- This topic has 713 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2013,16:07) Plenty of scholars disagree. Even many Trinitarian scholars agree that the 'theos' without the article in John 1:1c is qualitative. You have this habit of denying anything that goes against your theology. Whereas, at least I accept that there are other views and that many verses can be altered depending on placing of the commas and brackets.
So for me it is about taking clear scripture to derive doctrine and then seeing if variable scriptures also line up. And they do. If you believe that the only true God is the Father, then everything lines up. If you believe that God is a multi-person entity, then much of scripture doesn't make sense.
You are in denial and deny many scriptures whereas I can accept all scripture.
We are told that we should examine our life and doctrine closely because it is of utmost importance.
John, the author of John 1:1 taught a disciple named Ignatius and I agree with him. The theos of John 1:1c is Jesus Christ, our God and Savior.Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2013,16:27) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 19 2013,16:43) Ok, now let's see if you break any of the above. You believe that the LORD (YHVH) your God is only the Father. You also believe that Jesus is another god…a lessor god as the Son of God.
I believe that the LORD my God is the Father, Son with their Holy Spirit.We are to worship no other god. You worship the Father as the LORD your God and you worship another god, a lessor god as the Son of God. So, that seems to violate the commandment right there.
Nice spin, but you can trash your whole post here because I worship Jesus as the son of God and the Lamb of God. Not because you say that I say he is a lesser god.I honour him as he is and in his right place.
The fact that he is divine, a son, the firstborn, the Logos, and Wisdom, the image of the invisible God, and that only he can see the invisible God only adds to the honour I have for him.
Whereas you break the first commandment by denying the ONLY TRUE GOD. Further, you deny the son because you teach that he is the God that he is the son of.
Similarly I could say that my son is actually me, and then by that definition I deny my son even if by my mouth I say I have a son.
t8 tells a fib again:Quote Further, you deny the son because you teach that he is the God that he is the son of. I teach that the Son is the Lord of lords, the Son of the God of gods…they are Jehovah, our one true God in the fullest sense.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 02 2013,20:03) John, the author of John 1:1 taught a disciple named Ignatius and I agree with him. The theos of John 1:1c is Jesus Christ, our God and Savior.
You are allowed to believe that Jesus is YHWH the Almighty God and only true God. Free will entitles you to that view.Free will also entitles me to believe what Jesus, Paul, and John taught.
But we already knew that right.
Where have I ever said that Jesus was the only true God, t8? I write of the two powers of YHVH…The Father and the Word of YHVH. You deny that the Word of YHVH is YHVH also.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 02 2013,20:03) John, the author of John 1:1 taught a disciple named Ignatius and I agree with him. The theos of John 1:1c is Jesus Christ, our God and Savior.
Hang on. Have you not already agreed that the word 'man' without the article is referring to nature of man rather than a specific man?If you understand that, and you acknowledge that Judas was demon like, when he was called diablo, then why are you adverse to the Word being divine, God-like, or God-kind.
Because there is no such word as God-kind I think is your argument. But you could also say that there is no such word as man-kind too, after all it is all just 'adam' not adamkind.
Yet you say that Jesus called Judas a person who was like a demon or demon-like.
What gives. I see no consistency in your answers. You appear to pick and choose depending on what best fits your predefined doctrine. And you heap teachings of your liking so that you can have your itching ears scratched.
That is not the way to mine for truth. That is the way to keep a lie going as long as possible.
But know this, no lie will survive but be exposed in time.
t8,
Quote Great, you then deny that he is the only true God. I have said that He is not the only true God the Father, He is however the only true Begotten God the Son and the word 'God' can be applied to the 'God unity' in general or to each member depending on context.
Quote Have you not already agreed that the word 'man' without the article is referring to nature of man rather than a specific man? I don't believe that I agreed to that. I said that the word 'man' without the article is referring to man in general or mankind.
Quote If you understand that, and you acknowledge that Judas was demon like, when he was called diablo, then why are you adverse to the Word being divine, God-like, or God-kind. Judas was devil-like but not a devil. The word was an adjective in that case…a describing word. However, theos in John 1:c is NOT an adjective and you want to replace a noun with an adjective. You cannot compare the two statements because of this. Sorry!
Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2013,09:23) t8, Quote Great, you then deny that he is the only true God. I have said that He is not the only true God the Father, He is however the only true Begotten God the Son and the word 'God' can be applied to the 'God unity' in general or to each member depending on context.
See how you have to add words to get to your view.
Anyone one could add words to change anything. e.g., A Oneness person could say, “there is one God the Father, and the same God is Jesus”. See that? Slip in a few words and you get whatever you want. You are guilty of this.Can you read Jesus words as they are and arrive at your view. The answer is clearly NO. You SLIP in the words 'THE FATHER', so that the only true God becomes, the only true God the Father. And while it is true that the only true God is the Father, you add these words so that you can make the argument that there are 2 who are God. Yet the way Jesus worded this, you cannot do that. His words make it impossible for your view because it is the only true God AND Jesus Christ who HE has sent.
This is proof that your doctrine is false.
You are trying to change Jesus own words, and for what gain? Is Jesus going to agree to this and say, “oh you are right Kathi, I forgot to mention which God, the only true God the Father“.
No Jesus is not going to change his view to yours. He was right the first time.
John 17:3
“And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent,”So it is not:
Only true God the Father and only true God the Son.It is:
Only true God and Jesus Christ.Anyone can see which of us believe Jesus own words here Kathi. If you cannot see it, then I will give you a clue. It is not you. You are adding words to derive a different meaning. I am reading it as it is and believing it as it is.
You clearly have lost this point and should admit it. If you cannot admit your error here, then clearly you are demonstrating publicly that you are not a student of truth, but are driven by bias and pride in your own understanding.
Kathi, you admit that you added in two words to change the meaning of that verse right?
And you you do this so that it makes it line up with your view right?
Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2013,09:28) Judas was devil-like but not a devil. The word was an adjective in that case…a describing word. However, theos in John 1:c is NOT an adjective and you want to replace a noun with an adjective. You cannot compare the two statements because of this. Sorry!
Don't be sorry for me say sorry to the translators who translate it as “one of you is a devil”. Is there one translation that says, “one of you is devil-like”?New International Version (©2011)
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”New Living Translation (©2007)
Then Jesus said, “I chose the twelve of you, but one is a devil.”English Standard Version (©2001)
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.”New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
Jesus replied to them, “Didn't I choose you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is the Devil!”International Standard Version (©2012)
Jesus answered them, “I chose you, the Twelve, didn't I? Yet one of you is a devil.”NET Bible (©2006)
Jesus replied, “Didn't I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is the devil?”Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Yeshua said to them, “Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a Satan?”GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus replied, “I chose all twelve of you. Yet, one of you is a devil.”King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?American King James Version
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?American Standard Version
Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil?Darby Bible Translation
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you the twelve? and of you one is a devil.English Revised Version
Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?Webster's Bible Translation
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?Weymouth New Testament
“Did not I choose you–the Twelve?” said Jesus, “and even of you one is a devil.”World English Bible
Jesus answered them, “Didn't I choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”Young's Literal Translation
Jesus answered them, 'Did not I choose you — the twelve? and of you — one is a devil.Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Is a devil – Has the spirit, the envy, the malice, and the treasonable designs of a devil. The word “devil” here is used in the sense of an enemy, or one hostile to him.Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Have not I chosen you twelve – Have I not, in an especial manner, called you to believe in my name, and chosen you to be my disciples and the propagators of my doctrine! Nevertheless, one of you is a devil, or accuser, enlisted on the side of Satan, who was a murderer from the beginning.Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Jesus answered them,…. The disciples, taking Peter's answer to his question, as delivered in the name of them all, and as expressing their mind and sense:have not I chosen you twelve; not to grace and glory, to holiness and happiness; though this was true of eleven of them, but to be apostles:
and one of you is a devil? or like to one, is a deceiver, a liar, and a murderer, as the devil is from the beginning; all which Judas was, and appeared to be, in the betraying of his master. The Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions read, “is Satan”; which name, if given to Peter, as it once was on a certain occasion, Matthew 16:23, might very well be given to Judas; who, notwithstanding his profession of faith in Christ, was in the hands and kingdom of Satan, and under his influence and power: and this our Lord said, partly that they might not too much presume upon their faith and love, and steady attachment, and be over confident of their standing; and partly, to prepare them for the apostasy of one from among them.
And why do the translators say “a devil” if it was meant as an adjective as you say?
Vincent's Word Studies
A devil (διάβολος)See on Matthew 4:1. The word is an adjective, meaning slanderous, but is almost invariably used in the New Testament as a noun, and with the definite article. The article is wanting only in 1 Peter 5:8; Acts 13:10; Revelation 12:9; and perhaps Revelation 20:2. It is of the very essence of the devilish nature to oppose Christ. Compare Matthew 16:23.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2013,09:28) I don't believe that I agreed to that. I said that the word 'man' without the article is referring to man in general or mankind.
That's right and that makes my point even stronger.If mankind in scripture is 'adam' and a particular man is 'Adam' or 'the adam', in other words the same word, then why do you deny this with 'theos' when clearly you admit the possibility with 'adam'. You agree to adamkind (mankind) but not theoskind (Godkind).
If you read the Strongs regarding the usage of 'theos' in scripture, you can see that it can also refer to councils, the things of God, and even this amazing definition:
“whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way”.
And if that is not a definition of God-like or God-kind, then what is?
You haven't even come close to making all these facts disappear. They remain a thorn in your side. You can take pain killers and make the pain go away, but the fact remains the thorn is still there.
Quote (t8 @ April 04 2013,17:22) Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2013,09:28) Judas was devil-like but not a devil. The word was an adjective in that case…a describing word. However, theos in John 1:c is NOT an adjective and you want to replace a noun with an adjective. You cannot compare the two statements because of this. Sorry!
Don't be sorry for me say sorry to the translators who translate it as “one of you is a devil”. Is there one translation that says, “one of you is devil-like”?New International Version (©2011)
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”New Living Translation (©2007)
Then Jesus said, “I chose the twelve of you, but one is a devil.”English Standard Version (©2001)
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.”New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
Jesus replied to them, “Didn't I choose you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is the Devil!”International Standard Version (©2012)
Jesus answered them, “I chose you, the Twelve, didn't I? Yet one of you is a devil.”NET Bible (©2006)
Jesus replied, “Didn't I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is the devil?”Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Yeshua said to them, “Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a Satan?”GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus replied, “I chose all twelve of you. Yet, one of you is a devil.”King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?American King James Version
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?American Standard Version
Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil?Darby Bible Translation
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you the twelve? and of you one is a devil.English Revised Version
Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?Webster's Bible Translation
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?Weymouth New Testament
“Did not I choose you–the Twelve?” said Jesus, “and even of you one is a devil.”World English Bible
Jesus answered them, “Didn't I choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”Young's Literal Translation
Jesus answered them, 'Did not I choose you — the twelve? and of you — one is a devil.
They don't say devil-like. Do you disagree that Judas was devil-like?Quote (t8 @ April 04 2013,17:09) Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2013,09:23) t8, Quote Great, you then deny that he is the only true God. I have said that He is not the only true God the Father, He is however the only true Begotten God the Son and the word 'God' can be applied to the 'God unity' in general or to each member depending on context.
See how you have to add words to get to your view.
Anyone one could add words to change anything. e.g., A Oneness person could say, “there is one God the Father, and the same God is Jesus”. See that? Slip in a few words and you get whatever you want. You are guilty of this.Can you read Jesus words as they are and arrive at your view. The answer is clearly NO. You SLIP in the words 'THE FATHER', so that the only true God becomes, the only true God the Father. And while it is true that the only true God is the Father, you add these words so that you can make the argument that there are 2 who are God. Yet the way Jesus worded this, you cannot do that. His words make it impossible for your view because it is the only true God AND Jesus Christ who HE has sent.
This is proof that your doctrine is false.
You are trying to change Jesus own words, and for what gain? Is Jesus going to agree to this and say, “oh you are right Kathi, I forgot to mention which God, the only true God the Father“.
No Jesus is not going to change his view to yours. He was right the first time.
John 17:3
“And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent,”So it is not:
Only true God the Father and only true God the Son.It is:
Only true God and Jesus Christ.Anyone can see which of us believe Jesus own words here Kathi. If you cannot see it, then I will give you a clue. It is not you. You are adding words to derive a different meaning. I am reading it as it is and believing it as it is.
You clearly have lost this point and should admit it. If you cannot admit your error here, then clearly you are demonstrating publicly that you are not a student of truth, but are driven by bias and pride in your own understanding.
Hold on there, t8. I didn't add words to scripture and claimed it was a scripture. I explained my understanding. Commentaries do this all the time.Do you deny that Jesus is the only true begotten theos?
Quote (t8 @ April 04 2013,17:36) And why do the translators say “a devil” if it was meant as an adjective as you say? Vincent's Word Studies
A devil (διάβολος)See on Matthew 4:1. The word is an adjective, meaning slanderous, but is almost invariably used in the New Testament as a noun, and with the definite article. The article is wanting only in 1 Peter 5:8; Acts 13:10; Revelation 12:9; and perhaps Revelation 20:2. It is of the very essence of the devilish nature to oppose Christ. Compare Matthew 16:23.
Do you disagree that devil-like would be:
“essence of the devilish nature?”Do you think that just because this adjective is 'almost invariably used in the NT as a noun' means that all adjectives in the NT are invariably used as nouns? And visa versa?
BTW, I don't see anything in Barnes, Clarke's, or Gill's commentary that would be in opposition to devil-like. Why are you making such a big deal out of a description that you already agreed to?
Quote (t8 @ April 04 2013,17:30) Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Is a devil – Has the spirit, the envy, the malice, and the treasonable designs of a devil. The word “devil” here is used in the sense of an enemy, or one hostile to him.Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Have not I chosen you twelve – Have I not, in an especial manner, called you to believe in my name, and chosen you to be my disciples and the propagators of my doctrine! Nevertheless, one of you is a devil, or accuser, enlisted on the side of Satan, who was a murderer from the beginning.Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Jesus answered them,…. The disciples, taking Peter's answer to his question, as delivered in the name of them all, and as expressing their mind and sense:have not I chosen you twelve; not to grace and glory, to holiness and happiness; though this was true of eleven of them, but to be apostles:
and one of you is a devil? or like to one, is a deceiver, a liar, and a murderer, as the devil is from the beginning; all which Judas was, and appeared to be, in the betraying of his master. The Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions read, “is Satan”; which name, if given to Peter, as it once was on a certain occasion, Matthew 16:23, might very well be given to Judas; who, notwithstanding his profession of faith in Christ, was in the hands and kingdom of Satan, and under his influence and power: and this our Lord said, partly that they might not too much presume upon their faith and love, and steady attachment, and be over confident of their standing; and partly, to prepare them for the apostasy of one from among them.
I have no problem with Barnes, Clarke, or Gill's explanation of the verse. I would think that they would not have any problem with the term 'devil-like' as what the Greek intended. It fits right in with their other descriptions. You would do well to read these commentators more frequently and see how what I write, agrees with them. Thanks for putting them up.What the reader might find interesting is what Barnes, Clarke and Gill think about John 1:1c. (This will make you squirm, t8…you might not want to face it.)
Barnes on John 1:1c:
Quote Was God – In the previous phrase John had said that the Word was “with God.” Lest it should be supposed that he was a different and inferior being, here John states that “he was God.” There is no more unequivocal declaration in the Bible than this, and there could be no stronger proof that the sacred writer meant to affirm that the Son of God was equal with the Father; because: 1. There is no doubt that by the λόγος Logos is meant Jesus Christ.
2. This is not an “attribute” or quality of God, but is a real subsistence, for it is said that the λόγος Logos was made flesh σάρξ sarx – that is, became a human being.
3. There is no variation here in the manuscripts, and critics have observed that the Greek will bear no other construction than what is expressed in our translation – that the Word “was God.”
Clarke on John 1:1c
Quote And the Word was God – Or, God was the Logos: therefore no subordinate being, no second to the Most High, but the supreme eternal Jehovah. Gill on John 1:1c
Quote and the word was God; not made a God, as he is said here after to be made flesh; nor constituted or appointed a God, or a God by office; but truly and properly God, in the highest sense of the word, as appears from the names by which he is called; as Jehovah, God, our, your, their, and my God, God with us, the mighty God, God over all, the great God, the living God, the true God, and eternal life; and from his perfections, and the whole fulness of the Godhead that dwells in him, as independence, eternity, immutability, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence; and from his works of creation and providence, his miracles, the work of redemption, his forgiving sins, the resurrection of himself and others from the dead, and the administration of the last judgment; and from the worship given him, as prayer to him, faith in him, and the performance of baptism in his name: nor is it any objection to the proper deity of Christ, that the article is here wanting; since when the word is applied to the Father, it is not always used, and even in this chapter, John 1:6 and which shows, that the word “God”, is not the subject, but the predicate of this proposition, as we render it: so the Jews often use the word of the Lord for Jehovah, and call him God. Thus the words in Genesis 28:20 are paraphrased by Onkelos, So, t8, you can see that the same commentators you used to question my understanding, don't oppose my understanding, they just don't use the same term. But when it comes to your understanding of John 1:1c, they completely and utterly oppose your understanding. Give up your false doctrine and be set free.
Now, I think that the reader would be interested in how those three commentators that YOU listed to support your view, do not support your view, not only in John 1:1c as proven in my last post, but John 17:3…here goes, t8…you might not want to face this either:
John 17:3
And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.Barnes on John 17:3:
Quote The only true God – The only God, in opposition to all false gods. What is said here is in opposition to idols, not to Jesus himself, who, in 1 John 5:20, is called “the true God and eternal life.” Clarke on John 17:3
Quote The only true God – The way to attain this eternal life is to acknowledge, worship, and obey, the one only true God, and to accept as teacher, sacrifice, and Savior, the Lord Jesus, the one and only true Messiah. Bishop Pearce's remark here is well worthy the reader's attention: – “What is said here of the only true God seems said in opposition to the gods whom the heathens worshipped; not in opposition to Jesus Christ himself, who is called the true God by John, in 1 John 5:20.”
Gill on John 17:3
Quote The Arians and Unitarians urge this text, against the true and proper deity of our Lord Jesus, and his equality with the Father, but without success; since the Father is called the only true God, in opposition to the many false gods of the Heathens, but not to the exclusion of the Son or Spirit; for Christ is also styled the one Lord, and only Lord God, but not to the exclusion of the Father; yea the true God and eternal life; was he not, he would never, as here, join himself with the only true God; and besides, eternal life is made to depend as much upon the knowledge of him, as of the Father. The reason of this different mode of expression, is owing to the character of Christ as Mediator, who is said to be sent by the only true God, about the business of man's salvation. Nor is it of any moment what the Jew (f) objects, that Jesus here confesses, that the true God is only one God; nor does he call himself God, only the Messiah sent by God; and that the Apostle Paul also asserts the unity of God, 1 Timothy 1:17; and therefore Jesus cannot be God: for Christ and his Father, the only true God, are one; and that he is the one true God with his Father, he tacitly suggests here by joining himself with him; and what the Apostle Paul says of the one and only wise God, may as well be understood of Christ, the Son of God, as of the Father; since all the characters in the text agree with him, and of him he had been speaking in the context. (d) T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 21. 1.((e) De profugis, p. 461. (f) R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 55. p. 445.
Vincent's Word StudiesLife eternal
With the article: the life eternal. Defining the words in the previous verse. The life eternal (of which I spoke) is this.
That (ἵνα)
Expressing the aim.
Might know (γινώσκωσι)
Might recognize or perceive. This is striking, that eternal life consists in knowledge, or rather the pursuit of knowledge, since the present tense marks a continuance, a progressive perception of God in Christ. That they might learn to know. Compare John 17:23; John 10:38; 1 John 5:20; 1 John 4:7, 1 John 4:8.
“I say, the acknowledgment of God in Christ
Accepted by thy reason, solves for thee
All questions in the earth and out of it,
And has so far advanced thee to be wise.
Wouldst thou improve this to reprove the proved?
In life's mere minute, with power to use that proof,
Leave knowledge and revert to how it sprung?
Thou hast it; use it, and forthwith, or die.
continued…
Geneva Study BibleAnd this is life eternal, that they might know thee the {b} only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
(b) He calls the Father the only true God in order to set him against all false gods, and to include himself and the Holy Spirit, for he immediately joins the knowledge of the Father and the knowledge of himself together, and according to his accustomed manner sets forth the whole Godhead in the person of the Father. So is the Father alone said to be King, immortal, wise, dwelling in light which no man can attain unto, and invisible; Ro 16:27; 1Ti 1:17.
People's New Testament17:3 This life is eternal, that they might know thee, etc. The knowledge of God as manifested in Jesus Christ is the first requisite to salvation and life eternal. They key to that knowledge is faith and love.
Wesley's Notes17:3 To know – By loving, holy faith, thee the only true God – The only cause and end of all things; not excluding the Son and the Holy Ghost, no more than the Father is excluded from being Lord, 1Cor 8:6; but the false gods of the heathens; and Jesus Christ – As their prophet, priest, and king: this is life eternal – It is both the way to, and the essence of, everlasting happiness.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary3. this is-that.
life eternal, that they might-may.
know, &c.-This life eternal, then, is not mere conscious and unending existence, but a life of acquaintance with God in Christ (Job 22:21).
thee, the only true God-the sole personal living God; in glorious contrast equally with heathen polytheism, philosophic naturalism, and mystic pantheism.
and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent-This is the only place where our Lord gives Himself this compound name, afterwards so current in apostolic preaching and writing. Here the terms are used in their strict signification-“Jesus,” because He “saves His people from their sins”; “Christ,” as anointed with the measureless fulness of the Holy Ghost for the exercise of His saving offices (see on [1874]Mt 1:16); “Whom Thou hast sent,” in the plenitude of Divine Authority and Power, to save. “The very juxtaposition here of Jesus Christ with the Father is a proof, by implication, of our Lord's Godhead. The knowledge of God and a creature could not be eternal life, and such an association of the one with the other would be inconceivable” [Alford].
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary17:1-5 Our Lord prayed as a man, and as the Mediator of his people; yet he spoke with majesty and authority, as one with and equal to the Father. Eternal life could not be given to believers, unless Christ, their Surety, both glorified the Father, and was glorified of him. This is the sinner's way to eternal life, and when this knowledge shall be made perfect, holiness and happiness will be fully enjoyed. The holiness and happiness of the redeemed, are especially that glory of Christ, and of his Father, which was the joy set before him, for which he endured the cross and despised the shame; this glory was the end of the sorrow of his soul, and in obtaining it he was fully satisfied. Thus we are taught that our glorifying God is needed as an evidence of our interest in Christ, through whom eternal life is God's free gift.
Interesting isn't it!
Kathi, Trinitarian quotes do not make me squirm. I know that the Trinity is the foundation of the Catholic faith of which even those that protested (Protestants) still cling too.
The Trinity Doctrine is huge and is likely the main belief held by Bible scholars. This is why a verse that could be rendered as supporting the Trinity is often twisted that way.
It is like Evolution. I believe that is also a lie and that is the foundation to modern biology. Most papers and theories take Evolution for granted.
So what is happening here. Well we know that there will be a GREAT falling away and I personally believe that Evolution is the lie that God allows Atheists to believe because they deny the creator. Likewise the Trinity is the lie that God allows those who respect not the first commandment and instead are in Babylon.
So it is no surprise to me that most scholars are Trinitarian.
So Gill saying that Jesus is God (Most High) in John 1:1 is just as foolish as physicist Lawrence M. Krauss saying that the Universe came from nothing.
If God has hidden his truth from the wise and LEARNED, and revealed it to the innocent (babes), then so be it. And if you are not a babe like me (
) but prefer to be wise and learned to the point of having the truth hidden from you, then so be it.Truth does not originate in your own mind. If that is how truth is delivered to you, then you will be deceived like many others and will be trapped inside Babylon like many others.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
