- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ April 04 2013,19:32) Mike, LU, and all; Who or what is “the stump of Jesse”?
Hi Kerwin,
The stump of Jesse would include Jesse and his descendants up until Yeshua from what I can tell.Mike,
Is it not correct to say that the dog is a dog? or the tree is also a tree? or, the God is also a God? Too much is being made of the 'article' or lack thereof. A God is also the only begotten God. See what I mean?Like I said, John 1 is about God with God…
Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,15:03) 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?
How did you know. It is jiggling again.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,15:23) Mike,
Is it not correct to say that the dog is a dog? or the tree is also a tree? or, the God is also a God? Too much is being made of the 'article' or lack thereof. A God is also the only begotten God. See what I mean?Like I said, John 1 is about God with God…
John 1:1 to Kathi is about a God with another God. 2 Gods. 2 YHWHs. The Binity. Double value.Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,15:13) 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.
Let's assume this correct.You are saying that God begat another by which God created all things.
God > Word > Time/Space/Creation.
Okay, that contradicts your previous teaching on 2 Gods that eternally existed. And agrees with what myself, Mike, Terr, and perhaps others have relayed to you.
Have you come round to this view now. Like when you admitted that adam was mankind? Looks like it. But I am betting an about turn is going to happen fast.
Quote (t8 @ April 08 2013,15:26) Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,15:23) Mike,
Is it not correct to say that the dog is a dog? or the tree is also a tree? or, the God is also a God? Too much is being made of the 'article' or lack thereof. A God is also the only begotten God. See what I mean?Like I said, John 1 is about God with God…
John 1:1 to Kathi is about a God with another God. 2 Gods. 2 YHWHs. The Binity. Double value.
Correction:John 1:1 to Kathi is about a God with another God. 2 Gods but 1 YHWH. Two meld into one. Two identities one YHWH. . The Binity. Double value.
Quote (t8 @ April 08 2013,07:01) 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?
T8,Jesus was created by the Word of Jehovah not the other way around. A literal translations works well even if you chose the Word is with God and the Word is Divine.
The plank is that the gods{?} created all old things by their word. The speck is that some believe all old things were created through Jesus Christ.
Quote (terraricca @ April 08 2013,05:14) 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
T,I am just going by what is written. I do not believe the teaching even though it is based on one possible literal translation of Scripture.
LU, Mike, and all,
It seems reasonable that the stump of Jesse refers to the family of David that was cut down at the exile. The new branch comes from the line of Nathan and not the Exilarchs. The hypothesis is that addressing Jesse's line is speaking of more humble beginnings than addressing David's line.
Quote (kerwin @ April 08 2013,12:34) Quote (terraricca @ April 08 2013,05:14) 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
T,I am just going by what is written. I do not believe the teaching even though it is based on one possible literal translation of Scripture.
Kerwinso you have only fun ,but you do not share what you have come to understand in scriptures just pick up anything that you find and let see type a thing
? this does not add up my friend ,
Quote (t8 @ April 06 2013,23:13) Thus all I am saying is that you can eliminate some confrontation immediately by teaching the intended meaning.
And we apparently disagree about the “intended meaning”. (Where is David? He's always trying hard to find things about which the “Three Amigos” disagree, right?
)In your mind, Jesus was saying “one of you is devil-like”. In my mind, Jesus was clearly saying “one of you is a devil”.
In your mind, John was saying the Word was “God-like”. In my mind, John was saying the Word was literally a god who was with THE god.
Let's get to the bottom of it:
t8, is Jesus a god – according to many scriptures? YES or NO?
Is Satan the god of this world? Or did Paul mean Satan was the “God-like one of this world”? Which one?
Quote (Lightenup @ April 07 2013,19:00) The First Root begat that from which was eternally within Him to be the Second Root and then creation was created. Then came Jesse………
Yeah, but you believe it was that second Root who created everything, including Jesse, right?So you are still saying that “Jesus the Root” was the creator/father of “Jesus the Branch”.
Also, you didn't address the fact that it says “FROM the roots of Jesse”. That could just be referring to the many earthly ancestors Jesse had, right?
If you were a descendant of Albert Einstein (HA!
), and I said, “Kathi is from the roots of Albert Einstein”, which of the following would you think:1. You and Albert share the same distant ancestors?
2. Albert is a part of God?
Of course #1 is the obvious and sensible answer, right? It is also the obvious and sensible answer in Isaiah 11:1.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 07 2013,19:23) Mike,
Is it not correct to say that the dog is a dog? or the tree is also a tree? or, the God is also a God? Too much is being made of the 'article' or lack thereof.
True Kathi,“THE dog” is also “A dog”. “A dog” can be with “THE dog”, but “THE dog” cannot be with “THE dog”.
Imagine a couple took their dog to play in a big park, and it was out running around all over the place. The husband asks the wife, “Hey, where is the dog?” She replies, “Oh, there he is – way over there!” (Now they notice another dog romping about with their dog, so…….) The husband asks, “Hey, what is that running along with the dog?” The wife replies………………..
1. “Oh, it's a dog!”
2. “Oh, it's the dog!”
Which one is correct, Kathi? Can the one they already referred to as “the dog” be romping around with “the dog”? Or will she answer “a dog” because it is a DIFFERENT dog than the one they already identified as “the dog”?
Which one?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2013,14:41) Quote (t8 @ April 06 2013,23:13) Thus all I am saying is that you can eliminate some confrontation immediately by teaching the intended meaning.
And we apparently disagree about the “intended meaning”. (Where is David? He's always trying hard to find things about which the “Three Amigos” disagree, right? )In your mind, Jesus was saying “one of you is devil-like”. In my mind, Jesus was clearly saying “one of you is a devil”.
In your mind, John was saying the Word was “God-like”. In my mind, John was saying the Word was literally a god who was with THE god.
Let's get to the bottom of it:
t8, is Jesus a god – according to many scriptures? YES or NO?
Is Satan the god of this world? Or did Paul mean Satan was the “God-like one of this world”? Which one?
Hi Mike. Yeah sure I will engage you in this. But I want to point out that this is splitting hairs IMO, but I think it would be good to do that so we can both learn from each other the finer points of our understanding. I do not compare this to debating with Kathi where I believe she is completely barking up the wrong tree, I believe we are in the same tree.Okay that said, here are the finer points of my view.
1) There is no indefinite article in Greek.
2) There is one in EnglishSo IMO adding in the indefinite article is like putting a square peg into a round hole. But doing this can sometimes the best way to convey the meaning to an English speaking person or at least the simplest way. Especially for a literal translation where you have less license to explain the correct thought because you are swapping out words in the two language as much as possible. Thus adding in an 'a' is minimal damage to a pure literal translation.
So you asked, “is Jesus a god”.
Technically speaking “Jesus is theos”, not “a theos”.
Is there a difference? Yes there is a slight difference but that slight difference could also be monumental if not explained or understood properly.
As mentioned before, Jesus said of Judas, “one of you is a devil”. That is English, but that is not entirely correct. If there is no indefinite article, then if we remove that definite article it basically becomes, “One of you is devil”. So what is the difference. Well it is slight, but to some it could be monumental.
Let me explain.
A) One of you belongs to the Devil. One of you has the nature of the Devil. One of you is devil-like.
B) One of you is A (literal) devil. i.e., an evil spirit that can cohabit persons and pigs. A spirit that can possess a weak person's mind.Now I think we can agree that most would go for option A if they had to choose one of these options. Even though in English it says, “one of you is A devil), nearly all have enough common sense to read it as option A or close to it. I have never met a person that believes that Judas was an actual evil spirit devil being such as the Prince of Persia, a devil from the demon group 'Legion', Satan himself, or any other devil. I think all or the vast majority would say that he was a man not a devil.
Now apply the same thinking to Adam and Eve.
Is Adam a adam and is Eve a adam?
Technically speaking Adam and Eve are adam, not A adam. If I was going to single one of them out, then could I then say that Eve was a adam? Well according to what Kathi points out, no, you would say that Eve was the Adam, or Eve was a particular person of the human race. I haven't fully checked this, but it is how the definite article works with other words and I have said as much.In other words there is no A in Greek and I would have to check, but they may not even have that concept in mind when saying that Eve was adam. From what I can tell, they would think Eve is mankind, Eve is man. Is a Greek speaker even thinking that Eve is A adam or is Eve is mankind and is Eve in nature, mankind?
So do we just get rid of the indefinite article then if it was not there to begin with? I am not arguing that we should forget about using the indefinite article. But just as we understand that Judas was not a literal devil when we read “One of you is A devil” we cannot take for granted that the reader will have enough common sense to do this everywhere in scripture, especially when it says, The Word was theos.
So just as Bible's say “a virgin will be with child” and yet technically speaking it is, “a young girl will be with child”. The Hebrew word for 'virgin' is 'almah', while meaning 'young woman', in every instance where the word 'almah' refers to a young woman, she is also considered to be a virgin, and in the Greek it uses the word 'virgin' which demonstrates the intended meaning. But could we say 'young woman' to describe a young woman who was not a virgin? I don't know, I am not a Greek scholar. But you can see my point hopefully. It may work in one place but not in another.
And because people who are indoctrinated are hard to teach and because there is no doctrine that says that Judas was a literal devil to taint people's minds, we all have enough common sense to say Judas was in nature a devil. But common sense is thrown out the window when it comes to John 1:1c.
So what happens if we say, “Jesus is a god”.
Well if a person has enough common sense, insight, wisdom, knowledge, and have no predefined belief to get in the way, they may understand it correctly. But John 1:1c has had centuries of man-made ideas applied to it and in the minds of most, it is tainted by the Trinity Doctrine. Thus when they hear, “Jesus is a god”, there is no common sense applied like when Jesus said, Judas was a devil. No they will think another God (YHWH) but a lesser one as Kathi argues. They will say, another God next to the One True God, thus a false God, so he must be part of the original God in order to also remain true. Now we have a Binity. And a cunning indoctrinated person could say Jesus is YHWH because YHWH is a god. Or God is a god. Then the table is turned on you because they agree with your view, but they use it to support your view against you and toward the Trinity.
Like I said before you will be debating this for the rest of your natural life because people will see it through their cultural lense. That is all I am saying. While you will not be arguing that Judas was not a literal devil for the rest of your natural life because the intended meaning is almost universal.
So I can see what you may say next. Jesus is a god = Eve is a adam. Yes that works. But again, there are no preconceived ideas that will get in the way and if you think about it, Eve is an adam means that Eve is part of mankind. We are talking about her nature right. Thus why isn't John 1:1c doing the same?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2013,14:41) Is Satan the god of this world? Or did Paul mean Satan was the “God-like one of this world”? Which one?
Sorry I missed that.The God of this age is identified here because the definite article is used. So it is talking about a specific individual who is the actual God of this Age such as Satan or whomever people believe this specific individual to be.
The Word was theos is not necessarily being identified as a specific or the specific God due to the lack of the definite article. Although some make the argument that it should be read as if it were, but that the sentence structure does not allow it.
Further, it is really about what John 1:1c is trying to convey to the reader.
Is it identifying another god who is next to the original God.
Is it identifying the Word as being of God, God-kind, like God, part of the counsel of God which doesn't of course negate that he is with God because we are already told that.If it was the first one, then it is identifying the Word as another identity who is also God. And while you can make the argument that a god is the same as a being who is likened unto God etc, you can additionally and equally make the argument that 'a god' is any kind of God and not necessarily like the Most High God because if you use up the word theos as an identifier rather than as qualifying the Word as being of God, then that leaves nothing in the verse to say that he was of God, likened unto God, or has the nature of God. And although saying that John 1:1c is 'a god' certainly doesn't discount that he is of God and like God and possessing the nature and perhaps the form of God, it certainly doesn't affirm it either.
So is John 1:1c affirming that the Word is like God as we read time and time again elsewhere. Such as Jesus existed in the form of God, he is the image of the invisible God, he is the only begotten of God, and he is the express image of God in bodily form.
Some things to consider for both of us I think.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2013,14:41)
t8, is Jesus a god – according to many scriptures? YES or NO?Quote (t8 @ April 08 2013,20:51) Technically speaking “Jesus is theos”, not “a theos”.
John 1:18 NWT
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.In the above verse, is Jesus being called “a god”? Or is he being called “God-like”?
Hebrews 1:8 NIV
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever………”How about in this verse? Is Jesus identified as “a god”?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2013,14:41) Is Satan the god of this world? Or did Paul mean Satan was the “God-like one of this world”? Which one? Quote (t8 @ April 08 2013,20:51) The God of this age is identified here because the definite article is used. So it is talking about a specific individual who is the actual God of this Age……..
Much like the definite article used in John 1:18? Or the definite article in John 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus “the lord of me and the god of me”?But okay, tell me what it means to you that Satan is a god. Does it mean he is a “mighty one who rules over others”? That definition of “god” works for me (and the entire scriptures). Does it work for you?
Quote (t8 @ April 08 2013,20:51) If I was going to single one of them out, then could I then say that Eve was a adam? Well according to what Kathi points out, no, you would say that Eve was the Adam, or Eve was a particular person of the human race.
Yes, you could definitely say that Eve was an “adam”. But let's not muck it up with genders. Let's use “Cain” instead, okay?Was Cain “qualitatively adam”? YES or NO?
Was Cain “an adam”? YES or NO?
The answer to both is “YES”, because one statement is equal to the other. Mike is man = Mike is a man.
Oh, and I scripturally refuted that claim Kathi made. She acknowledged as much, and the last I knew she was going to ask her Hebrew instructor about it.
Quote (t8 @ April 08 2013,20:51) Well if a person has enough common sense, insight, wisdom, knowledge, and have no predefined belief to get in the way, they may understand it correctly. But John 1:1c has had centuries of man-made ideas applied to it and in the minds of most, it is tainted by the Trinity Doctrine. Thus when they hear, “Jesus is a god”, there is no common sense applied like when Jesus said, Judas was a devil. No they will think another God (YHWH) but a lesser one as Kathi argues. They will say, another God next to the One True God, thus a false God, so he must be part of the original God in order to also remain true. Now we have a Binity. And a cunning indoctrinated person could say Jesus is YHWH because YHWH is a god. Or God is a god. Then the table is turned on you because they agree with your view, but they use it to support your view against you and toward the Trinity.
I'm well aware of the twisting, t8. But I can't let how others may or may not understand it dictate whether or not I speak according to the scriptures.How is it okay in your mind that men, angels, and Satan can be gods…….. but not the second most powerful being in the universe? How can you spend hours debating and explaining to others the former points, but all of a sudden “run out of time”, or “worry about how others might twist it” when it comes to the latter?
Thanks Mike. I feel like we will cover much more ground and learn stuff compared to debating those who just regurgitate the same stuff. This is kinda what I prefer. Like minded people debating topics at checking out all stuff to see if it is so. Before I start to reply, I should first just say that I do not follow what you are saying in the last paragraph in the last post.
Okay, I will make some posts to your points throughout the day when I get the time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
