- This topic is empty.
- Posts
t8 said:
Quote So if you want the last verse to say, Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life. Then you also have to say “we are in Jesus Christ who is true–even in his Son Jesus Christ. AMEN! This is exactly what the text says!
It is assumed that the definite article functions as the personal pronoun “him.” But the article may just as accurately read as it is written: “That we may know that which is true, and that we are in that which is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God AND eternal life.”
John said that we know that which is true; we are also in that which is true, [namely], in His Son Jesus Christ. Then he says, “He is the true God and eternal life.”
The same is true in 1:1:
The definite article is treated as it is written in 1:1 which says, “That which was from the beginning….” Then it goes on to describe “the Word of Life.” There is no doubt here that the article translated “that which“ refers to Jesus.
the Roo
But then you have no option but to say that Jesus Christ has a son called Jesus Christ.
And it seems weird that the Father is not being referenced at all.Is that not very strange?
Quote (t8 @ June 22 2010,11:22) But then you have no option but to say that Jesus Christ has a son called Jesus Christ.
And it seems weird that the Father is not being referenced at all.Is that not very strange?
Who says I have “no option” but to say that Jesus Christ has a son called Jesus Christ? Who said that the Father is “not referenced at all”?The Father is implicitly mentioned in the beginning of the verse. His Son came that we might know that which is true and that we might be in that which is true. Then it says, “In His Son Jesus Christ. It is clear therefore that the appellation 'that which is true' is Jesus Christ. “He is the true God and the eternal life.”
If yor understanding is correct then it should read, “They are the true God (the Father) and the eternal life (the Son).” But it says, “He is the true God AND the eternal life.” So the “true God” and the “eternal life” are the same person. Verse 1:1 says that the Word is the “eternal life.”
Quote There is no instance in the writings of John, inwhich the appellation LIFE, and ETERNAL LIFE is bestowed upon the Father, to designate him as the author of spiritual and eternal life; and as this occurs so frequently in John's writings as applied to Christ, the laws of exegesis require that both the phrase 'the true God' and 'eternal life,' should be applied to him. Barnes Notes p. 353-354
If the apostle desired to distinguish between 'the true God' and the 'eternal life,' then why did he use the singular pronoun “He is the true God and the eternal life”?The Son is elsewhere called 'God' by the apostle. But the Father is not called 'the eternal life” by him.
the Roo
1 John 5:20
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.I wonder if you can make this simple and append who is being referenced in each point:
I will give you my take and hopefully I can see clearly how you see this and where we differ exactly. I have a fair idea already, but I think this exercise would be helpful.
My take:
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, (Jesus)
so that we may know him who is true (God).
And we are in him who is true (God)
—even in his Son Jesus Christ. (Jesus)
He is the true God and eternal life. (God)Quote (t8 @ June 23 2010,09:26) 1 John 5:20
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.I wonder if you can make this simple and append who is being referenced in each point:
I will give you my take and hopefully I can see clearly how you see this and where we differ exactly. I have a fair idea already, but I think this exercise would be helpful.
My take:
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, (Jesus)
so that we may know him who is true (God).
And we are in him who is true (God)
—even in his Son Jesus Christ. (Jesus)
He is the true God and eternal life. (God)
t8,Your “take” does not work because in his prologue John made the clear distinction between the Father from the Eternal Life. John said that the Word was the Eternal Life which was 'WITH' the Father. So a clear distinction was made. But you make the apostle to undo this distinction in his epilogue.
Prologue: The Father is distinguished from the Eternal Life.
Epilogue: The distinction between the Father and the Eternal Life becomes blurred (according to t8's “take.”).
I do appreciate your admitting that this is just your “take” on it. And you still have not addressed my point that John said that his purpose for writing this section was that they might believe in the name of the Son of God. He said that this was acted out by their having confidence toward Him and by their petitioning Him in prayer (vss. 13-15). This would be idolatry if Jesus was not God.
the Roo
Roo.
Show me how you read this text:
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, (???)
so that we may know him who is true (???).
And we are in him who is true (???)
—even in his Son Jesus Christ. (???)
He is the true God and eternal life. (???)(???) = God, Jesus. or whatever.
I look forward to seeing for myself how you see this exactly.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 24 2010,06:31) I do appreciate your admitting that this is just your “take” on it. And you still have not addressed my point that John said that his purpose for writing this section was that they might believe in the name of the Son of God.
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.Actually Roo, John wrote this book for that purpose. So instead of using the Book of John to teach the Trinity, its purpose is to prove that Jesus is the Son of God of which I believe wholeheartedly. Trinitarians use the book to try and prove the Trinity, which was obviously not the purpose at all.
And remember that John 1:1 is in the Book of John.
Anyway Roo, please give your take on that text. I will await that.
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, (???)
so that we may know him who is true (???).
And we are in him who is true (???)
—even in his Son Jesus Christ. (???)
He is the true God and eternal life. (???)Quote (t8 @ June 25 2010,21:29) Roo. Show me how you read this text:
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, (???)
so that we may know him who is true (???).
And we are in him who is true (???)
—even in his Son Jesus Christ. (???)
He is the true God and eternal life. (???)(???) = God, Jesus. or whatever.
I look forward to seeing for myself how you see this exactly.
t8,What's this about? I have already answered you? Do you think I am going to change my answer? The Son of God came to give us an understand ing of that which is true. There is no definite article “him.”
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding,
so that we may know that which is true.
And we are in that which is true
that is, in his Son Jesus Christ.
He is the true God and eternal life.Why is this so difficullt for you to understand? You just keep repeating the same questions thinking that I will give you the answer you like.
We are in that which is true, that is, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.”
KJ
Quote (t8 @ June 25 2010,21:35) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 24 2010,06:31) I do appreciate your admitting that this is just your “take” on it. And you still have not addressed my point that John said that his purpose for writing this section was that they might believe in the name of the Son of God.
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.Actually Roo, John wrote this book for that purpose. So instead of using the Book of John to teach the Trinity, its purpose is to prove that Jesus is the Son of God of which I believe wholeheartedly. Trinitarians use the book to try and prove the Trinity, which was obviously not the purpose at all.
And remember that John 1:1 is in the Book of John.
t8,John explicitly stated that His purpose for writing the section in 1 John 5 was in order that they might believe in the name of the Son of God and that believing they might have life in His name. Then he went on to explain what believing in the Son of God meant. It meant that they should put their confidence in Him and petition Him in prayer. Therefore, the name 'Son of God' is not anthithetical to the name God.
Praying to the Son of God would have been idolatrous if the name 'Son of God' was antithetical to God.
You argue from your presupposed meaning of the term 'Son of God.' Please demonstrate that the name 'Son of God' is antithetical to God.
t8:
Quote We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, (???)
so that we may know him who is true (???).
And we are in him who is true (???)
—even in his Son Jesus Christ. (???)
He is the true God and eternal life. (???)Anyway Roo, please give your take on that text. I will await that.
I already have and did again in my post immediately above.the Roo
Quote (JustAskin @ June 27 2010,02:12) KJ, Please answer t8's question. It is a reasonable request and inline with the debate.
[moderator]
JA,PAY ATTENTION! I answered t8 long ago. He keeps asking me again because he does not like my answer. He has not answered my point that John said that they ought to put their confidence in the Son of God and petition Him in prayer. This would be idolatrous if the Son of God was not God.
KJ
Roo can you fill in the gaps. I can't find a post where you have done that. If you have, just copy it and paste it here so I can see it.
I just want to be sure that I understand your position exactly before replying. It is not a hard request.
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, (???)
so that we may know him who is true (???).
And we are in him who is true (???)
—even in his Son Jesus Christ. (???)
He is the true God and eternal life. (???)Quote (t8 @ June 27 2010,15:25) Roo can you fill in the gaps. I can't find a post where you have done that. If you have, just copy it and paste it here so I can see it. I just want to be sure that I understand your position exactly before replying. It is not a hard request.
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, (???)
so that we may know him who is true (???).
And we are in him who is true (???)
—even in his Son Jesus Christ. (???)
He is the true God and eternal life. (???)
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding,
so that we may know that which is true.
And we are in that which is true
that is, in his Son Jesus Christ.
He is the true God and eternal life.https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….=246952
Note the word “that is” in bold. We know that which is true and we are in that which is true, that is, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and the eternal life.
the Roo
OK, that should be enough to frame my reply.
It might not be an immediate reply, I am travelling through the Great Barrier Reef and am not always near an Internet connection.My first thought about your translation is to find what version that is. From what I can see, you use the word 'that' instead of 'who'. So this should be interesting to reply to. For now, I will post a few versions of that verse.
1 John 5:20 (New International Version)
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.1 John 5:20 (King James Version)
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 (American Standard Version)
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we 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 (Young's Literal Translation)
and we have known that the Son of God is come, and hath given us a mind, that we may know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ; this one is the true God and the life age-during!You don't have to answer, but if you can give me the translation you are using, that could prove to be helpful.
Catch ya soon.
Quote (t8 @ June 29 2010,11:40) OK, that should be enough to frame my reply.
It might not be an immediate reply, I am travelling through the Great Barrier Reef and am not always near an Internet connection.My first thought about your translation is to find what version that is. From what I can see, you use the word 'that' instead of 'who'. So this should be interesting to reply to. For now, I will post a few versions of that verse.
1 John 5:20 (New International Version)
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.1 John 5:20 (King James Version)
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 (American Standard Version)
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we 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 (Young's Literal Translation)
and we have known that the Son of God is come, and hath given us a mind, that we may know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ; this one is the true God and the life age-during!You don't have to answer, but if you can give me the translation you are using, that could prove to be helpful.
Catch ya soon.
t8,At the beginning I pointed out to you that in 5:20 the apostle John used the definite article and not the personal pronoun. The translations you gave do not consistently translate the article as the personal pronoun in 1:1:
1 John 1:1 (New International Version)
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life1 John 1:1 (King James Version)
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;1 John 1:1 (American Standard version)
That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life1 John 1:1 (Young's Literal Translation)
That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we did behold, and our hands did handle, concerning the Word of the Life —As you can see the same translations render the article as it reads in 1:1 but as a personal pronoun in 5:20.
It is your turn to answer my point from verses 13-15.
thanks,
the Roo
This may not answer your question, as I probably need to re-read this topic to actually understand what it is you want, but I will post this for now as it is easy for me to do so and I believe it needs to be said. Hopefully it even answers in part or whole what it is you are after.
1 John 5:20
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
Try reading the —even in his Son Jesus Christ as (even in his Son Jesus Christ). In English, when we use brackets it is done in such a way that if the brackets are removed, the sentence makes complete sense and the brackets are added to slip in something extra without disrupting the flow of the text.“We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true. He is the true God and eternal life.”
So as you can see, if the brackets are removed, you have consistency and the Father is the one who is true. Of course I am not saying that we should remove that last part, but that we should understand that the brackets or dash is simply pointing out that in addition to being in the one who is true, we are also in the son, Jesus Christ.
Of course you are not going to admit that brackets or the dash are possible even knowing that we have no grammar in the Greek and therefore it is up to us or translators to add them if they think it is warranted. But I should point out that dashes such as endash are used in similar fashion to brackets and emdashes are used in a number of ways including distinguishing a parenthetical thought.
Here is an example of em dash being used in another sentence”
“At that age I once stabbed my best friend, Fred, with a pair of pinking shears in the base of the neck, enraged because he had been given the comprehensive sixty-four-crayon Crayola box — including the gold and silver crayons.”I took that example from Wikipedia, so it is not something I made up in case you were thinking it was a rather violent sentence.
But even without structuring the sentence with brackets or a dash, the text demands that the true God cannot be Jesus Christ simply because the one who is true is identified as one and the son as another by whom we have understanding of the one who is true. It is obvious that two are being spoken of here, not one.
Your rendering of this is that the son of God has come to give understanding of himself because you believe that he is the true God, whereas the simple and clear understanding is that he has given understanding of the one who is true, which is not himself, but the true God, which we know is the Father and other scriptures concur strongly.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (English-NIV)
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.So when you understand that God the Father is the one true God, all verses make sense and can be easily understood, including 1 John 5:20. And when you hold onto the Trinity doctrine, you need to confuse people and you need the backup of external doctrines and terms.
I will add the verses you talk of here, so I can post a reply about it when I get home.
1 John 5:13-15
13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.
15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.Quote (t8 @ July 27 2010,16:05) This may not answer your question, as I probably need to re-read this topic to actually understand what it is you want, but I will post this for now as it is easy for me to do so and I believe it needs to be said. Hopefully it even answers in part or whole what it is you are after. 1 John 5:20
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
Try reading the —even in his Son Jesus Christ as (even in his Son Jesus Christ). In English, when we use brackets it is done in such a way that if the brackets are removed, the sentence makes complete sense and the brackets are added to slip in something extra without disrupting the flow of the text.“We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true. He is the true God and eternal life.”
So as you can see, if the brackets are removed, you have consistency and the Father is the one who is true. Of course I am not saying that we should remove that last part, but that we should understand that the brackets or dash is simply pointing out that in addition to being in the one who is true, we are also in the son, Jesus Christ.
Of course you are not going to admit that brackets or the dash are possible even knowing that we have no grammar in the Greek and therefore it is up to us or translators to add them if they think it is warranted. But I should point out that dashes such as endash are used in similar fashion to brackets and emdashes are used in a number of ways including distinguishing a parenthetical thought.
Here is an example of em dash being used in another sentence”
“At that age I once stabbed my best friend, Fred, with a pair of pinking shears in the base of the neck, enraged because he had been given the comprehensive sixty-four-crayon Crayola box — including the gold and silver crayons.”I took that example from Wikipedia, so it is not something I made up in case you were thinking it was a rather violent sentence.
But even without structuring the sentence with brackets or a dash, the text demands that the true God cannot be Jesus Christ simply because the one who is true is identified as one and the son as another by whom we have understanding of the one who is true. It is obvious that two are being spoken of here, not one.
Your rendering of this is that the son of God has come to give understanding of himself because you believe that he is the true God, whereas the simple and clear understanding is that he has given understanding of the one who is true, which is not himself, but the true God, which we know is the Father and other scriptures concur strongly.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (English-NIV)
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.So when you understand that God the Father is the one true God, all verses make sense and can be easily understood, including 1 John 5:20. And when you hold onto the Trinity doctrine, you need to confuse people and you need the backup of external doctrines and terms.
The NWT correctly translates the pronoun as a near demonstrative:20 But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. THIS is the true God and life everlasting.
The near demonstrative pronoun takes the NEAREST noun as its antecedent. The nearest noun is Jesus Christ. Therefore, the NWT translators unwittingly rendered the verse to be saying that Jesus Christ is the only true God and the eternal life.
Supporting translations:
NASB: 20And (A)we know that (B)the Son of God has come, and has ©given us understanding so that we may know (D)Him who is true; and we (E)are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ (F)THIS is the true God and (G)eternal life.
KJV: 20And 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.
YLT (Young's): 20and we have known that the Son of God is come, and hath given us a mind, that we may know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ; THIS one is the true God and the life age-during!
Again, the near demonstrative takes the NEAREST noun as its antecedent. The nearest noun is Jesus Christ. The apostle said and the NWT translators unwittingly concur that Jesus Christ is the true God and the eternal life.
the Roo
OK, I see that. But I disagree that it is appropriate or right in this case.
It is easy to see that Jesus is revealing the true one and we know that Jesus didn't come to reveal himself or to talk on his own behalf, but that he came to reveal his Father to us and his Father is his God and the true God. We know this from other verses.
I can see that grammatically speaking that both positions are possible given that there is no grammar in the base text and that translators are free to add grammar to render it the way they think it is meant to be rendered.
But the text itself demands that the true God is the Father because Jesus came to reveal the true God. He didn't come to reveal himself. If you take your view, this verse misses out the Father completely and I think that in your honest moment you know that the Father is not being missed out here.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
