- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Hi 94- Quote “As I stated Jesus is God in the sense that he is the express image of God's person, and that we see through the works that he did in obedience to God's Word. God does call him God in Hebrews 1:10.
So you do believe Jesus is God. Hebrews 1:8 also states he is God.
Quote (942767 @ May 27 2008,16:29) Hi Nick: I know of Only one God and One only begotten Son of God and many sons of God who are begotten of God by the spirit of adoption, but no, I am sorry, I don't know any begotten God. If you want to believe that that is your prerogative. Go right ahead.
Hi 94,
Then you must show us how the scripture in Jn 1.18 is wrong by other means than opinion.Quote (942767 @ May 27 2008,11:12)
Hi WJ:You say:
Quote Jesus spoke the words of God, and in many places in the scriptures takes claim to them as being his own words. Please show me where he takes claim to “them” being his own words. Thanks.
Hi 94
This is a quick post for I have others to answer that were before you.
If you study the scriptures closely you will see that the scriptures are all about Yeshua.
Jesus said they were written about him. John 5:39
When Yeshua made statements like…
Jhn 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
Jhn 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.Men immediately assume that Jesus cannot be God. Yet if you look at the context you will see Yeshua is speaking of authority. Phil 2 reveals Yeshua relinquishing all authority and humbling himself as a servant and being found in fashion as a man. He was rich yet he for our sakes became poor. 2 Cor 8:9
Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, (or my own) but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (Or my own authority) John 7:16, 17.
You can check the variations from the different translations and you will see that the implication is “his doctrine was the Fathers also and that Yeshua spoke not on his own”.
The Father only speaks by the Son and the Son only speaks by the Father. Compare this concept with these scriptures…
But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself (or on his own), but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he (the Father) doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. John 5:17
This is an extremely profound claim for just a mere man to make, or even an anointed prophet. It was such a strong claim to his Deity that the Jews were accusing him of making himself equal to God. If you look at his statement with an open mind you will see this is exactly what he is doing for he claims to do whatever the Father does, yet Yeshua makes it clear that he does not do anything on his own initiative, just as the Father does everything with the Son.
“Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. (John 14:10 NASB)
Jesus simply didn’t speak on his own, just as the Father never speaks without the Son. A few verses before Yeshua had just told Philip that if he seen Him he has seen his Father (God) and that if he had known Him he would have known his Father (God).
If Yeshua meant that his words were not his then he would have been contradicting himself and leaving a lot of confusion with those that heard him, for he says in many places that the words he spoke were also his words as well as the Fathers.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
(John 8:31, 32)I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. (John 8:37)
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. (John 8:43)
I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. (Rev 3:8)
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matt 24:35)
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (Mark 8:38)
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (John 5:47)
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)
In each one of the above scriptures Yeshua could have said “My Fathers word”, but in fact Jesus takes claim to the scriptures…
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (Jn 5:39)
The scriptures are a biography of God and Jesus takes claim to them.
Blessings!
Quote (gsilva72 @ May 27 2008,17:04) Hi 94- Quote “As I stated Jesus is God in the sense that he is the express image of God's person, and that we see through the works that he did in obedience to God's Word. God does call him God in Hebrews 1:10. So you do believe Jesus is God. Hebrews 1:8 also states he is God.
Others scriptures also state that men, angels, idols, and even Satan are theos and elohim. Do you believe that they are God too?Quote (942767 @ May 26 2008,19:33) Quote (Lightenup @ May 27 2008,11:08) Quote (942767 @ May 26 2008,17:52) Hi Lightenup: You say:
Quote and One Begotten God, The Lord Jesus Christ. Where is the scripture to support this?
Hi 94,Nick is right it is in John 1:18:
18 No one has seen God at any time; the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
NASUHere it is in the Greek:
qeon oudeiv ewraken (5758) pwpote; monogenhv qeov o wn (5752) eiv ton kolpon tou patrov ekeinov echghsato.monogenhv qeov means only begotten God.
Some translations say only begotten Son but the greek word after begotten is qeov which when transliterated is Theos which means God.
And Jesus is Lord:
1 Cor 8:6
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
NASU
Hi Lightenup:As I said to Nick, no wonder why there is so much confusion.
There has to be in this translation maybe something like the only begotten (of) God in order for this to be consistent with the rest of the bible.
As I stated Jesus is God in the sense that he is the express image of God's person, and that we see through the works that he did in obedience to God's Word. God does call him God in Hebrews 1:10 but he exlains why saying,
Quote But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. Hbr 1:9 THOU HATH LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND HATED INIQUITY; “THEREFORE” GOD (EVEN THY GOD), HATH ANOINTED THE WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE THY FELLOWS.
God Bless
Hi 94,I am glad that you are not just satisfied that your Bible says what you hope it means but that you are thinking this through. I feel your pain because I used to not know a thing about Greek (not saying that YOU don't know a thing about Greek). I was at the mercies of the translator. If you want me to explain how to manuever http://www.studylight.org to find out a bit more about the original Greek words then let me know.
You might try going to this web page and see John 1:18 in english and the Greek also.
http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en
Regarding John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
qeon oudeiv ewraken (5758) pwpote; monogenhv qeov o wn (5752) eiv ton kolpon tou patrov ekeinov echghsato.
Now, go to this web page to see if qeov is in the genitive case (that is the case that would show possession and be tranlated “of God”)
http://www.studylight.org/isb….8&nt=na
We see here that monogenhv is:
Adjective : Nominative : Singular : Masculine.
Which means that it is an adjective in this sentence and that it is describing the subject, (that is what nominative tells us). The words singular and masculine are agreeing with the noun that it is describing which is qeov (God).We also see on this web page that qeov (God) is:
Noun : Nominative : Singular : Masculine
Which means that God is used in this sentence as the noun and subject (because it is in the nominative case). Singular means that it is just one God spoken about in this sentence and that the noun is masculine, not feminine or neuter.You see, 94, if it was supposed to be “the only begotten OF God” then qeov would be spelled differently to match the genitive case and not in the nominative case. When a Greek noun is written in the genitive case translators are to put the word “of” in front of it because genitive cases show possession.
Now, I have given you a bit of a Greek lesson. You are not ready to fly yet but I want you to know that the translators have some rules that they have to follow. It is true that they have some freedom within their translating but certainly not much.
Let me know if I haven't explained it clearly enough.
And by the way, by referring to the Son of God as the Begotten God then you have the understanding that is consistent with the rest of the Bible. If you accept Him as the Begotten God, well that clears up many of the scriptures we have been going round and round with here in the trinity and pre-existence thread. I will speak of that in my next post.
Peace,
LUTo all:
As I told 94 in my last post, if we accept the son of God as the only begotten God then we can clear up alot of the verses we seem to go round and round with. For instance:John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word (“let there by light”), and the Word (the light) was with God, and the Word (the light) was (the only begotten) God.Col 1:15
He (the only begotten God) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn (the light was the first to come into existence) of all creation.By the way, it can not be “firstborn OVER all creation” eventhough the Son of God would considered that also. The Greek words for “of all creation” come from pashv ktisewv.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
ov estin (5748) eikwn tou qeou tou aoratou, prwtotokov pashv ktisewv,pashv ktisewv
pashv-Adjective : Genitive : Singular : Femininepashv- Strong's #3956-Greek root word is pav
Definition:
individually
each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
collectively
some of all typesktisews-Noun : Genitive : Singular : Feminine
Strongs #2937 Greek root word is ktisiv
the act of founding, establishing, building etc
the act of creating, creation
creation i.e. thing created
of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation 1b
anything created 1b
after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called) 1b
the sum or aggregate of things created
institution, ordinancektisews is written in the genitive case and when translated it is to have the word “of” in front of it because “genitive” means that it shows possession.
You can refer to these web pages for the above info on Colossians 1:15:
http://www.studylight.org/isb….1&ncc=1
http://www.studylight.org/isb….5&nt=na
This takes alot of time to go through this but it is important!
God bless all,
LULightenup……….explain why translators left out the definite articles be for the word God in so many places and added it in in others when its not in the Greek.
When translators added the definite article in front of the words law, it gives it a complete different meaning then if they would have left it out as the original text has it. Because the word the is spicific or definite which makes the phrase (the Law) mean the ten commandments, But if the definite article is not there as it's is in the original text it would read, by works of Law shall no flesh be justified, another word it means by the way Law works (forced compliance) would no flesh be justified. These adding or omitting of the definite article does definitely change the texts.Many places where the word God appears there should be the definite article there, and should be read (The God) not God in a general sense.
Also is is my understanding that the word (Only) should be (Unique) so the text should have read uniquely begotten son, not only begotten son.
We need to all remember the text we have went from the original language spoken by Jesus and the Apostles (more likely Aramaic) into Greek or Latin then into English. And a lot of influenced thinking was there too, errors are every where or we wouldn't have so many different translations, but i believe with God's spirit we can figure out enough to get to the basic truths.
peace to you …………..gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 27 2008,11:20) Lightenup……….explain why translators left out the definite articles be for the word God in so many places and added it in in others when its not in the Greek.
When translators added the definite article in front of the words law, it gives it a complete different meaning then if they would have left it out as the original text has it. Because the word the is spicific or definite which makes the phrase (the Law) mean the ten commandments, But if the definite article is not there as it's is in the original text it would read, by works of Law shall no flesh be justified, another word it means by the way Law works (forced compliance) would no flesh be justified. These adding or omitting of the definite article does definitely change the texts.Many places where the word God appears there should be the definite article there, and should be read (The God) not God in a general sense.
Also is is my understanding that the word (Only) should be (Unique) so the text should have read uniquely begotten son, not only begotten son.
We need to all remember the text we have went from the original language spoken by Jesus and the Apostles (more likely Aramaic) into Greek or Latin then into English. And a lot of influenced thinking was there too, errors are every where or we wouldn't have so many different translations, but i believe with God's spirit we can figure out enough to get to the basic truths.
peace to you …………..gene
Hi Gene,
Maybe you can give me a couple on those verses in question regarding the article “the”.As far as the word “ony” these are definitions from two different sources as they define Strong's number 3439.
NT:3439
monogenes (mon-og-en-ace'); from NT:3441 and NT:1096; only-born, i.e. sole:
KJV – only (begotten, child).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright  1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)The second definition from studylight.org:
http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=3439
single of its kind, only
used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of GodBlessings!
LUlightenup………single of its kind, can also mean unique. Common sense would tell you thats what the text meant, because if you say only begotten son, then what do you do with all the scriptures that talk about all the sons of God, through them out?They were all begotten by GOD, and that includes us also. I contend when you put the sum of the scriptures together it can only mean unique.
Here are just some of the scriptures where the article was added
Gal 2:16…> Knowing that a man is not justified by (the) works of (the) .
Greek ……> Knowing that a man is not justified by works of law. (no definite article)Gal 3:2……> This only would i learn of you, received; you the Spirit by (the) works of (the) law or by (the) hearing of faith
GreeK……..> this alone i want to learn from you; from works of law the spirit you received or from hearing of trust.Gal 3:5 , 3:10 also notice Gal 3:6 the article (the) is in the Greek text (the God) meaning a particular GOD, but is not in our English text.
Adding or not putting the definite articles in the text greatly alters it's meaning. And i noticed this is done in a lot of places epically in regards to God when it should read (the God) not just God.
thanks……………..gene
Gene,
Where does it say that angels were begotten? They are not begotten, they are created. The Son of God who comes in the flesh was born/begotten not created.I'll get to the article questions when I have time to look into it.
Blessings, LUWJ……> in your exposition of Jesus' words, i noticed you didn't use John 17:8 or John 14:24 which speak expressly about the subject you were talking about,why not, is it because they prove you wrong about Jesus words being His own.
It is evident you don't take all scripture into consideration on your explanations. Just ones you can contort to push your trinitarian theologies.
John 17:8….> For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them,
John 14:24….> He who does not love me does not keep me words; and the word which you hear is (NOT) Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.
WJ……why were these not used by you……………gene
Gene,
I found this little bit in my “Basics of Biblical Greek” textbook on page 67. I will quote it:“When there is no article before the noun or adjective, check the context to determine your translation. Be sure not to supply the article in your translation unless English demands it.”
If I find out anything else, I will let you know.
LU
lightenup……> but do you see how the definite article changes the text? If i say be works of the law i am talking about the ten commandments, but if i say by works of law, i am talking how law in a general sense works, another words (forced compliance) and may not be talking about the ten commandments at all.
Then i would make the conclusion that Paul was saying a person can not be justified by forcing him, because (Law) works by forced and so Paul was saying a who is forced to do right will not be Justified , why? because forcing someone to do right doesn't change them.
in their Heart.I think if translators wanted to stay true to the Greek text they should have used the article where it is found in the Greek text and don't put it in where it's not in the Greek text
when translating to English.IMO………..gene
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 27 2008,06:29) This is why I believe that to reconcile all the Biblical data, the Trinitarian view best explains the scriptures.
There it is right there. You said it yourself.You read scripture with a Trinitarian understanding because that is how you get some understanding of scripture. I have said before that this is how your mind works and now here you are agreeing with my words.
As I have quoted before, “you can get vinegar from a sponge, so long as the sponge is first soaked in vinegar”. WJ, your understanding is soaked in Babylon thinking, so you will always get that same understanding from scripture. That is how all cults work. They give you the understanding, and then scripture is always seen in the light of the doctrine that you accept. Mormons, JWS, Trinitarians, Unitarians, and Binatarians can all read scripture with their understanding and not feel threatened by scripture at all. They all do the same thing. The difficult scriptures are overcome by ignoring them, believing a lame explanation for them, or by using a translation that best suits their predefined belief.
But it is better to read scripture and let it give you the understanding. If you process everything through a formula, then you are relying on the formula and you will finish with the formula.
Romans 8:14
because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.Hi Gene,
I agree with your point that by adding or deleting the “the” in translations can give a different twist to the meaning. That is why it is good to know the original languages and understand translation principles before assuming the translators are wrong. I assume that the translators know more than I do about the original language but they are also human and look through different glasses than I. Also, context is king and will help clear up alot of the confusion.Take care,
LUlightenup…….you are right they were looking through different glasses, they were trinitarian glasses.
peace to you……….gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 28 2008,09:55) lightenup…….you are right they were looking through different glasses, they were trinitarian glasses. peace to you……….gene
Hi Gene,
Probably so and I appreciate there hard work. If they hadn't done what they did I would be much further behind in my Bible Study It would take sooooooo much longer!! Even though I am not a trinitarian, I say a big THANK YOU to all Bible translators out there. It is because of them that we can begin to study God's word. By the way, do you know of any Bibles out there that God has used “Oneness” believers' to translate? Just Curious??Peace back to you…..LU
Lightenup…….No i don't, i have several different bibles and Greek translations i use but truthfully if we use the (SUM) of God's words on a subject we can pretty much get to the truth especially with spiritual guidance He give.
peace to you and yours…………….gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
