- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,09:52) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,11:00) Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,07:31) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,07:13) Paladin,
Why haven't you answered the compelling evidnce against you in respect to plagiarism?thinker
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!Com…. ha! Ha!
Compelling WHAT? Ha! Ha! Ha!
WJ scans the world wiode web and finds another site out of thousands, that agrees with my own study, and think he has ha! ha! EVIDENCE?
YOU TWO KATANJAMMER KIDS NEED A BREAK.
Paladin,This was more than “agreement.” It was word for word. How likely is that? I want to remind you that plagiarism is prohibited in the rules of this board and is against the law in my part of the world. Hopefully enough negative has come to you that you will not do it again.
thinker
I want to remind YOU that lying is against the board rules, and attacking fellow posters is against the rules. Perhaps you have learned your lesson and will refrain from continuing such behaviour, and will not do it again.
Hi PDCalling someone a liar does not make the evidence go away.
In a court of law when the evidence is presented then it is left for the defendant to prove the evidence is false.
The Jury would not take attacking the accuser by calling him a liar very seriously, but in fact would look for proof that the evidence is false!
WJ
Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,11:00) Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,07:31) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,07:13) Paladin,
Why haven't you answered the compelling evidnce against you in respect to plagiarism?thinker
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!Com…. ha! Ha!
Compelling WHAT? Ha! Ha! Ha!
WJ scans the world wiode web and finds another site out of thousands, that agrees with my own study, and think he has ha! ha! EVIDENCE?
YOU TWO KATANJAMMER KIDS NEED A BREAK.
Paladin,This was more than “agreement.” It was word for word. How likely is that? I want to remind you that plagiarism is prohibited in the rules of this board and is against the law in my part of the world. Hopefully enough negative has come to you that you will not do it again.
thinker
thinker.Could you please quit with the plagiarism charges. Nobody cares about it unless they are out to discredit people. Paladin also denies that he did that, so just leave him be. If he is wrong, he will have to explain to God and not you.
These forums are about testing scriptures and doctrines.
So I ask that you quit this pettiness otherwise I will have to take some action.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,02:52) Paladin, This was more than “agreement.” It was word for word. How likely is that? I want to remind you that plagiarism is prohibited in the rules of this board and is against the law in my part of the world. Hopefully enough negative has come to you that you will not do it again.
thinker[/quote]
I want to remind YOU that lying is against the board rules, and attacking fellow posters is against the rules. Perhaps you have learned your lesson and will refrain from continuing such behaviour, and will not do it again.[/quote]
Hi PDCalling someone a liar does not make the evidence go away.
In a court of law when the evidence is presented then it is left for the defendant to prove the evidence is false.
The Jury would not take attacking the accuser by calling him a liar very seriously, but in fact would look for proof that the evidence is false!
WJ
WJ, can you also please quit this pettiness.This forum is about scripture vs punctuation in translations. If you continue with this, I will have to take some action.
Please, no more attacking people. It is God that judges us, not you. Leave that part to God please and get on with the job of proving what you believe.
Quote (t8 @ July 04 2009,11:18) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,11:00) Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,07:31) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,07:13) Paladin,
Why haven't you answered the compelling evidnce against you in respect to plagiarism?thinker
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!Com…. ha! Ha!
Compelling WHAT? Ha! Ha! Ha!
WJ scans the world wiode web and finds another site out of thousands, that agrees with my own study, and think he has ha! ha! EVIDENCE?
YOU TWO KATANJAMMER KIDS NEED A BREAK.
Paladin,This was more than “agreement.” It was word for word. How likely is that? I want to remind you that plagiarism is prohibited in the rules of this board and is against the law in my part of the world. Hopefully enough negative has come to you that you will not do it again.
thinker
thinker.Could you please quit with the plagiarism charges. Nobody cares about it unless they are out to discredit people. Paladin also denies that he did that, so just leave him be. If he is wrong, he will have to explain to God and not you.
These forums are about testing scriptures and doctrines.
So I ask that you quit this pettiness otherwise I will have to take some action.
Hi t8How about addressing the name calling that PD has been doing, and calling someone a liar without proof that they are lying?
What about the patronizing and belittling of the person for their education like PD has done to Jack?
Are those actions becomming of a Christian and allowed on this board?
WJ
Quote (t8 @ July 04 2009,11:22) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,02:52) Paladin, This was more than “agreement.” It was word for word. How likely is that? I want to remind you that plagiarism is prohibited in the rules of this board and is against the law in my part of the world. Hopefully enough negative has come to you that you will not do it again.
thinker
I want to remind YOU that lying is against the board rules, and attacking fellow posters is against the rules. Perhaps you have learned your lesson and will refrain from continuing such behaviour, and will not do it again.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2009,10:52) Hi PD Calling someone a liar does not make the evidence go away.
In a court of law when the evidence is presented then it is left for the defendant to prove the evidence is false.
The Jury would not take attacking the accuser by calling him a liar very seriously, but in fact would look for proof that the evidence is false!
WJ
Quote (t8 @ July 04 2009,11:22) WJ, can you also please quit this pettiness. This forum is about scripture vs punctuation in translations. If you continue with this, I will have to take some action.
Please, no more attacking people. It is God that judges us, not you. Leave that part to God please and get on with the job of proving what you believe.
Hi t8Everything in my statement is true and is not to attack him but was to show him that calling Jack a liar was uncalled for!
But per your request I will drop it and give it to the Lord and let the readers decide for themselves.
WJ
Quote (t8 @ July 05 2009,03:18) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,11:00) Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,07:31) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,07:13) Paladin,
Why haven't you answered the compelling evidnce against you in respect to plagiarism?thinker
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!Com…. ha! Ha!
Compelling WHAT? Ha! Ha! Ha!
WJ scans the world wiode web and finds another site out of thousands, that agrees with my own study, and think he has ha! ha! EVIDENCE?
YOU TWO KATANJAMMER KIDS NEED A BREAK.
Paladin,This was more than “agreement.” It was word for word. How likely is that? I want to remind you that plagiarism is prohibited in the rules of this board and is against the law in my part of the world. Hopefully enough negative has come to you that you will not do it again.
thinker
thinker.Could you please quit with the plagiarism charges. Nobody cares about it unless they are out to discredit people. Paladin also denies that he did that, so just leave him be. If he is wrong, he will have to explain to God and not you.
These forums are about testing scriptures and doctrines.
So I ask that you quit this pettiness otherwise I will have to take some action.
t8,
Okay I will quit. I noticed that you issued a charge to both me and WJ but not to Paladin.thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,02:52) Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,09:52) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,11:00) Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,07:31) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,07:13) Paladin,
Why haven't you answered the compelling evidnce against you in respect to plagiarism?thinker
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!Com…. ha! Ha!
Compelling WHAT? Ha! Ha! Ha!
WJ scans the world wide web and finds another site out of thousands, that agrees with my own study, and think he has ha! ha! EVIDENCE?
YOU TWO KATANJAMMER KIDS NEED A BREAK.
Paladin,This was more than “agreement.” It was word for word. How likely is that? I want to remind you that plagiarism is prohibited in the rules of this board and is against the law in my part of the world. Hopefully enough negative has come to you that you will not do it again.
thinker
I want to remind YOU that lying is against the board rules, and attacking fellow posters is against the rules. Perhaps you have learned your lesson and will refrain from continuing such behaviour, and will not do it again.(WJ)
Quote Hi PD
Calling someone a liar does not make the evidence go away.In a court of law when the evidence is presented then it is left for the defendant to prove the evidence is false.
The Jury would not take attacking the accuser by calling him a liar very seriously, but in fact would look for proof that the evidence is false!
WJ
You better not quit your day job, because if that is a sample of law you are getting at your school, you will never pass the bar.
The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. The accused doesn't have to prove ANYTHING. Where did you get your law training? In that Greek class?
As for what you are calling evidence, why don't you take it to a lawyer and see if he will take your case. He will laugh you out of his office. Or, better yet, take it to a prosecutor, he might even charge YOU with practicing law without a brain.
Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,12:19) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,02:52) [/quote] Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,09:52) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,11:00) Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,07:31) thethinker,July wrote:Paladin,
Why haven't you answered the compelling evidnce against you in respect to plagiarism?thinker
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!Com…. ha! Ha!
Compelling WHAT? Ha! Ha! Ha!
WJ scans the world wide web and finds another site out of thousands, that agrees with my own study, and think he has ha! ha! EVIDENCE?
YOU TWO KATANJAMMER KIDS NEED A BREAK.
Paladin,This was more than “agreement.” It was word for word. How likely is that? I want to remind you that plagiarism is prohibited in the rules of this board and is against the law in my part of the world. Hopefully enough negative has come to you that you will not do it again.
thinker
I want to remind YOU that lying is against the board rules, and attacking fellow posters is against the rules. Perhaps you have learned your lesson and will refrain from continuing such behaviour, and will not do it again.(WJ)
Quote Hi PD
Calling someone a liar does not make the evidence go away.In a court of law when the evidence is presented then it is left for the defendant to prove the evidence is false.
The Jury would not take attacking the accuser by calling him a liar very seriously, but in fact would look for proof that the evidence is false!
WJ
You better not quit your day job, because if that is a sample of law you are getting at your school, you will never pass the bar.
The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. The accused doesn't have to prove ANYTHING. Where did you get your law training? In that Greek class?
As for what you are calling evidence, why don't you take it to a lawyer and see if he will take your case. He will laugh you out of his office. Or, better yet, take it to a prosecutor, he might even charge YOU with practicing law without a brain.
Hi PDt8 said drop it so when are you gonna drop it and quit the patronizing?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,05:07) Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,12:19) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,02:52) Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,09:52) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,11:00) Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,07:31) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,07:13) Paladin,
Why haven't you answered the compelling evidnce against you in respect to plagiarism?thinker
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!Com…. ha! Ha!
Compelling WHAT? Ha! Ha! Ha!
WJ scans the world wide web and finds another site out of thousands, that agrees with my own study, and think he has ha! ha! EVIDENCE?
YOU TWO KATANJAMMER KIDS NEED A BREAK.
Paladin,This was more than “agreement.” It was word for word. How likely is that? I want to remind you that plagiarism is prohibited in the rules of this board and is against the law in my part of the world. Hopefully enough negative has come to you that you will not do it again.
thinker
I want to remind YOU that lying is against the board rules, and attacking fellow posters is against the rules. Perhaps you have learned your lesson and will refrain from continuing such behaviour, and will not do it again.(WJ)
Quote Hi PD
Calling someone a liar does not make the evidence go away.In a court of law when the evidence is presented then it is left for the defendant to prove the evidence is false.
The Jury would not take attacking the accuser by calling him a liar very seriously, but in fact would look for proof that the evidence is false!
WJ
You better not quit your day job, because if that is a sample of law you are getting at your school, you will never pass the bar.
The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. The accused doesn't have to prove ANYTHING. Where did you get your law training? In that Greek class?
As for what you are calling evidence, why don't you take it to a lawyer and see if he will take your case. He will laugh you out of his office. Or, better yet, take it to a prosecutor, he might even charge YOU with practicing law without a brain.
Hi PDt8 said drop it so when are you gonna drop it and quit the patronizing?
WJ
Wednesday, the 47th of septober?Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,11:07) Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 04 2009,11:03) Hi TT,
Silly stuff really.
Have you got to look at Acts 10.38 for us yet?
Nick,
What does Acts 10:38 have to do with this discussion?thinker
Hi TT,
I knew you would eventually address it.
Perhaps in the thread as it makes trinity an obvious sham.Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 05 2009,06:51) Quote (thethinker @ July 04 2009,11:07) Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 04 2009,11:03) Hi TT,
Silly stuff really.
Have you got to look at Acts 10.38 for us yet?
Nick,
What does Acts 10:38 have to do with this discussion?thinker
Hi TT,
I knew you would eventually address it.
Perhaps in the thread as it makes trinity an obvious sham.
The word translated “WITH” in many cases in the New Testament, is [META = GENITIVE PREPOSITION]This word shos us of a relationship between God and Christ, God and men, Christ and men, and other things, but the point of focus is what meta does NOT say. It does NOT say God is us, but God is WITH us, as he was with Jesus, and many others.
GOD WAS WOTH JESUS
Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was [meta]with him.GOD WAS WITH JOSEPH, BUT WASN'T JOSEPH
Acts 7:9 And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt: but God was [meta] with him,GOD IS WITH US IN THE BABY, BUT GOD WASN'T THE BABY
Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God [meta] with us.MEN WERE WITH DAVID, WHO WERE NOT DAVID
Matthew 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were [meta] with him, but only for the priests?[Luke 6:4]CENTURIAN WAS WITH MEN WHO WERE NOT HIM
Matthew 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were [meta] with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.GOD WAS WITH JESUS BUT WAS NOT JESUS
John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be [meta] with him.BOLDNESS WAS WITH MEN BUT MEN ARE NOT BOLDNESS
Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God [meta] with boldness.GOD BROUGHT ISRAEL OUT OF EGYPT WITH A MIGHTY ARM BUT GOD IS NOT AN ARM
Acts 13:17 The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and [meta] with an high arm brought he them out of it.GOD DID THINGS WITH MEN BUT GOD IS NOT MEN
Acts 14:27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done [meta] with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.Acts 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done [meta] with them.
MEN WERE WITH JOY BUT WERE NOT JOY
Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course [meta] with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.MEN WITH PAUL WERE GIVEN TO PAUL, WERE NOT PAUL
Acts 27:24 Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail [meta] with thee.MEN WITH CONFIDENCE, WERE NOT CONFIDENCE
Acts 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, [meta] with all confidence, no man forbidding him.GOD IS WITH US, IS NOT US
Romans 15:33 Now the God of peace be [meta] with you all. Amen.JESUS CHRIST IS WITH US, IS NOT US
Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be [meta] with you.TEMPLE OF GOD IS NOT IDOLS
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God [meta] with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.GOD IS WITH US, IS NOT US
2 Corinthians 13:11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be [meta] with you.GRACE OF JESUS, LOVE OF GOD, COMMUNION OF HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT US
2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with [meta] you all. Amen.LOVE IS WITH FAITH, BUT LOVE IS NOT FAITH
Ephesians 6:23 Peace be to the brethren, and love [meta] with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.PRAYER AND SUPPLICATION IS NOT THANKSGIVING
Philippians 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication [meta] with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.GOD “WITH US” IS NOT GOD “IS US”
Philippians 4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be [meta] with you.JESUS IS WITH SAINTS BUT IS NOT THE SAINTS
1 Thessalonians 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ [meta] with all his saintsTHANKSGIVING IS NOT MEATS
1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received [meta] with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received [meta] with thanksgiving:
REVERANCE IS ACCEPTABLE, DOES NOT MEAN ACCEPTABLE
Hebrews 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably [meta] with reverence and godly fear:HOPE IS WITH MEEKNESS, IS NOT MEEKNESS
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you [meta] with meekness and fear:GRACE IS WITH YOU, IS NOT YOU
2 John 1:3 Grace be [meta] with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.WAR WITH SEED, NOT, WAR IS SEED
Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war [meta] with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.DEFILED WITH WOMEN IS NOT DEFILED WOMEN
Revelation 14:4 These are they which were not defiled [meta] with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.SAINTS REIGN WITH CHRIST IS NOT REIGN AS CHRIST
Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and
they lived and reigned [meta] with Christ a thousand years.REIGN WITH HIM IS NOT HIM
Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign [meta] with him a thousand years.GOD IS WITH MEN, IS NOT MEN
Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is [meta] with men, and he will dwell [meta] with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be [meta] with them, and be their God.Paladin……..You have correctly explained the word (With), It amazes me that they can't even understand this. Surely it has happened as Isiah has said “they have eyes to see but see not, ears to hear but hear not”. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………………………gene
Hi PD
Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,17:17) The word translated “WITH” in many cases in the New Testament, is [META = GENITIVE PREPOSITION] This word shos us of a relationship between God and Christ, God and men, Christ and men, and other things, but the point of focus is what meta does NOT say. It does NOT say God is us, but God is WITH us, as he was with Jesus, and many others.
Yes you are correct, Jesus was “with” the Father and the Father was with him, in fact they were “in each other” and Jesus claimed that they were “ONE”. Just as we have seen YHWH with Adonay in PS 110.”I give them eternal life”, and they shall never perish; “no one can snatch them out of my hand”. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. “I and the Father are one”. Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” John 10:28-33
The Jews recognized Jesus claim to be God and picked up stones to stone him for several reasons.
1. Jesus claims to be “The Good Shepard”.
2. Jesus claims the children of Israel (the sheep) were his own.
3. Jesus claims that no man could pluck them out of his hand.
4. Jesus claims that he and God are “One”.
There is another Greek word for with also…
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [PRO] God, and the Word was God. John 1:1
A.T. Robertson gives us light on this clause.
With God (prov ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhqeiav, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom. Source
PD says…
Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,17:17)
…but the point of focus is what meta does NOT say. It does NOT say God is us, but God is WITH us, as he was with Jesus, and many others.
Trying to establish a truth from the scriptures by what the scriptures “do not say” is a straw mans attempt at best to counteract what the scriptures “do say”.If this was a valid method of establishing truth then by that method alone the Trinitarian view destroys all others because in 66 books of the Bible the scriptures “do not say” that Jesus isn't God, especially in light of the fact that the scriptures claim he is.
Even if one was to say that “the Word that was with God” is not the preexistent Jesus, then they still have to deal with the clearly written phrase…
“The Word was God”, and that by itself destroys any notion that the Word is not a person (for God is personal) and that a person can be with God and having a relationship with God can still be God!
Then of course John 1:2, 3 put the nail in the coffin!
He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; “WITHOUT HIM NOTHING WAS MADE THAT HAS BEEN MADE. John 1:1-3
For a good debate on John 1:1 Click here!
Blessings WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,20:01) Hi PD Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,17:17) The word translated “WITH” in many cases in the New Testament, is [META = GENITIVE PREPOSITION] This word shos us of a relationship between God and Christ, God and men, Christ and men, and other things, but the point of focus is what meta does NOT say. It does NOT say God is us, but God is WITH us, as he was with Jesus, and many others.
Yes you are correct, Jesus was “with” the Father and the Father was with him, in fact they were “in each other” and Jesus claimed that they were “ONE”. Just as we have seen YHWH with Adonay in PS 110.”I give them eternal life”, and they shall never perish; “no one can snatch them out of my hand”. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. “I and the Father are one”. Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” John 10:28-33
The Jews recognized Jesus claim to be God and picked up stones to stone him for several reasons.
1. Jesus claims to be “The Good Shepard”.
2. Jesus claims the children of Israel (the sheep) were his own.
3. Jesus claims that no man could pluck them out of his hand.
4. Jesus claims that he and God are “One”.
There is another Greek word for with also…
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [PRO] God, and the Word was God. John 1:1
A.T. Robertson gives us light on this clause.
With God (prov ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhqeiav, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom. Source
PD says…
Quote (Paladin @ July 04 2009,17:17)
…but the point of focus is what meta does NOT say. It does NOT say God is us, but God is WITH us, as he was with Jesus, and many others.
Trying to establish a truth from the scriptures by what the scriptures “do not say” is a straw mans attempt at best to counteract what the scriptures “do say”.If this was a valid method of establishing truth then by that method alone the Trinitarian view destroys all others because in 66 books of the Bible the scriptures “do not say” that Jesus isn't God, especially in light of the fact that the scriptures claim he is.
Even if one was to say that “the Word that was with God” is not the preexistent Jesus, then they still have to deal with the clearly written phrase…
“The Word was God”, and that by itself destroys any notion that the Word is not a person (for God is a personal) and that a person can be with God and having a relationship with God can still be God!
Then of course John 1:2, 3 put the nail in the coffin!
He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; “WITHOUT HIM NOTHING WAS MADE THAT HAS BEEN MADE. John 1:1-3
For a good debate on John 1:1 Click here!
Blessings WJ
WHAT JESUS SAID;
“I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30]WHAT THE JEWS HEARD JESUS SAY;
“I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30]WHAT THE JEWS CLAIMED JESUS' WORDS MEANT;
“..thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” [John 10:33]WHAT JESUS SAID HIS WORD MEANT;
“… I said, I am the Son of God?” [John 10:36]The Jews were trying so desparately to “catch him in his words” they committed perjury in order to trap him, but they did not succeed. Top show that they understood perfectly well what he was saying, look at how they changed their testimony at his public trial, at which time they knew if they were caught in a lie they would pay the full penalty of law -.
“The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he MADE HIMSELF THE SON OF GOD.” [John 19:7]
Why do you suppose they did not continue their charade of claiming he “maketh thyself God?”
47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. 53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.” [John 11:47-53]“Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.” [John 18:14]
The Jews began a campaign of persecution against Jesus soon after he drove the money lenders out of the temple, which according to John's account, happened three days after the miracle at the wedding feast, which began his public ministry.
Yet YOU take the side of the accusing Jews. Wonder why that is. Oh, right, trinitarian. Don't require evidence, just testimony of unbelieving Jews who changed their testimony at his trial.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 05 2009,20:01) (WJ)There is another Greek word for with also… In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [PRO] God, and the Word was God. John 1:1
A.T. Robertson gives us light on this clause.
With God (prov ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhqeiav, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom. Source
I don't know whether the error is yours, A.T.R.'s, the publisher, or whether it is written differently by ATR in a volume other than the one I possess.
In A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; by A.T.Robertson, page 761, ATR has “pros ton theon” not “prov ton theon” as your quote presents it.
My argument is with the meaning of “pros ton theon” as John uses it in 1:1, versus what the commentators have to say about it.
If, as the commentators claim, “pros ton” followed by an “accusative”- “presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.”
I deny any such thing found in scripture. Look at how “pros ton” followed by accusative, shows up in scripture –
Exo 24:2 And Moses alone shall come [pros ton] near (accusative the LORD): but they shall not come nigh; neither shall the people go up with him.
Was Moses in a plane of equality with God?
Luke 19:35 And they brought him [pros ton] to Jesus [accusative]: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.
Was the colt, the foal of an ass in a “plane of equality and intimacy” with Jesus?
Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy [pros ton] against (accusative God), to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
Was Satan in a “plane of equality and intimacy” with God when he “opened his mouth in blasphemy?”
It is a lie foisted on the minds of religious zealots by overly religious commentators whose function in life is to make Jesus more than he really is.
WJ….Why can't you come to grips and understand these things brother, trash the Trinitarian Garbage, and believe that there is (ONLY) ONE TRUE GOD, AS JESUS AND THE LORD GOD SAID, no other brother. “HEAR O ISRAEL THE LORD OUR GOD IS (ONE) LORD, NOT TWO OR THREE ANYTHINGS. I know it is hard to let go of what you have been taught all your life , but with GOD'S Help it is possible. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………………gene
Hi ALL
Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2009,09:18)
WHAT JESUS SAID;
“I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30]WHAT THE JEWS HEARD JESUS SAY;
“I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30]WHAT THE JEWS CLAIMED JESUS' WORDS MEANT;
“..thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” [John 10:33]WHAT JESUS SAID HIS WORD MEANT;
“… I said, I am the Son of God?” [John 10:36]
PD is ignoring Jesus other claims…The Jews recognized Jesus claim to be God and picked up stones to stone him for several reasons.
1. Jesus claims to be “The Good Shepard”.
2. Jesus claims the children of Israel (the sheep) were his own.
3. Jesus claims that no man could pluck them out of his hand.
4. Jesus claims that he and God are “One”.
Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2009,09:18)
Yet YOU take the side of the accusing Jews. Wonder why that is. Oh, right, trinitarian. Don't require evidence, just testimony of unbelieving Jews who changed their testimony at his trial.
PD ignores the narrative of the author John, for John earlier writes…So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, “and I, too, am working“. John 5:16, 17
Here we see Jesus had broken the sabbath by claiming to work on the Sabbath.
For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; “not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was “even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. John 5:18
Here we see John’s narrative claiming not only did Jesus break the Sabbath but he called God his Father making himself equal with God.
To the Hebrew the concept of God as Father was only known for the entire nation of Israel. For someone to claim God as his Father was seen by them as blasphemy for they were making themselves equal to God. Therefore the title Son of God was considered by the Jew as a “Divine title” and also meant equality with God.
The NET has this to say about these verses…
My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” What is the significance of Jesus’ claim? A preliminary understanding can be obtained from John 5:18, noting the Jewish authorities’ response and the author’s comment. They sought to kill Jesus, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God. This must be seen in the context of the relation of God to the Sabbath rest. In the commandment (Exod 20:11) it is explained that “In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth…and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Philo, based on the LXX translation of Exod 20:11, denied outright that God had ever ceased his creative activity. And when Rabban Gamaliel II, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar ben Azariah, and R. Akiba were in Rome, ca. a.d. 95, they gave as a rebuttal to sectarian arguments evidence that God might do as he willed in the world without breaking the Sabbath because the entire world was his private residence. So even the rabbis realized that God did not really cease to work on the Sabbath: Divine providence remained active on the Sabbath, otherwise, all nature and life would cease to exist. As regards men, divine activity was visible in two ways: Men were born and men died on the Sabbath. Since only God could give life and only God could deal with the fate of the dead in judgment, this meant God was active on the Sabbath. This seems to be the background for Jesus’ words in 5:17. He justified his work of healing on the Sabbath by reminding the Jewish authorities that they admitted God worked on the Sabbath. This explains the violence of the reaction. The Sabbath privilege was peculiar to God, and no one was equal to God. In claiming the right to work even as his Father worked, Jesus was claiming a divine prerogative. He was literally making himself equal to God, as 5:18 goes on to state explicitly for the benefit of the reader who might not have made the connection. Source
Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2009,09:18)
Yet YOU take the side of the accusing Jews. Wonder why that is. Oh, right, trinitarian. Don't require evidence, just testimony of unbelieving Jews who changed their testimony at his trial.Oh, right Unitarian!
No I take the side of the author John who penned the words under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and whose prologue sets the mood for the Gospel.
WJ
Hi all!
Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2009,10:27) My argument is with the meaning of “pros ton theon” as John uses it in 1:1, versus what the commentators have to say about it. If, as the commentators claim, “pros ton” followed by an “accusative”- “presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.”
I deny any such thing found in scripture. Look at how “pros ton” followed by accusative, shows up in scripture –
PD again is ignoring A.T. Robertson’s points…We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov.
PD claims that the Holy Spirit is the personal Spirit of the Father. PD is denying the facts based on his own doctrinal bias.
PD also is placing his own theology above the world’s foremost Greek grammarian, A.T. Robertson.
Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2009,10:27) It is a lie foisted on the minds of religious zealots by overly religious commentators whose function in life is to make Jesus more than he really is.
PD is also calling A.T. Robertson a religious zealot and a liar.You be the Judge!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 06 2009,06:04) Hi ALL Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2009,09:18)
WHAT JESUS SAID;
“I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30]WHAT THE JEWS HEARD JESUS SAY;
“I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30]WHAT THE JEWS CLAIMED JESUS' WORDS MEANT;
“..thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” [John 10:33]WHAT JESUS SAID HIS WORD MEANT;
“… I said, I am the Son of God?” [John 10:36]
PD is ignoring Jesus other claims…The Jews recognized Jesus claim to be God and picked up stones to stone him for several reasons.
1. Jesus claims to be “The Good Shepard”.
2. Jesus claims the children of Israel (the sheep) were his own.
3. Jesus claims that no man could pluck them out of his hand.
4. Jesus claims that he and God are “One”.
Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2009,09:18)
Yet YOU take the side of the accusing Jews. Wonder why that is. Oh, right, trinitarian. Don't require evidence, just testimony of unbelieving Jews who changed their testimony at his trial.
PD ignores the narrative of the author John, for John earlier writes…So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, “and I, too, am working“. John 5:16, 17
Here we see Jesus had broken the sabbath by claiming to work on the Sabbath.
For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; “not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was “even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. John 5:18
Here we see John’s narrative claiming not only did Jesus break the Sabbath but he called God his Father making himself equal with God.
To the Hebrew the concept of God as Father was only known for the entire nation of Israel. For someone to claim God as his Father was seen by them as blasphemy for they were making themselves equal to God. Therefore the title Son of God was considered by the Jew as a “Divine title” and also meant equality with God.
The NET has this to say about these verses…
My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” What is the significance of Jesus’ claim? A preliminary understanding can be obtained from John 5:18, noting the Jewish authorities’ response and the author’s comment. They sought to kill Jesus, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God. This must be seen in the context of the relation of God to the Sabbath rest. In the commandment (Exod 20:11) it is explained that “In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth…and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Philo, based on the LXX translation of Exod 20:11, denied outright that God had ever ceased his creative activity. And when Rabban Gamaliel II, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar ben Azariah, and R. Akiba were in Rome, ca. a.d. 95, they gave as a rebuttal to sectarian arguments evidence that God might do as he willed in the world without breaking the Sabbath because the entire world was his private residence. So even the rabbis realized that God did not really cease to work on the Sabbath: Divine providence remained active on the Sabbath, otherwise, all nature and life would cease to exist. As regards men, divine activity was visible in two ways: Men were born and men died on the Sabbath. Since only God could give life and only God could deal with the fate of the dead in judgment, this meant God was active on the Sabbath. This seems to be the background for Jesus’ words in 5:17. He justified his work of healing on the Sabbath by reminding the Jewish authorities that they admitted God worked on the Sabbath. This explains the violence of the reaction. The Sabbath privilege was peculiar to God, and no one was equal to God. In claiming the right to work even as his Father worked, Jesus was claiming a divine prerogative. He was literally making himself equal to God, as 5:18 goes on to state explicitly for the benefit of the reader who might not have made the connection. Source
Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2009,09:18)
Yet YOU take the side of the accusing Jews. Wonder why that is. Oh, right, trinitarian. Don't require evidence, just testimony of unbelieving Jews who changed their testimony at his trial.Oh, right Unitarian!
No I take the side of the author John who penned the words under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and whose prologue sets the mood for the Gospel.
WJ
So Jesus is the good shepherd. And THAT is supposed to make him God?If THAT is the standard, Cyrus, king of Persia is also God;
Isaiah 44:28 That saith of CYRUS, He IS MY SHEPHERD, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
Now, “He is my shepherd” can be understood at least two ways; one – “I am the sheep belonging to this, my shepherd.” I do not believe God is the sheep. Two – “Cyrus is working for me, he is my appointment for shepherd.”
If THAT is the standard, Moses is God;
Isaiah 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, MOSES, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with THE SHEPHERD OF HIS FLOCK? where is he (God) that put his (God's) holy Spirit within him (Moses)?If THAT is the standard, then David is God;
Ezekiel 34:23 And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.Now, while it is true, God is the shepherd of Israel, It is also true that God raises men to serve as his shepherd.
Ezekiel 34:8 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;
Do you see it? God, the shepherd says “there is no shepherd.” But wait a minute, I thought God is the shepherd. Is he saying there is no God? Of course not, he is saying that there is no man appointed as shepherd to serve as my shepherd among men. So what then is God's next move?
Zechariah 13:7 Awake, O sword, against MY SHEPHERD, and against THE MAN that is MY FELLOW, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.
Jesus quotes this passage and applies it to himself as THE MAN that is the Lord's fellow, smitten.
Matthew 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.[Mark 14:27]
This appointment continued afte
r Jesus returned to heaven to sit at God's right hand, when other men were appointed to
“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;”Shepherd, in the Greek, is “poimeen” – And the first thing Jesus did was give gifts unto men –
“Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, POIMEEN [pastors] and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:” [Eph 4:8-13]
Quote 2. Jesus claims the children of Israel (the sheep) were his own. Right! And WHY were they his own? Because GOD GAVE THE CHILDREN TO JESUS;
Isaiah 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
John 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.Heb 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
Quote 3. Jesus claims that no man could pluck them out of his hand. WHO DID?
Quote 4. Jesus claims that he and God are “One”. Jesus claims that he and the Father, and the disciples are one
“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that THEY ALSO may be ONE IN US:” [John 17:21]As for your assertion that Jesus “broke the sabbath” (again you join with those disbelieving accusing Jews) IF Jesus broke the sabbath he should have been stoned on the spot by those who witnessed him doing so, according to the law. But they did not even attempt it, because there was no law against healing on the sabbath. Just as (Jesus pointed out) there was no law against pulling one's ox out of a ditch on the sabbarh, in other words, works of mercy were not in violation of the law, and THE JEWS KNEW IT. They were just looking for SOMETHING, ANYTHING, by which to accuse him.
And so have you by joining in their testimony.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 06 2009,06:35) Hi all! Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2009,10:27) My argument is with the meaning of “pros ton theon” as John uses it in 1:1, versus what the commentators have to say about it. If, as the commentators claim, “pros ton” followed by an “accusative”- “presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.”
I deny any such thing found in scripture. Look at how “pros ton” followed by accusative, shows up in scripture –
PD again is ignoring A.T. Robertson’s points…We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov.
PD claims that the Holy Spirit is the personal Spirit of the Father. PD is denying the facts based on his own doctrinal bias.
PD also is placing his own theology above the world’s foremost Greek grammarian, A.T. Robertson.
Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2009,10:27) It is a lie foisted on the minds of religious zealots by overly religious commentators whose function in life is to make Jesus more than he really is.
PD is also calling A.T. Robertson a religious zealot and a liar.You be the Judge!
WJ
Hey, it wasn't ME that said it.28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.” [Joel 2:28-32]Quoted in Acts 2 and applied to the happenings on Pentecost
in Jerusalem –“For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” [Acts 2:15-21]
Now, unless you can identify a Holy Spirit of God that is NOT identified by the Holy Spirit OF GOD in Joel 2 and Acts 2, you should reconsider your entire position.
Quote
PD claims that the Holy Spirit is the personal Spirit of the Father. PD is denying the facts based on his own doctrinal bias.Not at all. I am basing it on the prejudices of Joel and Luke. Argue with THEM.
Quote PD also is placing his own theology above the world’s foremost Greek grammarian, A.T. Robertson. Finally, you got SOMETHING right. Do you have a point? Instead of correcting me, why don't you correct A.T.Robertson who is Wrong?
“Foremost” does not mean “Hey, this guy's right” Foremost means “Hey, this guy publishes what we all agree on.”
Personally, I would rather face the judgment, on the Lord's side, than on the popular side.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
