- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 21 2010,10:04) And Jesus was called THE begotten god in John 1:18. That doesn't imply “nature” or “qualifyer” to me, but an “identity”.
Mike look at the Greek.18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him .
the only begotten Son part is the monogenes.
The definite article precedes monogenes.
Therefore it is identifying him as THE Only begotten son, not as THE Begotten God.
The word for son is 'huios' and it is not using the word 'theos'.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 21 2010,10:59) The word for son is 'huios' and it is not using the word 'theos'.
Hi t8,This info is from NETNotes:
Joh 1:181tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=1&verse=18#
Have fun with all that mumbo-jumbo!
mike
T8
can we bring a copy of all our scriptures that we have collected right here in the begining so we do not have to search for them in a other place
pierre
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 21 2010,11:00) Do you have any other verses that you think do not fit what I am saying?
Hi t8,Here are just a few.
John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.Acts 28:6 NIV
6The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.Acts 12:22
They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.”1 Corinthians 8:7
But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.While the Greeks did not use the indefinite article “a”, English translators add it in each and every time it is necessary for us to read the passage sensibly. That is………every time but one – John 1:1.
You seem to be picking and choosing here t8. When in reference to an idol, then you say the word “a” should be added, but understood it refers to “A” false god.
But when used of others besides idols, you want to leave the “A” out and call it “nature” or “a qualifyer”.
So was Herod speaking like “A” god, or did he have the nature of God Himself? Did the people on Malta think Paul was “a god”, or that he had the nature of God Himself?
And what about 1 Cor? Does it mean God is not “A” God of disorder, or that God is not “the nature of God” of disorder?
And which one makes more sense when Paul calls Satan the god of this age? Is Paul calling Satan “A” god or mighty one, or is he saying he has the “nature of God”?
The way I see it, the English translators are right to add the “A” in all of the above scriptures so they make sense to us. It just makes me wonder why the NWT seems to be the only translation that is not afraid to stick with the formula and also add it in John 1:1. Actually, it doesn't make me wonder at all – we both know that “the Word was God” makes a much more compelling case for the trinitarians.
As far as our discussion goes, if you agree that the above scriptures should have the “A” added, then why would you just assume for some reason that it SHOULDN'T also be added in John 1?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (terraricca @ Nov. 21 2010,11:26) T8 can we bring a copy of all our scriptures that we have collected right here in the begining so we do not have to search for them in a other place
pierre
Hey Pierre,I'll add the last few in by order and post it here for us. I'm sure t8 won't mind.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 21 2010,18:38) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 21 2010,11:26) T8 can we bring a copy of all our scriptures that we have collected right here in the begining so we do not have to search for them in a other place
pierre
Hey Pierre,I'll add the last few in by order and post it here for us. I'm sure t8 won't mind.
mike
mikethanks brother
pierre
These scriptures that teach the pre-existence of Jesus have been compiled by Irene (Baker), Pierre (Terrarica), Wm (Seeking Truth), Mike (mikeboll64) and t8.
There are currently 48 scriptures or passages listed.
Proverbs 8:22-31 NIV
22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,
before his deeds of old;
23 I was formed long ages ago,
at the very beginning, when the world came to be.
24 When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,
when there were no springs overflowing with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the world or its fields
or any of the dust of the earth.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was constantly at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
31 rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind.Proverbs 30:4 NIV
4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Whose hands have gathered up the wind?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is the name of his son?
Surely you know!Micah 5:2 NIV
2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”Isaiah 11:1 NIV
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.Isaiah 11:10 NIV
In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.Matthew 22:41-46 NIV
41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42″What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?”
“The son of David,” they replied.
43He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,
44″ 'The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.” ' 45If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?” 46No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.John 1:1-3 NWT
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.John 1:9-12 NIV
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—John 1:14 NIV
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.John 1:15 NWT
15 (John bore witness about him, yes, he actually cried out—this was the one who said [it]—saying: “The one coming behind me has advanced in front of me, because he existed before me.”)John 3:13 NIV
13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.John 3:16-19 NIV
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.John 5:19-20 NIV
19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed.John 6:32-33 NIV
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”John 6:35 NIV
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.John 6:38 NIV
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.John 6:41-42 NIV
41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”John 6:46 NIV
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.John 6:48-51 NIV
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”John 6:62 NIV
62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!John 8:12 NIV
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”John 8:23 NIV
23 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.John 8:38 NIV
38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”John 8:42 NET
Jesus replied, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come from God and am now here. I have not come on my own initiative, but he sent me.”John 8:58 NWT
58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”John 9:5 NIV
While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”John 16:28 NIV
“I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”John 17:5 NRSV
So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.Romans 1:3 NIV
regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,Romans 8:3 NIV
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.Romans 9:5 NASB
whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ accord
ing to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.1 Corinthians 8:6 NIV
6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.1 Corinthians 10:3-4 NIV
3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.1 Corinthians 11:3 NIV
3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God.1 Corinthians 15:47 NIV
47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.Galatians 4:4-5 NIV
4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.Philippians 2:6-8 NIV
6Who, being in the form of God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the form of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!Colossians 1:15-17 NIV
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.1 Timothy 3:16 NWT
16 Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in [the] world, was received up in glory.’Hebrews 1:1-2 NIV
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.Hebrews 1:10 NIV
10He also says,
“In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.Hebrews 2:14 NIV
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—Hebrews 10:5 NIV
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;1 John 1:1 NIV
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.1 John 2:12-13 NIV
12I write to you, dear children,
because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
13I write to you, fathers,
because you have known him who is from the beginning.Jude 1:25 NIV
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.Revelation 3:14 NWT
14 “And to the angel of the congregation in La‧o‧di‧ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,Revelation 22:16 NIV
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”Just Askin,
You wrote:
Quote Kerwin,
Maybe it's just a slip but 'Jesus is evil'
No, Kerwin. Jesus, as man, had the POTENTIAL to do Evil, to BE Sinful…but he resisted.
I stated it correctly but meant it differently than you understood it. We are actually stating the same thing as I was Jesus’ nature as in his human nature is evil because it is like the nature of all human beings as it is without God. On the other hand he also had the righteous or good nature of God that is the result of living by the Spirit. He was obviously not referring to the Spirit as it is part of God and not man.
Mike Boll,
You wrote:
Quote Kerwin says if his mother made him a gift before he was born, then he could speak about the gift “HE HAD” before he was born. I could see him saying, “Where is the gift you made for me BEFORE I was born?”, but I doubt anyone in that situation would say “the gift I HAD before I was born”. A person is not an “I” until they exist as a person, so therefore a person cannot possibly “HAVE” a possession until they exist as a person.
Do you not see the illogical and far reaching things people must come up with just to make a clearly spoken sentence by Jesus not mean what it very clearly says? Why the mystery and the secret hidden meanings? Why can't it just clearly mean what it clearly says?
It is not illogical to use words different than Mike Boll has been taught is appropriate. Culture influences the way we choose to word our sentences and non-English speakers will use the sentence structure that they have learned sometimes even when speaking English. Those speaking common Greek are non-English speakers. I am not even sure I structure my words as have been taught is proper.
Jesus tells you why he chooses to use mystery and secret meanings. Do you remember where he does?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 21 2010,11:35) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 21 2010,11:00) Do you have any other verses that you think do not fit what I am saying?
Hi t8,Here are just a few.
John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.Acts 28:6 NIV
6The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.Acts 12:22
They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.”1 Corinthians 8:7
But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.While the Greeks did not use the indefinite article “a”, English translators add it in each and every time it is necessary for us to read the passage sensibly. That is………every time but one – John 1:1.
You seem to be picking and choosing here t8. When in reference to an idol, then you say the word “a” should be added, but understood it refers to “A” false god.
But when used of others besides idols, you want to leave the “A” out and call it “nature” or “a qualifyer”.
So was Herod speaking like “A” god, or did he have the nature of God Himself? Did the people on Malta think Paul was “a god”, or that he had the nature of God Himself?
And what about 1 Cor? Does it mean God is not “A” God of disorder, or that God is not “the nature of God” of disorder?
And which one makes more sense when Paul calls Satan the god of this age? Is Paul calling Satan “A” god or mighty one, or is he saying he has the “nature of God”?
The way I see it, the English translators are right to add the “A” in all of the above scriptures so they make sense to us. It just makes me wonder why the NWT seems to be the only translation that is not afraid to stick with the formula and also add it in John 1:1. Actually, it doesn't make me wonder at all – we both know that “the Word was God” makes a much more compelling case for the trinitarians.
As far as our discussion goes, if you agree that the above scriptures should have the “A” added, then why would you just assume for some reason that it SHOULDN'T also be added in John 1?
peace and love,
mike
Mike.In English where there 'a' is mentioned it is not in the Greek. However, it can be interpreted in as 'a' in our understanding too.
So it is up to the context whether 'a' is added or not.
e.g., if you say in Greek 'river' without the definite article 'the', then you are talking about rivers in general, or the qualities that make it a river. So you can say “it is like a river', or 'it flows like a river', or next to a 'river'. Notice that you are not identifying the river. If you say “the river”, the question that arises is what river or the name of the river.
John 8:44 for example says 'THE Devil' (identifier) and 'a murderer' (qualifier/nature/characteristic). Saying a murder is not identifying the murderer. That has already been done where is says THE Devil.
In Acts 28:6 it says a god. It is not identifying the God but is qualifying him. It's like saying “he is like a professional”. You are not saying “what or which professional” but using it as a qualifier.
Acts 12:22 is not identifying the God it is really saying is like a god or has the voice like a god and not a man. No identifying going on here either.
1 Corinthians 8:7 is not identifying the God but is talking of a god.
Yes sometimes gods are identified. Such as THE God of this age or the name of a particular false God. But where you just see THE God with no context to say otherwise, it is the true God.
e.g., the Word was with THE God is talking of the true God. The God of this age is talking of the true God of this age which is the Devil.I have yet to see a verse that says “THE God” in reference to Jesus or anyone else that has a ministry from God. Rather it is theos used without the definite article and thereby is talking about the ministry, quality, nature, or characteristic of divine nature or divine agenda.
“Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ' we learn from himself that the Father is over all', as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the preexistent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false…. A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally 'alone', and thus there was a time when 'the Son was not'. When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea.” e.a.]
-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God's Christ, God's Son, God's Wisdom, God's Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word “god” at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English… The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas “my Lord and my god” (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (verse. 17) “Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as “our God”, “my God”, but probably never as “God” without qualification.
– John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.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.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.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.
-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.Pierre,
You ask where scripture states the divine righteousness of God is part of his nature?
As to the word “nature” the definition is “A spontaneous attitude”.
As to the word “divine” the definition is “of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god”.
I thus point out that the words divine nature as defined above can mean righteous attitude of God.
As to scripture Christians are explicitly commanded to wear the divine righteous nature of God in Ephesians 4:24 and Galatians 5:16 makes it clear the command is also stated as walk by the Spirit.
You state that Jesus having an evil nature is not scripture and yet you claim to believe he was tempted as we are. You should consider what James states about temptation and then remove the contradiction from your doctrine.
James 1:14(NIV) reads:
Quote but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.
It follows that Jesus knew what he was speaking of when he stated “no one but God is good”.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 21 2010,14:27) John 8:44 for example says 'THE Devil' (identifier) and 'a murderer' (qualifier/nature/characteristic). Saying a murder is not identifying the murderer. That has already been done where is says THE Devil.
Hi t8,Yet it doesn't say in English, “THE Devil was murderer” does it? No, because for us to readily understand it in English, the indefinite must be added before “murderer”.
And this is what I'm saying. If they want to NOT add the indefinite in John 1:1, then they should follow suit throughout the Bible. But if they add the indefinite EVERY OTHER time it is needed for English clarity, then why not also in John 1:1?
Just like we wouldn't in English say, “THE Devil is murderer”, we also wouldn't say, “THE Word is god”. Because both of them give the connotation that the qualifyer is a specific thing or person with that title. We should know that the Devil was A murderer, not THE Murderer, so we add the “A”. Likewise, we should know that the Word was A god, not THE God, so we should add the “A”.
How about “peter”? It means “rock”. In Greek, they might have said, “Pick up and throw rock”. But we know the speaker meant “A rock”, not “Peter”.
We can go round and round about this, but the bottom line is this: If they add the “A” for English clarity in EVERY OTHER instance, they should also add it in John 1:1, like the NWT does.
t8, do you have a problem with Jesus being “a god”? Because he most definitely is, as Isaiah 9:6 attests to. “Mighty god” there is not a qualifyer, but an identifying title by which Jesus will be called. Just like Wonderful Counselor and Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace, right? These are all identifying titles, not qualifyers.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (kerwin @ Nov. 21 2010,13:27) It is not illogical to use words different than Mike Boll has been taught is appropriate.
That's a cheap shot Kerwin. Okay, so you think it is logical to say you HAD things before you even existed. How about the “in your presence” part?Do you also consider it logical for someone who doesn't yet exist to be “in the presence” of someone else?
mike
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 21 2010,14:32) 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.
Hi t8,Every bit of this info could also be applied to “murderer” in John 8:44. Yet every English translation adds the “A” to make the reading clear to us. So why not in John 1:1?
mike
Mike………..It does not say in Jesus' presents does or that he was even there , it say in GOD presents Jesus had this glory . Jesus existed (IN) the BOSOM or (Heart) of the Father he was not really there as a Living being until he was born on earth and dies and resurrected to the Glory that GOD had in the First reserved for HIM as the First man to achieve what God had planned for all man kind all along. You force the text to a conclusion it does not say (specifically), If it was so clear there would be no argument about it , you ought to at least understand that. IMO
peace and love………………………………gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 22 2010,03:36) Mike………..It does not say in Jesus' presents does or that he was even there , it say in GOD presents Jesus had this glory .
Hi Gene,Let's see what it really DOES say:
John 17:5 NRSV
So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.It says the word “I”. What does “I” mean Gene?
Then it says this “I” “HAD” glory. Can someone who doesn't yet exist be an “I”? Can someone who doesn't yet exist “HAVE” glory?
It says that this “I” “HAD” “GLORY”. Can someone who doesn't even exist “HAVE GLORY”? For what? If he didn't exist, then he hadn't done anything yet to receive glory, nor does he have any use for it.
It says this “I” “HAD” “GLORY” “IN YOUR PRESENCE”. Can someone who doesn't yet exist be said to be “IN THE PRESENCE” of another?
These are the simple words used in the scripture Gene. And we all have the choice to take these words to mean a person was saying he had glory in the presence of God before the world was created.
OR………we can illogically twist their meaning to say a person's non-existent thought of himself somehow had glory.
Gene, aren't you the one who argues tirelessly about a person's words being that person? Well, if a person's words are themselves, then surely a person's THOUGHTS are themselves, right? So if Jesus was just “a thought in God's head” at this time, then he was really God Himself, right? And how can God Himself have glory in His OWN presence?
mike
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 22 2010,02:14) Pierre, You ask where scripture states the divine righteousness of God is part of his nature?
As to the word “nature” the definition is “A spontaneous attitude”.
As to the word “divine” the definition is “of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god”.
I thus point out that the words divine nature as defined above can mean righteous attitude of God.
As to scripture Christians are explicitly commanded to wear the divine righteous nature of God in Ephesians 4:24 and Galatians 5:16 makes it clear the command is also stated as walk by the Spirit.
You state that Jesus having an evil nature is not scripture and yet you claim to believe he was tempted as we are. You should consider what James states about temptation and then remove the contradiction from your doctrine.
James 1:14(NIV) reads:
Quote but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.
It follows that Jesus knew what he was speaking of when he stated “no one but God is good”.
Kerwini still stand to what i have said;
Dt 6:18 Do what is right and good in the LORD'S sight, so that it may go well with you and you may go in and take over the good land that the LORD promised on oath to your forefathers,
Dt 12:28 Be careful to obey all these regulations I am giving you, so that it may always go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is good and right in the eyes of the LORD your God.
Jos 23:14 “Now I am about to go the way of all the earth. You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the LORD your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed.
Jos 23:15 But just as every good promise of the LORD your God has come true, so the LORD will bring on you all the evil he has threatened, until he has destroyed you from this good land he has given you.yes scriptures says that men can and do good and be good if it is done in God way.
so again your interpretation is not understanding of God s scriptures but Kerwin tradition of men
even now i doubt that you understand what it means.
Pierre
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 22 2010,04:32) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 22 2010,03:36) Mike………..It does not say in Jesus' presents does or that he was even there , it say in GOD presents Jesus had this glory .
Hi Gene,Let's see what it really DOES say:
John 17:5 NRSV
So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.It says the word “I”. What does “I” mean Gene?
Then it says this “I” “HAD” glory. Can someone who doesn't yet exist be an “I”? Can someone who doesn't yet exist “HAVE” glory?
It says that this “I” “HAD” “GLORY”. Can someone who doesn't even exist “HAVE GLORY”? For what? If he didn't exist, then he hadn't done anything yet to receive glory, nor does he have any use for it.
It says this “I” “HAD” “GLORY” “IN YOUR PRESENCE”. Can someone who doesn't yet exist be said to be “IN THE PRESENCE” of another?
These are the simple words used in the scripture Gene. And we all have the choice to take these words to mean a person was saying he had glory in the presence of God before the world was created.
OR………we can illogically twist their meaning to say a person's non-existent thought of himself somehow had glory.
Gene, aren't you the one who argues tirelessly about a person's words being that person? Well, if a person's words are themselves, then surely a person's THOUGHTS are themselves, right? So if Jesus was just “a thought in God's head” at this time, then he was really God Himself, right? And how can God Himself have glory in His OWN presence?
mike
Mike ……..why don't you read some commentary on that verse, No where doe it say Jesus was Present there at any time , He simply said the Glory was Present with GOD , Before he even existed, Jesus was talking to God about that Glory given Him in the beginning and it (the Glory) was present in the plan and will of God. He had that Glory before he ever existed God brought Him forth at the right time and brought him to that Glory after his resurrection from the dead, he never had that Glory until he achieved it. IMOpeace and love…………………………….gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
