- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Christ is equal because he is at the right hand of the Father.
Ephesians 1: 20-23
20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
Footnotes:
Did God place him above himself? Does Christ have rule over the Father?
It is accepted that when he said he placed all things under him that he is excepted who placed all things under him.You have stated a premise that Christ is equal with God. Find a verse that says he is please, or argue something you know you can support with a scripture.
Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 02 2007,04:24) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 02 2007,01:50) In the same sense that God is a Father. In other words, God became a Father when he begat a son. Previous to being a man, he was the Word that was with God.
Excuse me Mr t8. Didn't you just leave out some of the scripture?Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
and the Word was God. and the Word was God. and the Word was God. and the Word was God. and the Word was God. and the Word was God. and the Word was God. and the Word was God. and the Word was God. and the Word was God. and the Word was God. and the Word was God. and the Word was God.
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
Mr Steve. Do yourself a favor.Read John 1:1 again. All of it! Don't ignore the truth.
“and the Word was God.”
CB;
I believe you're quoting T8, not me. But by the way, when do you intend to answer some of my questions? For instance, When was the beginning to which John 1:1 refers? In another place, if Christ is the Son of God, how is he also the Father? Why didn't the Father say “thou art myself” instead of saying that Christ was his beloved Son? Do you believe that God promised to send the messiah in the old testament and that the government would be upon his shoulders? Do you believe that messiah was Christ? In the old testament God promised to send a deliverer, did he not? Why did David say prophetically, The Lord said to my Lord, sit on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool? Isn't this the Father telling His Son Jesus to sit down at his right hand, and that He (the Father) would make Christ's enemies Christ's footstool?
It must be because Jesus said in Revelation that he overcame and sat down in his Father's throne. So the throne that Christ is sitting at belongs to the Father and it is the Father that is making Christ triumph over his enemies. Notice the distinct persons identified in scripture with the Father in control having all authority in all things.Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 02 2007,06:08) Quote Excuse me Mr t8. Didn't you just leave out some of the scripture? Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Mr Steve. Do yourself a favor.Read John 1:1 again. All of it! Don't ignore the truth.
“and the Word was God.”
This verse is a “cornerstone” for the deity of Christ and the Trinity. Lets then look to the writings of a man who preceded almost all of the New Testament, Philo of Alexandria. His application of Logos to God came before the Gospel of John. It is painfully obvious that either the writer of GoJ was influenced by Philo, or God inspired them both in like manner. In any case, Philo sets the record straight on “ho theos” vs “theos” as we see in John 1:1.From ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT, 1.229-230
(1.229) What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, “I am the God (ho Theos);” but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the expression being, “He who was seen by thee in the place,” not of the God (tou Theou), but simply “of God” (Theou); (1.230) and what he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter; for in other passages the sacred historian, when he considered whether there really was any name belonging to the living God, showed that he knew that there was none properly belonging to him; but that whatever appellation any one may give him, will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be.
May this then be the end of that argument. If we accept that Yeshua was indeed the Logos of God before he took on the form of a bond-servant, Philo shows us what happens when you have “ho theos” versus “theos” without the article. That is, only the true God is called “ho theos” according to the one who came up with the idea of Logos and God.
Please remember that Philo precedes almost all if not all NT writers. This certainly includes the writer of the Gospel of John.
Are you saying in greek the “ho” means “the” and if the “ho” goes you don't have God but a God? So you need a “ho” to express God, is that correct? I've heard a lot about the “ho” article, but never realized how important the “ho” was to a proper interpretation of John 1:1, and, I suppose wherever else the “ho” does or does not appear in scripture. Do you know how many times in the Bible God appears without a “ho”? So when the Bible says “In the beginning God…” because God had no “ho” this wasn't really God the Father that created the heaven and the earth, but maybe it was Jesus because no “ho” is present? If anyone can give me some insight here I would appreciate it.
Mr Steve
Quote But by the way, when do you intend to answer some of my questions? For instance, When was the beginning to which John 1:1 refers? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life . . . ”Since The Word Jesus Christ preceded all creation and because He is The Creator and since time was created by Him. The phrase “in the beginning” precedes all time and creation. In timeless eternity past.
Notice that John does not say that, “In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with the Father”. This relationship within the Godhead began later after the creation by Jesus of time, space and matter.
What is very clear is that the Word (Jesus) was God. No amount of “twist” can change the words of scripture.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Mr Steve, t8, kejonn and others. Your “jesus” is a “little jesus” a “little masonic jesus”
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%2….m
My Jesus is The Lord God Jehovah The Creator.
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Aug. 02 2007,18:30) Are you saying in greek the “ho” means “the” and if the “ho” goes you don't have God but a God? So you need a “ho” to express God, is that correct? I've heard a lot about the “ho” article, but never realized how important the “ho” was to a proper interpretation of John 1:1, and, I suppose wherever else the “ho” does or does not appear in scripture. Do you know how many times in the Bible God appears without a “ho”? So when the Bible says “In the beginning God…” because God had no “ho” this wasn't really God the Father that created the heaven and the earth, but maybe it was Jesus because no “ho” is present? If anyone can give me some insight here I would appreciate it.
Mr. Steve,I'm merely quoting what Philo wrote. Philo developed a theory of Logos well before the Gospel of John. Since Philo wrote in the Greek of the 1st century and before, he would know more that us today about the use of “ho theos” and “theos” without the “ho”. So basically, you could paraphrase John 1:1 with Philo's explanation to read
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.”
According to Philo, “The God” would mean the true God. When “theos” stands alone, it is supposed to be the Logos. I'm not saying he is correct, and it would take some study of the Septuagint (Philo did not use the Masoretic) to verify, but it does explain much.
As far as “in the beginning God”, one would have to see how the Septuagint breaks this verse out in the Greek to see if Philo is full of dung or not
. What we have available is the Hebrew text. Anyone know a good source for parallel Greek-English version of the Septuagint?Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 03 2007,10:55) Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 02 2007,06:08) Quote Excuse me Mr t8. Didn't you just leave out some of the scripture? Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Mr Steve. Do yourself a favor.Read John 1:1 again. All of it! Don't ignore the truth.
“and the Word was God.”
This verse is a “cornerstone” for the deity of Christ and the Trinity. Lets then look to the writings of a man who preceded almost all of the New Testament, Philo of Alexandria. His application of Logos to God came before the Gospel of John. It is painfully obvious that either the writer of GoJ was influenced by Philo, or God inspired them both in like manner. In any case, Philo sets the record straight on “ho theos” vs “theos” as we see in John 1:1.From ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT, 1.229-230
(1.229) What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, “I am the God (ho Theos);” but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the expression being, “He who was seen by thee in the place,” not of the God (tou Theou), but simply “of God” (Theou); (1.230) and what he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter; for in other passages the sacred historian, when he considered whether there really was any name belonging to the living God, showed that he knew that there was none properly belonging to him; but that whatever appellation any one may give him, will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be.
May this then be the end of that argument. If we accept that Yeshua was indeed the Logos of God before he took on the form of a bond-servant, Philo shows us what happens when you have “ho theos” versus “theos” without the article. That is, only the true God is called “ho theos” according to the one who came up with the idea of Logos and God.
Please remember that Philo precedes almost all if not all NT writers. This certainly includes the writer of the Gospel of John.
kejonnThe absence of the article for Jn 1:1c is to simply distinguish between the Father and the Son. John did not want introduce Modalism.
Its a fallacious argument to say the lack of “ho” Proceeding “Theos” means that “Theos” is not God.
For many instances in the NT show that “Theos” was used without the “ho” in refering to the Father.
If lack of the definite article demands this:
“and the word was a god” (NWT)
Then consistency demands the NWT read this way in all these verses that also lack the definite article:the Word was a god 1:1
a representative of a god 1:6
to become a god's children 1:12
man's will, but from a god 1:13
No man has seen a god 1:8a
the only begotten a god 1:8b
'a beginning' rather than 'the beginning' 1:1,2
'a life' rather than 'life' 1:4
'a John' rather than 'John' 1:6
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john1-1.htm
I know this is a cornerstone verse and thank God that John came along later with his writtings to set the record straight.
Yeshua is God.
You seem to agree with the JWs alot.
Jesus is “a god”, the Holy Spirit is an it.
What gives?
Hey, I don't think that Yeshua is Michael
.I'll make this quick (its 1 AM where I am!), but the lack of the article is to prevent modalism? What? So “The God” is the Father and “God” Yeshua?
C'mon WJ, now you are starting to crack me up. Maybe I'm tired and that just sounds funnier than it is. Let me look at it again when I get some sleep.
But I see your point and I already knew it would be coming. However, I merely supplied the explanation of “ho theos” by a man who was round when the NT was just beginning to be written. He would know the Greek of his time better than any scholar today. After all, he wrote all of his works in Greek!! How many scholars today can make such a claim?
Beyond that, isn't it rather ironic that the example that Philo uses for “theos” without the article is in relation to the Word (Logos)? And that is the very verse in question. I can't help but wonder at the awesome coincidence of this. Its almost as if he looked ahead to John 1:1 to help us distinguish the difference because he addresses this verse perfectly.
Can you explain how Philo seems to address this very verse because the article is missing in the second occurence of “theos” and it is when we see “Word was God”.
“and what he here calls God is his most ancient word”.
Uncanny.
In John 1:1 it states “. . . kai theos en ho logos”. This is usually translated as “. . . and the Word was God.”
The original word order in Greek, however, is “. . . and God was the Word.”
If when the predicate nominative precedes the verb and subject in Greek as it is the case here, the predicate nominative (in this case “theos”) it cannot grammatically have a definite article. If it did have a definite article, then its position in the sentence would make it the subject of the sentence.
Also however, when the predicate nominative precedes the verb and subject in the Greek, then the grammatical and stylistic effect is to emphasize the meaning of the predicate nominative and to give it the added effect of being a very forceful adjective.
So the statement in John 1:1 means that the Word, which is Jesus, is God–not just “a god,” like the Jehovah's Witnesses highly biased NWT suggests.
John 1:1 literally translated reads: “In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word.”
Notice that it says “God was the word.” This is the actual word for word translation. It is not saying that “a god was the word.” as the corrupted NWT states. That wouldn't make sense. Let's break it down into three statements.
“In beginning was the word…”
(en arche en ho logos)“and the word was with the God…”
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)“and God was the word.”
(kai theos en ho logos)
— Properly translated as “and the Word was God.”Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, This obviously identifies Jesus as The Word (Jehovah God)
The Gospel of John emphasizes the divinity of Christ from beginning to end. It starts with John 1:1 and climaxes in Thomas’ confession of faith.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
CB;
If Christ is the Word in John 1:1, why didn't John say in verse two and Christ was in the beginning with God. Why did he say “the same” if he was referring to Christ?
Mr. Steve
just because GOD apeared before abram with the three men, gen 18 doesent mean GOD showed a form,verse 22,says the men left ,yet abram was still before the lord,how did you get that GOD ate verse6 says 3 measures of meal, verse 8 says they did eat,this must be the three men,because verse22 clearly shows the thee men are seperate from GOD.yet they were there at the same time.me have seen GOD,yet me have not,for you could consider him the invisable GOD,yet not invisable. for he would not show a form that we could put him in a box and say this is GOD,yet we could still see him and talk with him.he showed us jesus come out of his bosom,we saw jesus very clearly in GODS glory,
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Aug. 15 2007,12:34) CB; If Christ is the Word in John 1:1, why didn't John say in verse two and Christ was in the beginning with God. Why did he say “the same” if he was referring to Christ?
Mr. Steve
Mr Steve. You need to ask the writer John about his use of grammar. “The same” is referring to Christ The Word. Can't you follow the Grammar in John Chapter one?Why don't you just accept the truth?
You can twist the scriptures and add your own spin and interpretation to them, but truth is still truth and as yet you have no answer for John 1:1.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
CB;
Evidently you haven't read my posts on John 1:1. Jesus said the seed is the word. Genesis says that in everything God made its seed was in itself. Paul taught that nature reveals the Godhead. Just as an Apple has seeds within it and is part of the Apple so is the Word with God and was God and the same (seed) was in the beginning with God. John said Christ was begotten “of” the word of life. Its so clear and easy to understand because its the truth. The truth is so rich. Jesus said ye shall know the truth and the truth will make you free.
Take Care
Steven
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Aug. 16 2007,11:23) CB; Evidently you haven't read my posts on John 1:1. Jesus said the seed is the word. Genesis says that in everything God made its seed was in itself. Paul taught that nature reveals the Godhead. Just as an Apple has seeds within it and is part of the Apple so is the Word with God and was God and the same (seed) was in the beginning with God. John said Christ was begotten “of” the word of life. Its so clear and easy to understand because its the truth. The truth is so rich. Jesus said ye shall know the truth and the truth will make you free.
Take Care
Steven
Mr Steve.I have read your post and you are still putting the twist on scripture. Putting your own interpretation and spin rather than accepting the plain truth.
When you do this you risk the following
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction).
Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 23 2007,00:27) I have read your post and you are still putting the twist on scripture. Putting your own interpretation and spin rather than accepting the plain truth.
If you stopped doing this yourself, then you would see clearer and have some authority to point this out to others.But as it stands now, you do this very thing and so everybody who follows Christ should be wary of your leaven.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 23 2007,11:28) Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 23 2007,00:27) I have read your post and you are still putting the twist on scripture. Putting your own interpretation and spin rather than accepting the plain truth.
If you stopped doing this yourself, then you would see clearer and have some authority to point this out to others.But as it stands now, you do this very thing and so everybody who follows Christ should be wary of your leaven.
t8….> amen brother, if anyone puts twists on scriptures it the brain washed trinitarians. They don't even have enough sense to think if John was talking about Jesus, He would have simply said Jesus. They can't find it anywhere so they change meanings or captilize word to change the simple meanings of the texts.
They are truly blind guides of the blind. They choose altered or obscured texts to frame there beliefs, and passover the obvious ones. Like i said before they strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.be strong brother and don't let them steal what you have…..gene.
Gene B
Quote They choose altered or obscured texts to frame there beliefs, and passover the obvious ones. Like i said before they strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,Gene. You and the other arians have swallowed one big camel. A masonic camel.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%2….m
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction).
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
