- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Wakeup @ Mar. 25 2014,23:25) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 26 2014,00:16) Wakeup, The reason is not that hard to figure out.
Kerwin.And that reason is?
Remember it only took Jesus 3/half years to teach all things.wakeup.
Wakeup,He told his disciples that the Spirit would come and teach them even more but that is not the reason. Paul states it in one of his letters but it is self evident as is much of Scripture.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 23 2014,16:31) In classical Greek the middles often is reflective such as in the statement John cleans himself. So according to that the Word is performing an action on itself. So a better translation would probably be the word made itself flesh.
Okay. It is said that HE partook in flesh, right? And that HE emptied himself, right? So that “middle voice” thing doesn't really amount to anything by way of our discussion, right?Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 23 2014,16:31) The difference has an insignificant effect on our conversation. In short it is a red herring.
As is the “middle voice” thing you're reaching for……. and 99% of the other things you reach for in an effort to understand ANYTHING except for the most obvious and logical meaning.Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 23 2014,16:31) The forms of “be” have only three definitions and adding any word to the sentence does not change that. 1) She became dressed in red tells us the subject gains the quantity of being dressed in red.
2) He became drunk tells us that the subject gains the quantity of drunk.
3) The Sea became calm tells us that the sea gained the quantity of calm.
“Lot's wife became a pillar of salt.” How does that one work for you? Doesn't it refer to a complete and literal change in physiology? As in: One type of being literally BECAME a different type of being. ? Or One type of being was literally MADE into a different type of being.If so, then why can't John 1:14 also refer to the same thing?
So…. red herring #3, huh?
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 23 2014,16:36) Mike, As is a comparative word and it is comparing the glory of the word that is flesh to the glory of the only begotten of God. It, at the least, hinds there are two parties being compared to one another.
Red herring #4, Kerwin.Could “glory as of the only begotten from the Father” mean, “a glory such as one might expect to see on the only begotten from the Father”?
You are doing EXACTLY what Lightenup does to “prove” that Jesus is “Jehovah the Son”, Kerwin.
You are ignoring the vast CONTEXT of the passage as a whole, and focusing on little tiny things that you might TWIST into something they are not.
With her, I call it “straining the gnat and swallowing the camel”. But “red herring” works just as well for you.
That same word is also translated as “as it were” in the KJV a number of times.
Here is one of them:
John 7:10
But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.Where is the comparison there? Most translations just say he went up “in secret” – and don't even translate “hōs”. Just like many don't translate it in John 1:14.
Here's another:
Acts 17:14
And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still.Again, most English versions don't even translate “hōs” in that verse.
Kerwin, there are not TWO who have the glory of God's ONLY begotten Son. The Word dwelled on earth with a glory BEFITTING (as of) the only begotten from the Father.
Mike,
I mentioned the middle voice only because it was part of the work I did. I also discarded that translation and stated it was because I could see no reason trinitarian translators would be biased against that translation and yet none of them ever used it that I am aware of.
Mike,
Quote “Lot's wife became a pillar of salt.” How does that one work for you? Doesn't it refer to a complete and literal change in physiology? As in: One type of being literally BECAME a different type of being. ? Or One type of being was literally MADE into a different type of being. If so, then why can't John 1:14 also refer to the same thing?
So…. red herring #3, huh?
I must have stung you with that red herring comment but yes, sometimes became is speaking of a more major change in qualities. The bodies of Lot's wife was changed into a pillar of salt though both he spirit and soul remained unchanged.
Mike,
Quote Could “glory as of the only begotten from the Father” mean, “a glory such as one might expect to see on the only begotten from the Father”? I am not sure as that possibility had not come into my mind though Jesus was made in the likeness of a man does mean he was made a man so it may be an allowable usage.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 26 2014,12:04) Quote (Wakeup @ Mar. 25 2014,23:25) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 26 2014,00:16) Wakeup, The reason is not that hard to figure out.
Kerwin.And that reason is?
Remember it only took Jesus 3/half years to teach all things.wakeup.
Wakeup,He told his disciples that the Spirit would come and teach them even more but that is not the reason. Paul states it in one of his letters but it is self evident as is much of Scripture.
Paul knew, and understood the new testament in a flash
so to speak,because of the Holy Spirit.
We should ask for the Holy Spirit to guide us.
Never use own widom;or think smart.
We maybe smart,but not in spiritual things.wakeup.
Wakeup,
Paul stated he was not sure he knew the truth and confirmed is privately with those in Jerusalem.
He too was taught by the Spirit.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 27 2014,08:53) Wakeup, Paul stated he was not sure he knew the truth and confirmed is privately with those in Jerusalem.
He too was taught by the Spirit.
KDo you have any scripture about that
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 27 2014,09:09) T, Your question tells me you lack knowledge.
Did Paul have the Spirit of Christ?
KYou say Paul stated that he was not sure ,on this I ask you scriptures and now you call me ignorant
That,s funny
T,
I was thinking you were speaking Paul having the Spirit. Your correction is welcome. Galatians 2:2 is your answer.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 26 2014,12:26) Mike, Quote (mikeboll @ 64) “Lot's wife became a pillar of salt.”
I must have stung you with that red herring comment but yes, sometimes became is speaking of a more major change in qualities.
You applied the term “red herring” to a unrelated and unnecessary point that YOU brought up, right? So that term didn't sting me at all. I just thought: If the shoe fits………..Lot's wife didn't “have a change in qualities”, Kerwin. Her body was TOTALLY and COMPLETELY transformed from flesh to salt.
And my question is: Why then, can't “he BECAME flesh” also refer to a TOTAL and COMPLETE transformation of the body of the Word………. from “spirit” to “flesh”?
(Any honest answer you give will at least START OFF WITH, “It can, Mike…………….”)
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 26 2014,12:33) Mike, Quote Could “glory as of the only begotten from the Father” mean, “a glory such as one might expect to see on the only begotten from the Father”? I am not sure as that possibility had not come into my mind though Jesus was made in the likeness of a man does mean he was made a man so it may be an allowable usage.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 27 2014,12:07) T, I was thinking you were speaking Paul having the Spirit. Your correction is welcome. Galatians 2:2 is your answer.
kGal 2:1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.
Gal 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.this scriptures show who was guiding Paul would you not say that
Pierre,
It seems to me that the scripture Kerwin gave you supported the claim Kerwin made.
You should tell him, “Thank you”, IMO.
He made a claim, and then, when asked for scriptural support for that claim, readily gave said support.
That is exactly how these scriptural discussions should be done, right?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2014,06:50) Pierre, It seems to me that the scripture Kerwin gave you supported the claim Kerwin made.
You should tell him, “Thank you”, IMO.
He made a claim, and then, when asked for scriptural support for that claim, readily gave said support.
That is exactly how these scriptural discussions should be done, right?
You right ,thanks kerwinQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2014,06:16) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 26 2014,12:26) Mike, Quote (mikeboll @ 64) “Lot's wife became a pillar of salt.”
I must have stung you with that red herring comment but yes, sometimes became is speaking of a more major change in qualities.
You applied the term “red herring” to a unrelated and unnecessary point that YOU brought up, right? So that term didn't sting me at all. I just thought: If the shoe fits………..Lot's wife didn't “have a change in qualities”, Kerwin. Her body was TOTALLY and COMPLETELY transformed from flesh to salt.
And my question is: Why then, can't “he BECAME flesh” also refer to a TOTAL and COMPLETE transformation of the body of the Word………. from “spirit” to “flesh”?
(Any honest answer you give will at least START OFF WITH, “It can, Mike…………….”)
Mike,It is part of my problem solving work.
I applied the term “red herring” to the disagreement of whether “was made” or became” is the correct translation of the Koine Greek word in John 1:14.
I did not bring up the disagreement but I do not see it as significant. You seemed to hint at it at it with your choice of what you wrote but hints can be a result of how we speak therefore not a clue of what we mean.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2014,06:16) mikeboll,64 wrote:Lot's wife didn't “have a change in qualities”, Kerwin. Her body was TOTALLY and COMPLETELY transformed from flesh to salt.
And my question is: Why then, can't “he BECAME flesh” also refer to a TOTAL and COMPLETE transformation of the body of the Word………. from “spirit” to “flesh”?
(Any honest answer you give will at least START OFF WITH, “It can, Mike…………….”)
Mike,If you choose to believe that when you are speaking of Lot's wife you are just speaking of her body then it was a complete change of qualities speaking in general terms since the human body contains salt. My answer was much more precise than that since I was speaking of the whole human being.
The sentence Lot's wife became a pillar of salt is just speaking of the body's qualities changing and disregard the salt in it that remained salt.
A better examples is that lead became gold in a lab. In that case 100% of the qualities are changes from those of lead to gold even though lead and gold are both metals.
In conclusion I am agreeing with you that it is a possible use of became(was made).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
