- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 19 2012,14:24) Hmmmmmmmm…………. Frank, you claim that the word “dia” in Heb 1:2 means “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF”, correct?
Well, the same word “dia” is used in John 1:3. So does John 1:3 teach that all things were made “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF” the Word?
Mike,How the word di' or dia is translated into our English language strictly depends on the content. It can be properly translated as 'by' or 'through' depending on to context.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 20 2012,01:48) He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another. – Tertullian Gene, do you see how God creating THROUGH Jesus doesn't change the fact that God alone did the creating? To believe the scriptures that God created all things THROUGH Jesus is not to discredit the scriptures that say God created all things by Himself.
For example, God alone and by Himself created YOU. But He did that THROUGH Jesus, Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, your grandparents, and your parents.
The fact that He created you THROUGH all those others does not change the fact that God alone is the One who created you.
Mike,The problem with your reasoning is that you believe that Father Yahweh created “through” his son Yahshua as a pre-existent being that was literally Father Yahweh word in the beginning. Scripture does not teach such nonsense!
Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 20 2012,01:48) He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another. – Tertullian Gene, do you see how God creating THROUGH Jesus doesn't change the fact that God alone did the creating? To believe the scriptures that God created all things THROUGH Jesus is not to discredit the scriptures that say God created all things by Himself.
For example, God alone and by Himself created YOU. But He did that THROUGH Jesus, Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, your grandparents, and your parents.
The fact that He created you THROUGH all those others does not change the fact that God alone is the One who created you.
“The name of God the Father had been published to no one.” – Tertullian
Is this guy serious? What set of Scriptures was he reading when he wrote this? Because clearly in the Torah, Moshe not only recorded the Name being used, he also stated he would further publish (Hebrew qara) the Most High's Name (Deut 32:3)!!!
(QUINTUS SEPTIMIUS FLORENS TERTULLIANUS). Ecclesiastical writer in the second and third centuries, b. probably about 160 at Carthage, being the son of a centurion in the proconsular service. He was evidently by profession an advocate in the law-courts, and he shows a close acquaintance with the procedure and terms of Roman law, though it is doubtful whether he is to be identified with a jurist Tertullian who is cited in the Pandects. He knew Greek as well as Latin, and wrote works in Greek which have not come down to us. A pagan until middle life, he had shared the pagan prejudices against Christianity, and had indulged like others in shameful pleasures. His conversion was not later than the year 197, and may have been earlier. He embraced the Faith with all the ardour of his impetuous nature. He became a priest, no doubt of the Church of Carthage. Monceaux, followed by d'Ales, considers that his earlier writings were composed while he was yet a layman, and if this be so, then his ordination was about 200. His extant writings range in date from the apologetics of 197 to the attack on a bishop who is probably Pope Callistus (after 218). It was after the year 206 that he joined the Montanist sect, and he seems to have definitively separated from the Church about 211 (Harnack) or 213 (Monceaux). After writing more virulently against the Church than even against heathen and persecutors, he separated from the Montanists and founded a sect of his own. The remnant of the Tertullianists was reconciled to the Church by St. Augustine. A number of the works of Tertullian are on special points of belief or discipline. According to St. Jerome he lived to extreme old age. – New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htmDid Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
…
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 22 2012,07:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 19 2012,14:24) Hmmmmmmmm…………. Frank, you claim that the word “dia” in Heb 1:2 means “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF”, correct?
Well, the same word “dia” is used in John 1:3. So does John 1:3 teach that all things were made “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF” the Word?
Mike,How the word di' or dia is translated into our English language strictly depends on the content. It can be properly translated as 'by' or 'through' depending on to context.
Let me edit that!
How the word di' or dia is translated into our English language strictly depends on the context. Di' or dia can be properly translated as 'by' or 'through' depending on the context.
The following is an excerpt from the article “HEBREWS 1:2 – DI' Interlinear Greek/English N.T. Translated by George Ricker Berry” on my Xanga blog:
“By or through are both correct translations of the word Di' if the sentence allow this. In translating, however, the translation of the word must agree with the message of the sentence. In this case, the word BY does not agree with the message in Heb. 1:2. Further explanation is given in the [study], “YAHSHUA: DID HE PRE-EXIST?” … Let me point out that every sentence in the Scriptures should be properly translated. If Yahshua did or did not pre-exist, then this will become evident.
This word di' (dia') is often translated “for,” “because of,” or “on account of.” Any one of these is much better in Hebrews 1:2 than by or through. Why? Because neither by nor through agrees with the message in the sentence. On the other hand, because of and on account of do agree. In every English version of the Scriptures di' and dia' are often translated for, because of, or on account of. This is true of translations into English from the Septuagint (Greek) Version also.”
Yahchanan [John] 1:3 is properly translated:
Through IT all things were made; without IT nothing was made that has been made.
Please see the following PDF files (Part 1 And 2) for more of an in depth study on this truth:
[PDF] The Word, Someone Or Something? Part I
[PDF] The Word, Someone Or Something? Part II
…
Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
…
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 22 2012,09:34) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 22 2012,07:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 19 2012,14:24) Hmmmmmmmm…………. Frank, you claim that the word “dia” in Heb 1:2 means “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF”, correct?
Well, the same word “dia” is used in John 1:3. So does John 1:3 teach that all things were made “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF” the Word?
Mike,How the word di' or dia is translated into our English language strictly depends on the content. It can be properly translated as 'by' or 'through' depending on to context.
Let me edit that! How the word di' or dia is translated into our English language strictly depends on the context. Di' or dia can be properly translated as 'by' or 'through' depending on the context.
The following is an excerpt from the article “HEBREWS 1:2 – DI' Interlinear Greek/English N.T. Translated by George Ricker Berry” on my Xanga blog:
“By or through are both correct translations of the word Di' if the sentence allow this. In translating, however, the translation of the word must agree with the message of the sentence. In this case, the word BY does not agree with the message in Heb. 1:2. Further explanation is given in the [study], “YAHSHUA: DID HE PRE-EXIST?” … Let me point out that every sentence in the Scriptures should be properly translated. If Yahshua did or did not pre-exist, then this will become evident.
This word di' (dia') is often translated “for,” “because of,” or “on account of.” Any one of these is much better in Hebrews 1:2 than by or through. Why? Because neither by nor through agrees with the message in the sentence. On the other hand, because of and on account of do agree. In every English version of the Scriptures di' and dia' are often translated for, because of, or on account of. This is true of translations into English from the Septuagint (Greek) Version also.”
Yahchanan [John] 1:3 is properly translated:
Through IT all things were made; without IT nothing was made that has been made.
Please see the following PDF files (Part 1 And 2) for more of an in depth study on this truth:
[PDF] The Word, Someone Or Something? Part I
[PDF] The Word, Someone Or Something? Part II
…
Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
…
PDF URL Correction:Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 20 2012,19:59) Hi MB,
Can you not yet understand?
I can't understand why it seems so hard for you to answer direct questions.Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 21 2012,14:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 19 2012,14:24) Hmmmmmmmm…………. Frank, you claim that the word “dia” in Heb 1:2 means “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF”, correct?
Well, the same word “dia” is used in John 1:3. So does John 1:3 teach that all things were made “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF” the Word?
Mike,How the word di' or dia is translated into our English language strictly depends on the content. It can be properly translated as 'by' or 'through' depending on to context.
Okay. So in Hebrews 1:2, what is the context that tells you “dia” should be translated as “ON ACCOUNT OF” instead of “THROUGH”?And what context in John 1:3 tells you that “dia” should be translated as “THROUGH” instead of “ON ACCOUNT OF”?
Please explain to me the SCRIPTURAL reason(s) you came to the conclusions you did about the word “dia” in these two verses.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 21 2012,16:34) This word di' (dia') is often translated “for,” “because of,” or “on account of.” Any one of these is much better in Hebrews 1:2 than by or through. Why? Because neither by nor through agrees with the message in the sentence. On the other hand, because of and on account of do agree.
Great!
Now tell my WHY. WHY doesn't “by” or “through” agree with the message?
And WHY does “because of” agree with it?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 19 2012,17:24) Hmmmmmmmm…………. Frank, you claim that the word “dia” in Heb 1:2 means “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF”, correct?
Well, the same word “dia” is used in John 1:3. So does John 1:3 teach that all things were made “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF” the Word?
Good question Mike.I look forward to seeing how he dodges this one.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 22 2012,10:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 19 2012,14:24) Hmmmmmmmm…………. Frank, you claim that the word “dia” in Heb 1:2 means “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF”, correct?
Well, the same word “dia” is used in John 1:3. So does John 1:3 teach that all things were made “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF” the Word?
Mike,How the word di' or dia is translated into our English language strictly depends on the content. It can be properly translated as 'by' or 'through' depending on to context.
So when it is the Logos it is through and when it is Jesus it is because of.There are 2 possibilities here Frank.
1) This is correct.
2) This shows your bias and how you can make the same word fit your predetermined doctrine.You are free to believe whatever you want of course, however, the Book of John is a book about Jesus Christ and we are told that in the beginning was the Word and that this Word became flesh. We are also told that it is the antichrist spirit that believes and teaches that Jesus did not come in the flesh.
You obviously are in the “Jesus did not come in the flesh” camp because you believe that Jesus is the flesh, whereas we should believe that he existed in the form of God, emptied himself, and came in the flesh. You deny this plain and simple.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 21 2012,16:56) Hi MB,
You have got to grasp the spiritual if you want dialogue
There was a time I wanted dialogue with you, Nick. That was before I watched you run from serious problems in your doctrine – pretending that those problems didn't exist, although they were being placed right before your eyes by me, t8, and Pierre.Since then you strike me as a man who already believes what he wants to believe, and will not be budged to the left or to the right – despite what the scriptures say, or how his doctrine directly contradicts many of them.
There is no sense in me wasting my time on a dialogue with this kind of person. So I will keep asking questions on occasion, the truthful answers of which either contradict your doctrine, or show it to be the nonsense that it is…………..and you can keep ignoring those questions. It will be just like old times, eh?
Quote (t8 @ May 21 2012,16:59) I look forward to seeing how he dodges this one.
Hi t8,I see he has tried to dodge it with one of his famous cut and paste jobs. Let's see if he can answer my follow up question of “WHY?”
(Btw, great post at the top of this page.)
Quote (t8 @ May 22 2012,10:05) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 22 2012,10:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 19 2012,14:24) Hmmmmmmmm…………. Frank, you claim that the word “dia” in Heb 1:2 means “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF”, correct?
Well, the same word “dia” is used in John 1:3. So does John 1:3 teach that all things were made “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF” the Word?
Mike,How the word di' or dia is translated into our English language strictly depends on the content. It can be properly translated as 'by' or 'through' depending on to context.
So when it is the Logos it is through and when it is Jesus it is because of.There are 2 possibilities here Frank.
1) This is correct.
2) This shows your bias and how you can make the same word fit your predetermined doctrine.You are free to believe whatever you want of course, however, the Book of John is a book about Jesus Christ and we are told that in the beginning was the Word and that this Word became flesh. We are also told that it is the antichrist spirit that believes and teaches that Jesus did not come in the flesh.
You obviously are in the “Jesus did not come in the flesh” camp because you believe that Jesus is the flesh, whereas we should believe that he existed in the form of God, emptied himself, and came in the flesh. You deny this plain and simple.
t8,So you believe that the so called “Book of John” has nothing whatsoever to do with Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word?
FYI, this book has nothing whatsoever to do with the pre-existence of Yahshua as Father Yahweh's word as an actual being that was with Him in the beginning, but it does state the purpose within itself as follows:
But these are written that you may believe that Yahshua is the Messiah, the son of Yahweh, and that by believing you may have life in his name (Yahchanan [John] 20:31 cf. 1 Yahchanan [John] 5:13).
There is nothing whatsoever in this book that asks that we might believe that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as “a god” and that believing such foolishness that we may have life. In fact, what we are to confess and believe concerning Father Yahweh's son Yahshua in accordance with the so-called “New Testament” as a whole is clearly stated as follows:
That if you confess with your mouth, “Yahshua is Master,” and believe in your heart that Yahweh raised him from the dead, you will be redeemed (Romans 10:9).
Nowhere in Scripture as a whole are we ever asked to believe and confess with our mouth that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being as Father Yahweh's word and as “a god” to be redeemed.
We are also to confess that Yahshua came in the flesh of which I also believe and confess:
By this you know the spirit of Yahweh: Every spirit that confesses that Yahshua Messiah is come in the flesh is of Yahweh: And every spirit that confesses not that Yahshua Messiah is come in the flesh is not of Yahweh: and this is that spirit of anti-messiah, of which you have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world (1 Yahchanan [John] 4:2-3).
No, nothing whatsoever in the whole of Scripture about confessing and believing that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as “a god” or believing that he was literally Father Yahweh's word that was with Him in the beginning!
Did Yahshua create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
…
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 21 2012,18:00) Nowhere in Scripture as a whole are we ever asked to believe and confess with our mouth that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being as Father Yahweh's word and as “a god” to be redeemed.
Frank,That is quite a silly argument, considering that nowhere in scripture are we asked to confess with our mouths that Jehovah created the heavens and the earth. Nor are we ever requested to believe that Saul was the first king of Israel.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 21 2012,18:00) FYI, this book has nothing whatsoever to do with the pre-existence of Yahshua as Father Yahweh's word as an actual being that was with Him in the beginning, but it does state the purpose within itself as follows: But these are written that you may believe that Yahshua is the Messiah, the son of Yahweh, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
That's right, the gospel of John was written so we could learn more about JESUS, right? In fact, John wrote: “There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”So if the whole book is to teach us more about Jesus, then who do you suppose John is teaching us about when he teaches of the Word of God who BECAME FLESH and had the glory of GOD'S ONLY BEGOTTEN?
Hi MB,
No John was more interested in showing us what he had learned
about the Word that was with God and was God.
but men still worship the fleshWe no longer speak of Christ according to the flesh.
Now the Lord is the SpiritQuote (mikeboll64 @ May 22 2012,12:47) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 21 2012,18:00) Nowhere in Scripture as a whole are we ever asked to believe and confess with our mouth that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being as Father Yahweh's word and as “a god” to be redeemed.
Frank,That is quite a silly argument, considering that nowhere in scripture are we asked to confess with our mouths that Jehovah created the heavens and the earth. Nor are we ever requested to believe that Saul was the first king of Israel.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 21 2012,18:00) FYI, this book has nothing whatsoever to do with the pre-existence of Yahshua as Father Yahweh's word as an actual being that was with Him in the beginning, but it does state the purpose within itself as follows: But these are written that you may believe that Yahshua is the Messiah, the son of Yahweh, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
That's right, the gospel of John was written so we could learn more about JESUS, right? In fact, John wrote: “There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”So if the whole book is to teach us more about Jesus, then who do you suppose John is teaching us about when he teaches of the Word of God who BECAME FLESH and had the glory of GOD'S ONLY BEGOTTEN?
Mike,You are quite silly since, I myself confess and believe all of the doctrines that Scripture truly teaches and nowhere in Scripture does it ever teach that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being that was literally Father Yahweh's word or “a god” that was with Him in the beginning.
Frank,
The last line of my post was a question. And my prior post to you had a couple of “WHY?” questions for you. Are you “owning me” again?
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 22 2012,14:00) t8, So you believe that the so called “Book of John” has nothing whatsoever to do with Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word?
Frank, the book is about Jesus Christ.John 20:31
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.If you read that book from beginning to end, you will see it is about Jesus.
The first verse is about him, the last verse, and the stuff in between.
John 1:1-3
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.John: 25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.T8……………..Frank is right, but you your preconceive conviction have prevented you from seeing and understand this simple truth. Jesus did not preexist his berth on the earth as a sentinel being of any kind. God was not dealing with Morphed Angels or demigods, He was dealing with Mankind by a Human being Born of Flesh and Blood Just as we are in “EVERY WAY” a man who recieved into himself at the Jordan river the Holy spirit of God and was from that time sent out into the world to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of GOD. Since it was by man sin entered the world it was by a man it is removed.
Jesus' sacrifice would not have fulfilled the law of God if he was Not a complete human being in every way without any exceptions. God proved through Jesus he could perfect human kind and Jesus was the First to reach the perfection from the human race. He did not preexist his berth on the earth, that is a great false teaching and itself is Anti-Christ, because it diminishes His sacrifice and give him advantages other them a simple human being, which he did not have.
You and Mike an others have taken the Christos of GOD and turned it into a Man instead of it being (in) A MAN YOUR HAVE MADE THE MAN THE CHRISTOS and denied the Spirit of the Anointing that was (in) him. Giving the Glory of God to a MAN . But scripture say God give his glory to NO MAN> Not even JESUS.
Not matter what you teach T8 or Mike if it does not match up to the Original Testament it is a false teachings. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………………………………………………gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
