- This topic is empty.
- Posts
T,
Could you please answer my question.
Quote Do you agree that “born” in “born of God” is a likeness to birth? Thank you!
Quote (kerwin @ April 15 2013,04:11) T, Could you please answer my question.
Quote Do you agree that “born” in “born of God” is a likeness to birth? Thank you!
Kmy answer to you would be, NO,but my answer could be YES to others ,this is because i know your interpretation and that is wrong ,
Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2013,23:24) Quote (terraricca @ April 14 2013,20:15) Quote (kerwin @ April 13 2013,13:02) To all, John 1:1-3
Moffatt, New TranslationQuote The Logos existed in the very beginning,
the Logos was with God,
the Logos was divine.
He was with God in the very beginning:
through him all existence came into being,
no existence came into being apart from him.
KGod as no beginning ,so what beginning do they talk about ,???
Is it not the beginning of creation
YesSo who the bible says was there in that beginning
? And through all things came to be created ?It could definitely not be God the creator ,so it must be someone else that was created the very first ,and then through which all other things were created ,
T,It is a third possible translation of the “logos was theos” .
I have heard your interpretation.
Just that one clause of John 1:1 has three possible translations. Those translations can be interpreted in one or more ways.
This is my understanding
The Utterance existed in the very beginning,
the Utterance was with God,
the Utterance was divine.
It was with God in the very beginning:
through it all existence came into being,
no existence came into being apart from it.A question about yours. It is written:
Quote The Logos existed in the very beginning Why doesn't it read The Logos was created in the very beginning if the Spirit desires to impart that information?
Kto confuse Satan ,he also thought it was God until it was to late ,Jesus at become the Messiah
it seems you do not like the ways of God ,you like the way of men ;is it
Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2013,11:24) This is my understanding The Utterance existed in the very beginning,
the Utterance was with God,
the Utterance was divine.
The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as “god-like.” – Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New TestamentQuote (kerwin @ April 14 2013,11:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2013,08:50) Quote (kerwin @ April 13 2013,01:09) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 13 2013,09:56) Quote (kerwin @ April 11 2013,23:11) Again they seem clearly inferred by the context.
Now, in John 1:1, there are also three possibilities – EACH ONE OF THEM accurate based solely on grammar. Those three are:1. THE god
2. A god
3. Qualitatively godThe first one is ruled out by common sense, ie: THE god cannot possibly be said to have been with THE god.
The last two possibilities are really identical, for anyone who is “qualitatively god” is equally “a god”.
So let context dictate, Kerwin. (As opposed to your own personal wishes, which are what HAS BEEN dictating your understanding of scripture thus far.)
Mike,There was a particular God mentioned first. That is “the God” in ” “the Word was with the God”.
Okay. But now reread the part of my post above that I've supersized. THAT, my friend, is your CONTEXT.Let's assume that “THE god” the Word was WITH is the entire being of God Almighty Himself. (Why would we assume anything differently?)
So if we are to add the DEFINITE article to the theos in part c, the following must be true: The ENTIRE being of God Almighty Himself can be WITH the ENTIRE being of God Almighty Himself.
Our God-given common sense tells us that the above statement CANNOT be true.
Do YOU think it is true?
Mike,This issue is being addressed in another conversation on the thread in the beginning.
Surely you can offer a simple YES or NO on this thread, right?Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2013,11:24) Why doesn't it read The Logos was created in the very beginning if the Spirit desires to impart that information?
It does……… in other scriptures. (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14, Prov 8:22-25, etc.)Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 13 2013,17:56) The last two possibilities are really identical, for anyone who is “qualitatively god” is equally “a god”.
Agreed. But there is a difference too.1) 'a god' is saying that it could be any kind of god. Even a false god could not be ruled out by the sentence structure.
2) Qualitatively God specifies divine nature or same essence as God, thereby solidifying what kind of god.
Many scholars even those who hold to Jesus actually being God think the verse is talking about the nature or essence of God. In fact it may even be this that aided the Trinity Doctrine as it is very much about one God in essence but 3 in identity. As I have said many times before, men for some reason get all confused about essence/nature vs identity. They are unable to draw these true distinction where it matters.
Quote (t8 @ April 15 2013,19:45) 1) 'a god' is saying that it could be any kind of god. Even a false god could not be ruled out by the sentence structure.
Are you saying the rest of scripture isn't enough for us to figure out that Jesus is not a “false god”?
Quote (t8 @ April 15 2013,19:45) 2) Qualitatively God specifies divine nature or same essence as God, thereby solidifying what kind of god.
Ah, but look what you've done. You've opted for BOTH the “qualitative” option AND the definite article option.You've made it say Jesus was “qualitatively” THE god.
Without adding that definite article, you are in the same boat as I, because “qualitatively theos” (not THE Theos) still leaves open the possibility that he is qualitatively a FALSE theos, right?
t8, why aren't you addressing Hebrews 1:8?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 13 2013,18:16) Quote (t8 @ April 12 2013,00:50) Judas being called a devil is an example.
And what exactly is “a devil”, t8? A devil is a “false accuser”, and a “slanderer” – according to Strong.Was Judas actually a “false accuser”? If he was, then he was actually “a devil”, right? So no need to imagine that Jesus really meant that Judas “had qualities that the Devil has”. He could call him “A devil”, and mean exactly what he said, right?
Hi Mike.A devil is a slanderer is the qualitative view of these beings called devils. Even though used as a noun, it is an adjective.
But is this not what I am saying. We read it with a qualitative approach. And I am just saying that this is possible with 'theos' too. Even Trinitarian scholars understand that.
The Word is neither the Father, nor the Trinity. He is not THE God.
And even though I am not saying you cannot say the Word is a god, or Judas is a devil, what I am saying is how are these verses meant to be read? I am saying in a qualitative sense, rather than a literal sense.
If I call someone a pig, then I am not saying that they are a literal pig. Or if I say they are an angel, then I am not saying they are a heavenly angel.
We do not disagree IMO. It is more about what was intended for us to to think, when we read these.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 16 2013,15:53) Quote (t8 @ April 15 2013,19:45) 1) 'a god' is saying that it could be any kind of god. Even a false god could not be ruled out by the sentence structure.
Are you saying the rest of scripture isn't enough for us to figure out that Jesus is not a “false god”?
I used the words, 'sentence structure' so that you wouldn't need to say that.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 16 2013,15:53) Quote (t8 @ April 15 2013,19:45) 2) Qualitatively God specifies divine nature or same essence as God, thereby solidifying what kind of god.
Ah, but look what you've done. You've opted for BOTH the “qualitative” option AND the definite article option.
I am simply accommodating your view. I personally wouldn't call Jesus a god for the reasons I have stated earlier. i.e., that men are not capable of understanding what you mean. But because I understand what you mean, I use your own understanding in my reasoning that is all.I say that Jesus was theos, just as Jesus said, 'ye are theos'. I wouldn't take that to mean that “ye are theos' means that each individual he was talking about was A God being. But that they were likened to God, counsel, etc.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 16 2013,15:53) Without adding that definite article, you are in the same boat as I, because “qualitatively theos” (not THE Theos) still leaves open the possibility that he is qualitatively a FALSE theos, right?
Qualitatively theos describes the nature or essence being of God. You would still need to add the word, 'false' if you wanted to be qualitatively a false god. By default it is God, (the Father). By context, that can change.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 16 2013,15:53) t8, why aren't you addressing Hebrews 1:8?
Sorry, that one passed me by. I haven't read that scripture, so I don't know what it is saying. Will likely answer later on as it might need additional groundwork and info to answer it.Quote (t8 @ April 15 2013,20:13) I say that Jesus was theos, just as Jesus said, 'ye are theos'. I wouldn't take that to mean that “ye are theos' means that each individual he was talking about was A God being. But that they were likened to God, counsel, etc.
Why not? Apparently, every translator in the history of the world disagrees with you – since they all translate that as “ye are gods” – not “ye have certain God-like qualities”.(Then there's Gene, who incorrectly translates it as “ye are God's” – because that way he doesn't have to admit the scriptural truth that there exist MANY gods, both in heaven and on earth.)
T8, I don't get it. Do you seriously believe that there exist only TWO Gods – Jehovah and Satan?
Besides, God is not happy with these “gods” in the verse to which you refer. He is talking about His heavenly counsel, and how they are going to die like men for messing things up. So surely He isn't saying they are “God-like”, is He? Instead, He is literally calling them “gods”.
And when Jesus brought that verse up, he had just been accused of making himself out to be a god. And his answer was, If these lesser ones were called gods, then why not the one Jehovah set apart as His very own, and sent into the world?
Quote (t8 @ April 15 2013,20:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 16 2013,15:53) Without adding that definite article, you are in the same boat as I, because “qualitatively theos” (not THE Theos) still leaves open the possibility that he is qualitatively a FALSE theos, right?
Qualitatively theos describes the nature or essence being of God.
No, “qualitatively THE theos” would describe the nature or essence of God (with a capped “G”).“Qualitatively theos” would describe the nature or essence of ANY being who is considered a god.
Quote (t8 @ April 15 2013,20:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 16 2013,15:53) t8, why aren't you addressing Hebrews 1:8?
Sorry, that one passed me by. I haven't read that scripture, so I don't know what it is saying. Will likely answer later on as it might need additional groundwork and info to answer it.
Okie-dokie.Mike
I have no problem with that verse Heb 1;8 as it is written in also connects to the rest of scriptures that makes Christ the only son ,the only heir ,the second power in heaven ,….
I think many still fighting the will of God ,and still do not want to submit themselves to Christ and his father ,
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2013,08:03) Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2013,11:24) This is my understanding The Utterance existed in the very beginning,
the Utterance was with God,
the Utterance was divine.
The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as “god-like.” – Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
Mike,I am using Utterance as a noun.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
