Son of God?

Participant

T8………..If you understand that the word (GOD) is the uniplural expression of the LORD (HE EXISTS) with Powers, it even clears up John 1:1. The word (WORD) is the combined intellect that controls those POWERS, and thats what was in the beginning and created everything and it also is the light (intellect ) that lightens every one coming into the world. If you look in a good Greek Linear translation , you will nearly always see the (definite article) in front of the word GOD, why?, because it is saying (the) GOD identifying (ONE GOD OR POWERS) the LORD GOD> Why the translators removes the definite article was to keep people from questioning the triune Doctrine, so remove the definite article and you have less questioning going on. IMO The WORD was the total intellect of the POWERS, therefor the WORD WAS GOD. The confusion comes to play when we try to separate the word from the powers it control's. IMO

love and peace to you and yours………………………..gene

January 16, 2009 at 6:00 pm#117901

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 17 2009,04:37)

GB,
You say in another thread.
“” Good and Evil are Spirits (intellects) of GOD and they going to and fro through out the earth,”

So to you Jesus is the Son of a mixture of good and evil powers.
You need to hear the gospel.

Nick………if you understood that all intellect come from God you would have no problem understanding what i said. The Tree of Good and Evil was created by GOD, and (WISDOM) is the understanding given us from both good and evil. Doesn't it say when Eve (SAW) the the fruit (good and evil) good in order to make one (WISE) She ate (took to herself) and Guess what Her eye of understanding (WAS) opened , ask you self why and you have the answer to you ignorant questing.

All of Gods intellects go to and fro through out the earth, or he couldn't be omnipresent.

The Lord uses Evil as well as Good to effect His WILL as in the case of Job.

If evil or good were removed from you mind you would become a complete Idiot. It's the balance of these that give us Wisdom. You can't have wisdom without both.

And you need to get your head out your (you know what). And star using you God given Brain for a change Nick.

love and peace to you and yours………………….gene

January 16, 2009 at 6:04 pm#117902

Participant

GB,
What tree of good and evil??

You should meet our GOOD GOD

Matthew 19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

January 17, 2009 at 5:36 am#117997

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 17 2009,04:13)

Do i agree with the points you posted?
#1…..no
#2…..yes or no….depending on what you mean by (BEFORE)
#3…..no…if you are implying Jesus.
#4…..no…he was not before his berth on earth
#5…..no…maybe give or take 50 years
#6…..yes or no………need more understanding of the text.

Thanks for answering.

I agree with all the points I made and you obviously do not. I think it wise to continue to believe them rather than be talked out of it by you.

But you are entitled to your opinion, and whatever we teach we become responsible for.

January 17, 2009 at 5:44 am#118000

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 16 2009,19:09)

Hi t8,
The word is translated as Messenger nearly 100 times in the OT.
How many do you think should rather be ANGEL?

Don't know really, but my point stands. i.e., that we trust the translators to tell us what type of messenger by using different meanings that they decide.

I just happened to think that it is not wise to trust their interpretations and that angels and messengers need to be looked at more deeply.

One of the biggest arguments against Christ appearing in the OT is the fact that the Angel of the Lord is supposedly a seraph and cherub, but such is not written and this is an obvious assumption strengthened by translator views. It just means “Messenger of the Lord”. Nothing more and nothing less.

Angel means messenger and it applies to more than seraphs and cherubs. Therefore we should be aware of such when reading texts with that word in them.

Otherwise we are putting our trust in man with regards to this.

Paul commended some for testing all things. So I don't see why we can test all things except for this.

January 17, 2009 at 5:47 am#118001

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 17 2009,04:45)

love and peace to you and yours………………………..gene

OK, so you understand what the definite article is doing in John 1:1. Well the Logos also has a definite article too, i.e., 'The Word'. THE WORD is also with THE God.

January 17, 2009 at 6:01 am#118002

Participant

t8……..I also agree with you on that brother , what ever we teach we certainly are responsible for. But i am not here to teach just express my opinion on subjects. I am not a church organization or a teacher as far as the goes. Just discussing my point of views thats all. I Am not asking no one to believe them, they have a right to there opinions Just as you and Nick do. But i consider yours and everyone posts as just their opinions. No need for personal attacks or put downs or labeling or condescending by any one right. I respect every ones right to there opinions. No one has the whole truth, but some day we all will, i am more then willing to be Judged for what i believe and say and if i am convicted of wrong i will change, but only by being convinced of my errors. Not by someone quoting half truths or misquoting what was said or miss implying it either. if you or i say something were are obligated to prove our points and some are very difficult to prove in fact without God's spirit you can't understand so of them. IMO

Peace and love to you and yours……………………gene

January 17, 2009 at 6:34 am#118003

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Jan. 17 2009,16:47)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 17 2009,04:45)

love and peace to you and yours………………………..gene

OK, so you understand what the definite article is doing in John 1:1. Well the Logos also has a definite article too, i.e., 'The Word'. THE WORD is also with THE God.

t8…..yes the word does have a definite article , so what is it saying then, (the word is with the powers) better translated , the expressed intellect ie (word) was in the beginning, and the expressed intellect (word) was with powers (God) and it was Powers.(God)

the definite article with (Word) it a specific (WORD) not any word that was in the beginning and the article is identifying it as such> as seen in Genesis , God (Powers) spoke things into existence This expressed intellect was with POWER and it produce everything there is. Thats all i believe John was saying. He was also expressing whose Power He was talking about by the use of the definite Article before the word (Power) by saying The GOD or the power,same thing so a specific Power is being addressed here and the only one who was in the beginning was YHWH or LORD or HE EXISTS. With GOD or With POWERS>
another words the LORD GOD is being refferenced only in
John 1:1 . nothing else definitely not Jesus at all. The big confusion IMO is not understanding the word (GOD) POWERS. The LORD (HE EXISTS) USED HIS EXPRESSED INTELLECT (WORDS) WITH HIS POWERS (GOD) TO CREATE EVERYTHING.

T8……JUST PRAY AND THINK ABOUT THIS BROTHER

LOVE AND PEACE TO YOU AND YOURS…………..GENE

January 17, 2009 at 10:39 am#118028

Participant

Quote

T8:

There is also the argument that scripture states he did not speak to the people until these last days. That in itself does not mean he did not exist but only that he did not talk to the people. I do not remember anyone hand delivering a message from God or using another non-speaking way to do so at least not unless they also spoke.

Quote

Hebrews 1:1-2(NIV):

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe

A question for anyone to answer.

What is the Greek word that translates as “through”?

January 17, 2009 at 11:47 am#118030

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 17 2009,17:34)

Quote (t8 @ Jan. 17 2009,16:47)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 17 2009,04:45)

love and peace to you and yours………………………..gene

OK, so you understand what the definite article is doing in John 1:1. Well the Logos also has a definite article too, i.e., 'The Word'. THE WORD is also with THE God.

T8……JUST PRAY AND THINK ABOUT THIS BROTHER

LOVE AND PEACE TO YOU AND YOURS…………..GENE

So you say that both have the definite article and only one exists. That doesn't make any sense to me, i.e., how you arrive at this conclusion without a pre-belief or bias influencing your mind. I mean another person could argue that God is the attribute and only the Logos exists using your same argument for John 1:1. The lack of a definite article is used when talking of an attribute or quality, but the Logos is identified with the definite article and your argument still seems to overlook this.

When Jesus said to his disciples “One of you is devil” his words lacked the definite article because he wasn't saying one of you is the Devil was he? He was talking of Judas who was like the devil in nature or character. Judas was neither the Devil nor a devil/demon.

Because English doesn't use the definite article in front of the Word God as Greek does, (i.e., THE God), English translations instead capitalize the word. But you seem to ignore the word Logos/Word is capitalized in John 1:1 in all instances.

I see both the Logos and God being identified and I see that the Logos was made flesh is Christ and men were able to behold him because they too were flesh. How could they behold him if he having divine nature, didn't emptied himself and partake of the flesh?

You then say that you agree that we are responsible for what we teach, and say that you are expressing your opinion. If it was just your opinion, then you wouldn't be teaching it as if it were fact, but you repeat your so-called opinion as if we should all come to the same conclusion. I personally think you are teaching.

January 17, 2009 at 11:53 am#118031

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 17 2009,21:39)

There is also the argument that scripture states he did not speak to the people until these last days.

Hi kerwin.

What scripture?

This one?

Hebrews 1:2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

Coz if it is, then it doesn't say that the son has never spoken before, but that God has spoken to us by him in the last days.

The interesting thing about this verse is that it clearly states that God created the universe through him and I am sure that you will agree that the universe is older than 2000 years.

Thanks for listening.

January 17, 2009 at 12:16 pm#118032

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 17 2009,21:39)

What is the Greek word that translates as “through”?

Hi Kerwin.

Hebrews 1:2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

Many try and write this verse off by saying that it is not saying that God created all things through him, but with him in mind. But the next scripture dispels that belief:

Colossians 1:16
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Notice that both the words 'for' and 'through' are expressed. Obviously because they have different meanings in this verse.

The word 'through' denotes the channel by which something goes through. This is clearly demonstrated in Matthew 19:24 which uses the same Greek word (dia) both translated as 'through' .

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

January 18, 2009 at 6:30 am#118112

Participant

T8…….The problem you have with the word (through) it can equally be (FOR) or (by) the same word is used interchangeably through out scripture as i recall. T8 remember the translators were Trinitarians and naturally the would pick that word, instead of FOR. it supports their theologies. Remember when you buy that word you have to destory other Scriptures where GOD said He created (alone and By his self) If he did it alone no one else was there right. In fact Jesus never said He created anything. Wouldn't you think he would have at least addressed the point. Even if he did it through GOD He still would have mentioned it.

But getting back to the Definite Article and you saying it cant be used pertaining to the same Person, that not accurate, if i said (the Word)( the expressed intellect) was (the powers) and was with (the) (POWERS)the definite article applies in both cases, if i said the picture with the black was my favorite i am still talking about the same picture. In fact it says in (THE) beginning what beginning was John talking about< i believe it was the absolute beginning of everything and Jesus was not at the beginning of everything or He would have to be the LORD GOD Himself, as WJ would say. If he was not talking about the absolute beginning he would have specified what beginning he was talking about. IMO. T8 your smart enough to figure this out, Jesus did not preexist his berth brother. No reason for Him to have , God's point is what he can do with Man not some superhuman being who preexisted. What accomplishment would that show us, and we would alway say He really was not (JUST) likes really, He had an edge over us, if nothing else by his foreknowledge. T8 when you really think about it it just doesn't make any sense for God to Do it that way. Trinitarians must have the idology of Jesus prexistence to fit there theologies. IMO.

love and peace to you and yours……………….gene

January 19, 2009 at 6:09 am#118248

Participant

Quote

t8:

Many try and write this verse off by saying that it is not saying that God created all things through him, but with him in mind. But the next scripture dispels that belief:

That would be a reasonable interpretation for Hebrews 1:2 since according to my source one definition of the Greek word “dia” is by reason of which something is or is not done. A second definition is the one the translators settled on which is “through”.

Quote

T8:

Notice that both the words 'for' and 'through' are expressed. Obviously because they have different meanings in this verse.

Lets assume you are correct and this passage from Colossians is speaking of Jesus then we can jump to your argument that the writers of scriptures never used redundant words in there teachings. I would say you are incorrect since we have examples like Ephesians 4:24 where the writer speaks of both true righteousness and true holiness which sounds like same thing to me. I believe they do it to emphasize a point.

Quote

Ephesians 4:24(NIV):

24and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

That opens up the question what Greek word is translated “for” in Colossians 1:16.

January 19, 2009 at 6:16 am#118251

Participant

Hi KW,
Beware of human assumptions.

Sacred scripture is extremely efficient in the use of language and very specific in meaning so confusion only comes from men.
Eph 4.24
And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness[1343] and true holiness[3742]

Number 3742
Transliteration:
hosiotes {hos-ee-ot'-ace}
Word Origin:
from 3741
TDNT:
5:493,734
Part of Speech:
noun feminine
Usage in the KJV:
holiness 2

Total: 2
Definition:
piety towards God, fidelity in observing the obligations of piety, holiness

Number 1343
Transliteration:
dikaiosune {dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay}
Word Origin:
from 1342
TDNT:
2:192,168
Part of Speech:
noun feminine
Usage in the KJV:
righteousness 92

Total: 92
Definition:
in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God
the doctrine concerning the way in which man may attain a state approved of God
integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting
in a narrower sense, justice or the virtue which gives each his due

January 19, 2009 at 6:17 am#118252

Participant

Sorry, but I forgot to link to my source for the English definitions for the Greek word “dia”. Here is my source.

January 19, 2009 at 9:09 am#118258

Participant

Hi KW,
A garment or a place can be holy but righteousness does not apply to them.

January 21, 2009 at 6:14 am#118549

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 19 2009,20:09)

Hi KW,
A garment or a place can be holy but righteousness does not apply to them.

That definition did not seem apropriate to the context of Ephesians 4:24 but the one you stated earlier, “piety towards God, fidelity in observing the obligations of piety, holiness” does.

Nevertheless they still seem redundant because you cannot have one without the other but I do see the difference.

I am still interested in what Greek word the translators Colossians 1:16 of the NIV translated to “for” since there bias may well have driven their decision.

January 21, 2009 at 6:44 am#118562