- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
t8
Quote (t8 @ July 26 2010,21:54) No, it says the Word was god.
No it says “The Word was God” or literraly “God was the Word”.Quote (t8 @ July 26 2010,21:54) There is no definite or indefinite article. It is meant as qualitative and is not identifying the Word as God himself or as another god. It is you and the JWs that decide to render John 1:1 as having a definite or indefinite article.
This is circular because the following scriptures do not have the definite article yet they are speaking of the One True God, and there are many many more.For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Matt 15:4
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. John 3:2
t8 knows this and it seems dishonest he would make such a rediculous argument.
WJ
WJ……….Exactly right God and His words are one and the same thing. But Jesus and God's Words are (NOT) one and the same thing as You and the Trinitarians (ASSUME) they are. “THE WORDS I AM TELLING YOU ARE (NOT) MY WORD BUT THE WORDS OF HIM WHO SENT ME”, SEEM you have a dilemma to figure out WJ.
peace and love…………………………gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 27 2010,10:51) WJ……….Exactly right God and His words are one and the same thing. But Jesus and God's Words are (NOT) one and the same thing as You and the Trinitarians (ASSUME) they are. “THE WORDS I AM TELLING YOU ARE (NOT) MY WORD BUT THE WORDS OF HIM WHO SENT ME”, SEEM you have a dilemma to figure out WJ. peace and love…………………………gene
GeneWhat do you do with all the scriptures where Jesus says the words he speaks are his own?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,02:27) t8 Quote (t8 @ July 26 2010,21:54) No, it says the Word was god.
No it says “The Word was God” or literraly “God was the Word”.Quote (t8 @ July 26 2010,21:54) There is no definite or indefinite article. It is meant as qualitative and is not identifying the Word as God himself or as another god. It is you and the JWs that decide to render John 1:1 as having a definite or indefinite article.
This is circular because the following scriptures do not have the definite article yet they are speaking of the One True God, and there are many many more.For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Matt 15:4
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. John 3:2
t8 knows this and it seems dishonest he would make such a rediculous argument.
WJ
Keith,I don't get t8? How does the “qualitative” interpretation hurt the trinity doctrine?
While the scholars we have considered have some differences with regard to the applicability of Colwell's Rule to John 1:1c and the particular semantic force of THEOS in this clause, they are unanimous in regarding the proper understanding of John's meaning: The Word has all the qualities, attributes, or nature of God, the same God referenced in the previous clause. The absence of the article, all agree, is purposeful; John intends to remove any possibility of a convertible proposition. The definite article signifies a personal distinction, thus the Person of God is in view in John 1:1b. The absence of the article signifies that the nature or essence of God is in view in 1:1c. John is not teaching that the Logos is the same Person as the Father. Nor, do the scholars believe, is John teaching that the Logos is a second god. All agree that the indefinite semantic force is unlikely.
http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm
Jack
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 26 2010,20:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 27 2010,03:30) I find it interesting that you berate the anti-prexistence crowd for not accepting the literal interpretation of the scrptures you quote and yet you reject the literal interpretation of John 1:1.
Please WJ!
You don't ever post the “literal” John 1:1. You can't. It's one of your staple “proof texts”. Compare John 1:1 with the 1 John 1:1 that t8 just posted. The only difference is that 1 John says Jesus was with “the Father”, while John says he was with “God”.
mike
MikeAll the major translations render the verse the same.
It not only says He was with the Father God, but also says he was God or literrally “God was the Word”.
You are the one wanting to add to the text.
We take it just like it reads.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,04:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 26 2010,20:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 27 2010,03:30) I find it interesting that you berate the anti-prexistence crowd for not accepting the literal interpretation of the scrptures you quote and yet you reject the literal interpretation of John 1:1.
Please WJ! You don't ever post the “literal” John 1:1. You can't. It's one of your staple “proof texts”. Compare John 1:1 with the 1 John 1:1 that t8 just posted. The only difference is that 1 John says Jesus was with “the Father”, while John says he was with “God”.
mike
MikeAll the major translations render the verse the same.
It not only says He was with the Father God, but also says he was God or literrally “God was the Word”.
You are the one wanting to add to the text.
We take it just like it reads.
WJ
Keith,Mike showed his novice credentials when he said in our debate that John 8:44 is written “identically” with John 1:1c. The PN's are not in the same order in the two verses and it makes a world of difference. Mike cannot be taken seriously whenever he comments on Greek grammar.
Not only that. But Mike does not know how to use sources. He uses an online source that combines Strong, the TWOT and others and then says, “Strong said”, not taking into consideration that he may be erroneously attributing some words from his combined source to Strong. Mike needs to acquire an actual Strong's Concordance in published print form.
Jack
Hi Jack and Kieth?,
Isn't this thread on Preexistence?
What is your (Jack and Kieth) view on Preexistence (for or against)?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 28 2010,04:58) Hi Jack and Kieth?, Isn't this thread on Preexistence?
What is your (Jack and Kieth) view on Preexistence (for or against)?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Our views on preexistence have been stated on this thread. And it is always pertinent in any discussion to point out when novices try to pass themselves off as Greek grammarians (Mike). This may help in protecting others from falling prey to their errors.the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,05:08) Quote (Ed J @ July 28 2010,04:58) Hi Jack and Kieth, Isn't this thread on Preexistence?
What is your (Jack and Kieth) view on Preexistence (for or against)?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Our views on preexistence have been stated on this thread. And it is always pertinent in any discussion to point out when novices try to pass themselves off as Greek grammarians (Mike). This may help in protecting others from falling prey to their errors.the Roo
Hi Jack,Are you not going to plainly state your view? (1Peter 3:15)
Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,13:45) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,05:08) Quote (Ed J @ July 28 2010,04:58) Hi Jack and Kieth, Isn't this thread on Preexistence?
What is your (Jack and Kieth) view on Preexistence (for or against)?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Our views on preexistence have been stated on this thread. And it is always pertinent in any discussion to point out when novices try to pass themselves off as Greek grammarians (Mike). This may help in protecting others from falling prey to their errors.the Roo
Hi Jack,Are you not going to plainly state your view? (1Peter 3:15)
EDIts already been stated plenty of times.
You know our view but only ask for “deceptive” purposes to get us to engage with you when we have decided to reject your unbiblical rabbit trails.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,05:59) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,13:45) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,05:08) Quote (Ed J @ July 28 2010,04:58) Hi Jack and Kieth, Isn't this thread on Preexistence?
What is your (Jack and Kieth) view on Preexistence (for or against)?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Our views on preexistence have been stated on this thread. And it is always pertinent in any discussion to point out when novices try to pass themselves off as Greek grammarians (Mike). This may help in protecting others from falling prey to their errors.the Roo
Hi Jack,Are you not going to plainly state your view? (1Peter 3:15)
EDIts already been stated plenty of times.
You know our view but only ask for “deceptive” purposes to get us to engage with you when we have decided to reject your unbiblical rabbit trails.
WJ
You got Ed J's number Keith.Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,05:59) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,13:45) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,05:08) Quote (Ed J @ July 28 2010,04:58) Hi Jack and Kieth, Isn't this thread on Preexistence?
What is your (Jack and Kieth) view on Preexistence (for or against)?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Our views on preexistence have been stated on this thread. And it is always pertinent in any discussion to point out when novices try to pass themselves off as Greek grammarians (Mike). This may help in protecting others from falling prey to their errors.the Roo
Hi Jack,Are you not going to plainly state your view? (1Peter 3:15)
EDIts already been stated plenty of times.
You know our view but only ask for “deceptive” purposes to get us to engage with you when we have decided to reject your unbiblical rabbit trails.
WJ
Hi WJ,If you haven't told me than hoe would I Know?
1Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts:
and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you
a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:Do you follow the scriptures or the systems of religion?
The systems of religion and traditions of men do communicate…
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,06:04) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,05:59) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,13:45) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,05:08) Quote (Ed J @ July 28 2010,04:58) Hi Jack and Kieth, Isn't this thread on Preexistence?
What is your (Jack and Kieth) view on Preexistence (for or against)?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Our views on preexistence have been stated on this thread. And it is always pertinent in any discussion to point out when novices try to pass themselves off as Greek grammarians (Mike). This may help in protecting others from falling prey to their errors.the Roo
Hi Jack,Are you not going to plainly state your view? (1Peter 3:15)
EDIts already been stated plenty of times.
You know our view but only ask for “deceptive” purposes to get us to engage with you when we have decided to reject your unbiblical rabbit trails.
WJ
You got Ed J's number Keith.Jack
Hi Jack,2Cor:10:12: For we dare not make ourselves of the number,
or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves:
but they measuring themselves by themselves, and
comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,14:22) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,05:59) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,13:45) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,05:08) Quote (Ed J @ July 28 2010,04:58) Hi Jack and Kieth, Isn't this thread on Preexistence?
What is your (Jack and Kieth) view on Preexistence (for or against)?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Our views on preexistence have been stated on this thread. And it is always pertinent in any discussion to point out when novices try to pass themselves off as Greek grammarians (Mike). This may help in protecting others from falling prey to their errors.the Roo
Hi Jack,Are you not going to plainly state your view? (1Peter 3:15)
EDIts already been stated plenty of times.
You know our view but only ask for “deceptive” purposes to get us to engage with you when we have decided to reject your unbiblical rabbit trails.
WJ
Hi WJ,If you haven't told me than hoe would I Know?
1Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts:
and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you
a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:Do you follow the scriptures or the systems of religion?
The systems of religion and traditions of men do communicate…
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDYou are clearly not being honest or you do not read any of our post. Which is it.
How could we believe Jesus is God and yet not believe he preexisted coming in the flesh?
You mean you seriously do not know this?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,05:59) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,13:45) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,05:08) Quote (Ed J @ July 28 2010,04:58) Hi Jack and Kieth, Isn't this thread on Preexistence?
What is your (Jack and Kieth) view on Preexistence (for or against)?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Our views on preexistence have been stated on this thread. And it is always pertinent in any discussion to point out when novices try to pass themselves off as Greek grammarians (Mike). This may help in protecting others from falling prey to their errors.the Roo
Hi Jack,Are you not going to plainly state your view? (1Peter 3:15)
EDIts already been stated plenty of times.
You know our view but only ask for “deceptive” purposes to get us to engage with you when we have decided to reject your unbiblical rabbit trails.
WJ
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Edit))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Hi WJ,
If you haven't told me than how would I Know?
1Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts:
and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you
a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:Do you follow the scriptures or the systems of religion?
The systems of religion and traditions of men do communicate…
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,06:24) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,14:22) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,05:59) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,13:45) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,05:08) Quote (Ed J @ July 28 2010,04:58) Hi Jack and Kieth, Isn't this thread on Preexistence?
What is your (Jack and Kieth) view on Preexistence (for or against)?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Our views on preexistence have been stated on this thread. And it is always pertinent in any discussion to point out when novices try to pass themselves off as Greek grammarians (Mike). This may help in protecting others from falling prey to their errors.the Roo
Hi Jack,Are you not going to plainly state your view? (1Peter 3:15)
EDIts already been stated plenty of times.
You know our view but only ask for “deceptive” purposes to get us to engage with you when we have decided to reject your unbiblical rabbit trails.
WJ
Hi WJ,If you haven't told me than hoe would I Know?
1Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts:
and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you
a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:Do you follow the scriptures or the systems of religion?
The systems of religion and traditions of men do communicate…
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDYou are clearly not being honest or you do not read any of our post. Which is it.
How could we believe Jesus is God and yet not believe he preexisted coming in the flesh?
You mean you seriously do not know this?
WJ
Hi Kieth,Thank you for clarifying your view!
I have been able to discourse with you before,
but Jack 'only' seems to want to play games with people!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,14:28) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,06:24) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,14:22) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,05:59) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,13:45) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,05:08) Quote (Ed J @ July 28 2010,04:58) Hi Jack and Kieth, Isn't this thread on Preexistence?
What is your (Jack and Kieth) view on Preexistence (for or against)?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Our views on preexistence have been stated on this thread. And it is always pertinent in any discussion to point out when novices try to pass themselves off as Greek grammarians (Mike). This may help in protecting others from falling prey to their errors.the Roo
Hi Jack,Are you not going to plainly state your view? (1Peter 3:15)
EDIts already been stated plenty of times.
You know our view but only ask for “deceptive” purposes to get us to engage with you when we have decided to reject your unbiblical rabbit trails.
WJ
Hi WJ,If you haven't told me than hoe would I Know?
1Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts:
and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you
a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:Do you follow the scriptures or the systems of religion?
The systems of religion and traditions of men do communicate…
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDYou are clearly not being honest or you do not read any of our post. Which is it.
How could we believe Jesus is God and yet not believe he preexisted coming in the flesh?
You mean you seriously do not know this?
WJ
Hi Kieth,Thank you for clarifying your view!
I have been able to discourse with you before,
but Jack 'only' seems to want to play games with people!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EdSo I guess that means you do not read any of our post?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,04:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 26 2010,20:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 27 2010,03:30) I find it interesting that you berate the anti-preexistence crowd for not accepting the literal interpretation of the scriptures you quote and yet you reject the literal interpretation of John 1:1.
Please WJ! You don't ever post the “literal” John 1:1. You can't. It's one of your staple “proof texts”. Compare John 1:1 with the 1 John 1:1 that t8 just posted. The only difference is that 1 John says Jesus was with “the Father”, while John says he was with “God”.
mike
MikeAll the major translations render the verse the same.
It not only says He was with the Father God, but also says he was God or literally “God was the Word”.
You are the one wanting to add to the text.
We take it just like it reads.
WJ
W.J. I don't agree with you on all things, but on this I agree. John 1:1 and Hebrew 1:8 both tell me that Jesus is called God. However and with that you do not agree, Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 says that He was the beginning of all creation. Also it does say in John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word…..I look at God as a title and in Ancient times many were called Gods. That does not take away from Jehovah God who is above all Ephesians 4:6 and by Jesus own words in John 14:28 He said that the Father is greater then He is….You say that you take it like it reads, how about these Scriptures, or are you going to change your mind?………… Peace to you, IreneQuote (Arnold @ July 28 2010,08:24) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,04:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 26 2010,20:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 27 2010,03:30) I find it interesting that you berate the anti-preexistence crowd for not accepting the literal interpretation of the scriptures you quote and yet you reject the literal interpretation of John 1:1.
Please WJ! You don't ever post the “literal” John 1:1. You can't. It's one of your staple “proof texts”. Compare John 1:1 with the 1 John 1:1 that t8 just posted. The only difference is that 1 John says Jesus was with “the Father”, while John says he was with “God”.
mike
MikeAll the major translations render the verse the same.
It not only says He was with the Father God, but also says he was God or literally “God was the Word”.
You are the one wanting to add to the text.
We take it just like it reads.
WJ
W.J. I don't agree with you on all things, but on this I agree. John 1:1 and Hebrew 1:8 both tell me that Jesus is called God. However and with that you do not agree, Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 says that He was the beginning of all creation. Also it does say in John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word…..I look at God as a title and in Ancient times many were called Gods. That does not take away from Jehovah God who is above all Ephesians 4:6 and by Jesus own words in John 14:28 He said that the Father is greater then He is….You say that you take it like it reads, how about these Scriptures, or are you going to change your mind?………… Peace to you, Irene
Contradictory. Total misunderstanding of the words “firstborn” and “beginning.” David was also called God's firstborn son (Ps. 89:20-27). Yet David was not the first created being now was he? Ephraim was likewise called God's firstborn son. Jacob was called God's firstborn son.Jesus, David, Ephraim and Jacob were ALL God's firstborn. But they all cannot all be the first created being.
the Roo
Quote (kerwin @ July 27 2010,22:34) In John 17:5 you assume that just because God gave glory to Jesus that Jesus existed at that time. You are speaking of God who knows all things and can give glory to a person because beforehand that person will exist.
Hi Kerwin,Jesus asks God to glorify him “in His presence” with the glory HE HAD “in His presence” before the creation of the world.
How did the non-existent Jesus know IF he previously had glory as a non-existent person, or how much he had? And in what sense was a non-existent Jesus “in His presence” before the creation of the world?
Come on, you are reaching far here, brother.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
