- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2013,16:12) The DEFINITION could include “theios” – which is the ADJECTIVAL form of “theos”, and would therefore be correct. But notice how the examples for that definition are not adjectives – but instead nouns.
Correct. But my point is if Judas was a devil (adjective used as a noun), to distinguish from a literal devil as to one who is devil-like, then why could it not also work for theos? If theos is a noun, why can it not too be understood as referring to one who has the qualities of theos?I know that there are plenty of scholars (Trinitarians included) that say this. Of course that is not proof, but from a language point of view alone it remains a contender.
Further if Jesus can say, “ye are theos” (noun), then is he calling them little YHWHs? Or is he talking more about nature and likeness?
Another example would be me saying, “You are an angel”.
Ignore for a moment that it means messenger in scripture, if I use that sentence today, it is speaking of a Heavenly Angel.
Now the sentence is saying that you are an angel (noun) right? But the meaning to be derived is that I am saying you are angel like or have a nature resembling that of an angel, but not that you are a literal angel.
Even in English we do this. I don't think this is unique to English, we see it clearly in Koine Greek when Jesus called Judas a devil and was used as a noun.
Quote (t8 @ April 06 2013,19:55) Further, I agree with you that John 1:1c can be correctly translated as “the Word was a god”, just as Jesus said, “one of you is a devil”, but I think the reader needs to read them both as referring to nature or in quality, rather than literal. In that sense both could be translated as saying the Word was one who is divine or Judas was one who was diabolical or Judas was one who was devil-like.
I hear you and agree that Judas was “devil-like”, and that the Word was “god-like”.But just as we can render John 6:70 as “one of you is A devil” – without any complaints from anyone, we should equally be able to render John 1:1 as “the Word was A god” – without any complaints, right? After all, it is scriptural that Jesus is a god, right?
t8, you and I have discussed this many times in the years I've been here. I am fully aware of your desire to not “put anyone off” by saying Jesus was a “different” god. You try hard to explain that the Word wasn't God Almighty Himself, but was “qualitatively god”. And you are correct about that. But I'm equally correct in saying that one who is “qualitatively god” is also “a god”, right? So let's just call a spade a spade, shall we?
In the beginning, the Word was A god who was with THE god, right? And Jesus is most definitely “A god” – according to scripture, right?
So let's just tell it like it is, and let the chips fall where they may. A couple of year ago, when I first started trying to educate the people on this site about the MANY gods in the scriptures, they all thought I was off my rocker. Keith and Jack called me a heretic. Almost everyone here said I was spouting unscriptural garbage, because “there is only ONE God, Mike!”
But now look at how far everyone has come on this site. What other choice did they have, in light of the scriptures I painstakingly showed them over and over? Now, almost everyone here willingly acknowledges that there ARE indeed MANY gods taught about in the scriptures – but only one Creator-God. That means we have put away that Trinitarian-sponsored “only ONE God, period!” ploy designed to make Jesus THE God, since there is “literally only one”. We have moved away from that false teaching of man, and into the true teaching of the scriptures themselves.
This is a step in the right direction, t8. Scriptures weren't lying when they called Jehovah the “God OF gods”. And I don't see any need for men to “protect” the scriptures from themselves by insisting there is literally only one god – when scriptures speak of many.
Jesus IS a god, and he WAS the god who was with God Almighty in the beginning – before all things were created through him. I'm just telling it like it is, brother.
peace,
mikeQuote (t8 @ April 07 2013,07:55) Further, I agree with you that John 1:1c can be correctly translated as “the Word was a god”, just as Jesus said, “one of you is a devil”, but I think the reader needs to read them both as referring to nature or in quality, rather than literal. In that sense both could be translated as saying the Word was one who is divine or Judas was one who was diabolical or Judas was one who was devil-like.
T8,Where is “a” in the Ancient Greek.
Quote (kerwin @ April 07 2013,17:41) T8, Where is “a” in the Ancient Greek.
There is no indefinite article in Greek.Thus when Jesus said, “One of you is a devil”. He actually said, “one of you is devil”.
Translators put in the indefinite article to make in intelligible in English.
Quote (t8 @ April 07 2013,15:55) Further, I agree with you that John 1:1c can be correctly translated as “the Word was a god”, just as Jesus said, “one of you is a devil”, but I think the reader needs to read them both as referring to nature or in quality, rather than literal. In that sense both could be translated as saying the Word was one who is divine or Judas was one who was diabolical or Judas was one who was devil-like.
This answers your post Mike.I am saying you are technically correct, but the reader needs to further understand the application is qualitative. After all Jesus was not for one minute trying to say that Judas was a literal devil just as he was not implying that Peter was literally Satan when he rebuked Peter.
What happens is many will argue against “The Logos was a theos” if they are not additionally taught what it exactly means that the Word is theos, or Judas is diablo.
Again, if I say, you are an angel (heavenly angel), and then people argue with me that you are not because you are a man, then educating them as to what I fully mean, (you are angel-like/you are good like an angel/you are holy like an angel) is probably going to end the argument and get some agreement. Because let's face it, no one here agrees that you are a Cherub or Seraph.
Quote (t8 @ April 06 2013,20:29) Further if Jesus can say, “ye are theos” (noun), then is he calling them little YHWHs?
He was calling them “gods”, plain and simple.BTW, I believe that verse is about the divine counsel – not men like most people think. I believe God was speaking to the spirit sons that He had placed over various nations of the earth (ie: the Prince of Persia that Michael fought). They did not handle their human subjects with righteousness, as God had intended them to do. Therefore, God was telling them that even though He called them (made them) gods, they would someday die like men die. This also fits with the fact that all the nations had their own gods, and then Jehovah chose Israel, out of all those nations, to be their personal God.
And I believe the Jews were accusing Jesus of making himself out to be A god, not “God Almighty Himself”. And Jesus was saying, if THEY are considered gods, then why not me? I'm the one God actually set apart from all the others, sent into the world, and said, “This is my Son, the beloved”!
But that is for a different thread sometime.
Quote (t8 @ April 06 2013,21:47) Quote (kerwin @ April 07 2013,17:41) T8, Where is “a” in the Ancient Greek.
There is no indefinite article in Greek.Thus when Jesus said, “One of you is a devil”. He actually said, “one of you is devil”.
Translators put in the indefinite article to make in intelligible in English.
Kerwin is well aware of this fact, t8 – but he has to hold on to something.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2013,17:52) He was calling them “gods”, plain and simple. BTW, I believe that verse is about the divine counsel – not men like most people think. I believe God was speaking to the spirit sons that He had placed over various nations of the earth (ie: the Prince of Persia that Michael fought). They did not handle their human subjects with righteousness, as God had intended them to do. Therefore, God was telling them that even though He called them (made them) gods, they would someday die like men die. This also fits with the fact that all the nations had their own gods, and then Jehovah chose Israel, out of all those nations, to be their personal God.
The word is 'theos' not 'theos(s), but yeah I agree.And I too believe he was referring to Divine counsel, but the point is that believing that means that 'theos' can apply to men, just as it can apply to angels, just as it can apply to Jesus, and just as it can all the more apply to YHWH.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2013,17:52) And I believe the Jews were accusing Jesus of making himself out to be A god, not “God Almighty Himself”. And Jesus was saying, if THEY are considered gods, then why not me? I'm the one God actually set apart from all the others, sent into the world, and said, “This is my Son, the beloved”! But that is for a different thread sometime
That is interesting. Haven't heard someone say that here before. On the outset, that is certainly a strong contender.Quote (t8 @ April 06 2013,21:51) I am saying you are technically correct, but the reader needs to further understand the application is qualitative.
And I repeat: “qualitatively god” is EXACTLY EQUAL TO “a god”.So let's just tell it like it is. Besides, I don't think John's intention in 1:1 was to say the Word was “God-like”, or “good like God”, or “holy like God”. Just like I don't think Paul was saying Satan was the “God-like one who rules over this world”. Paul was saying that Satan was indeed a god (mighty, powerful being) who has temporary control over this world in which we live. This is evident by the fact Satan was able to offer to Jesus the kingdoms of this world. They were GIVEN TO him, and he can rightly give them to anyone he chooses. Satan was not lying when he bribed Jesus with these possessions of his.
And similarly, John wasn't saying Jesus was “good like God”, IMO. He was saying that the Word (God's Spokesman) was indeed a god (powerful, mighty being) who was with THE God (Almighty) in the beginning.
I believe the scriptures that clearly attest to Jesus being a god (not “God-like”). And I believe John 1:1 is just one more of those scriptures.
Quote (kerwin @ April 07 2013,06:52) Quote (terraricca @ April 07 2013,05:34) Quote (kerwin @ April 07 2013,04:54) T and all, The word was with the divine, The word was divine.
The word was with the god, the word was god.
The word was with the bible, the word was bible.
kAGAIN YOU REDUCE YOUR VIEW TO A VAGUE CLOSE UP,
you would be right if the bible start at Christ coming ,and that Paul never said this ;
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.YOU SEE “ALL THINGS” IN VERSE 17 IT SAYS “” HE WAS BEFORE ” THIS MEAN WHAT BEFORE MEANS NOT AFTER RIGHT ,SO YOU ARGUMENT DOES NOT STAND
T and all,I tried two versions of a literal word for word translation of a part of John 1:1 and then applied the same pastern to the bible.
I have read the event of creation and it declares all things were created by the utterance of the god(s). It also states the new creation was created through Jesus. Those are planks.
Your interpretation of Colossians 1:16-17 is a spec.
To return to John 1:1 where does the “a” come in. There is no explicit “a” in the ancient Greek. Adding an “a” shifts the meaning in the three sentences I used.
kyou can try what you want ,if you do not believe what is written in scriptures and place yourself as the interpreter of God's word ,WHAT I CAN SEE YOU ARE NOT,SO WHY NOT LEAVE IT AT WHAT IS WRITTEN ,AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT AS A WHOLE AND SINGLE BOOK ENCOMPASSING THE WORDS OF GOD THAT WAS GIVEN TO MEN FOR HIS OWN GRACE,
DENYING SCRIPTURES SHOWS THAT YOU ARE NOT A SEARCHER FOR TRUTH OF GOD ,BUT ONLY SEARCHING FOR YOUR OWN TRUTH ,
Mike I am not saying you are wrong. And I am not opposing you. What I am doing is this.
I am saying that you will be opposed by most till the end for saying that John 1:1c is saying that Jesus is a god. Because to to the minds of most, that would be saying Jesus is a literal god and similarly that Judas is an actual demon. Whereas I believe if we show that they are theos or diablos in respect that Judas was of the Devil and Jesus of God, then reasonable people will be able to accept it because it then does not violate any scripture and is the intended meaning anyway.
So yes, we have Judas being called a devil, but people are able to read what is intended just the same as if I called you an angel. But they will not see Jesus as a god with similar application. Why?
Imagine if Roman Catholicism taught that Judas was an actual demon or devil and was able to change his appearance to a person who was called Judas. So Judas was a devil that came as a man called Judas. They would then believe that Judas was an actual devil and then 2 sides of argument would naturally occur. Is he the actual Devil (like the Word was the actual God) or a devil (like Judas was an actual devil spirit). The problem here is neither side would be correct. Now imagine trying to educate people to understand that in fact even though it says Judas was a devil, what is implied is that he was neither the Devil, nor a literal devil, but was devil like or was of the Devil. In other words, the Devil was his Father. First, many would oppose you because they oppose you for that same view in John 1:1c. And that is because it is hard to argue against centuries of accepted understanding. So if you said that Judas was a devil, and thought that this would be enough for the common man to understand, then they would not understand IMO.
Thus all I am saying is that you can eliminate some confrontation immediately by teaching the intended meaning.
This leads me to another subject but is relevant here. There are 2 types of Bible translations. One is a literal translation and the other is free. I believe both are important to understand scripture. I will explain in a further post.
http://mangahelpers.com/t/harun/releases/11942
Literal Translation is the act of rendering as closely as possible the wording, structure, and grammar of a source document into the translation. Fluency is not as important as fidelity. This type of text is often made for students and scholars who have knowledge of the language they are reading. Ancient Greek translated texts into Latin used the literal word for word approach. A one to one basis of literal substitution was preferred.
Free Translation is the act of rendering the sense of a source document, rather than slavishly dragging source words and word order into the translation. Understanding of both cultures is also important in free translations. Fluency for target readers is more important than fidelity.
Notice that literal translations are for scholars or students and not that suitable for the common man. Notice how the second example is more easily understood by the common man.
Now both methods are valid but often a free translation is better at defining the true meaning because it has more license to convert the meaning into the new language. But a free translation is also subject to error because the person making a free translation has to have the correct understanding to begin with, otherwise it will be wrong. This is the strength of a literal translation. Although harder to understand, it is less subject to translational error.
So to explain it to the common man, using a literal translation is not enough to convey the full meaning IMO.
I think we are both right and I think that you believe this too. But our approaches are different. And that is probably not a bad thing because multiple approaches are good and more robust.
Quote (terraricca @ April 07 2013,10:39) Quote (kerwin @ April 07 2013,06:52) Quote (terraricca @ April 07 2013,05:34) Quote (kerwin @ April 07 2013,04:54) T and all, The word was with the divine, The word was divine.
The word was with the god, the word was god.
The word was with the bible, the word was bible.
kAGAIN YOU REDUCE YOUR VIEW TO A VAGUE CLOSE UP,
you would be right if the bible start at Christ coming ,and that Paul never said this ;
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.YOU SEE “ALL THINGS” IN VERSE 17 IT SAYS “” HE WAS BEFORE ” THIS MEAN WHAT BEFORE MEANS NOT AFTER RIGHT ,SO YOU ARGUMENT DOES NOT STAND
T and all,I tried two versions of a literal word for word translation of a part of John 1:1 and then applied the same pastern to the bible.
I have read the event of creation and it declares all things were created by the utterance of the god(s). It also states the new creation was created through Jesus. Those are planks.
Your interpretation of Colossians 1:16-17 is a spec.
To return to John 1:1 where does the “a” come in. There is no explicit “a” in the ancient Greek. Adding an “a” shifts the meaning in the three sentences I used.
kyou can try what you want ,if you do not believe what is written in scriptures and place yourself as the interpreter of God's word ,WHAT I CAN SEE YOU ARE NOT,SO WHY NOT LEAVE IT AT WHAT IS WRITTEN ,AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT AS A WHOLE AND SINGLE BOOK ENCOMPASSING THE WORDS OF GOD THAT WAS GIVEN TO MEN FOR HIS OWN GRACE,
DENYING SCRIPTURES SHOWS THAT YOU ARE NOT A SEARCHER FOR TRUTH OF GOD ,BUT ONLY SEARCHING FOR YOUR OWN TRUTH ,
T,I used T8's plank and spec argument. There is no room for Jesus in the account of the original creation event unless you presume that more than one god spoke the Word and that Jesus was one of those gods.
Note: I am not advancing the teaching that Jesus was there at creation but I am pointing out that vagueness of Hebrew allows for more than one god.
Kerwin
Quote Note: I am not advancing the teaching that Jesus was there at creation but I am pointing out that vagueness of Hebrew allows for more than one god. but in this message you just nullify the total scriptures and all the work of the holy spirit to bring us the scriptures today,and you think you are right
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2013,19:26) Quote (Lightenup @ April 04 2013,13:14) ……….realize that there is another Root because the 'Roots' of Jesse is a plural word. I believe this refers to the Father and the Son who are both involved in the creation of Jesse.
Isaiah 11:1
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.Kathi, a Branch will spring up FROM the roots of Jesse, right?
So are you saying that Jesus is the Branch who sprang up from HIMSELF – as one of the two Roots of Jesse?
Do you believe the “Root Jesus” FATHERED/CREATED the “Branch Jesus”?
Mike,
Not really. The Second Root (the only begotten God/Son) that also became the Shoot (Yeshua) was sent by the First Root (the Father). The First Root begat that from which was eternally within Him to be the Second Root and then creation was created. Then came Jesse, and the household of Jesse (the stump). Then the First Root (the Father) sent the Son to not only be the Root but also the Shoot. The Son is both the second Root and the Shoot. He is not the First Root and the Shoot, imo.Quote (kerwin @ April 08 2013,04:40) T, I used T8's plank and spec argument. There is no room for Jesus in the account of the original creation event unless you presume that more than one god spoke the Word and that Jesus was one of those gods.
Note: I am not advancing the teaching that Jesus was there at creation but I am pointing out that vagueness of Hebrew allows for more than one god.
John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.Let's imagine this scripture said:
“Through the son, all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”Would that then a good enough scripture to say that God created all things through the son?
Quote (t8 @ April 04 2013,19:40) Quote (Lightenup @ April 04 2013,15:13) I have been saying the same thing in different words, t8 but you laugh. The fact is that there is more than one Root of Jesse. Why would you think that the other Root would not be the Father since He made all through another Root? Or who do you think the other root/s is/are?
Yes I laugh.
Did your tummy jiggle like a bowl full of jelly?Quote (t8 @ April 04 2013,19:44) Quote (Lightenup @ April 04 2013,15:13) I have been saying the same thing in different words, t8 but you laugh. The fact is that there is more than one Root of Jesse. Why would you think that the other Root would not be the Father since He made all through another Root? Or who do you think the other root/s is/are?
Well if this is your argument whether it is right or wrong, it supports our view not yours.Let's look at this scripture again:
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
Okay. Now apply your understanding.
2 roots. Okay.
God > Christ > Creation/Man
There you go. This satisfies all your requirements while also not going against the above scripture.
As you can see, man was created by God through Christ. The head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.
So the root of the woman is the man, the root of the man is Christ, the root of Christ is God. This also means that the root of the woman is the man, Christ, and God. The root of the man is Christ and God. And the root of Christ is exclusively God.
Thanks for the support Kathi. Okay this root, shoot, and foot argument can be archived. Whether right or wrong, it makes no difference to this topic, meaning it is its own topic and not related to this.
Next →
t8,
More like this:
First Root (God the Father)>begat that which was eternally within Him (Second Root-God the Son) before the ages>they created all created things in heaven and on earth including Jesse and his descendants (the stump of Jesse) up until Yeshua>the First Root sent the Second Root to become also the Shoot, Yeshua, the offspring of David.He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
The Shoot was in the world, and though the world was made through Him as the Second Root, the world did not recognize Him. He came to that which was His own, but His own did not receive Him as either the promised offspring of David or the Root of Jesse.
Notice I didn't just quote a scripture but instead, gave a commentary of how I understand the scripture lest you again FALSELY accuse me of adding words to scripture.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
