- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 28 2010,02:02) Kerwin……….Good point, God gave glory to Cyrus before he was ever born , that also provers your point on preexisting (glory) without the person even existing.
Hi Gene,I've heard you say this about Cyrus before. Can you give me the scripture?
peace and love,
mikeps the John 6:62 thread is waiting for all you “non-existers”.
Hi WJ,
You said:
Quote All the major translations render the verse the same.
OH! All major translations render it that way? I didn't know that. Of course now I'll change my mind because the trinitarian sponsored translations all render it that way!
You said:
Quote It not only says He was with the Father God, but also says he was God or literrally “God was the Word”.
I didn't know it said “Father” God. I thought it said the Word was with THE God and was a god who was obviously not THE God. How can one being be “WITH” itself? And why did John say one was THE God and the other was simply god?You said:
Quote You are the one wanting to add to the text. We take it just like it reads.
So put your money where your mouth is. Read it without the capital Gs that the translators add. Organized for English, but without the caps it reads:
in beginning was the word and the word was with the god and the word was god
The word was with THE god. If the word was THE god, then it couldn't be with THE god.
I would go more into this, but we are off topic.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,08:38) Total misunderstanding of the words “firstborn” and “beginning.”
Of course it is Jack. Yet somehow the early church fathers who actually spoke the Koine Greek language very close to the time the NT was written agree with me and Irene, not you and WJ.
That's an interesting conundrum, no?
mike
Mike,
Has anyone ever responded with and answer to how 'the Word' was (why WAS?) God … And also 'WITH' God?Seems the question keeps getting asked but no disputarians, or is it 'desperarians'? ever answer.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,19:55) in beginning was the word and the word was with the god and the word was god
Do you see any difference with the 2nd “Theos”? Was John an idiot? You must think so when he could have used other words.In what way was John saying John 1:1c was less theos than John 1:1b? Prove it Mike!
But you can't.
We have already been over this and proven that the lack of the definite article doesn't matter for the translators many times translated “theos” without the article when it was refering to the Father or God!
So you once again need to put your money where your mouth is and show us one scripture in the NT that puts an “a” before theos like the corrupted version the NWT.
You expect me to accept the translation of a few “Non Biblical Hebrew or Greek scholars” who could not translate the fuzz off of a peanut when it came to Hebrew or Greek translation.
We believe what the scriptures say literrally, while you on the other hand have to make all kinds of inferences and conjectures and reject the scriptures.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,19:57) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,08:38) Total misunderstanding of the words “firstborn” and “beginning.”
Of course it is Jack. Yet somehow the early church fathers who actually spoke the Koine Greek language very close to the time the NT was written agree with me and Irene, not you and WJ. That's an interesting conundrum, no?
mike
Lies.For the Forefathers did not believe what you believe when it comes to Jesus having a beginning does it Mike?
This has been shown to you over and over but you keep making these false claims.
Most of the Forefathers were Trinitarian Mike.
So you and Kathi are not in agreement with the way the Forefathers understood the words “firstborn” and “begotten”.
WJ
Quote (JustAskin @ July 27 2010,20:00) Mike,
Has anyone ever responded with and answer to how 'the Word' was (why WAS?) God … And also 'WITH' God?Seems the question keeps getting asked but no disputarians, or is it 'desperarians'? ever answer.
JaIt is because the title “Theos” does not classify identity but it clasifys the nature of a being that is in a metaphysical class of his own.
Jesus is the Monogenes (only of its kind) Son of God (John 1:14). He is of the same kind as the Father which is “God”.
Just as man is of the same kind which is human or man.
WJ
WJ,
So when Scriptures says that everone of mankind who overcomes will be a 'Son of God', what does that then make that one?
I asked elewhere, the same, is 'Jesus, Son of God' different to 'He who overcomes, Son of God'?
Quote (JustAskin @ July 27 2010,20:22) WJ, So when Scriptures says that everone of mankind who overcomes will be a 'Son of God', what does that then make that one?
I asked elewhere, the same, is 'Jesus, Son of God' different to 'He who overcomes, Son of God'?
JAThe scriptures say Jesus is the “Only (begotten) Son of God.
There is no other that will be the “Only Begotten Son”.
The word begottten is “Monogenes” which means “only of its kind”.
Jesus alone shares this title and that is because he is the Word that was with God and was/is God in nature just like the Father.
WJ
Quote (JustAskin @ July 27 2010,20:41) WJ, Is 'Jesus, Son of God' different from 'he who overcomes, Son of God'?
Since he is the “Only Begotten Son” then I would say yes, wouldn't you? For “Only” means no other right?Or do you not believe he is the “Monogenes” (only of its kind) Son of God?
WJ
ha ha, WJ, you are a joker aren't you?
You can't answer…ha ha, why, did i believe you would? Of course not.
Scriptures says that he who overcomes will become, 'begotten of God', 'A Son of God, as a Son, then brother to Christ, and as such, HEIR to the inheritence WITH him.Son of God. And Godwill be his Father, just as God is Father to Christ.
Brother to Jesus, being Son also to the same Father.
Heir to God, as Christ is Heir (But, yes, Jesus Christ is 'firstborn' Heir)So, WJ, try again.
Ok, let me say, different, Jesus is Senior 'brother'. How else is Jesus different to the other 'Begotten of God Sons of God'?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,12:09) So you once again need to put your money where your mouth is and show us one scripture in the NT that puts an “a” before theos like the corrupted version the NWT. We believe what the scriptures say literrally, while you on the other hand have to make all kinds of inferences and conjectures and reject the scriptures.
Why does the example have to be of the word “theos”? I have showed examples of other words where the “a” is added by English translators. They do it twice in John 8:44. The Greek says Satan was manslayer and liar. But we add the “a” to make it say “a manslayer” and “a liar”. Why add it here, but not in John 1:1?Second, I've just showed you what the scripture literally says. Why do you think that the “god” who was WITH “THE god” would also BE “THE god”?
How do you come up with this? If they were both “THE god”, then first, why didn't John say that, and second, how can “THE god” be WITH “THE god”?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,12:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,19:57) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,08:38) Total misunderstanding of the words “firstborn” and “beginning.”
Of course it is Jack. Yet somehow the early church fathers who actually spoke the Koine Greek language very close to the time the NT was written agree with me and Irene, not you and WJ. That's an interesting conundrum, no?
mike
Lies.For the Forefathers did not believe what you believe when it comes to Jesus having a beginning does it Mike?
WJ
Don't make me post the Eusebius and Ignatius quotes along with the questions you ran from for a month. mike
Quote (JustAskin @ July 28 2010,12:00) Mike,
Has anyone ever responded with and answer to how 'the Word' was (why WAS?) God … And also 'WITH' God?Seems the question keeps getting asked but no disputarians, or is it 'desperarians'? ever answer.
Hi JA,WJ tried to explain his conjecture that the first “god” was the Father, so therefore the Son could easily be “with” Him. But I haven't ever heard the “was” part brought up that I remember.
But that will be a great point to nail them down on in t8's proposed “BIG BOY” forum. Make sure you all go and vote “yes” for that puppy.
I look forward to a forum where you either answer the questions or get booted. And belive me, I will do some bootin' if questions aren't answered.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,12:38) The word begottten is “Monogenes” which means “only of its kind”.
Oh brother! ANOTHER definition?They started off saying “only one AFTER it's own kind”, but I nailed Jack on that by saying that means Jesus is still AFTER God. So here's the new fangled definition that resulted, I guess.
mike
Mike,
I pointed out that these scriptures are vague and thus would fall into the category of what Peter referred to as hard to understand. One thing that we have to watch out for is that Satan will use our mind to play mental tricks on us when interpreting scripture. This is the scripture and as you can clearly see it does not state that Jesus was in the presence of God before the word began. Rather it states Jesus’ glory was with God before the world began. You are inadvertently replacing the word “glory” with “glory I had in your presence” even though it is not written. I have checked other versions of scripture and they say the same thing with different words.
John 17:5 (NIV) reads:
Quote And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Jesus was teaching how God was revealing the mystery that he had hidden for long ages, Romans 16:25, Ephesians 6:19, Ephesians 3:6. That mystery is that God had predestined Jesus to be King of everything in heaven and earth and so the mediator of the new covenant. That glory God did bestow on Jesus in his presence and thus the new covenant became binding and Jesus its mediator.
That is hardly a stretch as I merely show how Jesus was saying the same thing that Paul did in Romans 16:25 and elsewhere. I am certain that like Paul, Jesus believed that God knew in advance all that would happen and Jesus was speaking from that faith.
I am also myself confident that God knew beforehand all that would happen as he is all knowing. You can debate that it is the proper interpretation of a vague scripture but it does fit the context of that passage and what Jesus obviously believed.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
T8,
I was short on time this morning and so stopped after pointing out that you make assumptions about hard to understand scriptures but before I addressed all the scriptures you quoted. I did point out that the authors of these scriptures assume their readers are aware of what they are speaking about and thus do not clarify them. Sometimes it is also the difference between our own and the Greek/Jewish culture of the First Century. Word in John 1 for instance could simply be the Holy Spirit because that is how Philo of Alexandria the Jew philosopher of the First Century used the word translated to “Word” and it is consistent with the Jewish way of using words that describe their meaning. For my purposes I am going to assume Word means God’s Word because even if John was speaking of the Holy Spirit it is in that case a representative of God’s Word.
John 1:3 is speaking about God’s Word which is also the subject of verse 1 and 2 of the same chapter of John. Jesus is addressed as flesh in verse 14 because the Jews are prone to use descriptive words and flesh describes a human being as in Psalms 78:39 or a living creature as in Genesis 6:12.
So even though these words appear to be figurative to us of this day and age they may well have been literal, or at least easy to understand, to those who were the original recipients of these Scriptures.
I already mentioned that you are assuming John 1:3 is speaking of Jesus though it does not actually say it is. It is certainly reasonable to believe it is speaking of the spirit of Christ but the spirit is not the soul but rather the guiding force of the soul. Jesus’ spirit pre-existed his existence.
Now about John 1:14 you seem to believe that the Word of God shape changed into a human being and that the Word of God is a spiritual being that you speculate is the pre-existent Jesus. Have you also considered that in the beginning God said “let there be light” and thus his Word was transformed into light, Genesis 1:3.
So in conclusion if you were to argue Jesus’ spirit pre-existed his conception then I not only will not disagree but would instead agree that is so. On the other hand Jesus is a human being just like you and me and was never, and is not, a spiritual being except in the context that he is a citizen of the spiritual realm.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
PS: For your convenience I attached my earlier post this post is continued from.
Quote (kerwin @ July 27 2010,17:34) T8, I will point out that you are making assumptions about a number of the scriptures you choose to quote.
In Colossians 1:17 you assume that it is speaking of the old creation. What evidence do you actually have to back that up especially as Scripture declares Jesus is the mediator of the new creation?
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.
I have not got the time to cover the other ones but I will mention that appearances can be deceptive and sometimes a writer or speaker uses vague words because they are certain their hearers know what they are speaking of. This may be true of those who the various books of the New Testament were addressed to but not necessary true of us.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Quote (kerwin @ July 28 2010,16:19) T8, Word in John 1 for instance could simply be the Holy Spirit because that is how Philo of Alexandria the Jew philosopher of the First Century used the word translated to “Word” and it is consistent with the Jewish way of using words that describe their meaning. For my purposes I am going to assume Word means God’s Word because even if John was speaking of the Holy Spirit it is in that case a representative of God’s Word.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Hi Kerwin,I'm glad God has revealed this to you, Kerwin! (Click Here)
Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
