- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,14:51) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,06:51) 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
hi KWGod did in a similar way ,what he did with Adam wen he create EVE,
in the same way he took from himself to create Jesus ,Christ, the WORD, the SON of GOD,ect.
Pierre
Pierre!I like to address what you said about the creation of both Adam and Jesus. You say that both were created the same way…However while Jesus came literally from the Father, while Adam was created out of the dust of the earth. Check out Proverbs 8:22-30 there it states that Jesus came forth from the Father. He was the delight of His Father, a master craftsman…..Also many make the mistake thinking that it is Wisdom created/ But think that God was all wise from eternity and did not have to create wisdom….Very beautiful Scriptures explaining what went on when only the Father and the Son where present…..my take….
IreneQuote (kerwin @ July 29 2010,22:58) Pierre, As for scripture that states Jesus is a human being, look at 1st Timothy 2:5 which clearly calls him a human being who after his ascension to heaven mediates between humankind and God. I do not believe he transformed into a human being after his ascension and I know he was called The Son of Man while he walked this earth before his ascension and that title refers to those descended from human beings, i.e. human beings. In Luke he is not spoken of before his conception except to when an angel calls him son and holy thing(one) which tells he is one set aside by God and the male offspring of Mary who herself is a human being, Luke 1:31,35 . He is also spoken of in prophecy as the coming Anointed One though not by name. None of these is evidence that he was an immaterial being before his conception in Mary’s womb.
We are also told that Jesus was tempted by evil just as we are in Hebrews 4:15 and that is a point of faith as among other things Jesus stands as our example that a human being can resist all the temptations that the evil one throws at them if they live by the spirit of righteousness.
To create Jesus God took from Mary thus making Jesus the offspring of Mary and the descendant of David who like Jesus were human beings. In a similar way Eve could be said to be the offspring of Adam as such is the miracle of creation.
God did give Jesus his spirit of righteousness to live by and Jesus does and thus the character of Jesus is the image of God. This is why Jesus is called the Son of God as he was born of God’s spirit and not of a man’s desire or of natural decent, John 1:13.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Kerwinwhat the scriptures says in the ones you quote are not in opposition to what i have said ,Just as the earth was created in 6 days ,so it is with Gods plan to bring reconciliation to men,you have to see first things first,like the beginning the Son is created ,the first of Gods work,then the angels,then look in genesis,but the plan for the son to come ,to save men and show them the way,was a long one ,maybe it could be avoided ,just like in the parable of the vineyard,
(the only connection i can make to the birth of Jesus from a daughter of men ,is to prove that it was possible for ADAM to have a perfect offspring from EVE)
Pierre
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 30 2010,05:26) Hi All Just concentrate on the scripture and the way it was translated and reads…
What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up **WHERE HE WAS BEFORE**”? John 6:62
John 6:38-40
For “I have come down (katabainō) from heaven, not to do my own will“, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.Notice nowhere does our Lord in John 6 indicate he is just the plan of the Father that came down from heaven. If it is possible for that to be conveyed in the Text the Translators could have made it so, but there is not a Bible in the world that says such.
So if you cannot agree to its reading without inference then you look into the Greek to see why it is translated that way and in this case the tenses show that Jesus is the one doing the “descending” (katabainō) just as the Holy Spirit and the Angel did. Matt 3:16 and Matt 28:2
The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's G2597 – katabainō which is defined…
1) to go down, come down, descend
a) the place from which one has come down from
b) to come down“In every place the word is used it is referring to a literal action by a person and not an abstract “thought or plan”“.
katabainō is in the “perfect” tense, and the “active voice” and the “indicative” mood!
“The perfect tense” in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes “an action” which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.
“The active voice” represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, “The boy hit the ball,” the boy performs the action.
SO WHEN JESUS SAID “I HAVE COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN” THE GREEK TENSE SAYS HE IS DOING THE ACTION, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE INTERPRETED “A THOUGHT OR A PLAN CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN” BECAUSE THOUGHTS AND PLANS DO NOT PERFORN AN ACTION ON THEIR OWN!
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched–this we proclaim concerning “the Word of life“. *THE LIFE APPEARED*; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you “the eternal life, WHICH WAS WITH THE FATHER” and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And “our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 1 John 1:1-3
WHO IS THE **WORD OF LIFE** THAT WAS WITH THE FATHER
In the beginning was the Word, and “the Word was with God”, and the Word was God. “THE SAME WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD“. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. “IN HIM WAS LIFE AND THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN. John 1:1
The Word became flesh and “made his dwelling (Greek – tabernacled) among us“. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14
The scriptures say that Jesus came down from heaven and he was not of this world!
And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; **I AM FROM ABOVE** (NOT I AM GODS PLAN FROM ABOVE): ye are of this world; **I AM NOT OF THIS WORLD**. John 8:23
AT Robertson states…
I am from above (egw ek twn anw eimi).
The contrast is COMPLET IN ORIGIN AND CHARACTER, already stated in (John) 3:31, and calculated to intensify their anger.“HE THAT COMETH FROM ABOVE” is above all: “he that is of the earth is earthly“, and speaketh of the earth: “HE THAT COMETH FROM ABOVE” is above all. John 3:31
Blessings WJ
Keith,Powerful my man! Brilliant!
Jack
Quote (t8 @ July 29 2010,15:03) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,12:24) Hi t8, He won't answer. It's been months already for my question.
John 1:1 is pretty easy to understand. And if the English never started using capital letters, it wouldn't even be a “proof text” at all, IMO.
Do you know how many people believe in the trinity based solely on the two capital G translation of John 1:1? Almost every one I've ever discussed it with. They will eagerly admit that they don't actually understand the trinity concept, but “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” says it all for them.
And that's a shame, because it is so clear that John calls one “THE god” and the other “god”.
I have one bone to pick with you though, t8. You seemed to slam the JW's translation because they add the “a”. In your examples about “Adam” and “Devil”, the “a” just adds clarity. Just like every translation feels free to add it twice in John 8:44 for clarity…..Satan was “a” manslayer and “a” liar.
You can say Eve was adam, but not THE Adam. But you can just as easily say Eve was “an” adam, but not THE Adam.
My friend is Navajo. My friend is “a” Navajo.
Just my two cents on the NWT translation. I think it makes it more clear what is really being said than just capping one G and leaving the other lower case. And I think most people would understand that better than differentiating between “qualifying” and “identifying”. The only problem with it is you immediately have to start explaining the many other uses of the word “god” in the scriptures and how you're not a polytheist.
mike
Yes translators do on many occasions add in the indefinite article to complete the sentence in English even though there is not such thing as an indefinite article in Greek.However, in this case, adding an indefinite article then translates as “the Word was another god” which I don't think is the intention of the text, and it also raises the issue of there being one True God the Father, making the other god a false god.
Yes it is true that when Jesus said, “one of you is devil”, that it is translated as “one of you is a devil”, but the problem is also prevalent here because Jesus wasn't actually saying that Judas was an actual devil being or demon, but that his nature or character was like that of the Devil.
So adding the indefinite article can in itself be wrong too, even though English demands it grammatically. This is one of the problems with translating from Greek to English.
This is why we see “the Word was divine” and “what God was the Word was” in some translations. It is only the NWT (as far as I know) that says, “the Word was a god”.
I also should say that if the Word was God or the Word was a god, both of these translations are identifying the Word. But I think neither is correct because qualifying is not the same as identifying and John 1:1c is qualifying not identifying the Word.
However if you say that he was a god and you mean that he is god in nature, then that might be okay, but most won't understand it that way, rather they will read it as him being another god, who is not the one true God of the bible and I believe that this notion is not John's intention.
t8 I have a question for you. I really don't understand much about infinite article. However when it says God in John1:1, I compare it with Hebrew 1:8 it is Jehovah God is telling Jesus (The Word of God, John 1:1and Rev. 19:13 and verse 16) But to the Son He says:”Your throne O God is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. etc.
When I can compare two Scriptures, i have always believed that it is the truth. While Jehovah God and LORD is the Almighty God while Jesus Lord (The Word of God) is the Mighty God. In Ancient times many were called God's and Satan also is called God of this world, and is keeping us captive…. So my question is why is that wrong….Peace and Love IreneQuote (terraricca @ July 28 2010,22:51) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,06:51) 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
hi KWGod did in a similar way ,what he did with Adam wen he create EVE,
in the same way he took from himself to create Jesus ,Christ, the WORD, the SON of GOD,ect.
Pierre
terraricca,
This has really helped me differentiate between how man came about and how the Son came about.Man-created
The Son of God-procreatedYou see, when one is procreated/begotten they are like the one that beget them. Since the Heavenly Father is self-sufficient, He had no need for a counterpart to have a literal offspring.
When something is created, then they are not like the one that created them.
It has really helped me understand the difference and see the Son as God also. God begets God…an unbegotten God and a begotten God.
To All,
In written grammar there is what is called the article.
In the English we have a total of Three articles; both the
definite and the indefinite. The word THE is the definite article.
The definite article is used to define something or someone that is
definite. A and AN are both indefinite articles being less specific. There
is only one article in Hebrew [ה], it is definite and pronounced Hä and Hey.
It's used twice in GOD’s Holy Name יהוה pronounced YÄ-hä-vā and spelled YHVH
in English. There's at least 12 different articles in Greek; and all of them are definite.
The determining factor for which one that is used is based upon whether the case is Dative,
Nominative, Genitive, Vocative, or Accusative. Some of the Greek articles are ο, τον, του, and τω.Conclusion: Each and every time “an indefinite article” is used in The Scriptures it is ALWAYS used at
the translators discretion; nothing to build doctrine on! (Isaiah 55:8-9) And in like manor ALL personal
pronouns (He, She, Him, Her, His & it) ALL originate form ONE GREEK WORD: [αὐτός] (autos) ow-tos'!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ July 30 2010,05:26) What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up **WHERE HE WAS BEFORE**”? John 6:62
Yes WJ, it is pretty obvious isn't it. Thanks for the scripture. I hadn't really noticed that one before.Quote (t8 @ July 29 2010,17:38) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 30 2010,05:26) What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up **WHERE HE WAS BEFORE**”? John 6:62
Yes WJ, it is pretty obvious isn't it. Thanks for the scripture. I hadn't really noticed that one before.
WelcomeWJ
Quote (Ed J @ July 30 2010,09:22) To All, In written grammar there is what is called the article.
In the English we have a total of Three articles; both the
definite and the indefinite. The word THE is the definite article.
The definite article is used to define something or someone that is
definite. A and AN are both indefinite articles being less specific. There
is only one article in Hebrew [ה], it is definite and pronounced Hä and Hey.
It's used twice in GOD’s Holy Name יהוה pronounced YÄ-hä-vā and spelled YHVH
in English. There's at least 12 different articles in Greek; and all of them are definite.
The determining factor for which one that is used is based upon whether the case is Dative,
Nominative, Genitive, Vocative, or Accusative. Some of the Greek articles are ο, τον, του, and τω.Conclusion: Each and every time “an indefinite article” is used in The Scriptures it is ALWAYS used at
the translators discretion; nothing to build doctrine on! (Isaiah 55:8-9) And in like manor ALL personal
pronouns (He, She, Him, Her, His & it) ALL originate form ONE GREEK WORD: [αὐτός] (autos) ow-tos'!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Edj, you take great pride in making things add up, and even in this instance creating a logic shape with the text. No problem with that of course, but the most important thing is that your words are true and scriptural. That far out-weighs making numbers add up.After all, we are judged by our words, not our numbers.
God bless.
Quote (Arnold @ July 30 2010,07:36) t8 I have a question for you. I really don't understand much about infinite article. However when it says God in John1:1, I compare it with Hebrew 1:8 it is Jehovah God is telling Jesus (The Word of God, John 1:1and Rev. 19:13 and verse 16) But to the Son He says:”Your throne O God is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. etc.
When I can compare two Scriptures, i have always believed that it is the truth. While Jehovah God and LORD is the Almighty God while Jesus Lord (The Word of God) is the Mighty God. In Ancient times many were called God's and Satan also is called God of this world, and is keeping us captive…. So my question is why is that wrong….Peace and Love Irene
That is a good question Irene.Technically speaking I agree with you that there are other gods. Even Satan is THE Theos of this world.
But look at it like this.
YHWH is God right?
YHWH is the name or a name that identifies God, right.
Satan is a name that identifies the God of this world, right?But theos without the article isn't identifying. Therefore if we are gods, then it is not saying that we are yhwhs or other Gods. It is saying that we are like God, or having the nature of God, or are appointed by God like judges. So we are not being identified as a theos, but being described as being like Theos or under his authority. Possessing some quality of God.
e.g., when someone calls you an angel in English, we add in the indefinite article (an). So it goes like this. “You are 'an' angel”. Now technically speaking that has 2 meanings.
1) You are an actual angelic being (spirit).
2) You are like an angel.Obviously the second point is the correct one and this is determined by the context.
Now if we say the same thing in English about Michael the archangel, then we can also say, “you are an angel”. Except in this case, the first point is the correct one.
Because Greek doesn't have the word “a”, or “an” which are the indefinite articles, translators add it in to complete the thought and make it readable in English. (In Greek, you would actually say, “you are angel”.) The problem is as mentioned, you can read this in 2 ways and so you need to read the context and compare your choice with all of scripture.
So in the case of addressing Michael the Archangel with, “you are an angel”, we know from scripture that he is an actual angel and not like an angel.
Following on, the definite article is the word “the” and in Greek, it identifies.
So if I say, “you are the angel”, then I am identifying a specific angel and not saying that you are an angel in general or nature, nor am I saying that you are like an angel. In John 1:1, God and the Word are both identified because theos and logos are preceded with the definite article “the”. All except the last theos in John 1:1c.
So in John 1:1c, we have 2 choices. The Word is either “a god” as the JWs say, or “like God/divine/possessing the nature of God”.
If Jesus is another god, that existed with YHWH God, we now have 2 gods, and I believe that this is not the desired meaning of John's text. The other meaning not only works, but it is also true because we know the Word became flesh and that the Word that became flesh is identifies as Jesus. We also know that Jesus existed in the form of God and emptied himself and took on the form of man. So therefore it is true that the Word must have been divine, which is what John 1:1c can be read as.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 30 2010,06:38) Hi WJ,
You mean Jesus or the Christ?
Jesus became the anointed one at the Jordan.
He was conceived and born of a woman, Mary before that.
Although technically speaking you could also say the same thing to Paul and Jude.Jude 1:25
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.Philippians 2:5-11
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.Both refer to Jesus Christ, before he was the Christ.
Maybe it is like referring to Paul as Paul, but in the times when he was Saul? It is not incorrect in that it is the same person, but is incorrect as far as the title or name goes. Another example might be Obama. If you said, “when the president was 5 years old”, then that is not incorrect, even though he wasn't the president when he was 5.
Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,09:46) Quote (Ed J @ July 30 2010,09:22) To All, In written grammar there is what is called the article.
In the English we have a total of Three articles; both the
definite and the indefinite. The word THE is the definite article.
The definite article is used to define something or someone that is
definite. A and AN are both indefinite articles being less specific. There
is only one article in Hebrew [ה], it is definite and pronounced Hä and Hey.
It's used twice in GOD’s Holy Name יהוה pronounced YÄ-hä-vā and spelled YHVH
in English. There's at least 12 different articles in Greek; and all of them are definite.
The determining factor for which one that is used is based upon whether the case is Dative,
Nominative, Genitive, Vocative, or Accusative. Some of the Greek articles are ο, τον, του, and τω.Conclusion: Each and every time “an indefinite article” is used in The Scriptures it is ALWAYS used at
the translators discretion; nothing to build doctrine on! (Isaiah 55:8-9) And in like manor ALL personal
pronouns (He, She, Him, Her, His & it) ALL originate form ONE GREEK WORD: [αὐτός] (autos) ow-tos'!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Edj, you take great pride in making things add up, and even in this instance creating a logic shape with the text. No problem with that of course, but the most important thing is that your words are true and scriptural. That far out-weighs making numbers add up.After all, we are judged by our words, not our numbers.
God bless.
Hi T8,Thanks for the ongoing support!
I do my best to convey what I learned
in the 40 years that I have Studied The Bible.
Hopefully I've helped everyone here learn a thing or two.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi,
Of course the disciples did not see Jesus raised up to any previous place.
They did see him taken up in his old body from the earth.
Now the Word who is God is back with GodQuote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,15:57) Quote (terraricca @ July 28 2010,22:51) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,06:51) 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
hi KWGod did in a similar way ,what he did with Adam wen he create EVE,
in the same way he took from himself to create Jesus ,Christ, the WORD, the SON of GOD,ect.
Pierre
terraricca,
This has really helped me differentiate between how man came about and how the Son came about.Man-created
The Son of God-procreatedYou see, when one is procreated/begotten they are like the one that beget them. Since the Heavenly Father is self-sufficient, He had no need for a counterpart to have a literal offspring.
When something is created, then they are not like the one that created them.
It has really helped me understand the difference and see the Son as God also. God begets God…an unbegotten God and a begotten God.
hi LUit is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference)
now it could be understand that Jesus always said ;i do my father s will,;I speak my fathers words;and also;i have been send ,and i go back to where i come from ;heaven;
we also now understand his birth,by the intervention of God organization.we also understand the words Jesus said before he died,ALL IS DONE.
the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old.
and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation.
Pierre
Quote (t8 @ July 29 2010,15:03) This is why we see “the Word was divine” and “what God was the Word was” in some translations. It is only the NWT (as far as I know) that says, “the Word was a god”. I also should say that if the Word was God or the Word was a god, both of these translations are identifying the Word. But I think neither is correct because qualifying is not the same as identifying and John 1:1c is qualifying not identifying the Word.
However if you say that he was a god and you mean that he is god in nature, then that might be okay, but most won't understand it that way, rather they will read it as him being another god, who is not the one true God of the bible and I believe that this notion is not John's intention.
Hi t8,Here's some other translations of John 1:1,
1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
Just so you know.
Also, I hear what you're saying, and I'm sure Jack was right when he said my English teachers were a waste of taxpayer's money, but how is saying Jesus is “a” god an identifying statement? Wouldn't the identity be “the Word”, and “a god” be a qualifying statement?
I have no problem with the way you understand it, for it makes much sense. But “god” just meant “mighty one”, and it was foretold by THE God that Jesus would be called “mighty god”, so I also don't mind the “a god” translations.
There were many who were “a god”, but only one true “THE God”.
Anyway, carry on with your good, informational posts.
mike
Hi Kerwin,
You asked:
Quote Are you having difficulty with the idea that Jesus was predestined by God to be the Messiah? None at all my friend. Are YOU having difficulty with the many scriptures that clearly say Jesus pre-existed?
No matter how you translate the word “para”, it is mentioned twice. Jesus says “glorify ME in your presence with the glory I HAD in your presence”. How do you figure he was saying “glorify my glory with the glory my glory had….”? Or do you think it was Jesus' actual “glory” that was speaking through the man Jesus at the time?
No matter how you slice and dice it, it CLEARLY says ME and I HAD. And that means it is Jesus talking about himself in the near future AND at an earlier time. And during both times mentioned, he was in God's presence.
mike
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 30 2010,10:37) Hi,
Of course the disciples did not see Jesus raised up to any previous place.
They did see him taken up in his old body from the earth.
Now the Word who is God is back with God
Hi Nick,Last chance here. If you actually answer this question, I will keep conversing with you. If you choose not to, don't bother making any posts directed to me.
How is it that Stephen was able to see the man Jesus Christ at the right hand of God, but he was only able to see THE GLORY of God, not God Himself?
No man can see God, right? That's why Stephen only sees God's glory, not Him. But he is able to Jesus at God's right hand. He didn't see a “Word that was God” did he?
Please answer the bolded part DIRECTLY.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,11:29) Also, I hear what you're saying, and I'm sure Jack was right when he said my English teachers were a waste of taxpayer's money, but how is saying Jesus is “a” god an identifying statement? Wouldn't the identity be “the Word”, and “a god” be a qualifying statement?
It is not necessarily an identifying statement, but I think most would just read it that way.The Word was a god, can be read in two ways.
It is divine, or is identifying another god.
Similarly, if I said:
“You are an angel”, it could mean that I am calling you an angelic being or that I am likening you to an angel. In this example, you would think the latter, but not the former, as you are not actually an angelic heavenly spirit being. Not yet anyway.
In the Word was 'theos' example, I would say that most would see it as the former, i.e., that the Word was another god with God. But we know that there is one God and all else (except evil) including the Word is of him.
So I think John's intention was to say that there were two in the beginning or before the universe. God and the Word and the Word was divine, or of the same essence as God. I don't think he meant us to think that there was the Big God and a smaller god in the beginning.
It might not seem like there is not much of a difference, but the outcome of saying that the Word is another God has profound consequences to the whole of scripture and seems to conflict with all statements that there is one who is identified as God and that he is the only true God. In effect, you could nullify all those other scriptures on account of that interpretation of John 1:1c.
Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,11:15) it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference)
Hi Pierre and All,The word “god” simply indicated a “mighty one” in both Hebrew and Greek culture. But only Jehovah is called the God of gods. In other words, He alone is the “mightiest of the mighty ones”. That is why He alone is called “Almighty God”. That is also why, although Jesus is a god, he still calls Jehovah “my God”.
It is no problem whatsoever that Jesus is “a god”, or “mighty one”. He is the second most powerful being in existence – of course he is a “mighty one”.
What Kathi fails to remember is, although there are many “mighty ones”, we are commanded to worship only the ALMIGHTY ONE.
And where the trinitarians get confused is, although Jesus is the Almighty God's Son and servant, and calls the only Almighty God “my God”, they still somehow think he is the same exact being as this Almighty God who is his Father that begot him.
mike
Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,12:08) So I think John's intention was to say that there were two in the beginning or before the universe. God and the Word and the Word was divine, or of the same essence as God. I don't think he meant us to think that there was the Big God and a smaller god in the beginning. It might not seem like there is not much of a difference, but the outcome of saying that the Word is another God has profound consequences to the whole of scripture and seems to conflict with all statements that there is one who is identified as God and that he is the only true God. In effect, you could nullify all those other scriptures on account of that interpretation of John 1:1c.
Hi t8,I can live with the first statement above. Divine could be what John intended. But IMO, he more likely meant that the Word was with THE MIGHTY ONE, and the Word was himself “a mighty one”.
And while I see what you're saying in the second paragraph, I have just never had that “THERE'S ONLY ONE GOD, PERIOD” thinking. The Bible mentions many, and we can't just wish them away.
If people would just substitute “tough one” or “master” or “strong one” or whatever, the problem would solve itself. Insert the word “king”. David was a king. Jesus is a King. But God is THE KING. So what Paul and Jesus were both implying was that although there are many kings over many kingdoms, God is the only true KING in that He is, was and always will be KING over any and all other kings, including Jesus.
But like I said, I understand we don't view or use the word “god” the same way as it was used in Biblical times. And so I definitely see where you are coming from.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
