The Trinity Doctrine

Participant

Hi Martian,
Assumptions cause confusion so it is better to state the most important fact that
“you must be born again”

January 27, 2008 at 11:48 pm#107441

ronday888

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2008,01:38)

[None of the things you mention deal with…
Titus 2:13

Titus 2:13
prosdechomenoi teen makarian elpida kai epiphaneian
AWAITING THE HAPPY HOPE AND MANIFESTATION
4327 3588 3107 1680 2532 2015
tees doxees tou megalou theou kai swteeros heemwn
OF THE GLORY OF THE GREAT GOD AND OF SAVIOR OF US
3588 1391 3588 3173 2316 2532 4990 1473_8
christou ieesou
OF CHRIST JESUS,
5547 2424

The reference here is to the age to come, when the glory of Jesus, his God, as well as the sons of God, will be revealed — made manifest — to the world in the coming day of judgment. (Acts 17:31; Romans 8:17-19; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Colossians 3:4; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 2 Timothy 4:1; See also: Isaiah 2:2-4; 26:9) What is now seen in obscurity will then be opened — revealed. (Isaiah 29:18; Revelation 20:12) At that time, the knowledge of Yahweh will fill the earth (Isaiah 11:9; Habakkuk 2:14), so that eventually no one will have to say to his neighbor: “Know Yahweh.” — Jeremiah 31:34.

The “appearing” in Titus 2:13 is distributed between two personages, “of our Great God” and also “of our savior, Christ Jesus”.

This scripture is translated various ways by different translators. Some translations would make it appear that Jesus was being called “the great God”; however, most translations do make a distinction between “the great God” and “Christ Jesus”.

The World English:

looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ.

New American Standard:
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our (F12) great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
====
Footnote 12: Or {the great God and our Savior}

Paul normally all through his writings makes a distinction between Jesus and his God. If he is referring to Jesus here as “the great God”, then this would an exception to his general rule by which he distinguishes between Jesus and his God. In reality, one has to read into this that Paul is calling Jesus “the great God”, here, and such is not very likely, since he always makes a disntiction between Jesus and his God.

Nevertheless, even if he did make an exception, in keeping with his general distinction between “God” and “Jesus', it should be understood in a similar sense that the rulers are spoken of in Ezekiel 32:21 are spoken of as gods, “the strong”, and as the sons of God are spoken of as “gods” in John 10:34,35; Psalm 82:1,6, (for just two examples*) not that Paul was claiming that Jesus is his God, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who sent Jesus, and through whom the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob spoke. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; John 1:18; 8:28; 12:49,50; Hebrews 1:1,2.
*See also:
http://godandson.reslight.net/hebraictitles.html

Many trinitarians and some others insist that Granville Sharp's rule should apply here, in that there is only one definite article. Of course, we need to remember the Bible writers were not writing to accommodate Mr. Sharp. Mr. Sharp's whole study was for the purpose of designing a set of rules and exceptions that could be applied to allegedly have the scriptures prove that Jesus is his God. However, he allowed exceptions in cases where he thought it would prove otherwise, as in John 20:28.

According to Sharp's rule: “When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article o, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person.” (Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 3.)

Sharp's sole purpose in his study was to promote the idea that Jesus is Yahweh, so he did not include “things” in his rule, thus he narrows his study to substantives (that is., nouns, substantival adjectives, substantival participles) of personal description, not those which referred to things, and only in the singular, not the plural. He states that “there is no exception or instance of the like mode of expression, that I know of, which necessarily requires a construction different from what is here laid down, EXCEPT the nouns be proper names, or in the plural number; in which case there are many exceptions .”

Thus, Sharp's rule of Greek grammar that would apply here is that if there are two nouns separated by the word “kai” (and), then if each noun has an article with it, they refer to different persons. But if only one of them has an article, they refer to the same person, and not two different persons.

Therefor, applying this rule to Titus 2:13, it is claimed that since there are two nouns, “God” and “Savior” separated by kai, with only one definite article, then God and Savior are speaking of the same person.

There are at least four other things to consider, however:

(1) What we today call “rules of grammar”, which rules are formulated by a general study of usage in a language, are not inherently rules that writers of the language would rigidly apply.

(2) One of the exceptions Mr. Sharp allowed for was that when the two nouns are proper nouns, nouns that designate a particular person. Using this exception, one can easily see that at least “God” is being used as a proper noun, and possibly that “Savior”, likewise, is being used as a proper noun, thus providing a dinstinction between “God” and “Savior”, since the latter is obviously identified as Christ Jesus (definitely a proper noun), and also because Paul's custom is to distinguish between Jesus and God.

(3) Sharp makes a exception to his general rule for John 20:28, for, according to him, it is obvious that one person is being spoken to even though the article appears twice. Likewise, in the converse, such an exception could apply in Titus 2:13 that it is obvious that two persons are being spoken of, even though only one article is used.

(4) The Sinaitic Manuscript does not have the word for God at all in Titus 2:13, but has instead “Lord”. Thus it is possible that Paul never wrote THEOS (God) in the verse at all, and that the reading we now have for Titus 2:13 is in error, being a later interpolation.

I will add a few quotes concerning Granville Sharp's “rule” (not that I am in agreement with all stated by the authors):

========
Quote
Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive. Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even where there is a clear separation in idea. “The repetition of the article was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.”

(Moulton-Howard-Turner, Grammar, Vol. III, p. 181. The reference is to Titus 2:13.)

Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1965.)
============

Quote
The same grammatical problem faces expositors in II Peter 1:1. Henry Alford is one of many Trinitarians who argue that Jesus is not called “God” in this verse. For him the absence of the article is outweighed here, as in Titus 2:13, by the much more significant fact that both Peter and Paul normally distinguish clearly between God and Jesus Christ. The writer of the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges agrees that “the rule that the one article indicates the one subject… [cannot] be too strongly
relied upon as decisive.”

Humphreys, A. E., The Epistles to Timothy & Titus, Cambridge University Press, 1895.)
===========
Taken from:
http://tinyurl.com/3yv78y

For more regarding Titus 2:13, see:
http://godandson.reslight.net/titus-2-13.html

January 28, 2008 at 5:47 am#107442

Participant

Quote (martian @ Jan. 28 2008,02:20)

Quote (t8 @ Jan. 27 2008,15:37)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2008,12:09)

Confusion.

Which scriptures do you disagree with or confuse you?

I disagree with the reasoning that is made in order to preserve a doctrine that was NEVER taught in scripture.

Your methodology is similar to other denominations methodology.

A railroad of scriptures in a certain order to paint a picture that was never meant to be painted.

“But for us there is one God, the Father, and one lord, the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is what we believers are to believe, unless you think Paul taught falsely of course.[/quote]
tb,
I have on several occasions posted on the cut and paste theology that is prevelent in todays church and on this board.
I posted this before but I have eddited it since then and you might find it of interest when debating those in false doctrine.

an unfortunate fact that many Christians have no idea how to study scripture honestly. This is true of even the most “so-called” mature Christians.
Do we seek to understand our rich Judeo-Christian history? Do we really want to knew God? Do we seek to know God’s plan for all men and us personally? Do we seek to know the character of Christ and become like him?
Our motives in researching the word will strongly effect whether we will follow these principles or not.

We all interpret whatever we read. Interpretation is the basis under which we comprehend what is being said. In order to really be honest with the Word it is necessary to have certain logical rules for interpretation. These rules are commonly called Hermeneutics or principles of exegesis. They are based on logic and very simple concepts of the Christian walk.

The most common form of interpretation used today is called “Cut and Paste Theology”. In this method a person can take a scripture out of context put it with several others, disregarding any proper hermeneutical principles and make a doctrine out of it. Not understanding the culture or definitions of words. Using ambiguous scriptures that are misinterpreted to contradict very clear scriptures. With this type of “scholarship” a person can prove just about anything from scripture. When one actually looks at these doctrines with proper principles they completely fall apart. This is not to say that there are not scriptures that can stand on their own but always must also stand within the proper interpretive process. In other words they need no other scriptures for their meaning to be very clear.
We start from a premises that the “original scriptures” as written by the prophets and apostles were inspired by God Himself. No particular later translation has inspiration. There are good and bad translations. Those who penned the scriptures wrote exactly what God wanted to say and that God wants us to know the truth. God used the personalities of the authors, situations, natural realm, culture and circumstances for the purpose of teaching us. The purpose of scripture is to win the lost, learn of God, and to teach the saved how to become like Christ and walk with God as He did.
Even great knowledge about the scriptures cannot take the place of personal interaction and relationship with God. Christianity is fundamentally experiential and not simply mental. You can study all the scriptures about salvation. You can read all the great teachers on the subject, but until you experience the sweet grace of God and feel the burden of sin lifted from your soul and the first intimate touch of God’s Spirit, you do not know salvation. The word is a teaching tool to bring us to relationship with Christ. Scripture is not the complete standard by which we live. Christ is the standard. He is the cornerstone and becoming like Him is the goal. For too many Christians have become trapped being scriptural instead of relational or doctrinal instead of experiential. REMEMBER — everything is about becoming like Christ.

In the past 100 years there have been very significant archeological finds that directly impact our understanding of scripture such as evidence form the Dead Sea Scrolls proving that Hebrew was an active language in the time of Christ. It is an unfortunate fact that even recently published reference works are simple copies of the same material prevalent from the 1800s. Keep you research material current.

Although the following principles are a good broad outline of understanding from an intellectual standpoint, it is the conclusions of our interpretations that must first and foremost be tested for their validity. Several tests can be applied from the very beginning that can detect false doctrine without prolonged Bible study.. These tests are important because those who teach false doctrine will not hold to honest principles when their doctrines come under scrutiny. Most of those in false teaching will immediately recognize that their doctrines will not survive these tests and they will refuse to follow them.
A. Among most Christians there are certain accepted truths about God that are universal. These include both “physical” attributes and character traits.
God has very specific attributes.
He is a Spirit.
He is eternal and cannot die.
He is all knowing.
He is omnipresent.
He is invisible.
He is all powerful.
He cannot be tempted
He cannot fail
He cannot sin
And the one that impacts all others is His immutability. He cannot change what or who He is. His deity is predicated upon all of these attributes. To give any of them up would counteract or take away from His deity and nature. It is simply impossible for a God to give up any of these attributes and be the God of the bible.
Any conclusion from supposed interpretation that contradicts these attributes must be false.
B. God is a reasoning being and we are created in His image with the ability to reason as well. God calls us to reason with Him that we might understand Him. Any teaching that in finale analisis depends on mysticism or is defended as a mystery beyond our understanding goes against God’s desire for us to know him.
C. God has a plan for man. Creation centers around that plan. It is the stage onto which that plan comes to fruition. Simply put, that plan is for God to raise up children unto himself that have the same character, motives, and intentions as He does.
The first to attempt this plan was Adam. The first to achieve it was Jesus. Jesus is our example and the forerunner/firstfruits of all of man. We are to become like him. This is not rhetoric, this is the actual desire of God. Any supposed conclusion that hinders or detracts from God’s plan cannot be accurate.
Now that we have established a basis to begin, let’s talk about the fundamentals of understanding scripture.
Here is a list of principles to use to properly use, translate, and understand scripture.
1. Scripture must interpret scripture. No one has a private interpretation but all proofs must come from the word itself. A good idea and safety is to use only scriptural terms to understand the meaning of a verse.
2. It does not matter what we believe to be true or how we feel about a subject. All that matters is what prom
otes and establishes God character and plan in His creation/us.
3. Spend a majority of time in clear understandable scripture. Never base a belief on ambiguous scriptures.
4. There is only one truth. Never base a doctrine on an interpretation of scriptures that causes contradiction with other clear scriptures. If there is a seeming contradiction, this indicates a need for further research to ascertain the truth. A clear scripture always supersedes and ambiguous one and does not cause a contradiction.
5. When attempting to understand a difficult scripture follow these guidelines —
A. Form a hypothesis of what you think it may mean then test it. this really is automatic, since we will come to an idea by simply reading the verse in question. (This is the point at which we should check our conclusions with the plan, the character, and the attributes of God. If there is a contradiction, there is no need to go further, a new hypothesis should be made.)
B. Does your idea fit the immediate context? This is the first and foremost challenge, within scripture, and the one most often missed.
C. Does your idea fit the general over all tenor or context of scripture.
D. Is the language figurative or literal. In many cases a little common since can be applied here. For instance no biologist in the world is going to confirm the existence of a seven headed beast as is mentioned in Revelations. This is obviously a figurative story.
E. Understand the historical, geographical or cultural time in which it is written.
F. Understand who was inspired to write the scripture and to whom it was being written.
G. Use several translations to avoid the possible bias of one particular translator.
H. Attempt to find unbiased meanings of Greek and Hebrew words.
I. Compare scripture with scripture. Compare a questionable scripture to other scriptures that use the same words or speak of the same concepts.
J. Understand that God uses allegories and parables to teach spiritual truth.
K. God uses the physical realm to teach about the spiritual realm.
L. God lives out of our linear time frame and looks at things from an eternal perspective.
M. The original text was not separated into chapter and verse. Many times one verse is directly related to, or part of, the verses before or after it. Many times they are connected by words such as “for” or “and”. (Furthermore for those more advanced in ancient manuscripts of scripture, much more weight should be placed on older copies of scripture then on more recent copies. (there is less chance for errors in copying)
P. The original text is written in several languages from several time periods and cultures. Hebrew writers think differently then those of us brought up in the modern world. Their writings also are effected by this difference. We must therefore understand how Hebrews thought and wrote. In the cases of the epistles, you must understand the culture and circumstances of the people to which the letter is written.
Q. In the case of seeming contradictions where one scripture says one thing and dozens say the opposite go with the preponderance of evidence. In other words side with the majority of clear scripture until the apposing scripture can be properly understood.
R. In the gospels Jesus uses a form of debate common among rabbis of that time. He would quote a portion of scripture and the Pharisees would know that He implied the entire context of that verse. In this manner he would allow them to see the conclusion he wanted them to see without pointing to it exactly. He led them to the truth without confrontation.

The biggest test for doctrine is very simple. Does the end result of following this doctrine bring you closer to understanding and becoming like Christ or take you further away from these goals.

I have saved the most important lesson of all for last.

BE LED OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD.

Prayerfully seek God’s guidance in understanding. The most important reason for study is to have our hearts and character molded to be like Jesus. We do not seek to have only head knowledge but a living truth that transforms lives.

As stated in the beginning, the purpose of the word is to guide us to become like Christ. This is the plan of God for mankind. Any conclusion must first and foremost function toward that plan and furthermore must not contradict the character or attributes of God.

My name is T8 not TB.

He he. Sounds like a disease or something.

I like your post martian.

I thought it contained some very good points and didn't disagree with any of it (from what I understood of it at least.)

Thanks

January 28, 2008 at 1:09 pm#107443

acertainchap

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 28 2008,10:03)

Hi Martian,
Assumptions cause confusion so it is better to state the most important fact that
“you must be born again”

While this is very important, Nick, I feel that this is of great significance and value as well…

Matthew 6:33

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

January 29, 2008 at 12:59 am#107444

martian

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Jan. 28 2008,16:47)

Quote (martian @ Jan. 28 2008,02:20)

Quote (t8 @ Jan. 27 2008,15:37)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 26 2008,12:09)

Confusion.

Which scriptures do you disagree with or confuse you?

I disagree with the reasoning that is made in order to preserve a doctrine that was NEVER taught in scripture.

Your methodology is similar to other denominations methodology.

A railroad of scriptures in a certain order to paint a picture that was never meant to be painted.

“But for us there is one God, the Father, and one lord, the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is what we believers are to believe, unless you think Paul taught falsely of course.

tb,
I have on several occasions posted on the cut and paste theology that is prevelent in todays church and on this board.
I posted this before but I have eddited it since then and you might find it of interest when debating those in false doctrine.

Although the following principles are a good broad outline of understanding from an intellectual standpoint, it is the conclusions of our interpretations that must first and foremost be tested for their validity. Several tests can be applied from the very beginning that can detect false doctrine without prolonged Bible study.. These tests are important because those who teach false doctrine will not hold to honest principles when their doctrines come under scrutiny. Most of those in false teaching will immediately recognize that their doctrines will not survive these tests and they will refuse to follow them.
A. Among most Christians there are certain accepted truths about God that are universal. These include both “physical” attributes and character traits.
God has very specific attributes.
He is a Spirit.
He is eternal and cannot die.
He is all knowing.
He is omnipresent.
He is invisible.
He is all powerful.
He cannot be tempted
He cannot fail
He cannot sin
And the one that impacts all others is His immutability. He cannot change what or who He is. His deity is predicated upon all of these attributes. To give any of them up would counteract or take away from His deity and nature. It is simply impossible for a God to give up any of these attributes and be the God of the bible.
Any conclusion from supposed interpretation that contradicts these attributes must be false.
B. God is a reasoning being and we are created in His image with the ability to reason as well. God calls us to reason with Him that we might understand Him. Any teaching that in finale analisis depends on mysticism or is defended as a mystery beyond our understanding goes against God’s desire for us to know him.
C. God has a plan for man. Creation centers around that plan. It is the stage onto which that plan comes to fruition. Simply put, that plan is for God to raise up children unto himself that have the same character, motives, and intentions as He does.
The first to attempt this plan was Adam. The first to achieve it was Jesus. Jesus is our example and the forerunner/firstfruits of all of man. We are to become like him. This is not rhetoric, this is the actual desire of God. Any supposed conclusion that hinders or detracts from God’s plan cannot be accurate.
Now that we have established a basis to begin, let’s talk about the fundamentals of understanding scripture.
Here is a list of principles to use to properly use, translate, and understand scripture.
1. Scripture must interpret scripture. No one has a private interpretation but
all proofs must come from the word itself. A good idea and safety is to use only scriptural terms to understand the meaning of a verse.
2. It does not matter what we believe to be true or how we feel about a subject. All that matters is what promotes and establishes God character and plan in His creation/us.
3. Spend a majority of time in clear understandable scripture. Never base a belief on ambiguous scriptures.
4. There is only one truth. Never base a doctrine on an interpretation of scriptures that causes contradiction with other clear scriptures. If there is a seeming contradiction, this indicates a need for further research to ascertain the truth. A clear scripture always supersedes and ambiguous one and does not cause a contradiction.
5. When attempting to understand a difficult scripture follow these guidelines —
A. Form a hypothesis of what you think it may mean then test it. this really is automatic, since we will come to an idea by simply reading the verse in question. (This is the point at which we should check our conclusions with the plan, the character, and the attributes of God. If there is a contradiction, there is no need to go further, a new hypothesis should be made.)
B. Does your idea fit the immediate context? This is the first and foremost challenge, within scripture, and the one most often missed.
C. Does your idea fit the general over all tenor or context of scripture.
D. Is the language figurative or literal. In many cases a little common since can be applied here. For instance no biologist in the world is going to confirm the existence of a seven headed beast as is mentioned in Revelations. This is obviously a figurative story.
E. Understand the historical, geographical or cultural time in which it is written.
F. Understand who was inspired to write the scripture and to whom it was being written.
G. Use several translations to avoid the possible bias of one particular translator.
H. Attempt to find unbiased meanings of Greek and Hebrew words.
I. Compare scripture with scripture. Compare a questionable scripture to other scriptures that use the same words or speak of the same concepts.
J. Understand that God uses allegories and parables to teach spiritual truth.
K. God uses the physical realm to teach about the spiritual realm.
L. God lives out of our linear time frame and looks at things from an eternal perspective.
M. The original text was not separated into chapter and verse. Many times one verse is directly related to, or part of, the verses before or after it. Many times they are connected by words such as “for” or “and”. (Furthermore for those more advanced in ancient manuscripts of scripture, much more weight should be placed on older copies of scripture then on more recent copies. (there is less chance for errors in copying)
P. The original text is written in several languages from several time periods and cultures. Hebrew writers think differently then those of us brought up in the modern world. Their writings also are effected by this difference. We must therefore understand how Hebrews thought and wrote. In the cases of the epistles, you must understand the culture and circumstances of the people to which the letter is written.
Q. In the case of seeming contradictions where one scripture says one thing and dozens say the opposite go with the preponderance of evidence. In other words side with the majority of clear scripture until the apposing scripture can be properly understood.
R. In the gospels Jesus uses a form of debate common among rabbis of that time. He would quote a portion of scripture and the Pharisees would know that He implied the entire context of that verse. In this manner he would allow them to see the conclusion he wanted them to see without pointing to it exactly. He led them to the truth without confrontation.

The biggest test for doctrine is very simple. Does the end result of following this doctrine bring you closer to understanding and becoming like Christ or take you further away from these goals.

I have saved the most important lesson of all for last.

BE LED OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD.

He he. Sounds like a disease or something.

I like your post martian.

I thought it contained some very good points and didn't disagree with any of it (from what I understood of it at least.)

Thanks

I would be happy to discuss any part you did not understand clearly.

January 30, 2008 at 1:57 am#107445

Participant

It seemed pretty clear to me.

I am just saying that I agree with all of it, unless I somehow mistook something you said. (An opt out clause in case you meant something else).

But it seems clear and nothing looks like it needs further explanation.

January 30, 2008 at 6:32 am#107446

Participant

Quote (acertainchap @ Jan. 29 2008,00:09)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 28 2008,10:03)

Hi Martian,
Assumptions cause confusion so it is better to state the most important fact that
“you must be born again”

While this is very important, Nick, I feel that this is of great significance and value as well…

Matthew 6:33

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Hi ACC,
That is how one enters the kingdom-jn3.

January 30, 2008 at 8:25 pm#107447

martian

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Jan. 30 2008,12:57)

It seemed pretty clear to me.

I am just saying that I agree with all of it, unless I somehow mistook something you said. (An opt out clause in case you meant something else).

But it seems clear and nothing looks like it needs further explanation.

Glad you got it. Believe me there are those (not speaking of you) that will agree with it all untill it counters one of their pet doctrines. Then out go all the principles.

January 30, 2008 at 9:50 pm#107448

Participant

Ron

My time is limited since I run my own business. Sorry I took so long to respond. Your post are huge and detailed which takes some time to respond to.

Its easier for me when I can make short burst of post, for I do it while I am setting at me computer in between things at my business. But to respond to your post takes much detailed study and gathering info in order to present my views. This is a compliment to you and your knowledge of the scriptures and your attention to detail.

Hopefully I can catch up to you and the others here. Blessings!

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2008,14:07)

Yes that is exactly my point. You take “your literal rendering” as you gave on page 1004 and place it above the W&H Interlinear.

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 26 2008,15:10)

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean, and I feel like I am debating on something totally irrelevant to the issue.

Irrelevant? The Arians attempt to dishonour Yeshua as co-creator of the heavens and the earth and everything that is and that has come into being is of grave importance. This is proof of his deity. The Creator and the created. There is nothing else.

W&H
“ALL (THINGS) THROUGH HIM CAME TO BE, AND APART FROM HIM
CAME TO BE NOT BUT ONE (THING). WHICH HAS COME TO BE”

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Its simply apologetics at its worse to misinterpret Jn 1:3 in context with Jn 1:1 calling Jesus the Word/God who was with the Father God.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2008,14:07)

True it is not yours and you have no authority or credentials to change it.

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 26 2008,15:10)

Since I never changed it, and never claimed to be changing it, the above is irrelevant.

If you remove the word “thing” from the literal translation of the W&H and the Green Interlinear then you have changed the meaning which the Scholars intended to portray in the translations.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2008,14:07)

Well then now we have two witnesses against you, Greek experts that agree with each other. Look…

W&H
“ALL (THINGS) THROUGH HIM CAME TO BE, AND APART FROM HIM
CAME TO BE NOT BUT ONE (THING). WHICH HAS COME TO BE”

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 26 2008,15:10)

I see nothing here that is “against” me.

Really!

…AND APART FROM HIM
CAME TO BE NOT BUT ONE (THING). WHICH HAS COME TO BE”

How do you read this and get only “Some things” came through Yeshua?

When John wrote Jn 1:1-3 he didn’t have the 'Bible” to compare his inspired words to, to see if he was agreeing with the writings of the other Apostles.

Trying to force this text to mean anything else is wrong.

Appealing to Jn 1:10 doesn’t work either for John is speaking post Yehsua's birth, and John didn’t use “pas” but simply said the world which he was born into, and came to was made by him and didn’t recieve him.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2008,14:07)

Jay Green's Interlinear* (Second Edition, c. 1986)
“All things through Him came into being and without Him came into being not even one that came into being.”

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 26 2008,15:10)

I see nothing here that is “against” me.

…and without Him came into being not even one that came into being.”

J.P. Greens literal translation of the verse reads…

“All things came into being trough him, and without him not even one thing came into being that has come into being”.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2008,14:07)

Am I missing something, or does the text truly read “All things through Him came into being”

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 26 2008,15:10)

Yes, all things (in context) came into being through the Logos, as I have shown.

True. But apparently your context disagrees with the Logos that “Was with God (the Father) and was God (Yeshua) in the beginning before all things, which includes time, space, and matter.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2008,14:07)

But you say… “I only dropped the word “things” and the word “even” that do not actually appear in the Greek text”.

Yes you “only dropped the word things” Don’t you think that would have some bearing on the text?

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 26 2008,15:10)

The Greek text does not have any word in it to correspond to “things” and that is all the only reason I dropped it.

Let me rephrase then. You dropped the word “Things” from the literal translations.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2008,14:07)

What right or credentials do you have to change the literal translations of the text?

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 26 2008,15:10)

Since I never did what I am being charged with doing, the above is irrelevant.

See Above.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2008,14:07)

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

I had no purpose of changing the texts or the translations. Jay Green's Literal Translation reads: “All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

“

…without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being

How can that mean anything other than what it says.

Are you purposely over looking the first part of the verse?

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

Since I am not overlooking the first part of the verse, the question is irrelevant.

See the first part of this post.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2008,14:07)

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

In his literal translation, he adds the word “thing” after “one” and changes the inflection in the last instance from “came into being” to “has come into being”, which does not create any great difference as far as meaning is concerned.

Really? The words “All things came into being” as apposed to “only man came into being through him”, does not change the meaning in a “great way” which is what you are interpreting Jn 1:3 to say?

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

Note of the renderings offered change what I have shown from the scriptures.

Not so. See above.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2008,14:07)

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

WJ presented nothing specific that he objects to in the rendering I gave.

Yes I did and you were not listening! All the translations on blueletterbible.org and bible gateway.com and here http://bible.cc/john/1-3.htm disagree with your interpretation of the verse. And as I have shown that the W&H and Jay Greens Interlinear disagree with your rendering of the verse.

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

For my part, I am not debating whether W&H or Jay Green's Interlinear disagrees with my rendering. It is a mute point. As far as I am concerned such is irrelevant, since one still has to consider the context and ther rest of the Bible, regardless.

It’s a mute point for you because to accept the true meaning of the text would mean that all other scriptures speaking of Yeshua in relationship to the creation of the Universe would show him as co-creator with the Father and the Spirit and elevate him to his proper place as creator God.

If there is something specific that anyone wishes to present concerning the Greek, then the specific case should be presented. Otherwise, I simply view statements such as WJ's above as meaningless and designed to sidetrack the issue.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 25 2008,14:07)

I have addressed the specifics, and it would seem to me that you attempt to sidetrack the issue by ignoring the scripture and its true interpretation, and by removing important words like “Things” and “Even” out of the translation thereby changing the meaning and apposing hundreds of Greek scholars.

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

Neither of the words actually appears in the Greek. However, all of this totally irrelevant to anything. Not even one thing was made without him that was made. One still has to
consider the context and the rest of the Bible to realize what is being referred to.

No, It is true that most all scriptures lack some words from the Hebrew and Greek that the translators had to add to make sense of the translation. But they are the scholars and the experts and not you nor I. You have taken words from the literal translations that can and does change the meaning. Then you continue from that basis with apologetics to support your Arian belief. And that is irrelevant?

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

Nevertheless, many translations made by Trinitarians as well as others do not add the word “even” to their translation:

All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made. — World English Bible translation.

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. — New American Standard.

All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. — American Standard

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. — English Standard.

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. — New King James Version.

All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created. — Holman Christian Standard.

All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. — Third Millennium

Through him all things were made; without him nothing wa
s made that has been made. — New International Version.

All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being. — New Revised Standard Version

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. — King James Version

all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. — Revised Standard Version.

The above are just a few examples. Were the translators of these translations changing the text by not adding the word “even” into their translation?

Yet none of the above implies that by or through Yeshua only a “few things” in all of Creation was made. Show us where.

John didn’t have the NT Bible.

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

As I noted before, W&H shows that the word “thing(s)” is added by using parenthesis.

It still appears to me that this whole line of argument is simply a smokescreen to turn attention away from all the scriptural evidence I gave earlier, which, so far, WJ has simply ignored.

No smoke screen. See above. Your apologetics is the smoke screen to get around 3 verses, namely Jn1:1-3 of scripture that appose the Arian view of Yeshua. Even most anti-Trinitarians believes that “Everything” was created by or through Yeshua.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2008,14:04)

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

Yes, it still says the same thing. I do not deny what it says. Nor do I deny the context as well as the rest of the scriptures that show what is being spoken of.

But if you interpret “without him *nothing was made* that has been made” as being through him only man was made then you have denied the text and the translations.

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

That is not what I said. I said the “world of mankind” was made through Jesus. This includes all of things described in the six days of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. The six days are the “beginning”. (Exodus 20:11; 31:17)
I have given the scriptural reasonings for believing this to be true.

“World of mankind”? Is this some new biblical term? Or is this one of those extra biblical terms that you accuse Trinitarians of?
You say… “This includes all things described in the six days of creation in Genesis 1 and 2”.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
John was appealing to Genesis 1:1 in John 1:1-3.

The beginning means “The beginning of all things”, including Time, Space and matter.
Now I suppose you are going to tell me the heavens were not included in Genesis 1:1.

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

Irregardless, however, as to what is included in “all things”, Jesus is still the agent, not the actual source of the creation.

If all things were made through Yeshua, and his substance or essence which is the same as the Fathers according to Heb1:3, was not part of the creation, then that means Yeshua was just an empty shell.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2008,14:04)

Some of the translations render the word “dia” as “by” and some of them as “through”.

I say it makes no difference. Here is why. If Jesus is not just a funnel that the Father made all things through then it would mean that he had substance, essence just as the Father. He is Spirit just as the Father. Heb 1:2,3

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

Jesus was indeed a spirit being with His God and Father before he came into the world of mankind. In this sense he had the substance of a spirit being just as his God and Father, and just as the angels are of spirit substance. I don't see anything in this that has any relevance to Jesus' allegedly not being used as the agent in creation.

Can you present a scripture that shows the pre-incarnate Yeshua calling the Father his Father? He was and is in the form of God because he is God.

Yeshua is not to be compared to angels. This is not the substance Yeshua shared with the Father. He was and is not just some “mighty spirit being” as you call him.

Heb 1:3
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, (substance) and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

• The “world” was made through Him (v 2)
• He is said to be the radiance of the Father’s glory [Gr. doxa] (v 3)
• He is the exact representation of the Father’s “hypostasis” [nature/substance] (v 3)
• He “upholds [sustains] all things by the word of His power” (v 3)
• The angels are commanded to worship Him [a sole prerogative of YHWH] (v 6)
• He is called “God” (with the definite article) by the Father (v 8)
• He is contrasted from false gods (v 11)
• Is said to be immutable [an attribute of YHWH – e.g. Malachi 3:6] (v 12)
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1278

Blessings

Sorry I got the dates a little messed up but the order is correct.

January 30, 2008 at 10:08 pm#107449

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1278

Participant

Hi Ron.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2008,14:04)

Col 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Being that all things are made through him and for him as we see in Col 1:16, then it would make sense that all things are held together by him, even by the word of his power. Heb 1:2

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

Yes, Jesus was the instrument used (Greek, en), the agent (Greek, dia) used in the creation being spoken of, “thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers,” that is living creation, both creatures visible and invisible, in heaven and on earth. I believe have discussed this scripture before.

So again, “All things” does not mean “All things”. So let’s look at the text in its context.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Col 1:15-17

The Greek word for firstborn in vs. 15 is “prototokos”, which in the Septuagint does not always mean “the first to be born”. In the Septuagint the word prototokos appears about 130 times, and about 50% of the time it refers to the “First born Son” and the other times it refers to “preeminence”. YHWH calls “Israel” his firstborn, Exod 4:22, yet we know Israel was not the firstborn son. The word carries the connotation of preeminence.

The NET comments on this verse and its context…
28tn The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prwtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is preeminent in rank. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT), 43, expresses the meaning of the word well: “The ‘firstborn’ was either the eldest child in a family or a person of preeminent rank. The use of this term to describe the Davidic king in Ps 88:28 LXX (=Ps 89:27 EVV), ‘I will also appoint him my firstborn (πρωτότοκον), the most exalted of the kings of the earth,’ indicates that it can denote supremacy in rank as well as priority in time. But whether the πρωτό- element in the word denotes time, rank, or both, the significance of the -τοκος element as indicating birth or origin (from τίκτω, give birth to) has been virtually lost except in ref. to lit. birth.” In Col 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus’ rank as over and above creation (cf. 1:16 and the “for” clause referring to Jesus as Creator).
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm

Many Anti-Trinitarians do not believe that Yeshua is a created being or part of the created as some would imply this verse to mean. So in context with verse 17, verse 15 shows Yeshua as having the “Preeminence” over “all creation” . Verse 17 which reads “He is “pro”, before “pas” all things and “en” in or by him “pas” all things “sunistao” consist, hold together. Therfore being he has the preeminence in vs. 15 and he is before all things and by him all things consist and are held together vs. 17, Heb 1:3, then by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. Vs. 16. And without him was not anything made that was made. Jn 1:3

Wesley's Notes on Col 1:17
1:17 And he is before all things – It is not said, he was: he is from everlasting to everlasting. And by him all things consist – The original expression not only implies, that he sustains all things in being, but more directly, All things were and are compacted in him into one system. He is the cement, as well as support, of the universe. And is he less than the supreme God?
http://bible.cc/colossians/1-17.htm

Think of the magnitude of Yeshua upholding all things by the word of his power and that by him all things consist are held together.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
17. (Joh 8:58.) Translate as Greek, “And He Himself (the great He) is (implying divine essential being) before all things,” in time, as well as in dignity. Since He is before all things, He is before even time, that is, from eternity. Compare “the first-born of every creature” (Col 1:15).
by him-Greek, “IN Him” (as the conditional element of existence, Col 1:16) [Alford].
consist-“subsist.” Not only are called into being from nothing, but are maintained in their present state. The Son of God is the Conserver, as well as the Creator of all things [Pearson]. Bengel less probably explains, “All things in Him come together into one system: the universe found its completion in Him” (Isa 41:4; Re 22:13). Compare as to God, Ro 11:36: similar language; therefore Christ must be God
http://bible.cc/colossians/1-17.htm

This completely agrees with John 1:1-3 and Heb 1:10 which unambiguously show Yeshua as the co-creator of “all things”.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

I have given before at least two Trinitarian Greek scholars who said that Jesus was being spoken of as the agent in creation in John 1:3. The New American Bible has a footnote on Colossians 1:16,17:

Quote

Christ (though not mentioned by name) is preeminent and supreme as God's agent “in the creation of all things' (cf John 1:3), as prior to all things (Col 1:17; cf Hebrews 1:3).

Exactly, the scholar says Yeshua is “preeminent and supreme as God's agent in the creation of all things (cf John 1:3), as prior to all things (Col 1:17; cf Hebrews 1:3).

This disagrees with your premise that Yeshua only created some things. The word “agent” is not found in scripture. I’ll give you “agent” can describe Yeshua because he is co-creator with the Father just as the Spirit is also an “agent” of the Father and the Son and was also co-creator of all things.

Would you say the Spirit of God is less than God?

Gen 1:2
…And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Job 33:4
The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

Quote (ronda
y888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace, in his book *Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics*, page 434, regarding John 1:3, being Trinitarian, speaks of the Logos as creator in a “hands-on” sort of way. However, he does show that Jesus is the agent used, for he says: “Intermediate agency is ascribed to Christ (with dia).”

Yes he does speak of Yeshua as an “agent”, however the point he makes as well is he “speaks of the Logos as creator in a “hands-on” sort of way”.

This is the main point is Yeshua is the creator.

Then you say

Quote

“However, he does show that Jesus is the agent used, for he says: “Intermediate agency is ascribed to Christ (with dia)”.

You really seem hung up on the word “dia” as if it really makes a difference whether it’s translated as through or by. You seem to think that because everything was made through or by Yeshua that this means he is not “Deity” or “Theos”, God.

What do you do say about this one?…

Rom 11:36
For of him, and through (dia) him, and unto him, are all things. To him be the glory for ever. Amen.

οτι εξ αυτου και δι αυτου και εις αυτον τα παντα αυτω η δοξα εις τους αιωνας αμην

See if you can tell me who Paul is speaking of in Rom 11 for he doesn’t mention the Father.

J.P Greens literal rendering is…

Because of him, and through (dia) him, and to him are all things, to him be the glory forever, amen!

So I suppose you would say that because all things are through (dia) the Father, that he is not the creator but just an agent. Or would you say that all things are not through the Father? You can’t have it both ways. In fact very often when you read scriptures with the word “Theos” like for instance Romans chapter 11, you can’t even distinguish between the Father and the Son.

The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from them, as apposed to the Father and Son and Holy Spirit being in us by one Spirit and not us in each other.

So this verse can also describe Yeshua since all things were made through him and for him. In context Paul uses the word “kurios” which strongly implies Yeshua is the one spoken of here. This also stands in the face of the anti-Trinitarians that claim 1 Cor 8:6 proves Yeshua is not God because Paul uses the term One God, the Father and “One Lord Jesus Christ”. However if it means the Father is God and Yeshua is not, then it also must mean Yeshua is Lord and the Father is not. Which is ludicrous. Yet the Shema tells us there is only “One Lord”.

The word ” kurios” is almost always ascribed to Yeshua in the NT which was YHWH brought over from the Hebrew in the Septuagint. Yeshua means “YHWH” is salvation. Paul seems to confirm this here…

1 Corinthians 2.16: For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Which is a quote from here…

Isa 40:13
“Who has known the mind of the Lord (YHWY Hebrew, kurios Greek)? or who has been his counsellor, to instruct him”. Septuagint.

Paul as he does in most places makes the distinction between the Father and the Son by using these terms as so not to appeal to modalism. And since no one knows or knew at that time the name of the Father, which simply is a title just as “Theos” is, then he uses the terms One God, the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ. Interesting how a comma can make a big difference.

The NET places the comma after God.

“yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live”.
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm

Paul who is a strict Monotheist was addressing Polytheism in the same breath that he says there is “Only One God”, in vrs 4, then he ascribes “attributes of God to Yeshua” as he does to the Father in verse 6, which is a strong indication that he was not addressing the ontological nature of the Father as apposed to Yeshua.

The Father…
from whom are all things and for whom we live,

Yeshua…
through whom are all things and through whom we live

Compare Paul’s words here with what he ascribes to Yeshua in 1 Cor 8:6

Because of him, and through (dia) him, and to him are all things, to him be the glory forever, amen!

Truly all things are through or from the Father and the Son and even now proceeding from them are all things by the Holy Spirit.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2008,14:04)

So the Hebrew writer confirms who it is that laid the foundation of the earth.
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: Heb 1:10….

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 18 2008,07:50)

Yes, Jesus laid the foundation of the earth, as described in the six days of creation, being the instrument used by his God.

God bless.

The six days of “Creation” includes the “Heavens and the Earth”.

Gen 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Heb 1:10
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Blessings.

January 30, 2008 at 10:11 pm#107450

Participant

Hi WJ,
Certainly the monogenes Son is amazing.
But he never was his own Father.

January 31, 2008 at 5:01 am#107451

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 31 2008,09:11)

Hi WJ,
Certainly the monogenes Son is amazing.
But he never was his own Father.

True!

January 31, 2008 at 5:44 am#107452

Participant

Ron

I thought I would bump this post was waiting for your response. Will get on you others when I can. Blessings!

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 14 2008,12:38)

None of the things you mention deal with
Jn 1:14

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 21 2008,08:11)

John 1:14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. — King James Version.

The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth. — World English Bible translation.

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten [footnote: Or unique, only one of His kind] from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Most trinitarians, believing that John 1:1 says that the Logos is God Almighty, would have what John wrote in John 1:14 to mean that God Almighty became flesh.

First of all this statement is misrepresentation of the Trinitarian view based on your presupposition that the Word is not God, and your denial of Jn 1:1 and other scriptures like 1 John 5:20, Phil 2, Rev 1:8 that says the Word was and is God!

John makes the distinction between the Word/God and the Father in that the Word was with God.

The word “Theos” is a title to describe the “Nature” of a being whether in a true qualitative sence or a false qualitative sence which are not “Gods” at all. The title theos does not describe Identity as ATs claim, for there is no example in the NT where the followers of Christ ever used the word for any being other than the Father and the Son with the exception of the false “gods” or opposites of God, which are not gods at all. 1 Cor 8:4-6

So no Trinitarian believes your accusation that the Word is the Father! If John wanted to make this distinction that the Word was not God, then he could have used another word besides “theos” or just plainly said that he was a “mighty spirit being” as you call him. There is no scripture for this.

In fact Ron why don’t you give me one example of the NT disciples or Apostles ever calling any being “Theos” other than the Father and Yeshua excluding the obvious opposites of God which are not gods at all.

You again disagree with the scholars and the translators. I see this as a pattern with you Ron. You come here changing the translations with your own interpretations and using a lot of inference and reading into the scriptures.

Maybe you should check this sight out on the true interpretation of John 1:1.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 21 2008,08:11)

However, they would explain that what John really meant to say was that God Almighty was made flesh, not by changing his substance/essence to flesh, but by taking flesh to himself, his essence remained untouched

Misrepresentation! Untrue! The Father did not come in the Flesh! However, if the Father wanted to he could have, but the Word/God Yeshua came in the flesh.

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 21 2008,08:11)

But that was not what John actually said. Of course, the trinitarian assumes and adds a lot to the scriptures in their reasoning. In John 1:1, they assume that THEOS applied to Logos means that Jesus *was* the only true God whom he was with. (John 17:1,3,5) Then they would actually change and add to what John said, for John said nothing about the Logos 'taking flesh to himself'. The Logos “was made” or he “became” flesh.

Ok! Lets think about what you are saying in the light of these scriptures…

Jn 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jn 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Matt 26:41
Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Rom 8:5
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

Rom 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

1 Cor 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Gal 5:17
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

You are saying this “mighty spirit being” the word literally became flesh which would imply change of nature from spirit to flesh, which is apposed by many scritptures in the NT including the ones above. This would also mean that Yeshua was flesh only and that he “the mighty spirit being” is no longer spirit. Or you would have to admit that his spirit nature did not change and he remained Spirit the Word/God that came in the flesh according to…

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Rom 8:3.

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Phil 2:6,7

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 21 2008,08:11)

Taking what John actually said, as opposed to what trinitarians would want John to have said, then, if God Almighty *became* flesh, this would mean that the actual flesh of Jesus was God Almighty

You really have no clue what Trinitarians believe do you? Misrepresentation! Do you like doing this? Does this add to the validity of your argument? Let me say it more plainly…

“JESUS IS NOT THE FATHER WHO HE WAS WITH”.. The Word was with God (Father) and Was God (Yeshua), the same was in the beginning with God (Father). You should once again believe the scriptures and not change the translation!

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 21 2008,08:11)

If the actual flesh of Jesus was indeed God Almighty, then the very being of God Almighty died. Of course, this is not what trinitarians teach, but it would be the logical
consequence of John was if we assume that God Almighty Himself was made, or became, flesh.

Correct this is not what we teach, yet you continue to misrepresent us by your preconceived idea that the word “God” (Theos) is exclusive to the Father, which the Apostle John cleary shows in John 1:1, 20:28, 1 Jn 5:20, by not using another greek word besides “Theos” for the “Word”, Yeshua.

How do you explain this?

January 31, 2008 at 7:30 am#107453

Participant

Hi WJ,
You say
“The title theos does not describe Identity as ATs claim, for there is no example in the NT where the followers of Christ ever used the word for any being other than the Father and the Son with the exception of the false “gods” or opposites of God, which are not gods at all.”

Never… except..

Jesus is not our God
His God is our God and he is our brother.
What gnostic thoughts are you following here?

January 31, 2008 at 11:08 pm#107454

Mr. Steve

Participant

Quote

Jesus is not our God
His God is our God and he is our brother.
What gnostic thoughts are you following here?

Nick;

When you say that Jesus is not our God, but our brother, you are misrepresenting the teachings of Christ. Lets just look at a few scriptures and make sure that we aren't forgetting what Christ and the apostles taught with respect to who Christ was on earth and what he could do that others could not.

First, unto Jesus was given the power to forgive sins on earth. Jesus performed works which no other ever performed.

Secondly, the Father calls Christ God in Hebrews. Paul sites this fact as if it is common knowledge. Christ is not the Father but he has been made our Lord and given a name which is above every name. So when you depict Jesus as just our brother, you misrepresent what the scriptures say, even though he is certainly our brother, he is also our Lord.

Steven

February 1, 2008 at 12:06 am#107455

Participant

Hi MrS,
Did Jesus pass on the authority to forgive sin that he had been given to him in Jn20?
Did that make the disciples God any more than it made him God?

Jesus is our Lord and he calls us his brothers in Heb 2 so your argument is with him.

You should worship his God.[Jn4,20]

February 1, 2008 at 12:20 am#107456

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 31 2008,16:01)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 31 2008,09:11)

Hi WJ,
Certainly the monogenes Son is amazing.
But he never was his own Father.

True!

And God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is where your theory comes unstuck WJ.

John 8:42
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.

John 13:3
Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God;

John 20:17
Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' “

Acts 3:13
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.

Acts 5:30
The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.

Romans 15:6
so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:3
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 8:6
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.

Three scriptures should be enough to convince you WJ, but I have given you ten.

Let's see if you reject these 10 scriptures.

I am pretty sure that you will given your track record here, but I am sure that others will get some benefit from reading these scriptures.

February 1, 2008 at 12:43 am#107457

Participant

Hi t8,
Surely 1800 years of tradition cannot be wrong?
'fraid so.

February 1, 2008 at 12:46 am#107458

Participant

Yes 1800 years of tradition verses scripture.

Hmmm.

Hard choice?

No.

February 1, 2008 at 12:54 am#107459