- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 08 2012,09:43) T8……………..If your were to just step away form all of those twists and turns and confusions , and just ask yourself this simple question , if John was meaning Jesus in John 1:1, would he not have just written Jesus there? I am no Scholar but to me it is Just that simple no need to complicate any thing > If John want to mean Jesus he would just have written Jesus there. IMO peace and love…………………………………………………gene
genehe tells you but you do not want to believe him;
Jn 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Jn 1:15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”
Jn 1:16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.
Jn 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Jn 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.MT 21:32 “For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him.
MK 1:15 and saying, “ The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
MK 11:31 They began reasoning among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’
JN 5:44 “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?
JN 5:46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
JN 5:47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 06 2012,19:17) My finger is me.
My finger is not me, myself, and I.
The word “myself” implies the entirety of myself.
Me, myself, and I all mean the same thing, Ed. All of those words refer to the whole being of you.And I can't help it that YOU have it in your head that humans are the only “persons”.
Anyone or anything that can have its own personality is a person. Think it out.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 06 2012,21:00) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 07 2012,12:27) 1. Colwell's Rule allows for the addition of the definite article in certain cases, allowing for “the word was THE god” – which we would translate in English as “the word was God”.
I would have to check this out to verify it, but some scholars say that this wording would mean that the Word was the God to the detriment of all else including the Father. (Unless of course your doctrine said that the Father is the Word.)
Hi t8,From the site you linked:
Colwell’s RuleBefore the last few verses are considered, a discussion of Colwell’s rule and Colwell’s construction is in order. 2 In 1933, E. C. Colwell wrote an article entitled “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament” that appeared in The Journal of Biblical Literature. In this article, Colwell stated the rule (ultimately named for him), “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.” 3 Many conservative exegetes immediately picked up on this rule and applied it to John 1:1 in order to prove this verse states Jesus is God since the predicate nominative could now be shown to be definite. However, this rule does not state that if a predicate nominative does not have the article when preceding the verb, it is definite. The rule was misapplied by the exegetes in this instance.
From NETNotes:
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite.Colwell's Rule says that in certain Greek sentence structures, the definite article COULD BE implied. But context must dictate whether or not it was implied.
As your source points out above:
Many conservative exegetes immediately picked up on this rule and applied it to John 1:1 in order to prove this verse states Jesus is God since the predicate nominative could now be shown to be definite.The rule was misapplied by the exegetes in this instance.
The 25 Trinitarian scholars who produced NETNotes agree that Colwell's rule is misapplied in the case of John 1:1c…………..
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)Quote (t8 @ Mar. 06 2012,21:22) I say this because there is a difference between a man and man. Man or mankind identifies the nature while 'a man' identifies a particular man or is talking about one man. How do we know that John 1:1c is conveying one single god as opposed to the nature of God?
Since we are sure that 1:1 only speaks of ONE who is called “the Word”, then “god” or “a god” will work equally well.If Jesus is only ONE, and he is qualitatively “god”, then Jesus is “a god”.
Had the Greek word been plural (gods), then we'd have some more thinking to do; but it's not.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 07 2012,09:43) if John was meaning Jesus in John 1:1, would he not have just written Jesus there?
If he meant Jesus in Rev 19:13 (which you agree he did), why didn't he just write “Jesus” there?If Jesus himself meant Jesus every time he said “the Son of Man”, why didn't he just say “Jesus” or “me”?
Your argument is weak, Gene.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 08 2012,10:03) Hi MB,
Logic is your foundation?
The Trinity Doctrine is not logical and should lead people to question it. But people think that logic should be thrown out and look at the consequence. Mindless sheep following doctrines that make no sense.Logic should not be the basis of course, but the truth is logical or adds up, and if something doesn't add up, it is because it is either wrong or we do not understand the logic.
At the end of the day, scripture is greater than our own understanding, but it doesn't mean that we cannot understand scripture though.
The ironic thing is that logic is related to logos in that both include reason.
Taken from Wikipedia (logos):
Originally a word meaning “a ground”, “a plea”, “an opinion”, “an expectation”, “word,” “speech,” “account,” “reason,”….
Arguments from reason (logical arguments) have some advantages, namely that data are (ostensibly) difficult to manipulate, so it is harder to argue against such an argument; and such arguments make the speaker look prepared and knowledgeable to the audience, enhancing ethos.
Hi t8,
Paul spoke wisdom that confounded men and even Peter struggled to grasp it[2Peter 3.16]
Jesus Christ is the wisdom and power of God[1Cor 1]We must go further than dictionaries, greek logic and theology books to grasp truth.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 08 2012,14:35) Hi t8,
Paul spoke wisdom that confounded men and even Peter struggled to grasp it[2Peter 3.16]
Jesus Christ is the wisdom and power of God[1Cor 1]We must go further than dictionaries, greek logic and theology books to grasp truth.
Nso you do not believe that God gives the understanding to those who deeply search for him and his son
?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 08 2012,14:39) Hi T,
We need wisdom more than understanding.
Scripture is the wisdom of God.[lk 11.49]
Nwhat is understanding if it is not wisdom
Pr 1:1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:
Pr 1:2 for attaining wisdom and discipline;
for understanding words of insight;Sorry Nick I was editing the post when you replied.
Do you think there is a link between logic and logos?
Quote Taken from Wikipedia (logos): Originally a word meaning “a ground”, “a plea”, “an opinion”, “an expectation”, “word,” “speech,” “account,” “reason,”….
Arguments from reason (logical arguments) have some advantages, namely that data are (ostensibly) difficult to manipulate, so it is harder to argue against such an argument;
Hi t8,
Certainly the greeks loved wordplay and human wisdom.
It stopped them from grasping true wisdomTaken from Wikipedia (logoc):
Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the philosophical study of valid ….. dialectical, argumentative”, also related to [[wiktionary:λόγος|]] (logos), “word, thought,
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 08 2012,14:55) Hi t8,
Certainly the greeks loved wordplay and human wisdom.
It stopped them from grasping true wisdom
Nit seems to me that the Greeks in their wisdom found Christ and the Jews lost him in their s
Yes the Greeks loved their OWN logic.
Nevertheless, this doesn't rule out that God is logical especially considering that logos is part of him. It is not about a lack of understanding, rather that we understand what it is that God is saying. In other words when we understand God's logic, and speak his logic, then the logos is at work in us.
Is God's logos not logical. I often see it like this. God's logos has to be logical therefore by reason of that it is true too. Lies are simply illogical and not true. The Father of Lies cannot win against the God of all truth. One creates by his own reason and the other destroys by reason of not being true.
When I program for the Web, it has to be logical or it won't work, in essence the code will lie and break the program. When God created all things he did so through his Logos and we are told that the very creation itself witnesses to God's existence and we are without excuse. What is it that we see when we look at creation. Is it not the handiwork of a designer. His logic, truth, creativity, diversity, are all on display for all to see.
The problem is not logic but whether we understand God's logic or our own cultural logic.
All this talk of “logic is bad” is from those whose doctrines make no sense, like the Trinitarians and non-preexisters.
They are always the ones who pull the “logic” card when it is shown that their doctrines are nonsense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
