scriptural answer to that particular prayer.
Mathew 2:23
23
kai elqwn katwkhsen eiV polin legomenhn nazaret opwV plhrwqh to rhqen dia twn profhtwn oti nazwraioV klhqhsetai
2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.😊
Kathi: Did that make the OO change, well not in type or function or character.
But it did change, right? You said so twice. So does God change? Did He change from one thing to another in the beginning?
Kathi: …there is one cell in existence before it becomes two. That one cell that first existed reproduced into a second, that is true.
Then it matters not what you imagine about substance, right? Because the fact remains that, even in your flawed analogy, there is one in existence first, and then LATER, that one performs certain actions to bring forth another that didn’t previously exist. I.e.: God existed without Jesus. God LATER brought Jesus forth into existence.
Kathi: Number 5, yes you end up with two completely identical entities, indicating that YHWH the God of gods and YHWH, the Lord of lords are completely identical in every single way except with different relationships to each other.
Your words are at odds with each other. “Completely identical” negates “except“. 😉 That being said, please explain how two completely identical entities can have a different relationship with each other. If OO was a combination of everything that makes up the Father and the Son, and the second entity is a completely identical combination of everything that makes up the Father and the Son, then you are necessarily left with two completely identical Father/Son combination beings – with ZERO difference between them except for that there was once only one of them, and now there are two of them. So with ZERO difference, the Father is actually a combo of Father and Son to this very day… and the Son is actually an identical combo of Father and Son to this very day. Is that really what you think the scriptures teach?
Berean: Hi Mike
You
The correct teaching is that the Word was with THE God at the beginning, and was himself a god.
Me
no Mike i definitely disagree with that .
The Son of God was GOD OR IF YOU PREFERRE OF THE SAME NATURE AS GOD (THE FATHER) Just as a human son is of the same nature as his human father.
Well, the Son is a god who is NOT the Father God, right? Therefore, a different god. Only one of them is called the Most High God OF gods, right? Only one of them is the God OF the other one, right? So from those scriptural teachings we know that Jesus is a god – but not the Most High God of gods who is his own God, right? Therefore a lesser god than his and our God, right?
As for nature, it depends. Sons of men have the nature of their parents. But men can create many things that don’t have any human nature at all, right? God created mosquitoes too, right? Do mosquitoes have the nature of God? I wouldn’t say so, would you? So if God can create living things that don’t have His nature, then what makes you think His first creation, Jesus, must necessarily have His nature?
That being said, I have no problem with Jesus having the nature of God. God is spirit, and all of God’s spirit sons, including Jesus, Satan, Michael, and Gabriel, have that same spirit nature, right?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
