- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ April 17 2013,00:44) 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.
But you are using “divine” as an adjective.Your understanding, were it to match the Greek words, would say: and the utterance was God, or and the utterance was a god.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 16 2013,20:31) Yeah Pierre. It's hard to read Heb 1:8 and still refuse to believe Jesus is a god.
It is hard to believe that you have trouble connecting the theos of Heb 1:8 who is the' Word' of John 1:1 with the 'Word of Jehovah' in Gen 15:1-7 who calls Himself Jehovah, with John 17:11-12, showing two who have same name, the Son has the name of the Father.Kerwin,
You neglect the Jewish understanding of the “Word of Jehovah” as given to us in the Targums. The Targums reflect the Jewish understanding of that title. The Targums apply that title to the Jehovah that speaks to them. The OT tells us clearly that the Word of Jehovah is also Jehovah…there are two called Jehovah, the Father and the Son. The Father gave His name to His Son. John 17:11-12.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2013,23:16) 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?
t8, when will you address Heb 1:8? Is Jesus identified as a god in that verse?
Mike,
Actually Heb 1:8 has the article 'the' as in 'the God.'Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 10 2013,18:22) Quote (t8 @ April 09 2013,20:38) 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.
Fantastic.
Quote (t8 @ April 09 2013,20:38) 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.
My point is that you seem to accept men, angels, and Satan as “gods” in scripture………….. but you seem very hesitant to acknowledge that Jesus, the second most powerful being in existence, can also be “a god”.Why is that?
Very good point, Mike! I'm glad I am not the only one that acknowledges that.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 10 2013,18:54) Quote (t8 @ April 10 2013,01:58) In English we may understand that he is being called 'a god', but technically speaking, he is being called THE God if that translation is correct. And which God is that? The begotten one.
Kathi recently pointed out the obvious fact that anyone who is called “THE god” in any context, must, by necessity be “A god”. If you are not “A god” in the first place, you will never be called “THE god” of anything.For example, Jehovah is THE God of Israel. Well, He can't be that UNLESS He is A god in the first place. Agreed?
Similarly, Satan could not be THE god of this age unless he is A god to begin with.
Nor could Jesus be THE only begotten god unless he is A god to begin with.
Quote (t8 @ April 10 2013,01:58) However, this verse is controversial because some translations say 'begotten son'. Perhaps this has already been discussed and you can enlighten me.
Yes, this one is controversial – and it has been discussed. This is a rather lengthy explanation from NETNotes – but it is worth the read IMO:The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (monogenes son).
Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός (monogenes god) is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc.
The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading.
The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός (monogenes god).
Internally, although υἱός (son) fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός (god) as the older and more difficult reading is preferred.
Preferred by whom, you might ask.
At any rate, I've learned from reading the NET Bible that scholars always favor the harder reading. Their thinking is that it makes much more sense for a scribe to alter a hard reading, making it easier. (This is attested by all the marginal notes that scribes have left on older mss – trying to “explain” what is meant by the hard wording to others.)So it is easy to understand how a scribe who read “monogenes god” would alter it (since only one letter distinguished the two) to “monogenes son” – because “monogenes son” is an expression that John used elsewhere in his writings.
I also think it is sensible that the oldest mss would have the more accurate reading, don't you?
In the case of John 1:18, the older and harder reading is “god” – not “son”. But I agree that there is no way to be sure, and so I won't force this one scripture upon you to prove my point.
Mike,
Think about this, there are those sons of God that are called 'theos' according to Jesus in John 10:35. There is a difference between those sons who are merely called theos and the only one who was begotten as theos. The ones who are merely called theos aren't inherently a theos, but designated so for some reason, probably to take authority in some manner.Quote (Lightenup @ April 18 2013,20:43) Kerwin,
You neglect the Jewish understanding of the “Word of Jehovah” as given to us in the Targums. The Targums reflect the Jewish understanding of that title. The Targums apply that title to the Jehovah that speaks to them. The OT tells us clearly that the Word of Jehovah is also Jehovah…there are two called Jehovah, the Father and the Son. The Father gave His name to His Son. John 17:11-12.
LU,I am claiming the same thing as the Targums. The Utterance is Yawheh.
Quote One of the striking things these Targums show is that first century Jews had come to understand the phrase “the Word of God” as referring to a divine entity within God Himself, yet distinguishable at times from God. Note 1: Here is my Source
Note 2: Jews are Unitarians.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 18 2013,06:36) Quote (kerwin @ April 17 2013,00:44) 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.
But you are using “divine” as an adjective.Your understanding, were it to match the Greek words, would say: and the utterance was God, or and the utterance was a god.
Mike,Yes I did. I attempted to translate a Koine Greek idea that and object is a god which I believe is a synonym for divine.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 18 2013,08:47) Mike,
Actually Heb 1:8 has the article 'the' as in 'the God.'
Yes, I know Kathi.You snooze, you lose. Kerwin already pointed that out pages ago (although I've know about the word “ho” in that verse for years, thanks to discussions with Jack and Keith).
But don't forget that the god mentioned in verse 8 has a God of his own who anointed him and set him above his companions in verse 9. So the god mentioned in verse 8 is obviously not “THE God” – as in the Most High God. Instead, it was the Most High God in verse 9 who anointed this other god, and set him on high.
Are you down with that?
Quote (Lightenup @ April 18 2013,08:39) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 16 2013,20:31) Yeah Pierre. It's hard to read Heb 1:8 and still refuse to believe Jesus is a god.
It is hard to believe that you have trouble connecting the theos of Heb 1:8 who is the' Word' of John 1:1 with the 'Word of Jehovah' in Gen 15:1-7 who calls Himself Jehovah, with John 17:11-12, showing two who have same name, the Son has the name of the Father.
I believe that the name of the Most High God is “YHWH”. And I believe the name of the Son of the Most High God is “Jesus”.I don't believe Jesus is named “YAHWEH” – nor do I believe any scripture really says such a thing. (I've been discussing John 17:11-12 with Daniel, in the “Where is God?” thread.)
Quote (Lightenup @ April 18 2013,20:39) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 16 2013,20:31) Yeah Pierre. It's hard to read Heb 1:8 and still refuse to believe Jesus is a god.
It is hard to believe that you have trouble connecting the theos of Heb 1:8 who is the' Word' of John 1:1 with the 'Word of Jehovah' in Gen 15:1-7 who calls Himself Jehovah, with John 17:11-12, showing two who have same name, the Son has the name of the Father.
KathyJn 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.
Jn 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
Jn 17:13 “I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them.it seems you are seeing thing that are not in scriptures
Quote (kerwin @ April 18 2013,21:00) Quote (Lightenup @ April 18 2013,20:43) Kerwin,
You neglect the Jewish understanding of the “Word of Jehovah” as given to us in the Targums. The Targums reflect the Jewish understanding of that title. The Targums apply that title to the Jehovah that speaks to them. The OT tells us clearly that the Word of Jehovah is also Jehovah…there are two called Jehovah, the Father and the Son. The Father gave His name to His Son. John 17:11-12.
LU,I am claiming the same thing as the Targums. The Utterance is Yawheh.
Quote One of the striking things these Targums show is that first century Jews had come to understand the phrase “the Word of God” as referring to a divine entity within God Himself, yet distinguishable at times from God. Note 1: Here is my Source
Note 2: Jews are Unitarians.
Kerwin,
Your source says the Word (Memra) is a personality and is God, separate from the Father and Holy Spirit. This is a quote from that source:Quote The Memra is God, yet is a separate personality from the Father and Holy Spirit: And the Word [Memra] of the Lord caused to descend upon the peoples of Sodom and Gommorah, brimstone and fire from the Lord in heaven.
Targum Jonathan on Gen. 19:24
Gen. 19 [24] Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
——————–
And Israel saw the great strong hand of God, what He did to the Egyptians. They feared God and believed in His Word [Memra] and in His servant Moses.
Onkeles Targum on Exodus 14:31
Exodus 14 [31] And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses.
Also note, the Jews now believe that the Word is the Torah and that the Jews do not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah.
“Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me…”
The Father's name is Jehovah/Yahweh.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 18 2013,21:39) Quote (Lightenup @ April 18 2013,08:39) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 16 2013,20:31) Yeah Pierre. It's hard to read Heb 1:8 and still refuse to believe Jesus is a god.
It is hard to believe that you have trouble connecting the theos of Heb 1:8 who is the' Word' of John 1:1 with the 'Word of Jehovah' in Gen 15:1-7 who calls Himself Jehovah, with John 17:11-12, showing two who have same name, the Son has the name of the Father.
I believe that the name of the Most High God is “YHWH”. And I believe the name of the Son of the Most High God is “Jesus”.I don't believe Jesus is named “YAHWEH” – nor do I believe any scripture really says such a thing. (I've been discussing John 17:11-12 with Daniel, in the “Where is God?” thread.)
Mike,
Gen 15 clearly says that the Word of Yahweh is Yahweh.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 18 2013,21:35) Quote (Lightenup @ April 18 2013,08:47) Mike,
Actually Heb 1:8 has the article 'the' as in 'the God.'
Yes, I know Kathi.You snooze, you lose. Kerwin already pointed that out pages ago (although I've know about the word “ho” in that verse for years, thanks to discussions with Jack and Keith).
But don't forget that the god mentioned in verse 8 has a God of his own who anointed him and set him above his companions in verse 9. So the god mentioned in verse 8 is obviously not “THE God” – as in the Most High God. Instead, it was the Most High God in verse 9 who anointed this other god, and set him on high.
Are you down with that?
I knew Kerwin pointed that out to you too. Why do you refer to Heb 1:8 as 'a' theos instead of 'the' theos?Mike,
you said:Quote But don't forget that the god mentioned in verse 8 has a God of his own who anointed him and set him above his companions in verse 9. So the god mentioned in verse 8 is obviously not “THE God” – as in the Most High God. Instead, it was the Most High God in verse 9 who anointed this other god, and set him on high. Let's not forget that fathers naturally have a position higher than their sons. Also, let's not forget that the Son was made lower than the angels and exalted after that.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 19 2013,09:11) Quote (kerwin @ April 18 2013,21:00) Quote (Lightenup @ April 18 2013,20:43) Kerwin,
You neglect the Jewish understanding of the “Word of Jehovah” as given to us in the Targums. The Targums reflect the Jewish understanding of that title. The Targums apply that title to the Jehovah that speaks to them. The OT tells us clearly that the Word of Jehovah is also Jehovah…there are two called Jehovah, the Father and the Son. The Father gave His name to His Son. John 17:11-12.
LU,I am claiming the same thing as the Targums. The Utterance is Yawheh.
Quote One of the striking things these Targums show is that first century Jews had come to understand the phrase “the Word of God” as referring to a divine entity within God Himself, yet distinguishable at times from God. Note 1: Here is my Source
Note 2: Jews are Unitarians.
Kerwin,
Your source says the Word (Memra) is a personality and is God, separate from the Father and Holy Spirit. This is a quote from that source:Quote The Memra is God, yet is a separate personality from the Father and Holy Spirit: And the Word [Memra] of the Lord caused to descend upon the peoples of Sodom and Gommorah, brimstone and fire from the Lord in heaven.
Targum Jonathan on Gen. 19:24
Gen. 19 [24] Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
——————–
And Israel saw the great strong hand of God, what He did to the Egyptians. They feared God and believed in His Word [Memra] and in His servant Moses.
Onkeles Targum on Exodus 14:31
Exodus 14 [31] And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses.
Also note, the Jews now believe that the Word is the Torah and that the Jews do not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah.
LU,The Jews to not believe Jesus filled thee requirements of being the Messiah. The idea of the trinity or binity has never been a teaching of the general Hebrew populace.
The Targum is claimed to refer to the Word as a personality, not a person, and a divine entity.
This is how certain Jews view the Holy Spirit today.
Quote The rabbinical understanding of the “Holy Spirit” has a certain degree of personification, but it remains, “a quality belonging to God, one of his attributes”. The Targums are still in use by certain Jews.
Kerwin,
The belief in the two powers of Yahweh was a teaching of the Jews. Read this:
http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/Quote (Lightenup @ April 18 2013,19:15) “Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me…” The Father's name is Jehovah/Yahweh.
Hi LU,Rev.3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. 12Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the
NAME of my God, and the name of the city of my God,
which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. 13He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Are all these people GOD?
Peace sister.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 19 2013,11:03) Kerwin, The belief in the two powers of Yahweh was a teaching of the Jews. Read this:
http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/
LU,Some off the Canaanites, polytheists, believed in two essential powers. Dr. Michael S. Heiser is interpretation the Hebrew bible in its Canaanite setting.
Quote In my dissertation (UW-Madison, 2004) I argued that Segal’s instincts were correct. My own work bridges the gap between his book and the Hebrew Bible understood in its Canaanite religious context. I don't know anything about rabbinical scholar Alan Segal except what Dr. Heiser said about him. I have heard no peer review of Alan Segal's work, though he published it as a book in 1977.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
