- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi W,
Trinity theory is not a conspiracy.
It is the result of an attempt by honest natural men to align scriptures.
But deeper attitudes should prevail.
Men who fear God would not dare to state about God what God what he has no taught about Himself.
They should rather humbly seek the wisdom given freely in the Spirit of God.Hi w,
“In the beginning WAS the Word and the Word WAS with God and the Word WAS God.”When?
In the beginning is specified.
Does it relate to now?
No. Then.
Was God alone in the beginning?
No with the Word.
Was there existence before the beginning?
We do not know.
Was the Word alone?
No, with God.
Was the Word God?
Yes.
When?
In the beginning.
Is the Word still God
It does not say.
Was God the Word?
No God was with the Word.So what does the last reference to being God mean?
If the Word was in God it would say so.
If the Word was an aspect or a part of God the Word would not be with God.
Seems for of a descriptive rather that a definitive use really.To WJ.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 19 2007,04:00) I fully understand what a cult is.
You may be aware of the mother of all cults.The Roman Catholic faith.
Their foundation is the following:
And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity isTrinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
This cult likes to say everyone except themselves are cults.
But the true Church is founded on the truth that Jesus is the Christ and the son of God. This is the true faith.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 18 2007,15:23) Hi w,
“In the beginning WAS the Word and the Word WAS with God and the Word WAS God.”When?
In the beginning is specified.
Does it relate to now?
No. Then.
Was God alone in the beginning?
No with the Word.
Was there existence before the beginning?
We do not know.
Was the Word alone?
No, with God.
Was the Word God?
Yes.
When?
In the beginning.
Is the Word still God
It does not say.
Was God the Word?
No God was with the Word.So what does the last reference to being God mean?
If the Word was in God it would say so.
If the Word was an aspect or a part of God the Word would not be with God.
Seems for of a descriptive rather that a definitive use really.
NHJn 1:1
*In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God*.Foolish logic would say anyone in the beginning that was God is no longer God!
Quote (t8 @ May 18 2007,16:06) To WJ. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 19 2007,04:00) I fully understand what a cult is.
You may be aware of the mother of all cults.The Roman Catholic faith.
Their foundation is the following:
And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity isTrinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
This cult likes to say everyone except themselves are cults.
But the true Church is founded on the truth that Jesus is the Christ and the son of God. This is the true faith.
t8What are you saying?
Are you defending the Jws now?
Trinitarians believe Jesus is the real son of God!
Jws believe Jesus is the Arch-Angel Michael in the flesh.
They also believe that John 1:1 says the “Word was “A” God!
Is this what you believe?
BTW!
I answer all your questions, but some how you never answer mine.
What are you afraid of?
You hide behind a pasted creed and do some name calling.
Why dont you answer my questions?
What is your take on John 1:1 and 20:28.
Also you never answered my question on the Holy Spirit that you said you would answer.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 18 2007,16:28) Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 18 2007,15:23) Hi w,
“In the beginning WAS the Word and the Word WAS with God and the Word WAS God.”When?
In the beginning is specified.
Does it relate to now?
No. Then.
Was God alone in the beginning?
No with the Word.
Was there existence before the beginning?
We do not know.
Was the Word alone?
No, with God.
Was the Word God?
Yes.
When?
In the beginning.
Is the Word still God
It does not say.
Was God the Word?
No God was with the Word.So what does the last reference to being God mean?
If the Word was in God it would say so.
If the Word was an aspect or a part of God the Word would not be with God.
Seems for of a descriptive rather that a definitive use really.
NHJn 1:1
*In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God*.Foolish logic would say anyone in the beginning that was God is no longer God!
Hi W,
Please address only what is shown in that verse and do not apply extraneous fallible human logic.Quote I fully understand what a cult is. “a religion regarded as unorthodox
So, WJ, the early Christians were a cult then, according to your definition?
I guess we (JW's) stand in good company.Hopeu2, if you actually want to discuss what the Bible says, I would love to do that, but in a more appropriate thread. If it is your aim to attack JW's without backing up your claims or using scripture, I'd suggest you do so in one of the JW threads. That's were others do it.
david.
Quote The JWS claim they are the elite and only those in their organization are saved.
Biblical Christianity on the other hand proclaims that all who believes and repents and is born again by the spirit and takes up their cross and follows Jesus are saved, no matter if they are part of an organization or not.First, WJ, I already corrected you or set you straight on the first sentence. Do you read my posts?
I would love to discuss Biblical Christianity with you, and the things Jesus siad and commanded, how his earliest followers “followed him” and the fact that God's people have always been organized and are still, especially considering the great preaching work they and they alone are doing today. (Mat 24:14)
BUT, THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT THREAD. FOCUS. Why do you keep mentioning these things? How do they help your argument? You are using false reasoning methods. Please attempt to be honourable in your approach.Quote Show me David where Yeshua and the disciples were part of a man made organization or had to be part of one to be saved.
You don't think the early Christians were organized? (This has nothing to do with this thread)Heb. 10:24, 25: “Let us consider one another to incite to love and fine works, not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you behold the day drawing near.” (To carry out this Scriptural command, there must be Christian meetings that we can attend on a consistent basis. Such an arrangement encourages us to express love toward others, not only concern about self.)
1 Cor. 1:10: “Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.” (Such unity would never be achieved if the individuals did not meet together, benefit from the same spiritual feeding program, and respect the agency through which such instruction was provided. See also John 17:20, 21.)
1 Pet. 2:17: “Have love for the whole association of brothers.” (Does that include only those who may meet together for worship in a particular private home? Not at all; it is an international brotherhood, as shown by Galatians 2:8, 9 and 1 Corinthians 16:19.)
Matt. 24:14: “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (For all nations to be given the opportunity to hear that good news, the preaching must be carried out in an orderly way, with suitable oversight. Love for God and for one’s fellowman has caused people around the earth to unite their efforts to do this work.)
More specifically, in answer to your question, while Christian congregations of God were established in various places, they did not function independently of one another. Instead, they all recognized the authority of the Christian governing body at Jerusalem. This governing body was comprised of the apostles and older men of the Jerusalem congregation, there being no rival bodies elsewhere seeking to supervise the congregation. It was to the faithful Christian governing body of the first century C.E. that the issue of circumcision was submitted for consideration. When the governing body made its decision, as directed by the holy spirit, that decision was accepted and became binding upon all Christian congregations, these willingly submitting to it.—Ac 15:22-31.
The Christian body in Jerusalem sent out traveling representatives. Thus, Paul and others delivered the governing body’s decision just mentioned, it being stated: “Now as they traveled on through the cities they would deliver to those there for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem.” Concerning the effects produced, it is said: “Therefore, indeed, the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number from day to day.” (Ac 16:4, 5) Earlier, when the apostles in Jerusalem “heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they dispatched Peter and John to them; and these went down and prayed for them to get holy spirit.”—Ac 8:14, 15.
The individual congregations adhered closely to the direction of the Christian governing body, which supervised the appointment of older men. (Tit 1:1, 5) So it was that, as directed by the Christian governing body under the influence of the holy spirit, overseers as well as assistants, ministerial servants, were appointed for each congregation. The men placed in these positions of trust and responsibility had to meet specific qualifications. (1Ti 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9) Traveling representatives of the governing body, such as Paul, followed Christ and set a fine example to be imitated. (1Co 11:1; Php 4:9) In fact, all of those in the position of spiritual shepherds were to become “examples to the flock” (1Pe 5:2, 3), were to show loving concern for individuals within the congregation (1Th 2:5-12), and were to be of real assistance to those spiritually sick.—Ga 6:1; Jas 5:13-16
Hence, just as Jehovah organized the congregation of Israel under older men, heads, judges, and officers (Jos 23:2), He saw to the supervision of the Christian congregation by having older men appointed to positions of trust therein. (Ac 14:23) And, as responsible men sometimes acted representatively for the entire congregation of Israel, as in judicial matters (De 16:18), God arranged for each individual Christian congregation to be similarly represented in such matters by responsible men placed in positions of authority by the holy spirit. (Ac 20:28; 1Co 5:1-5) However, should difficulties develop between members of the Christian congregation of God, the words of Jesus Christ recorded at Matthew 18:15-17 (spoken before the Jewish congregation of God had been rejected by Jehovah and thus initially applicable to it) served as a basis for settling or handling such problems.
Jehovah God has set the members in the spiritual “body” of Christ “just as he pleased.” And Paul stated: “God has set the respective ones in the congregation, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services, abilities to direct, different tongues.” Not all performed the same functions, but all were needed by the Christian congregation. (1Co 12:12-31) Paul explained that the supplying of apostles, prophets, evangelizers, shepherds, and teachers for the Christian congregation was “with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, for the building up of the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ.”—Eph 4:11-16.
Quote Maybe not, however I am sure you and your organization believes that the NWT is the only true version and you and your organization believes they are the only true church. Whats the difference whether you say it or not. WJ, often, I tell you things that I know are wrong and you believe and despite me correcting you, you still think you are right. You have serious issues. We don't believe the NWT is the only true version AS YOU
FALSELY ASSERT. Nor can you find any such statement made by us, anywhere.
Proof that you are wrong: If we believed it was the only true version, AS YOU FALSELY ASSERT, DESPITE ME CORRECTING YOU, then why do we and I frequently quote from what apparently are false versions?
Simply put, you are wrong again.Quote LOL. How many times David do you just come into a conversation about the trinity and plaster the forum with Ant-Trinitarian websites?
The difference, WJ, is that when you quoted that website that said that Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus is divine, you WERE AGAIN OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT QUESTION WRONG, YET AGAIN. I can prove this by quoting about 50 sources from the Watchtower if you like. I can even quote myself in this very thread. YOUR QUOTE WAS SIMPLY WRONG, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S EASY TO PROVE IT'S WRONG, and is wrong without the slighest question. That's the difference.Quote This is what I am talking about. The “Elite”. Again, Biblical Christianity was to all men everywhere
Ya, Biblical Christianity was to all men everywhere, hindus, Satanists, baby killers, muslims, Hitler, etc.
This obviously doesn't mean you can be anything, do anything, does it?
Biblical Christianity, was available to anyone, but you had to choose to become a follower of Christ, didn't you? If you didn't become a Christian, part of the “elite” as you keep saying, then you were in the wrong group, WEREN'T YOU?
The early Christians were “elite” in the exact same sence that we are.
Anyone could become a Christian. But those who refused to become a Christian despite being declared the good news…what of them?pLEASE ANSWER THIS.
Quote Christianity is based on a belief and not on a man made organization or affiliation.
The Body of Christ is made up of men and woman everywhere that has been baptized into Christ. I know this goes against your fundamental beliefs David, but this is biblical and,
No, it doesn't go against my beliefs at all. It is exactly what I believe. But I don't believe that everyone that thinks they are Christians really are. Many would say “Lord Lord,” yet will Jesus say about these ones? Do you remember? Hitler could set up his own religion and say he is baptizing people into Christ, but if he's not really following Jesus, or doesn't really believe the truth, of what avail is it? They're baptism is meaningless.Quote I challenge you to show me anywhere in the scriptures where men or woman had to be part of a man made organization to be saved, This is what the Catholics believed which you are so adamently against.
It is not being “part of” an organization that saves anyone. I've never said this. But if you are part of true Christianity, you will obviously want to follow the Bible commands to “meet together” with fellow believes.Matt. 24:14; 28:19, 20: “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.” “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them . . . teaching them.”
(How would this be accomplished without organization? When Jesus trained his early disciples for this work, He did not simply tell each one to go wherever he desired and to share his faith in whatever way he chose. He trained them, gave them instructions and sent them out in an organized manner. See Luke 8:1; 9:1-6; 10:1-16.)Heb. 10:24, 25: “Let us consider one another to incite to love and fine works, not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you behold the day drawing near.” ” (But to where would a person direct interested ones so they could obey this command if there were no organization with regular meetings where they could gather?)
1 Cor. 14:33, 40: “God is a God, not of disorder, but of peace. . . . Let all things take place decently and by arrangement.”(The apostle Paul is here discussing orderly procedure at congregation meetings. Applying this inspired counsel requires respect for organization.)
1 Pet. 2:9, 17: “But you are ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies’ of the one that called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. . . . Have love for the whole association of brothers.”
” (An association of people whose efforts are directed to accomplish a particular work is an organization.)Quote Look around David, there are thousands of people everyday coming to Jesus. You are talking to some of them on this sight. When I was introduced to Christ 33 years ago I was approached by someone and we were not in church. There are millions of evangelist and missionarys all over the world going into the highways and by ways and yes many door to door.
But there's only one religion where ALL OF IT'S MEMBERS feel compelled to “preach the good news of the kingdom” and that are doing this “in all the nations.”
The others that you speak of,….it's funny, yes, there are many who are donig this but their messages are greatly varried and conflict with one another. So, logically, they do not all represent the truth. And perhaps, they could all be wrong. Yes, the mormons go door to door. But only one out of 200 do this, the missionaries. All Jehovah's Witnesses witness about Jehovah and his kingdom.
If you truly believe you have an important message, wouldn't you think all the members would want to share it with everyone. It is a life saving message isn't it?
Yet, how many from those religions actually do that?Quote Admit it David, to you they are not valid because they are not preaching JWS truth or brand.
Um, 'THEY' aren't really preaching anything unified. They contradict each other. One says this. One says that. Which one is true, which is lying. So, they cannot all be valid.
What I do know is this: IF GOD WANTS THE EARTH TO HEAR A MESSAGE, A NON CONTRADICTING ONE, he can do it. And he is doing it. He's not doing it through the conflicting, fighting, warrring religions who are friends with the world.
I'm still waiting for someone to come to me who beleives just as you do. Are there others that believe as you do? If not, are you the only one who has the truth? Is just believing the trinity enough? Does it matter if you believe God tortures people or not. Does it matter if you love divorcing, lying, etc. Or is believing the trinity the definition of Christian in your mind.Quote Can anyone who is not a part of your man made organization be saved?
Was the early Christian congregation a “man made” organization? If not, how would you prove this?
Let me ask you: Can anyone who is not a part of true Christianity be saved?Quote I have answered David. John 3:
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That *whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life*.
[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, *that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life*.Surely this doesn't mean just believing that Christ existed. Remember those “lord lord” people who Jesus will condemn. Surely they believe that Jesus existed, or they wouldn't call on him.
If you truly actually believe in Jesus, you will do what he says, what he commands.Quote Acts 2:21
And it shall come to pass, that *whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved*.David do you see in the above scriptures anything that even hints at being part of an organization to be saved.
Yes, in an extraordinary way.
He was quoting from here:
JOEL 2:32
“And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah is calling.””
Do you think he misquoted and changed or altered God's name to “Lord.”There are precious few people who call on God's name. In most of the world, if you use God's name, you are immediately identified as one of JW's.
Thankyou for bringing this up.
He was quoting this: “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe“
Most people, will be calling “lord, lord,” not even knowing that his Father has a name, but Jesus will laugh at many of these. Meanwhile, Jehovah's Witnesses are and will be calling on Jehovah's name.Quote You really haven't discussed John 1:1 with me at all. You've stated these things: 1. The majority is right, therefore your translation is wrong. (a fallacious argument.)
2. Nope, I think that's it. I thought there was more, but I was wrong.
3. Oh, right, in addition to number one, you also repeatedly said that JW's are just wrong, because they're wrong, so the NWT must be wrong, because it was translated by them, and they believe wrong things, so it has to be wrong. (Also, a fallacious argument.)
If it bothers you that I point out that how you reason is unreasonable, I can do nothing about that. I can direct you to several websites that have various lists of fallacies….
You stated that this was patronizing. Listen, I actually truthfully, honestly do want you to begin to understand the nature of proper thinking. When Is 1:18 pointed out some critical errors in my arguements, I studied fallacies. I wish you would do the same. And it is true that these two major arguments of yours are fallacious.
Quote The thread is about John 1:1 in “defense of the NWT”. So I go on defense of the major translations with over 600 real scholars, which you attack. So I don’t see how you are defending the NWT which is again the name of your thread, you are only attacking all the others and proclaiming them wrong because they are the majority and in “your opinion”, the majority is wrong which leads to the conclusion that the NWT is right. WRONG. Please go back and check. I actually did and do want to discuss the NWT. You come along and provide a list of your 600 scholars and their translations, and you provide this as proof that the NWT is wrong. Of course, this in no way proves it is. So when you attack the NWT by saying that the other translations must be right, it is an easy thing to defend the NWT from these fallacious arguements by showing how week your arguements are.
Quote And please tell me what thread I can find your discussion on Michael being Yeshua in the flesh.
There are about 4 threads on this, but I really only commented on it in one or two threads and I commented a lot. You'll find it if you search “michael” I'm sure.Quote So a person cant just walk in your church off the street without being invited?
I don't remember saying that. It's exactlly the opposite.
EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS BEING INVITED. . . . LITERALLY. (MAT 24:14)Quote David, knowing what I know, would you invite me to one of your meetings? I doubt it.
i DON'T just go around telling everyone I meet that they are invited to our meetings. But if you showed the slightest interest in …oh, the Bible or the meetings or me, or us, or anything like that, then yes. While I doubt you would come, I would invite you, in the knowledge that it would at least straighten out some of your false impressions, based on me, who truthfully, is least among men.Quote So you also agree to your bias
No, I didn't. I said I understood why you were donig that. Read what i said again.Quote Sorry David. You will have a hard time proving that over 600 scholars have conspired because of Trinitarian bias to mistranslate John 1:1.
Why would I have to. We know they were trinitarians. Hence, they were slanted towards translating it that way.
Really, this should be about Grammer. Perhaps, there is an alternate choice: Perhaps it really can be translated either way, grammatically. Perhaps it comes down to the translators understanding of everything else John said.
And this is in fact what i beleive.Quote t8 What are you saying?
Are you defending the Jws now?
Trinitarians believe Jesus is the real son of God!
Jws believe Jesus is the Arch-Angel Michael in the flesh.
They also believe that John 1:1 says the “Word was “A” God!
Is this what you believe?
Your fear tactics by insinuating that if he doens't believe the trinity he'll be compared to JW's is another fallacy. I don't have the name of it, off hand. You do this a lot, try to scare people or indimidate them into coming over to your side out of some sort of fear or peer pressure or follow the crowd mentality.
Please don't do this.
David
I am done with you. All you do is name calling and patronizing.
I thought I could discuss this with you but obviously I can not.
Good night!
My sincere prayer is that you will be delivered from the hellish denomination you are steeped in!
Hi w,
“…and the Word was God”You say in another thread
” God is a class of being.”
Is that what you think this means?
The Word is divine?Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 19 2007,16:16) Hi w,
“…and the Word was God”You say in another thread
” God is a class of being.”
Is that what you think this means?
The Word is divine?
What do you think it means?How can a son be his father before he is born? How can his son be “with” him before he is born? What does a father contribute to create a son? What is with him – SEED.
In the beginning was the plan for a son, and the son was with God as a future reality, and the son was God because he was not yet born.
But I do believe that the “word” was not originally capitalized to refer to a person. In early versions of the bible, this verse read very differently…… I know it's not a popular theory, but scripture does lend itself to this idea.
Does anyone have a link to those early bibles that translated John 1:1 to show the “word” was other-than a “person”?
We are “born” of God – God's seed.
Quote (Not3in1 @ May 19 2007,17:12) How can a son be his father before he is born? How can his son be “with” him before he is born? What does a father contribute to create a son? What is with him – SEED. In the beginning was the plan for a son, and the son was with God as a future reality, and the son was God because he was not yet born.
But I do believe that the “word” was not originally capitalized to refer to a person. In early versions of the bible, this verse read very differently…… I know it's not a popular theory, but scripture does lend itself to this idea.
Does anyone have a link to those early bibles that translated John 1:1 to show the “word” was other-than a “person”?
We are “born” of God – God's seed.
With all due respect Not3, a “plan” cannot be said to be “pros” God (1:1b), a “plan” cannot be “theos” (John 1:1c) especially when used in conjunction with the imperfect tense verb “en”. And most of all a “plan” cannot have “life (zoe) in Him”. The grammar of the first four verses invalidate the notion that the Logos is non-personal.It's true.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 19 2007,17:01) Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 19 2007,16:16) Hi w,
“…and the Word was God”You say in another thread
” God is a class of being.”
Is that what you think this means?
The Word is divine?
What do you think it means?
NHWhy dont you give an answer to this.
Rather than just throwing knives.
How about a good ole fashioned Holy Ghost response?
And most of all a “plan” cannot have “life (zoe) in Him”.
***********************“Life in Him” – isn't seed alive in you?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 19 2007,17:45) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 19 2007,17:01) Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 19 2007,16:16) Hi w,
“…and the Word was God”You say in another thread
” God is a class of being.”
Is that what you think this means?
The Word is divine?
What do you think it means?
NHWhy dont you give an answer to this.
Rather than just throwing knives.
How about a good ole fashioned Holy Ghost response?
Hi w,
You were asked first.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
