- This topic has 713 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,12:51) 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.
Yes, but the point is you have to add words to get the scripture to line up with your view. I wasn't saying that you are saying those added words are part of the text, but they need to be added in order to make your view of it correct. Otherwise your view doesn't line up with it. Simple as that.Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,13:06) 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?
If Judas can be a devil (noun) and yet the meaning be that he is like the devil or belongs to him, then just showing how the Word being theos can also be likened unto God, be of him, or be under his authority.You see the Word is theos (divine, God-like, of God) is like Judas being diablos (devil, devilish, of the devil).
If the Word is divine or God like, and we know that the Word came in the flesh and was named Yeshua/Jesus. Then guess what, we see the same thing about Jesus. He is the image of the invisible God. The exact representation of his being. Jesus is the full expression of the glory of God. He is so God- like that he even confidently declared himself, “if you have seen me you have seen the Father”.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,13:06) 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?
Because you deny that the Word is God-like, God-kind, like God. I show how it is possible given another example that is all.Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,12:45) They don't say devil-like. Do you disagree that Judas was devil-like?
You missed the point haven't you?If Jesus says that Judas was a devil, and we know that he was not a literal devil, but was devil like, then you can plainly see how something can be likened to something by calling it that something.
If the Word was theos and Judas was diablos, then why is Judas not Satan or a literal devil if the Word is literally God as you say?
Quote (t8 @ April 07 2013,20:38) Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,12:45) They don't say devil-like. Do you disagree that Judas was devil-like?
You missed the point haven't you?If Jesus says that Judas was a devil, and we know that he was not a literal devil, but was devil like, then you can plainly see how something can be likened to something by calling it that something.
If the Word was theos and Judas was diablos, then why is Judas not Satan or a literal devil if the Word is literally God as you say?
We know that Judas wasn't there in the beginning like the Word was.
Also…
We know that Judas was only a man, not a heavenly pre-existent being, like satan was.It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that just because Judas is a devil, he is not a literal devil. He did not pre-exist as a heavenly being.
Did you miss the point that those scholars that take the liberty to call Judas a devil knew that he wasn't literally a devil but called him a devil. However, the same scholars, did not say the Word was not literally a God. In fact, they did claim that as literal, not just god-like.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,16:01) We know that Judas wasn't there in the beginning like the Word was.
Also…
We know that Judas was only a man, not a heavenly pre-existent being, like satan was.It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that just because Judas is a devil, he is not a literal devil. He did not pre-exist as a heavenly being.
If Judas was WITH the Devil, would you think he was the Devil then? Yet the Word was WITH God, and you think he was and is God.Doesn't make sense. Double standard. Bableton strikes again.
Quote (t8 @ April 07 2013,20:56) Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,13:06) 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?
Because you deny that the Word is God-like, God-kind, like God. I show how it is possible given another example that is all.
First of all, a God, or the God are both godlike, godly, and god-kind.Second of all, can you show me where there is a scripture that uses the same Greek word twice, where the first Greek word is the subject of the clause and where the second Greek word is written in the nominative case as the predicate nominative (not the subject) in the next clause and the two Greek words mean very different things?
Third of all, did you notice that Barnes, Clarke, and Gill who all knew about Judas being a satan but not literally, also agreed that the Word was God, literally. They obviously did not try to apply the same principle to both even though they knew of the principle of an adjective acting as a noun at times.
So, the possibility of an adjective acting like a noun at times from one particular Greek word cannot just be applied to all adjectives or visa versa. Do you see how you want to force your false doctrine here?
Quote (t8 @ April 07 2013,21:13) Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,16:01) We know that Judas wasn't there in the beginning like the Word was.
Also…
We know that Judas was only a man, not a heavenly pre-existent being, like satan was.It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that just because Judas is a devil, he is not a literal devil. He did not pre-exist as a heavenly being.
If Judas was WITH the Devil, would you think he was the Devil then? Yet the Word was WITH God, and you think he was and is God.Doesn't make sense. Double standard. Bableton strikes again.
Again, if there are two devils, one could be with the other, right?If there are two theos, one could be with the other also.
The Second Root was with the First Root…two who are both equally roots…with each other. Not a difficult concept. Both Roots are root-like too, naturally.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,13:21) 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.”
None of this is teaching the Trinity.1) We know that the Logos is Jesus Christ when he came in the flesh.
2) We know that the Logos that was with God is not an attribute.
3) That the Word was theos is what I am saying.
Where is the Trinity?
And what is the conclusion of the Book of John?
It is not a Trinity. Here is what John is trying to impart to the reader:
John 20:31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.So there you have it. I read the Book of John and I am left with the understanding that Jesus is the messiah and the son of God and that believing that, I have life is in his name.
You read the Book of John and you are left with Jesus being YHWH together with the Father.
Gill reads the Book of John he understands that Jesus is God and part of the Trinity.
Such is life Kathi. People can believe what they want.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,16:21) We know that Judas wasn't there in the
Again, if there are two devils, one could be with the other, right?If there are two theos, one could be with the other also.
The Second Root was with the First Root…two who are both equally roots…with each other. Not a difficult concept. Both Roots are root-like too, naturally.
Agreed. But only one of them is THE Devil or Satan.Whereas you would have me believe (in a similar way) that they are both devil therefore both are Satan, THE Devil.
Because you say that both are theos, and both are THE God and both are YHWH.
Hi t8,
Sorry it has been a while…I have been busy with other things.I am wondering why you took out half of the sentence when you quoted me in your last post, first line?
Quote (t8 @ April 07 2013,21:24) Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,13:21) 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.”
None of this is teaching the Trinity.1) We know that the Logos is Jesus Christ when he came in the flesh.
2) We know that the Logos that was with God is not an attribute.
3) That the Word was theos is what I am saying.
Where is the Trinity?
And what is the conclusion of the Book of John?
It is not a Trinity. Here is what John is trying to impart to the reader:
John 20:31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.So there you have it. I read the Book of John and I am left with the understanding that Jesus is the messiah and the son of God and that believing that, I have life is in his name.
You read the Book of John and you are left with Jesus being YHWH together with the Father.
Gill reads the Book of John he understands that Jesus is God and part of the Trinity.
Such is life Kathi. People can believe what they want.
John is teaching that the Word of God that the Jews knew as calling Himself Jehovah in the Tanakh and who was with Jehovah, became flesh and the promised Messiah.The 'Word of God' was a very familiar title of the Jehovah who spoke to Abraham, Moses and the prophets. You can easily see this in the OT and the Targums which reflect the understanding of the Jews.
See Gen 15 for starters.
Quote (t8 @ April 07 2013,21:28) Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2013,16:21) We know that Judas wasn't there in the
Again, if there are two devils, one could be with the other, right?If there are two theos, one could be with the other also.
The Second Root was with the First Root…two who are both equally roots…with each other. Not a difficult concept. Both Roots are root-like too, naturally.
Agreed. But only one of them is THE Devil or Satan.Whereas you would have me believe (in a similar way) that they are both devil therefore both are Satan, THE Devil.
Because you say that both are theos, and both are THE God and both are YHWH.
t8,
There are many devils but one in leadership of them from what I understand. Each one of the many devils can take the article 'the' in a particular context.1 Cor 8 tells us there are many gods and many lords, but for us there is one God and one Lord.
Both the Father and the Son are clearly referred to as theos in scriptures and clearly referred to as kyrios (Lord) in scriptures. The scriptures say that Jehovah is both theos and kyrios.
For us there is Jehovah, the holy elohim are He.
t8,
I have a new question for you.
You believe that Jesus is not The God but he is another god. True or false?Quote (Lightenup @ April 19 2013,03:45) I am wondering why you took out half of the sentence when you quoted me in your last post, first line?
When I am addressing a sentence or few, I quote that.
It makes it easier to understand. I dislike quoting whole posts like many do here. I usually ignore topics that do that repetitively because they are hard to follow as they are usually just quotes, quotes in quotes, quotes in quotes in quotes, and then a bit of original text.Quote (Lightenup @ April 19 2013,03:55) John is teaching that the Word of God that the Jews knew as calling Himself Jehovah in the Tanakh and who was with Jehovah, became flesh and the promised Messiah. The 'Word of God' was a very familiar title of the Jehovah who spoke to Abraham, Moses and the prophets. You can easily see this in the OT and the Targums which reflect the understanding of the Jews.
See Gen 15 for starters.
No John is teaching us to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. Further he states that the Word that was with God was itself not the Theos but theos.If John was teaching that the Word was THE God, then that would be to the exclusion of the Father and anyone else you think is God.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 19 2013,04:05) t8,
There are many devils but one in leadership of them from what I understand. Each one of the many devils can take the article 'the' in a particular context.1 Cor 8 tells us there are many gods and many lords, but for us there is one God and one Lord.
You don't even believe your own words here.Yes there are many devils and one in leadership who when we say the Devil it is Satan by default unless otherwise specified.
Yes there are many theos and one in leadership who when we specify theos, it is the Father by default unless otherwise specified.
Further, 1 Cor 8 says that there is one God the Father, and one Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ.
I noticed that you just removed the identities here. And it is clear that when you add them in, the text agrees with what I am teaching and contradicts your teaching.
You clearly lost the point of 1 Cor 8 and quote other verses as if it somehow nullifies the truth in 1 Cor 8. It does not.
Rather, you could say that there are many presidents, but for Americans there is one president, Obama. That doesn't nullify that there are Americans who are presidents of clubs, or hold other offices where they are called president. It just means that there is one Chief President who is the supreme commander of all America.
Likewise there are many lords, landlords, warlords, lords in parliament, but that Jesus was made Lord of all that God made and no one else was made Lord of all by God the Father.
It really is no more complicated than that.
For me there is one God the Father and one Lord the Lord Jesus Christ. For you there is not and hence why you remove the Father and Jesus when you quote 1 Cor 8. You are not US according to Paul when he said, “for us there is one God the Father…”
And if you are not 'us', then what are you?
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2013,19:17) t8,
I have a new question for you.
You believe that Jesus is not The God but he is another god. True or false?
A new question?I can give you the same old tried and true answer that works for most of your rehashed questions.
The Theos by default is the Father. Others are also called theos and as you say, even with the definite article. e.g., Satan is the God of this age. So with anyone else that theos is applied to, you need to read the context. A bit like that with Adam too. Usually it is Eve's husband, but context would determine if another was being referred to.
The theos could even refer to 'the idol'.
Further, the Father, Jesus, Satan, Angels, Counsels including men, and idols are all theos. If you don't believe that to be the case, you might want to sign up to learn some Greek or read a Concordance at least. And before you get upset about it by arguing against it, just know that this is the way the language works. Just accept it, or reject it. If the latter, then you reject scripture because the NT was Greek.
Here is a must answered question. Read this section of Corinthians and then answer the following:
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Paul mentions 'us' when he says, “yet for us there is but one God, the Father,…. and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ……”
Q: Are you part of the 'us' that Paul is talking about here?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
