Proverbs 16:4 with Colossians 1:17

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
You say
“. It has been my experience that non-trinitarians also have a shaky foundation.”

What is the foundation for the trinity belief?

It is never taught in scripture but perhaps you have found a stronger foundation?  

Mt7
24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,16:02)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,20:52) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,12:31) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,18:49) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,08:45) NT:2258 h@n en (ane); imperfect of NT:1510; I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were): Kathi, An imperfect tense denotes continuous action does it not? Hi Is, According to this explanation below from http://www.studylight.org there is a difference in the case of the verb “to be” which “was” is a form of the infinitive “to be.” I know that I have shown you this before, you may remember. Quote Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. source: http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en God bless, Kathi Yes, but the Greek word “en” in John 1:1c is not in the form of the verb “to be”, that applies to the word “eimi”. En is the imperfect form of eimi, and certainly denotes continuous action in the past. I'm not making this up Kathi, here look: Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Robertson's Word Pictures (NT) Hi Is, I looked up some verses with the present tense of “eimi” and the pop-up is different and says nothing about the imperfect form at all, it only speaks of the present tense here: http://www.studylight.org/isb….2&ot=bh click on estin (5748).  Estin is the Greek form of to be which is translated as “means” note that in (5748) the pop-up only speaks of the present tense and says nothing of the imperfect tense. Then, I found some more imperfect tense forms of “to be” translated as “were” in Matt 4:18 and Mark 1:16. Matt 4:18 is here: http://www.studylight.org/isb….1&ncc=1 Find “hsan (5713)” which is translated as “were,” click on (5713) and you will read the same quote in the pop-up window that we found regarding the “en” in John 1:1. Therefore, words like was and were are the imperfect form of the infinitive “to be” and will have  the  (5713) explanation beside them in studylight.org.  Forms of the word “eimi” that are in the present tense will have the note (5748) by them.  Again, (5713) says this: Quote Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. This exception is not for when you read “to be” since “to be” is not a past tense term at all.  This pop-up is for the imperfect form of the infinitive “to be” and that is rendered as “was” and “were” that is how you say “to be” in past tense.  You don't say “I to be married 27 years ago.”  you would say “I was married 27 years ago.”  The word “was” is the imperfect form (past tense) of the infinitive “to be.” You wrote: Quote Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Robertson's Word Pictures (NT) The imperfect form of “eimi” does not mean “always was” otherwize, the “heavens” always were and “all things” always were since in these next two verses the imperfect form of “eimi” exists (see bold letters). 2 Peter 3:5-6 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, NASU Rev 4:11 11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” NASU Wow, this is not milk here…we are eating the meat Is.  Chew carefully! Enjoy those kids and have fun at the movie. Later, Kathi

Hi Kathi,
I have done a little study and found that your are correct in your assertion that the imperfect tense “en” does not in and of itself denote continuous action (and hence I was wrong – not too proud to admit it!). The word “en” can convey, as you say, past tense, or (as I say) continuous action. The Context of the passage it's put into dictates which is applicable. And yes, it is used in passages outside of John 1:1 where perperuality is clearly not it's intended conveyance. So with regard to it's use in John 1:1 the consensus of the scholars I've read is, I guess, when used in the context of “the beginning” the semantic force of the word signifies that the Logos preexisted it in a continuous sense. It's also important to note though that had John wanted to teach us that the Logos came to exist in the beginning he should have used the verb “egento”, that would have made that point unequivocally.

Blessings

[Lightenup]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 22 2009,21:59)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,16:02) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,20:52) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,12:31) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,18:49) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,08:45) NT:2258 h@n en (ane); imperfect of NT:1510; I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were): Kathi, An imperfect tense denotes continuous action does it not? Hi Is, According to this explanation below from http://www.studylight.org there is a difference in the case of the verb “to be” which “was” is a form of the infinitive “to be.” I know that I have shown you this before, you may remember. Quote Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. source: http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en God bless, Kathi Yes, but the Greek word “en” in John 1:1c is not in the form of the verb “to be”, that applies to the word “eimi”. En is the imperfect form of eimi, and certainly denotes continuous action in the past. I'm not making this up Kathi, here look: Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Robertson's Word Pictures (NT) Hi Is, I looked up some verses with the present tense of “eimi” and the pop-up is different and says nothing about the imperfect form at all, it only speaks of the present tense here: http://www.studylight.org/isb….2&ot=bh click on estin (5748).  Estin is the Greek form of to be which is translated as “means” note that in (5748) the pop-up only speaks of the present tense and says nothing of the imperfect tense. Then, I found some more imperfect tense forms of “to be” translated as “were” in Matt 4:18 and Mark 1:16. Matt 4:18 is here: http://www.studylight.org/isb….1&ncc=1 Find “hsan (5713)” which is translated as “were,” click on (5713) and you will read the same quote in the pop-up window that we found regarding the “en” in John 1:1. Therefore, words like was and were are the imperfect form of the infinitive “to be” and will have  the  (5713) explanation beside them in studylight.org.  Forms of the word “eimi” that are in the present tense will have the note (5748) by them.  Again, (5713) says this: Quote Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. This exception is not for when you read “to be” since “to be” is not a past tense term at all.  This pop-up is for the imperfect form of the infinitive “to be” and that is rendered as “was” and “were” that is how you say “to be” in past tense.  You don't say “I to be married 27 years ago.”  you would say “I was married 27 years ago.”  The word “was” is the imperfect form (past tense) of the infinitive “to be.” You wrote: Quote Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Robertson's Word Pictures (NT) The imperfect form of “eimi” does not mean “always was” otherwize, the “heavens” always were and “all things” always were since in these next two verses the imperfect form of “eimi” exists (see bold letters). 2 Peter 3:5-6 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, NASU Rev 4:11 11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” NASU Wow, this is not milk here…we are eating the meat Is.  Chew carefully! Enjoy those kids and have fun at the movie. Later, Kathi Hi Kathi, I have done a little study and found that your are correct in your assertion that the imperfect tense “en” does not in and of itself denote continuous action (and hence I was wrong – not too proud to admit it!). The word “en” can convey, as you say, past tense, or (as I say) continuous action. The Context of the passage it's put into dictates which is applicable. And yes, it is used in passages outside of John 1:1 where perperuality is clearly not it's intended conveyance. So with regard to it's use in John 1:1 the consensus of the scholars I've read is, I guess, when used in the context of “the beginning” the semantic force of the word signifies that the Logos preexisted it in a continuous sense. It's also important to note though that had John wanted to teach us that the Logos came to exist in the beginning he should have used the verb “egento”, that would have made that point unequivocally. Blessings

Hi Is,
Thanks for
looking into that. You are good to admit when you are wrong. No one loses when truth is discovered. I think your scholars are forcing things there, IMO. Too bad John didn't just write “always was” if that is what he meant.

Of course you have probably read what I think John 1:1 could be referring to and that is:

In the beginning was the word…..”Let there be light”
and the word was with GOD……..”and the light was with GOD (the Father)”
and the word was God……………”and the word was God (the begotten God)”

God bless and guide,
Kathi

[Is 1:18]

Hi Kathi,
The only word John could have chosen for “always was” was the one he used.

Blessings

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi Kathi

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,07:03)

Hi Keith, Do we still have a difference of opinion on whether James White was focusing on “was” or “in?”  It was “was” correct?

Before Isa 1:18 had posted concerning “Was” I had already started this post and I am just now finishing it. (had to go for awhile).

I think you have misunderstood my point about the word “In” (en). James White's point was that “In” the beginning the Word was always there.

James White writes…

Above we noted that John gave us some very important information about the time frame he has in mind when he says “in the beginning.” That information is found in the tense of the verb en. You see, as far back as you wish to push “the beginning,” the Word is already in existence. The Word does not come into existence at the “beginning,” but is already in existence when the “beginning” takes place. If we take the beginning of John 1:1, the Word is already there. If we push it back further (if one can even do so!), say, a year, the Word is already there. A thousand years, the Word is there. A billion years, the Word is there.3

What is John's point? The Word is eternal. The Word has always existed. The Word is not a creation. The New English Bible puts it quite nicely: “When all things began, the Word already was.”

Right from the start, then, John tells us something vital about the Word. Whatever else we will learn about the Word, the Word is eternal.4 With this John begins to lay the foundation for what will come”.  Source

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,07:03)

I agree that all things IN heaven and ON earth were made through the Son of God and that none of those things came into being apart from the Son of God.  That is where I stand on the matter.

Kathi, it seems to me you are changing your theology as you go.

If Jesus didn’t create the “heavens and the earth” then you just threw out Heb 1:2, 10-12

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, “by whom also he made the worlds“;. Heb 1:2

The Greek word for “Worlds” is ‘aiōn’ which means…

1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2) the worlds, universe
3) period of time, age

It’s found translated in the following manner…

AV — ever 71, world 38, never + 3364 + 1519 + 3588 6, evermore 4, age 2, eternal 2, misc 5

Now even if you would say that it is not the physical Universe but is like in many places translated ever, eternity etc., then this would mean that he also created time and eternity. But then the writer clarifies that he created the “Heavens and earth” in verse 10-12.

If you say that Jesus wasn't present and that the Father created the universe with Jesus in mind then you have aligned yourself with the Unitarians.

If you say that the Father did it without Jesus taking part then you have reduced Jesus to not being an agent but instead an empty shell.

That leaves you one other option and that is to regress even further and side with the Unitarians which believe that Heb 1:2 is speaking of the New Creation.

In context none of the above options can be right.

He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.” Heb 1:10-12

The Greek word for “earth” and “heavens” mean the literal ground and the universe.

These verses trump the notion that Heb 1:2 is speaking of the New Creation and that Jesus only created the things “in” heaven and earth.

We know that the new heavens and the earth will not pass away but as these verses show the Genesis creation will pass away.

Another point to make regarding Heb1:2 which could imply time and eternity is that John makes the same implication in John 1:4

“In him was life“, and the life was the light of mankind. John 1:4

It’s important to note that “In him” was life and that life is the light of men, therefore while he is the light it is because the light is “in him” just as the life (Zoë) is in him.

But more than that the Greek word for “Life” is 'zōē'. In every case John uses this word it refers to eternal life.

Here is what the NET says…

8tn John uses ζωή (zwh) 37 times: 17 times it occurs with αἰώνιος (aiwnios), and in the remaining occurrences outside the prologue it is clear from context that “eternal” life is meant. The two uses in 1:4, if they do not refer to “eternal” life, would be the only exceptions. (Also 1 John uses ζωή 13 times, always of “eternal” life.)

Source

If John was meaning that Jesus was “The Eternal life” that was with the Father, and I believe he was according to 1 John 1:1-3 then the word “Was” (en) that precedes it would have to represent continual or repeated action. Something to think about and interesting that John used the word 'Zoë' that way.

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,07:03)

The Son of God and the Heavenly Father are already present in the context and so were obviously there before all things were made IN heaven and ON earth.

John is obviously drawing from the Genesis creation when he says “In the beginning was the Word” John 1:1 and “In the beginning God”, Genesis 1:1, and the Word was God. John 1:1

“God created the heavens and the earth”, Genesis 1:1

“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 1:2, 3

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,07:03)

The word “was” in John 1:1 is the imperfect form of “to be” and does not prove an always existence at all. That is where I stand on that.

Yes, but not always depending on context. And since John says the “Word was God” and God is eternal then I believe it means continual or repeated action.

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,07:03)

I am not an arian, I am not a Jehovah's Witness.  I am a Christian in the way the Lord has shown me to be and believe.

Yes we all believe that we are Christians and that the Lord has shown us the way and what to believe.

However whether you like it or not your Christology places you in a certain group of believe
rs.

As far as an Arian you fit into that group because you do not believe that Jesus is the “One True Eternal God” Read up on the Arian controversy.

As far as your refined beliefs, you fit into the “Henotheist” group.

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,07:03)

I seek the Holy Spirit's guidance.  I am sure there is much more to learn but to change where I stand on the above mentioned beliefs it would take very strong evidence that I sense the Lord showing me and thus far I haven't seen any.

I can’t speak for others but I believe I stand exactly as you do. I believe without a doubt Jesus is my Lord and my God. Not just a god but the True God, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,07:03)

I do believe that the Holy Spirit can use someone on Heaven Net to show me truths, He can even use me to show others truth. Thank you for your time and patience, you guys are great!

And thank you for your tenacious spirit. The feelings are mutual.

Blessings WJ

[Not3in1]

Excellent debate, ladies and gentlemen!
It was a pleasure to follow.

[NickHassan]

Hi Kathi,
One thing the minds of scholars have been busy with for 1800 years is why the trinity idea must be true.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 23 2009,17:43)

Hi Kathi, One thing the minds of scholars have been busy with for 1800 years is why the trinity idea must be true.

Hi NH

And there will always be those who appose the truth!

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ April 23 2009,17:26)

Excellent debate, ladies and gentlemen! It was a pleasure to follow.

Hi Mandy

Thanks!

Hope you and yours are doing well!

Blessings Keith

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Not3in1 @ April 23 2009,17:26)

Excellent debate, ladies and gentlemen! It was a pleasure to follow.

Mandy,
What do you mean that it “was” a pleasure to follow? Do you mean that it “was” according to LU or according to Is.1:18? Sorry, I couldn't resist.  

thinker

[Lightenup]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 23 2009,00:47)

Hi Kathi, The only word John could have chosen for “always was” was the one he used. Blessings

Is,
I don't agree that the term “was” is ever used in a continual sense like normal imperfect tense words because of what studylight said. I would like to study their source but they do not state one as far as I can see.
Never-the-less, if it can be used in a continuous sense, the term “continuous sense” does not mean an “eternally continuous sense” does it?

God bless your day,
Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ April 23 2009,09:18)

Quote (Not3in1 @ April 23 2009,17:26) Excellent debate, ladies and gentlemen! It was a pleasure to follow. Mandy, What do you mean that it “was” a pleasure to follow? Do you mean that it “was” according to LU or according to Is.1:18? Sorry, I couldn't resist.   thinker

Thank you Mandy and thank you Thinker (that was very funny).
I have a feeling that Mandy didn't mean “eternally was a pleasure” but that her “pleasure” had a beginning

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

Is, I don't agree that the term “was” is ever used in a continual sense like normal imperfect tense words because of what studylight said.  I would like to study their source but they do not state one as far as I can see. Never-the-less, if it can be used in a continuous sense, the term “continuous sense” does not mean an “eternally continuous sense” does it?

Are you two going to ever get beyond “was” and move on to context?

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,01:22)

Quote (thethinker @ April 23 2009,09:18) Quote (Not3in1 @ April 23 2009,17:26) Excellent debate, ladies and gentlemen! It was a pleasure to follow. Mandy, What do you mean that it “was” a pleasure to follow? Do you mean that it “was” according to LU or according to Is.1:18? Sorry, I couldn't resist.   thinker Thank you Mandy and thank you Thinker (that was very funny). I have a feeling that Mandy didn't mean “eternally was a pleasure” but that her “pleasure” had a beginning

Kathi,
You can't be sly with me. It's all about context.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

I agree that all things IN heaven and ON earth were made through the Son of God and that none of those things came into being apart from the Son of God.  That is where I stand on the matter….The Son of God and the Heavenly Father are already present in the context and so were obviously there before all things were made IN heaven and ON earth.  That is where I stand on that.

Excellent!

LU said:

Quote

The word “was” in John 1:1 is the imperfect form of “to be” and does not prove an always existence at all. That is where I stand on that.

Kathi,
There you go again (spoken as respectfully as is in me). You're clinging to words out of context. Take a look at verse 9,

Quote

He [the Word] was the true light which lights every man

Major premise: God is light
Minor premise: The Word is the true light
Conclusion: Therefore, God is the Word

or,

Major premise: The Word is the true light
Minor premise: God is light
Conclusion: Therefore, the Word is God

So parse the verb “was” anyway you want. The underlying mathematics cannot be changed.

thinker

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 23 2009,01:25)

Hi Kathi Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,07:03) Hi Keith, Do we still have a difference of opinion on whether James White was focusing on “was” or “in?”  It was “was” correct? Before Isa 1:18 had posted concerning “Was” I had already started this post and I am just now finishing it. (had to go for awhile). I think you have misunderstood my point about the word “In” (en). James White's point was that “In” the beginning the Word was always there. James White writes… Above we noted that John gave us some very important information about the time frame he has in mind when he says “in the beginning.” That information is found in the tense of the verb en. You see, as far back as you wish to push “the beginning,” the Word is already in existence. The Word does not come into existence at the “beginning,” but is already in existence when the “beginning” takes place. If we take the beginning of John 1:1, the Word is already there. If we push it back further (if one can even do so!), say, a year, the Word is already there. A thousand years, the Word is there. A billion years, the Word is there.3 What is John's point? The Word is eternal. The Word has always existed. The Word is not a creation. The New English Bible puts it quite nicely: “When all things began, the Word already was.” Right from the start, then, John tells us something vital about the Word. Whatever else we will learn about the Word, the Word is eternal.4 With this John begins to lay the foundation for what will come”.  Source Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,07:03) I agree that all things IN heaven and ON earth were made through the Son of God and that none of those things came into being apart from the Son of God.  That is where I stand on the matter. Kathi, it seems to me you are changing your theology as you go. If Jesus didn’t create the “heavens and the earth” then you just threw out Heb 1:2, 10-12 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, “by whom also he made the worlds“;. Heb 1:2 The Greek word for “Worlds” is ‘aiōn’ which means… 1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity 2) the worlds, universe 3) period of time, age It’s found translated in the following manner… AV — ever 71, world 38, never + 3364 + 1519 + 3588 6, evermore 4, age 2, eternal 2, misc 5 Now even if you would say that it is not the physical Universe but is like in many places translated ever, eternity etc., then this would mean that he also created time and eternity. But then the writer clarifies that he created the “Heavens and earth” in verse 10-12. If you say that Jesus wasn't present and that the Father created the universe with Jesus in mind then you have aligned yourself with the Unitarians. If you say that the Father did it without Jesus taking part then you have reduced Jesus to not being an agent but instead an empty shell. That leaves you one other option and that is to regress even further and side with the Unitarians which believe that Heb 1:2 is speaking of the New Creation. In context none of the above options can be right. He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.” Heb 1:10-12 The Greek word for “earth” and “heavens” mean the literal ground and the universe. These verses trump the notion that Heb 1:2 is speaking of the New Creation and that Jesus only created the things “in” heaven and earth. We know that the new heavens and the earth will not pass away but as these verses show the Genesis creation will pass away. Another point to make regarding Heb1:2 which could imply time and eternity is that John makes the same implication in John 1:4 “In him was life“, and the life was the light of mankind. John 1:4 It’s important to note that “In him” was life and that life is the light of men, therefore while he is the light it is because the light is “in him” just as the life (Zoë) is in him. But more than that the Greek word for “Life” is 'zōē'. In every case John uses this word it refers to eternal life. Here is what the NET says… 8tn John uses ζωή (zwh) 37 times: 17 times it occurs with αἰώνιος (aiwnios), and in the remaining occurrences outside the prologue it is clear from context that “eternal” life is meant. The two uses in 1:4, if they do not refer to “eternal” life, would be the only exceptions. (Also 1 John uses ζωή 13 times, always of “eternal” life.) Source If John was meaning that Jesus was “The Eternal life” that was with the Father, and I believe he was according to 1 John 1:1-3 then the word “Was” (en) that precedes it would have to represent continual or repeated action. Something to think about and interesting that John used the word 'Zoë' that way. Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,07:03) The Son of God and the Heavenly Father are already present in the context and so were obviously there before all things were made IN heaven and ON earth. John is obviously drawing from the Genesis creation when he says “In the beginning was the Word” John 1:1 and “In the beginning God”, Genesis 1:1, and the Word was God. John 1:1 “God created the heavens and the earth”, Genesis 1:1 “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 1:2, 3 Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,07:03) The word “was” in John 1:1 is the imperfect form of “to be” and does not prove an always existence at all. That is where I stand on that. Yes, but not always depending on context. And since John says the “Word was God” and God is eternal then I believe it means continual or repeated action. Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,07:03) I am not an arian, I am not a Jehovah's Witness.  I am a Christian in the way the Lord has shown me to be and believe. Yes we all believe that we are Christians and that the Lord has shown us the way and what to believe. However whether you like it or not your Christology places you in a certain group of believers. As far as an Arian you fit into that group because you do not believe that Jesus is the “One True Eternal God” Read up on the Arian controversy. As far as your refined beliefs, you fit into the “Henotheist” group. Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,07:03) I seek the Holy Spirit's guidance.  I am sure there is much more to learn but to change where I stand on the above mentioned beliefs it would take very strong evidence that I sense the Lord showing me and thus far I haven't seen any. I can’t speak for others but I believe I stand exactly as you do. I believe without a doubt Jesus is my Lord and my God. Not just a god but the True God, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,07:03) I do believe that the Holy Spirit can use someone on Heaven Net to show me truths, He can even use me to show others truth. Thank you for your time and patience, you guys are great! And thank you for your tenacious spirit. The feelings are mutual. Blessings WJ

Good morning Keith,
The Lord is blessing the Southland with another beautiful day.

Now, onto my response to your post.

You wrote:

Quote

I think you have misunderstood my point about the word “In” (en). James White's point was that “In” the beginning the Word was always there.

Whatever Keith, I do strongly believe that he is wrong and places a whole lot of theology on very shaky ground. I looked up the word for “in” and found the Strong's definition interesting.

NT:1722
e)n
en (en); a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between NT:1519 and NT:1537); “in,” at, (up-) on, by, etc.:

Did you note in the above definition that the preposition used “en” is denoting a “fixed” position in place, “time” or state and the word “at” can also be used for this Greek word? So therefore, a fixed time would not lend itself to an eternally continuous time as James White suggests. That is not merely shaky ground but the suggestion that “In the beginning was” means “always was” has no foundation except in the bias of someone with a predetermined belief in an always existent son. I sure would like to move on from debating this idea…it is unfounded and taking way too much of our time IMO

Quote

Kathi, it seems to me you are changing your theology as you go. If Jesus didn’t create the “heavens and the earth” then you just threw out Heb 1:2, 10-12 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, “by whom also he made the worlds”;. Heb 1:2

No, I am not changing my theology as I go, you just aren't fully comprehending it and I will try to clarify for you. I believe that the Son WAS used to make the worlds (which could mean this world AND the new world or this world and the planets); He was used to make the one we stand on, He made it go from formless and void to formed and inhabited. In that sense I believe He made this world. I don't believe that He was used to make the formless world but He began after the formless world existed.

Quote

He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.” Heb 1:10-12 The Greek word for “earth” and “heavens” mean the literal ground and the universe.

Like I said, I believe that He was used to lay the foundations of the earth. Did you realize that the foundations of the earth were still considered to be in process while the seas were being seperated from the dry land?

Prov 8:22-30

22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
23 “From everlasting I was established,
From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.
24 “When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no springs abounding with water.
25 “Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills I was brought forth;
26 While He had not yet made the earth and the fields,
Nor the first dust of the world.
27 “When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
28 When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,
29 When He set for the sea its boundary
So that the water would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
NASU

Also, realize that the sun and moon and stars are works in the heavens and they were created after day one and not before.

Please note that the Son was involved in creating things that will perish in this passage, time doesn't perish or we wouldn't have a future eternity. The Bible tells us there will be no night in the future but it doesn't say we will have no more day. The things that will perish are the earth which He made (He was used to form it) and apparently the sun and moon (it says we will have no need for them).

Heb 1:11-12
They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.”
NASU

Rev 21:23-24
23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.
NASU

Quote

“In him was life”, and the life was the light of mankind. John 1:4 It’s important to note that “In him” was life and that life is the light of men, therefore while he is the light it is because the light is “in him” just as the life (Zoë) is in him. But more than that the Greek word for “Life” is 'zōē'. In every case John uses this word it refers to eternal life. Here is what the NET says… 8tn John uses ζωή (zwh) 37 times: 17 times it occurs with αἰώνιος (aiwnios), and in the remaining occurrences outside the prologue it is clear from context that “eternal” life is meant. T he two uses in 1:4, if they do not refer to “eternal” life, would be the only exceptions. (Also 1 John uses ζωή 13 times, always of “eternal” life.) Source

The word “zwh” means life, it is used to refer to both this temporary life and eternal life. We hope to have eternal life and the term eternal life doesn't necessarily mean eternal past and eternal future…so if the Son has life and light in Him, so can we and we weren't eternally existent. The argument that you use that life and light is in Him somehow implies that He always existed is without merit since we have light and life in us.

Quote

However whether you like it or not your Christology places you in a certain group of believers.

I certainly would like to think that I agree with a certain group of believers and that would be the ones that know truth.

The arians believe that the Son was created, I don't. The term “create” implies making something of a different kind, not like “reproduction” which implies making something of the same kind.

The henotheist believe in more than one GOD, I don't.
As I have said many times here, I believe there is
One GOD, (the Father)
One God, the begotten
and many gods who are not Gods or GODS at all.

Keith, I appreciate your posts because I know that you have spent a ton of time on them just as I have here. If we agreed on everything what would we do with all that free time we would gain?

Enjoy this pretty spring day,
Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ April 23 2009,10:02)

Lightenup said: Quote I agree that all things IN heaven and ON earth were made through the Son of God and that none of those things came into being apart from the Son of God.  That is where I stand on the matter….The Son of God and the Heavenly Father are already present in the context and so were obviously there before all things were made IN heaven and ON earth.  That is where I stand on that. Excellent! LU said: Quote The word “was” in John 1:1 is the imperfect form of “to be” and does not prove an always existence at all. That is where I stand on that. Kathi, There you go again (spoken as respectfully as is in me). You're clinging to words out of context. Take a look at verse 9, Quote He [the Word] was the true light which lights every man Major premise: God is light Minor premise: The Word is the true light Conclusion: Therefore, God is the Word or, Major premise: The Word is the true light Minor premise: God is light Conclusion: Therefore, the Word is God So parse the verb “was” anyway you want. The underlying mathematics cannot be changed. thinker

Thinker,
GOD (the Father) is LIGHT
God (the Son) is the Light from LIGHT

So, I ask you can anything but true Light come from true LIGHT.

To say it another way, the Father is the true Light and the Son is the true Light from the Father.

When GOD spoke “Let there be Light” did false light appear or true light?

Smile Thinker, it really isn't that hard to grasp this,
Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 23 2009,01:43)

Hi Kathi, One thing the minds of scholars have been busy with for 1800 years is why the trinity idea must be true.

Hi Nick,
But then if it weren't for the trinity doctrine we would have all this time on our hands to promote other things.
Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ April 23 2009,09:26)

Lightenup said: Quote Is, I don't agree that the term “was” is ever used in a continual sense like normal imperfect tense words because of what studylight said.  I would like to study their source but they do not state one as far as I can see. Never-the-less, if it can be used in a continuous sense, the term “continuous sense” does not mean an “eternally continuous sense” does it? Are you two going to ever get beyond “was” and move on to context? thinker

Thinker,
If your were sitting behind me would you be the one pulling my hair?

'Cause if you would be, I should tell you that I have a big strong husband and four strong sons plus I have a blue belt in karate'… so think about that why don't cha, Thinker.

Love ya,
Kathi

[Cindy]

It is always amazing to me how others use scripture and their explanation of it. I always read the SCRIPTURES BY ITS CONTEXT. John 1:1-14
The Word was God and the Word was with God. It is plain to me that two are present in this Scripture. All things were created by Him(by the Word who became flesh) He was the Light of the World, and in verse 14 became flesh. At this point He will be called Jesus, the name Mary and Joseph gave Him, directed by the Father God.
If we search the Scripture we will find that both have a name. Jehovah God and Yeshua God. God is a title and even Satan is called God of this world. That is the way I see it. It is my opinion, and I am human and could be proven wrong.
Peace and Love Irene

[Author]

Posts