Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,17:02)Where are the scriptures that support either of these two conclusions that are inevitable if Jesus is God?mikeMikeIt makes no more sense to you than Jesus being both God and man. But it doesn't matter if you understand this truth or not for it is still the truth.Do you think God cannot be like a brother to us…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,16:05)Listen Keith, this has been a lesson in frustration for me.  Every one of us here knows that adding the “a” is as much of a grammatical possibility in 1:1c as it is in the other 1000 NT scriptures we add it to. Yea and I have also shown you where a scholar has said it is not “grammatically permissible” to t…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,16:26)Am I scripturally wrong in saying that Jesus is the only begotten god and the Father is the only unbegotten God?MikeYep, because that would be “two true gods” with each other and we know there is “Only One True God” and none other beside him. That is the scriptural truth.WJ

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,16:05)Second, your own argument works against you.  For it is the Trinitarian scholars I'm quoting who support MY claim that “a god” is grammatically possible.  What does that tell you?MikeOnly “one” uses the words “grammatically possible”, and most all of the scholars concluded it “cannot” be translated “a g…[Read more]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2011,10:37)I don't think that the Father is ever without the Son but I think that the Son was not always being 'shone.'Hi KathiGod is eternal and infinite and his Glory has always been radiant because the scriptures tell us he changes not.Your above statement seems to imply that some time in eternity the Father changed…[Read more]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 25 2011,02:54)To all,This is a vain argument since the Hebrew word “elohim” is translated to the Greek word “theos” and “elohim” can mean either “God” or “a god”.Hi kerwinNah, its not in vain. But you are right the word “eloyim” can mean God or god depending on context.There are several definitions for the word and it should…[Read more]

LOOK——————->3 spelling mistakes and one grammatical error………………………>Quote (t8 @ Mar. 24 2011,03:49)WJ, it is neither.John 1:1c does not have a definite article before the last mention of theos.Both your options have the definite article.You ”CAPITALISED” “God” in the second option. Scholars ”CAPTILISE” rather than us…[Read more]

Hi All4 REASONS THE SOCIETY’S TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1 IS UNTENABLE1. IS SATAN JEHOVAH? HE IS CALLED “THE GOD” AT 2 CORINTHIANS 4:4: “among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers.…”—New World Translation Doesn’t this passage undermine the Society’s rule concerning the definite article (the) being used to des…[Read more]

GeneReally! Where was this “adversarial” spirit (satan) that tempted Jesus?WJ

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 25 2011,16:54)Irene……….Just two simple things, Job was NOT TESTED by Satan or No one, Job was (corrected) by the intense Judgements of God. And the adversarial Spirit did leave Jesus suddenly like lighting, but that was not a SATAN BEING as YOU (ASSUME) . But His (OWN) Adversarial  (Satan)Hi GeneAnathema! So…[Read more]

Hi AllI am quiting early today. Have a great weekend all.Love in Christ Keith

MikeI voted option 2. But once again the question is loaded because the scriptures teach us that Jesus is both God and man.As to his manhood we are brothers as to him being God he is my Lord and God.So ask yourself is that “God” that lives in your Temple or is it a man who is your brother?Mike what is amazing is how you create these smoke screens…[Read more]

HMM5 people vote Jesus is fully God and fully Man. Who are they? WJ

Bump to the dude that said…Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,20:38)Jack, I have never:3.  Failed to answer a direct question that was related to the topic at handHey MikeI have another question for you.According to the testimony of the scholars is it grammatically “correct” to translate John 1:1c as “a god”?If it is not “grammatically correct”…[Read more]

Quote (Wispring @ Mar. 25 2011,00:25)Hi WJ,   From my research I believe the Coptics understood The Word(Logos) as just that, the divine communication/expression of God. So to them the Logos was in quality a thing of or from God. The Logos manifested itself in Jesus' person. This:Quote Prior to the “Great” East/West Schism of A.D. 1054, the Copt…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 24 2011,19:33)Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,08:36)That means that over 1000 scholars signed off their reputations that the correct rendering of John 1:1c is anarthrous.And we all know that majority rules, right?MikeIt has nothing to do with the majority. It has to do with their knowledge of the Biblical languages…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 24 2011,19:11)And this brainwashing has been even more effectively enforced by the additions of words that have no place in John 1:1.MikeYou mean like the indefinite article ?  Whose brain washed?  WJ

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 24 2011,21:31)Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,09:56)Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,23:01)Quote (Baker @ Mar. 23 2011,09:41)I had asked WJ once if and they do believe that the Holy Spirit is a person, then He must be the Father of Jesus.Wonderful point, Irene!  Hey MikeSince you and Irene believe that the Holy…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 24 2011,22:18)OH…………….THAT'S RIGHT!  We're talking about GENE!  He has the same comprehension problems when it comes to scripture, too.  MikeI don't agree with Gene in most things and he ticks me off at times.But you are a so-called Moderator, so why do you run around this sight belittling others and co…[Read more]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 24 2011,23:26)To all,This thread should probably be moved to forum titled “The Bible” as it is discussing a disagreement among manuscripts.KerwinThat is not true because there are no variations or disagreements in the MSS.Every extant MSS (over 5000) has Matthew 28:19 in its tripart form.So Matt 28:19 is scripture.WJ