- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
hi all
if you would understand what the entire scriptures says about God himself and the one who stands since the beginning beside him, in this case you could understand that God is the master spirit of all thing but to perform all things he as created a first being ,and that being would be placed between him and and all other creation and that name is Jesus Christ ,the WORD, his name may change but his function, will not.
this is what scriptures reveal to be true.
Pierre
Quote (JustAskin @ July 27 2010,21:15) 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'?
JaNo you try again.
What part of “Only Begotten Son” do you not understand?
WJ
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 27 2010,22:12) Hi WJ,
We are in the monogenes son by baptism and his Spirit is born into us.[Gal].
NHThen the word “Only” has no meaning right?
WJ
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 literally, while you on the other hand have to make all kinds of inferences and conjectures and reject the scriptures.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,22:15) Why does the example have to be of the word “theos”?
MikeThe bigger question is why John used the word “theos” in the same breath when referring to the Father and Jesus.
Because the scriptures say there is “only One True God”, right?
Was John an idiot or did he understand the “title” God does not classify identity but a class of being and so does not use the definite article so to indicate that there is two persons both having the same exact nature as God.
Let me say it again Mike…
WAS JOHN AN IDIOT OR DID HE UNDERSTAND THE “TITLE” GOD DOES NOT CLASSIFY IDENTITY BUT A CLASS OF BEING?
Jesus is in that class for he is the “Only Monogenes (only of its kind) Son of God. Therefore Jesus is True God like the Father!
But you say Jesus is of the same kind as Satan. Anathema!
So again, put up Mike or hush up about the word “Theos” having an indefinite article anywhere in the NT except the corrupted version of the Polytheistic JW’s NWT.
You are making a straw mans argument.
You cannot produce a single NT scripture that is translated with the indefinite article next to “Theos” can you? In fact the NWT is not even consistent by not translating a single verse with the word “Theos” other than John 1:1.
There are plenty of scriptures with the word “Theos” that doesn't have the definite article and is referring to the “True God”.
That is fact.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,22:18) 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
Post them, and I will show you they do not believe what you believe Mike unless you want to say they contradict themselves.WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,22:29) Quote (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
Monogenes Strongs G34391) single of its kind, only
Thats the first meaning Mike, I know this must be a thorn in your crawl!
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,22:25) 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.
Wow, how far do you have to spin?John is talking about the Word being there with the Father way back there in the beginning, and before all things Jesus “was the Word that “was with God and “was” God”
Simple grammer.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,17:32) Mike The bigger question is why John used the word “theos” in the same breath when referring to the Father and Jesus.
Because the scriptures say there is “only One True God”, right?
Was John an idiot or did he understand the “title” God does not classify identity but a class of being and so does not use the definite article so to indicate that there is two persons both having the same exact nature as God.
Let me say it again Mike…
WAS JOHN AN IDIOT OR DID HE UNDERSTAND THE “TITLE” GOD DOES NOT CLASSIFY IDENTITY BUT A CLASS OF BEING?
Jesus is in that class for he is the “Only Monogenes (only of its kind) Son of God. Therefore Jesus is True God like the Father!
But you say Jesus is of the same kind as Satan. Anathema!
So again, put up Mike or hush up about the word “Theos” having an indefinite article anywhere in the NT except the corrupted version of the Polytheistic JW’s NWT.
You are making a straw mans argument.
You cannot produce a single NT scripture that is translated with the indefinite article next to “Theos” can you? In fact the NWT is not even consistent by not translating a single verse with the word “Theos” other than John 1:1.
There are plenty of scriptures with the word “Theos” that doesn't have the definite article and is referring to the “True God”.
That is fact.
WJ
Hi WJ,This is what you have been taught in the systems of religion!
The systems of religion and traditions of men do communicate…
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.God(HolySpirit) is: “The Word”(John 1:1)!
Jesus is: “a word” … NOT “THE WORD”!“The Word” is (אלהים) “GOD”! (John 1:1)
“The Word” (Hō Lōgôs) [ο λογος]=443 is the 86th prime
meaning [אלהים=86] “GOD” ĔL-ō-Hêêm=63 (YHVH=63)!(Lōgôs) [λογος]=373 means “Word”, and 373 is the 74th Prime Number!
(Hō Lōgôs) [ο λογος]=443 means “The Word” and 443 is the 86th Prime Number. (John 1:1)
“God Word”=86 and אלהים=86 ĔL-ō-Hêêm both equal 86 and ĔL-ō-Hêêm=63 means “YHVH”=63.You (WJ) will need to study this for a while for you to grasp “Bible Truth”=117!
In English, the significant number (74) is attributed to JOSHUA=74, Messiah=74;
also in the following: JESUS=74, Cross=74, Gospel=74, עד=74, and even English=74.
Jesus Christ (74×32) also factors 74 in Greek Theomatically:
[Jesus] Ιησους=74(x12), [Christ] Χριστоς=74(x20).
[Son of Man] υιος τον ανθρωπου=74(x40).one hundred and forty four thousand=373 (Rev.14:3)
JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS=373 (John 19:19)It's a simple matter of simple number associations, I will illustrate what they mean…
I'm lining up these ideas up better for you to see what the numbers represent; OK?The “HolySpirit” is “The Word”(of God)!
Hebrew=Greek
(86)אלהים=ο λογος(86th Prime)
(ĔL-ō-Hêêm)God=The Word(Hō Lōgôs)God=86 in Hebrew and “The Word”=86 in Greek ARE EQUAL.
Theomatic numbers to prime number counterparts. (John 1:1)This symbol ( > ) means GREATER THAN in mathematics
The pieces fit together perfectly: “The Word” (86) > “Word” (74).
In English it's comparable to (The LORD JEHOVAH) > (Lord Jesus=74) is the “God Son”=74!
“The Owner” > “Owner “
JEHOVAH > Jesus
86 > 74The “Paradox” is (JEHOVAH)God(=86) is both equal and unequal to (greater than and equal to) Jesus=74(God Son=74)!
HolySpirit151 is The LORD JEHOVAH151 and the HolySpirit's Son is “Jesus Christ”151! (Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
John 1:1: “The Word”(HolySpirit) is God(The LORD JEHOVAH). And our family goes by the title (AKJV) LORD of Hosts=151!Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgI would think that Ignatius would have a good grasp on what monogenes meant since he was a disciple of John the Apostle who used the term. Let's revisit what He had to say:
Quote But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began,537537 Or, “before the ages.” but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh.” Now, if monogenes meant “single, only one of it's kind” then that wouldn't fit at all what Ignatius says in the above quote found here:
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,17:46) Wow, how far do you have to spin? John is talking about the Word being there with the Father way back there in the beginning, and before all things Jesus “was the Word that “was with God and “was” God”
Simple grammer.
WJ
Hi WJ,“The Word” is (אלהים) “GOD”! (John 1:1)
“The Word” (Hō Lōgôs) [ο λογος]=443 is the 86th prime
meaning [אלהים=86] “GOD” ĔL-ō-Hêêm=63 (YHVH=63)!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.orgQuote (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
WJ, I realise you are hard of hearing, but for the sake of the readers I offer this.
Even Trinitarians admit that the Word as theos is qualitative, though not all it seems. If the Word was YHWH, then that excludes others from being YHWH.
If you say that you are 'the adam' or 'Adam', then you are saying that you are the first man. If you say that you are 'adam' with no article, then you are rightly saying that you are of mankind. The same word is now used in a qualitative sense.
Sorry WJ, but it is the way it is. There is a qualitative use for the word theos, adam, devil, and others. Have you ever been called an angel? If so, was the person suggesting to you that you were an angelic spirit being, or having a good nature? Were they not using the word in a qualitative sense. And you knew this because of the context and the fact that they didn't include the definite article. In other words, they didn't say, “you are the angel” or “you are Angel”. No they probably said, “you are an angel”.
So WJ, you can tell that John 1:1c is qualitative by the context, and the grammar supports that stoo.
It is you who refused to see it.
You can read much about this subject from some of the early Fathers and even Trinitarian scholars if you prefer. Although the latter seem to be divided on that issue. But it is not hard to see which interpretation is correct because one makes sense and agrees with scripture and the other only agrees with the Trinity Doctrine, an external doctrine. And knowing that, it seems obvious why some Trinitarian scholars can't see what others can. Their bias will just cling to any notion that backs up their Trinitarians beliefs even if the claim is weak or is an option among others.
Here are some quotes for you, so you might understand a bit more why others do not see it your way.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.
The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.
We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God'' of Paul, Col. 1:15.-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.
As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue's “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.Pierre,
You seem to speculate that Jesus is or was at one time was an immaterial being and not a human being. Do you have any scriptures that state that? I know of scripture that calls Jesus a human being even after his ascension but none that call him any other type of being.
If you have no evidence that states Jesus is or was an immaterial being then what are you basing that speculation on.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,12:09) 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!
Origen who wrote in the 200s was well versed in Hebrew and Greek. Origen was very insistent that the absence of the definite article in the second instance of the word theos at John 1:1 is indeed extremely significant. He distinguishes between “the god” or “God” as the creator of all things, and his Word which he does not consider to be the creator, and which he does not consider to be “God” but “god” in the sense that the Word is deity by essence but not “God” by identity.(Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)
“We next notice John's use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos…If we translate John 1:1c as “the Word was God,” we dishonestly mislead people because in our language a capital “G” means we are identifying the Word as God himself. And by doing that we actually exclude the Father from being God because we are saying that the Word was God.
Also, instead of thinking that theos is either a true theos or a false one as has been argued here, think of the word 'godly' which is qualitative and is not confused with being a true God or a false god.
Trinitarians can't help themselves by translating John 1:1c the way they do, but there are actually translations that recognise that the Word was divine, as opposed to the Word was God. Even some Trinitarian scholars agree that John 1:1c used theos in a qualitative sense.
So it is not about Jesus being less God than the Father, but that there is one true God the Father, the Divine, and the Word is divine in essence, because the Word is of God. It is not hard to understand because we understand the difference between identity and nature when we talk about Adam and Eve as both being adam, but only one of them was Adam or “the adam”.
John actually wrote his gospel so that we may come to the conclusion that Jesus is truly the Christ and the Son of God. In addition to this important truth we are also told that we may receive life through his name. The Trinity doctrine is not the conclusion that one should draw from this writing. Belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son is the foundation of true faith and Jesus built his Church on this truth. The Trinity Doctrine is not the true foundation and is not John's conclusion
John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “Quote (kerwin @ July 28 2010,16:19) 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.
Kerwin, we are told that Jesus existed in the form of God and emptied himself and came in the form of man, then died, was resurrected and is now back in the glory that he had before the world was.Now think about that time, “before the world was”. Also, think about a time when there was no Universe or Big Bang, even time.
Why would he have a body if he was before all things? Is God a Spirit? Did Christ not exist in the form of God?
Yes we look through a glass dimly, but there are clues and there are statements that cannot be refuted.
I notice that yourself and Gene, and perhaps others just believe the complete opposite of all the verses that talk of Christ before emptying himself and taking on the form of man or partaking of flesh.
You just say the complete opposite.
e.g., the statement “Before Abraham, I am” to those who he was talking to was in a time sense because they said to him, “you are not yet 50 years and you have seen Abraham?”, yet you just say that it means that he wasn't before Abraham, when the text clearly says he was before Abraham.
You just take the opposite stance in all those scriptures that we are referring to. In this it is clearly demonstrated that you are under a different influence.
Quote (kerwin @ July 28 2010,16:19) 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?
You can't be serious. How can you teach and say something like this? You seriously expose yourself as inadequate for the task.Let's read it again.
Colossians 1:17
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.When it says 'all things', it means exactly that. Why would we think otherwise? If it was meant to be understood that it was the new creation, then you would read something like, “In the age to come, he is before all things”.
So it is you who has to prove that it is not speaking of all things because I am simply agreeing with the text and you are not. So you are the one who has to tack on external doctrines and understanding, in order to see it the way you want to see it and want others to see it.
Again, the influence you are under causes you to take an opposite stance.
T8,
I assure you that I firmly believe that Jesus’ character was Godlike and so he humbled himself to wash the feet of his disciples. I also agree that being one with God in attitude he did not see being equal to God as something to be desired but instead chose to be humble and serve us all even to the point of dying on the cross for us.
I also agree that Jesus came into existence in the form of a human being because he is a human being.
I have no problem believing that the form of his character is an image of God’s as God is spirit and one’s character is like the wind in being invisible except for the effects. That made him The Son of God born of the Spirit and not of natural decent or of a man’s will. It does not make him an immaterial being.
It appears are assuming that Philippians 2 is stating something different that what I just stated I believe. Everything I just stated is backed up in other places of scripture including that Jesus was conceived, i.e. created, in Mary.
I find the argument that Abraham was born after Jesus to be rather absurd when you consider that Jesus descended from Abraham. I have never heard of someone who was born before their own ancestor nor do I believe it is physically possible. I suppose Jesus could have used time travel to exist before Abraham but that seems quite the stretch. An alternative interpretation of what is meant in John 8:58 therefore appears to be more reasonable.
As Peter said some scripture is hard to understand and therefore we do best to take care that any conclusion we make are consistent with the message of the Gospel.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
T8,
The new creation is the result of the transformation set in motion by the the new covenant becomming binding. That is why Paul also teaches that creation has been in birth pains upto the present time, Romans 8:22. Jesus is the firstborn among the dead in that he was resurected from the dead and those that believe are the firstfruits of the Spirit in that they are created anew in Chist.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Quote (kerwin @ July 29 2010,02:48) Pierre, You seem to speculate that Jesus is or was at one time was an immaterial being and not a human being. Do you have any scriptures that state that? I know of scripture that calls Jesus a human being even after his ascension but none that call him any other type of being.
If you have no evidence that states Jesus is or was an immaterial being then what are you basing that speculation on.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
hi KWwhy you try to, to say other wise and be true,according to the scriptures and see??
Pierre
Quote (kerwin @ July 28 2010,21:34) T8, I assure you that I firmly believe that Jesus’ character was Godlike and so he humbled himself to wash the feet of his disciples. I also agree that being one with God in attitude he did not see being equal to God as something to be desired but instead chose to be humble and serve us all even to the point of dying on the cross for us.
I also agree that Jesus came into existence in the form of a human being because he is a human being.
I have no problem believing that the form of his character is an image of God’s as God is spirit and one’s character is like the wind in being invisible except for the effects. That made him The Son of God born of the Spirit and not of natural decent or of a man’s will. It does not make him an immaterial being.
It appears are assuming that Philippians 2 is stating something different that what I just stated I believe. Everything I just stated is backed up in other places of scripture including that Jesus was conceived, i.e. created, in Mary.
I find the argument that Abraham was born after Jesus to be rather absurd when you consider that Jesus descended from Abraham. I have never heard of someone who was born before their own ancestor nor do I believe it is physically possible. I suppose Jesus could have used time travel to exist before Abraham but that seems quite the stretch. An alternative interpretation of what is meant in John 8:58 therefore appears to be more reasonable.
As Peter said some scripture is hard to understand and therefore we do best to take care that any conclusion we make are consistent with the message of the Gospel.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Kerwin…………Good post i also see it that way brother.peace and love to you and yours…………………..gene
Quote (t8 @ July 28 2010,04:50) Trinitarians can't help themselves by translating John 1:1c the way they do, but there are actually translations that recognise that the Word was divine, as opposed to the Word was God. Even some Trinitarian scholars agree that John 1:1c used theos in a qualitative sense.
No Trinitarians can't help but “Translate” it that way because that is what the Greek text says. It is you that can't help but insert into the text something other than what it says.The Greek in John 1:1c is the same word in John 1:1b which is “theos”, not a Greek word for “divine” or “Son” or any other Greek word.
So the Trinitarians are true to the text while you “Insert” your own ideas into the text.
You still have not answered the question… “How is Theos in John 1:1c qualitatively different than Theos in John 1:1b?
Are you qualitatively less human than your Father?
Jesus is the “Monogenes” (only, of its kind) Son of God, which means t8 that he is not in the same “theos” class of Angels, or men, or satan, which you claim are “True gods” though the scriptures clearly teach there is only “One True God”, Theos.
You still have not answered the question… “How is Theos in John 1:1c qualitatively different than Theos in John 1:1b?
Does “Son of Man” mean because one is the Son of man that he is qualitatively less man?
Then why do you assume that the term “Son of God” is antithetical to the title God?
See how your logic falls apart?
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
