Why Philip3:21 proves bodily ressurection. [Archive]

PioneerSDA

March 29th 2005, 05:52 PM

Huh?

Christ died on the cross and his spirit went to the Father.

Luke 23:46 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=23&verse=46&version=31&context=verse)
Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

His body was buried in Joseph's tomb.

Three days later, on Sunday, Jesus spirit and body were reunited and his physical body was resurrected to life. Jesus was indeed brought back to life in a physical body. The very body that died was resurrected.

All trinitarians believe this. I know of no orthodox (little 'o') Christians that deny the physical resurrection of Christ.

[Christ died on the cross and his spirit went to the Father.] [All trinitarians believe this. ]

I am so not an orthodox Christian and I really don't care about the unbliclical doctrines they believe but I couldn't help but noricing that you are the first orthodox Christian I met who believes that Christ went to heaven at death. Have you ever heard of the so called "Apostle's Creed" which orthodox Christians are supposed to believe in? It disagrees with you with what happened after Jesus died. It says that "He descended into hell.The third day He arose again from the dead." Maybe you don't believe in the so called "Apostle's Creed" Maybe it is not orthodox enough for you. What about the Nice Creed? All trinitarians believe in that, don't they? When does it say that Jesus went to heaven, at death or after his ressurection? "he suffered and was buried and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,and ascended into heaven," It clearly says that Jesus didn't go to heaven until after he rose again. But maybe you want to stop being an orthodox Christian and instead be a Bible Believing Christian and you are ready to "prove all things and hold fast to what is good" 1st Thessolnians 5:21. Let's see if the Neice Creed about Jesus not going to heaven until after his ressurection is really according to the scriptures.

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God. " John 20:17

Three days after His ressurection He said He still didn't ascend to His Father. Why? Because Jesus was dead unconsious in the grave until His Father brought Him back to life. God's only born Son who He gave birth to in eternity the Divine Word gave up his immortality to be born again this time as a human so he could really die both body and soul for us.

[It wasn't just Christs body that died for our sins.

"Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him. He has caused him to suffer. When you make his soul an offering for sin..." Isaiah 53:10 World English Bible
"After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light and be satisfied..." Isaiah 53:11 W.E.B.
"...he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death..." Isaiah 53:12 W.E.B.

"Therefore my heart is glad, and my tongue rejoices. My body shall also dwell in safety. For you will not leave my soul in Sheol, neither will you allow your holy one to see corruption." Psalms 16:9,10 W.E.B.

His soul died for us as well. He didn't go to heaven or hell. He was dead unconsious in his grave until his resurrection.

"Thou hast put away mine acquaintance far from me; thou hast made me an abomination unto them: [I am] shut up, and I cannot come forth. " Psalms 88:8] quote from myself in a different thread

Ephesians 1:17 is my prayer for you "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowlege of Him.

dizzle

March 29th 2005, 06:11 PM

Phil 3:21 does not actually prove that. Note that Paul was quite clear, it is "our BODY" not "our BODIES" that will be changed. There is a difference. Our body is us as a whole, the congregation.

Incorrect. NEVER in the Bible is the "Body of Christ" referred to as OUR body besides numerous other problems with your proposition such as the fact that we are already "Christ's body" in that way - there is not "another body" that we will be fashioned into that exists right now in that sense.

Sparko

March 29th 2005, 06:35 PM

[Christ died on the cross and his spirit went to the Father.] [All trinitarians believe this. ]

I am so not an orthodox Christian and I really don't care about the unbliclical doctrines they believe but I couldn't help but noricing that you are the first orthodox Christian I met who believes that Christ went to heaven at death. Have you ever heard of the so called "Apostle's Creed" which orthodox Christians are supposed to believe in? It disagrees with you with what happened after Jesus died. It says that "He descended into hell.The third day He arose again from the dead." Maybe you don't believe in the so called "Apostle's Creed" Maybe it is not orthodox enough for you. What about the Nice Creed? All trinitarians believe in that, don't they? When does it say that Jesus went to heaven, at death or after his ressurection? "he suffered and was buried and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,and ascended into heaven," It clearly says that Jesus didn't go to heaven until after he rose again. But maybe you want to stop being an orthodox Christian and instead be a Bible Believing Christian and you are ready to "prove all things and hold fast to what is good" 1st Thessolnians 5:21. Let's see if the Neice Creed about Jesus not going to heaven until after his ressurection is really according to the scriptures.

There are some christians that believe that Jesus went into hades to preach the gospel to the dead there (basically showing them that death had no hold on him). But that does not preclude that his spirit went up to heaven.

Remember what he said to the thief on the cross

Luke 23:43 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=23&verse=43&version=31&context=verse)
Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Not hell, Paradise. When? TODAY. Not in three days. Today.

The thief would be in heaven with Jesus that very day.

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God. " John 20:17

His body had not ascended to the Father yet. His spirit had.

Jesus died.
Jesus' Spirit goes to heaven/paradise the same day he dies.
[might have made a side-trip to hell]
Jesus' Spirit comes back and rejoins his body in the resurrection.
Jesus preaches for 40 days
Jesus bodily ascends to heaven.

Krusader

March 29th 2005, 07:35 PM

Tsmith

March 29th 2005, 08:02 PM

Incorrect. NEVER in the Bible is the "Body of Christ" referred to as OUR body besides numerous other problems with your proposition such as the fact that we are already "Christ's body" in that way - there is not "another body" that we will be fashioned into that exists right now in that sense.

You should do some research before you make dogmatic statements.

Paul actually references "our bodies" and "our body" in a single context, with two different references.

If you look at 1 Corinthians 6:15-20, you'll find Paul references each of their bodies individually, then making reference how through unity one being in union with a harlot is one body. He then goes on to talk about them as a "body" and references it as "your body". How can we see the difference? In Greek, pronouns are singular or plural, as are nouns. In verse 15 the pronoun and noun are both plural, where as in verse 20 the pronoun is plural but the noun is singular.

Tsmith

March 29th 2005, 08:03 PM

dizzle

March 29th 2005, 08:37 PM

You should do some research before you make dogmatic statements.

I have, and my dogmatic statement remains.

Paul actually references "our bodies" and "our body" in a single context, with two different references.

If you look at 1 Corinthians 6:15-20, you'll find Paul references each of their bodies individually, then making reference how through unity one being in union with a harlot is one body. He then goes on to talk about them as a "body" and references it as "your body". How can we see the difference? In Greek, pronouns are singular or plural, as are nouns. In verse 15 the pronoun and noun are both plural, where as in verse 20 the pronoun is plural but the noun is singular.

Did you read the verse? It proves my point. The Christian have BODIES (their physical bodies) that make up the BODY OF Christ (it is Christ's body not OURs). Then Paul speak of individual believers who fornicate with a harlot, for the "TWO (individuals, the harlot and the fornicator) become ONE flesh." Once again, the spiritual body of Christ is NEVER OUR body, it is Christ's body. Your interpretation requires us to believe the passage is claiming what is only Christ's, and furthermore is tautological, amounting to "the body of Christ will be transformed into the body of Christ."

Tsmith

March 29th 2005, 10:04 PM

I have, and my dogmatic statement remains.

Did you read the verse? It proves my point. The Christian have BODIES (their physical bodies) that make up the BODY OF Christ (it is Christ's body not OURs). Then Paul speak of individual believers who fornicate with a harlot, for the "TWO (individuals, the harlot and the fornicator) become ONE flesh." Once again, the spiritual body of Christ is NEVER OUR body, it is Christ's body. Your interpretation requires us to believe the passage is claiming what is only Christ's, and furthermore is tautological, amounting to "the body of Christ will be transformed into the body of Christ."

Well it remains.. in error.

What you fail to note is that it doesn't just say that the two are one flesh, but that they are also "one body".

Now you completely disregarded my point on the singulars and plurals. Why? Because it is terribly damaging to your position.

Paul speaks of "your bodies" and "your body". Their bodies are said to be members of Christ. Being joined to Christ, they are "one body" as with the example of the harlot.

Now in verse 18 he speaks of the man doing something to "his own body", where "own" is the noun idios and is in the singular, and SWMA is also singular.

Yet in verse 19 he speaks of their body. Where those possessing the body is a group as the pronoun is plural, but it is a single body that they possess. It of the group, it is no one member's body, but since the collective are what the body consists of, it is rightfully called their body.

dizzle

March 29th 2005, 10:35 PM

What you fail to note is that it doesn't just say that the two are one flesh, but that they are also "one body".

One flesh is the same as one body (oops, that flesh thing again - perhaps you want to abandon that point)?

Now you completely disregarded my point on the singulars and plurals. Why? Because it is terribly damaging to your position.

I certainly did deal with it above.

Paul speaks of "your bodies" and "your body". Their bodies are said to be members of Christ. Being joined to Christ, they are "one body" as with the example of the harlot.

And each time YOUR body is mentioned it is their own bodies, the corporate body is ALWAYS said to be Christ's not ours.

Now in verse 18 he speaks of the man doing something to "his own body", where "own" is the noun idios and is in the singular, and SWMA is also singular.

Yet in verse 19 he speaks of their body. Where those possessing the body is a group as the pronoun is plural, but it is a single body that they possess. It of the group, it is no one member's body, but since the collective are what the body consists of, it is rightfully called their body.

Nonsense. Is it a collective "spirit" too? (verse 20) - the context is speaking of the individual believers, speaking to themn as a group, but outlining individual responsibilities.

Tsmith

March 29th 2005, 11:07 PM

One flesh is the same as one body (oops, that flesh thing again - perhaps you want to abandon that point)?

I'm certain you wish I would, because this point is critical to you. The point is that the two together form one body. The text states "one body" and this is the crux of my position. The group as a whole forms "one body".

I certainly did deal with it above.

You must certainly have not. You denied that the body is ever called "our body" but you did not engage my grammatical post in your prior post, nor have you in this point. The simply fact remains, Paul speaks of "your body" and "your bodies". When he speaks of their bodies, he is speaking of the individual members, when he speaks of their body, he is speaking of the collective whole.

And each time YOUR body is mentioned it is their own bodies, the corporate body is ALWAYS said to be Christ's not ours.

Not at all, because Paul changes from the plural to the singular, and this is the point you refuse to engage. Paul speaks of the plural "bodies" and then the singular "body", both of which have the plural genitive pronoun. There is a distinction Paul makes in the text. Your simple denial does nothing to prove your case.

Nonsense. Is it a collective "spirit" too? (verse 20) - the context is speaking of the individual believers, speaking to themn as a group, but outlining individual responsibilities.

As a matter of fact yet, because in verse 16 where those being joined to the harlot are "one body", in verse 17 it says that those being joined to Christ are "one spirit".

PioneerSDA

March 29th 2005, 11:08 PM

There are some christians that believe that Jesus went into hades to preach the gospel to the dead there (basically showing them that death had no hold on him). But that does not preclude that his spirit went up to heaven.

Remember what he said to the thief on the cross

Luke 23:43 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=23&verse=43&version=31&context=verse)
Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Not hell, Paradise. When? TODAY. Not in three days. Today.

The thief would be in heaven with Jesus that very day.

His body had not ascended to the Father yet. His spirit had.

Jesus died.
Jesus' Spirit goes to heaven/paradise the same day he dies.
[might have made a side-trip to hell]
Jesus' Spirit comes back and rejoins his body in the resurrection.
Jesus preaches for 40 days
Jesus bodily ascends to heaven.

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." Ecclesiasties 9:5 "The dead don't praise Yah, neither any who go down into silence" Psalms 115:17 World English Bible

God's only born and equally Divine Son who He gave birth to in eternity gave up His immortality to become a mortal. Jesus died both body and soul died and was unconsious in the grave until ressurrection. If Jesus's soul went to heaven he didn't know anything about it by His own testimony He didn't go to heaven yet John 20:17. You say that He was just talking about His body but Jesus didn't say that. Jesus never talks about people being seperate from their bodies. He promised that we would go to heaven at his second coming and he never said we would to at death. John 14:1-3. It would have been impossible for Jesus to go to hell because hell didn't start yet. Do you really think that sinners will burn longer than Satan himself? Peter tells us when and where perdition which is another word for hell will start. "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. " 2nd Peter 3:7 "That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath. " Job 21:30 Job also answers the question as to if we will see God in our body or out of our body. "And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body], yet in my flesh shall I see God: " Job 19:26
My prayer for you is for Jesus's God to bless you with the promise of Ephesians 1:17 "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowlege of Him."

PioneerSDA

March 29th 2005, 11:12 PM

Thank you for your reply. I did notice that before that the body should be translated bodies. The English translators must have made a mistake. It should be plural bodies. Have a great day. May Jesus's God bless you with the promise of Ephesians 1:17

dizzle

March 29th 2005, 11:13 PM

I'm certain you wish I would, because this point is critical to you. The point is that the two together form one body. The text states "one body" and this is the crux of my position. The group as a whole forms "one body".

Who denied that? But it is Christ's body, not ours. (you forgot the tautology btw)

You must certainly have not. You denied that the body is ever called "our body" but you did not engage my grammatical post in your prior post, nor have you in this point. The simply fact remains, Paul speaks of "your body" and "your bodies". When he speaks of their bodies, he is speaking of the individual members, when he speaks of their body, he is speaking of the collective whole.

NO... in the portion of the passage speaking of "yours" he is speaking of THEIR bodies. I highlighted already exactly how and why.

Not at all, because Paul changes from the plural to the singular, and this is the point you refuse to engage. Paul speaks of the plural "bodies" and then the singular "body", both of which have the plural genitive pronoun. There is a distinction Paul makes in the text. Your simple denial does nothing to prove your case.

again because there are more than one of them that he is addressing - each of them have singular bodies - (again you forgot the tautology)

As a matter of fact yet, because in verse 16 where those being joined to the harlot are "one body", in verse 17 it says that those being joined to Christ are "one spirit".[/QUOTE]

PioneerSDA

March 29th 2005, 11:40 PM

This is my reply to all the truthseekers that were kind enough to join me on my thread.

"Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Father, I give you my life." After Jesus said this, he died." Luke 23:46 New Century Version

"Jesus called loudly, "Father, I place my life in your hands!" Then he breathed his last." Luke 23:46 The Message

"Jesus shouted, "Father, I put myself in your hands!" Then he died. " Luke 23:46 Contemporary English Version

"Jesus shouted, "Father, I give you my life." After Jesus said this, he died. " Luke 23:46 Easy-To-Read Version

Why on earth did three Bible versions say that Jesus gave up his life insstead of saying Jesus gave up his spirit? Should we Just ignore it or should be do like Paul says and "Prove all things and hold fast to what is good." 1st Thesolonians 5:21

The word spirit in the Bible means life giving principle and is not immortal except for God's Spirit for He is the only one who hath immortality. 1st Timothy 6:16 A mortal doesn't have an immortal spirt.

Why do you insist on believing Satan's lie that sinners won't surely die. God told Adam that he wouldn't be immortal unless he ate the tree of life and Jesus tells us the same thing today. Rev 22:14

God gave Adam the breath of life but where does the Bible say that God gave Him an immortal spirit?

Job understood that the breath of life is the God's spirit in Him that keeps him alive.
"All the while my breath [is] in me, and the spirit of God [is] in my nostrils; " Job 27:3

James understood that humans die with out this breath of life or without this spirit.

"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. " James 2:26

But no Bible writer ever said we would live or any part of us would live without our bodies.

But don't worry if we are true followers of Christ than even though we are not immortal now nor any part of us is immortal yet will God ressurrect us and make us immortal some day.

"To them who by patient continuance in well doing SEEK FOR (meaning we don't have it yet) glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:" Romans 2:7

PioneerSDA

March 29th 2005, 11:44 PM

Dear T Smith

Post # 18 was for T smith and I made a mistake. I should have said I didn't notice that before. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Tsmith

March 29th 2005, 11:45 PM

Who denied that? But it is Christ's body, not ours. (you forgot the tautology btw)

NO... in the portion of the passage speaking of "yours" he is speaking of THEIR bodies. I highlighted already exactly how and why.

again because there are more than one of them that he is addressing - each of them have singular bodies - (again you forgot the tautology)

As a matter of fact yet, because in verse 16 where those being joined to the harlot are "one body", in verse 17 it says that those being joined to Christ are "one spirit".[/QUOTE]

Why don't you give up this rhetoric and just admit you were wrong. You're not even engaging my points. What you are doing amounts to nothing more than shouting at me, "No, you're wrong!"

You've provided not a single exegetical point in your entire sum of posts. If you want to make a point, make one, but make one from the text instead of just spitting out your opinion.

Your denial of the body being called "our body" or "your body" is a assuming that this and other examples of references to "our body" are not used in such a matter. Your argument is completely circular. You say that the body is never called "our body" to argue that these verses are not calling the body "our body". Can't you see how completely circular that is?

Tsmith

March 29th 2005, 11:47 PM

Dear T Smith

Post # 18 was for T smith and I made a mistake. I should have said I didn't notice that before. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

What verse are you talking about? If you are talking about Phil. here, then you are incorrect. The Greek noun is singular, not plural. "Body" here is the correct translation, not "bodies". Unless you are speaking of a different verse.

PioneerSDA

March 30th 2005, 12:26 AM

SDA:
I'd also like to add to the above answer, that Trinitarians are Bible-believing Christians - those that deny the triune Godhead are Arian heretics....this is why you are having trouble dealing with the dual nature within Christ, as clarified by the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

I can't be an Arian heritic because I don't believe what arius believed.

You believe in the Trinitarian heresy so would it be right for me to call you an Arian heretic?

Arius like the Jehovah's Witness today teach that Jesus was born from nothing making Him created. The Bible says that Jesus is born from God making Him His only born Son born out of the very substance of God before all of creation and He His True Literal Son and is equally Divine with Him.

[ I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made] This much of THE NICENE CREED I agree with.

The Father is The Only God and Jesus is our only Lord His only born Son who was born from Him in eternity equally Divine with Himself.

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. " 1st Corinthians 8:6

"God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of HIS SON Jesus Christ our Lord." 1st Corinthians 1:9

Arians don't believe God can really give birth to a son just like Trinitarians so there belief is closer to yours than mine.

I know that "God sent His only begotten Son into the world" 1st John 4:9 meaning that he already had a Son born from Him before he ever sent Him down here to be born again, this time as a human.

I do believe that Christ had two natures but I don't know anything about a hypthoseisawhata. This like most false trinitarian doctrines are not important because they are not Biblical. Jesus was born in eternity with the full divine nature and even though he gave up all his divine power and immortality did not change the fact that he still was Divine. He was the Divine Son of God who died for our sins. Humanity and Divinity both died. I don't know why anyone would believe that only Jesus's human part died. God doesn't like human sacrifices. "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. " Romans 5:10 "I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore," Rev 1:18

My prayer for you is that Jesus's God bless you with the promise of Ephesians 1:17

PioneerSDA

March 30th 2005, 12:30 AM

That is a big assumption based on punctuation.

I tend to go with "Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise."

Kinda puts a wrench in your claim.

This was a very good comment that you made. Who taught you this? Do you have an SDA background?

My sincere prayer for you is that you be like Paul who said "...I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" Galations 2:20

Tsmith

March 30th 2005, 12:33 AM

This was a very good comment that you made. Who taught you this? Do you have an SDA background?

My sincere prayer for you is that you be like Paul who said "...I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" Galations 2:20

Greek grammar taught me this. Luke 23:43 is different than EVERY other case of where Jesus said "truly I say to you". Unfortunately people look at the English and not the Greek and so they make false arguments. :)

dizzle

March 30th 2005, 06:54 AM

Why don't you give up this rhetoric and just admit you were wrong. You're not even engaging my points. What you are doing amounts to nothing more than shouting at me, "No, you're wrong!"

I certainly did engage each of your points (you forgot the tautology again I brought up in the very beginning). I may not be engaging them clearly to you but I am engaging them. What is clear to one person is not always clear to another.

You've provided not a single exegetical point in your entire sum of posts. If you want to make a point, make one, but make one from the text instead of just spitting out your opinion.

Incorrect, in fact I made one showing you a tautology, that you never mentioned, in my very first post, and then again in a followup.

Your denial of the body being called "our body" or "your body" is a assuming that this and other examples of references to "our body" are not used in such a matter. Your argument is completely circular. You say that the body is never called "our body" to argue that these verses are not calling the body "our body". Can't you see how completely circular that is?

And I showed you in Corinthians how it was used to be their bodies, that the conglomerate was not their body, but Christ's. You are making obvious physical references to bodies into spiritual references and pointing to them to show they are spiritual - can't you see how completeloy circular that is?

And while you have circles on your mind, perhaps you will deal with the tautology I brought up.

dizzle

March 30th 2005, 07:04 AM

Another point for TSmith:

"Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." Philipians 3:21

Please see 1st John 3:2 and 1st Corinthians 15:53,54

My basic reasoning is that if we are going to have bodies at our ressurection than Christ must have had one too because we will have bodies just like His.

This cannot divorced from othe "resurrection" contexts by going to a different context of 1 Cor 6. PSDA was correct in pointing to 1 Cor 15 which deals with individual literal bodies.

(I am going to be scarce until next week pretty likely)

John Reece

March 30th 2005, 09:26 AM

Greek grammar taught me this. Luke 23:43 is different than EVERY other case of where Jesus said "truly I say to you". Unfortunately people look at the English and not the Greek and so they make false arguments. :)

:smile:

Here is the punctuation in Luke 23:43 in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament:

amhn soi legw, shmeron met' emou esh en tw paradeisw.

That is exactly the same punctuation as in the New Revised Standard Version:

Truly I tell to you, today you will be with me in Paradise. — Luke 23:43

Here are relevant exerpts from The New International Greek Testament Commentary:

The use of shmeron ["today" -JR] thus presents no problem; it refers to the day of crucifixion as the day of entry into paradise.

. . .

The criminal's petition expresses the hope that he will attain to life at the parousia; Jesus' reply assures him of immediate entry into paradise. — I . Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC), page 873

Here’s what another Greek scholar wrote:

In our Lord’s answer, the word to-day stands foremost, because Jesus wishes to contrast the nearness of the promised happiness with the remote future to which the prayer of the thief refers. To-day, before the setting of the sun shining upon us. — Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke.

Yet another Greek scholar wrote:

The Lucan narrative is unique in having a scene in which one of the criminals with Jesus joins in the mocking of Jesus explicitly. He is in time corrected by the other criminal, who acknowledges Jesus’ innocence and begs to be remembered when Jesus comes in his kingly heritage. Jesus answers with the promise that he will be with him in paradise that very day (23:39-43). — Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Anchor Bible: the Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV, page 1507

Tsmith

March 30th 2005, 09:42 AM

Tsmith

March 30th 2005, 09:44 AM

I certainly did engage each of your points (you forgot the tautology again I brought up in the very beginning). I may not be engaging them clearly to you but I am engaging them. What is clear to one person is not always clear to another.

Incorrect, in fact I made one showing you a tautology, that you never mentioned, in my very first post, and then again in a followup.

And I showed you in Corinthians how it was used to be their bodies, that the conglomerate was not their body, but Christ's. You are making obvious physical references to bodies into spiritual references and pointing to them to show they are spiritual - can't you see how completeloy circular that is?

And while you have circles on your mind, perhaps you will deal with the tautology I brought up.

You failed to engage me again!

It is not a tautology, because Paul changes from plurals to singulars!

You have not engaged this point once. You are simply being a broke record on the matter. Again you provide no exegetical basis for your position, you simply demand it to be true because you say so.

dizzle

March 30th 2005, 10:11 AM

You failed to engage me again!

Because I did before. It is you that have not fully engaged my points.

It is not a tautology, because Paul changes from plurals to singulars!

I was not referring to the Corinthians passage, but the Phil passage that was tautological. As is your illegitimate importing of corporate "body" into the general resurrection when 1 Corinthians 15 makes it clear that it is individual bodies, as is your taking a spiritual analogy that is made and forcing it into obviously physical passages.

You have not engaged this point once. You are simply being a broke record on the matter. Again you provide no exegetical basis for your position, you simply demand it to be true because you say so.

And you demand your accusations to be true because you say so. I have engaged your points, and perhaps after this weekend (I will not be home very much starting Friday and am busy over the next two days) will egnage them some more.

Perhaps you can deal with the tautology in Phil 3 now that I have made it clear which passage I was referring to in that statement.

John Reece

March 30th 2005, 12:30 PM

Sparko

March 30th 2005, 12:31 PM

That is a big assumption based on punctuation.

I tend to go with "Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise."

Kinda puts a wrench in your claim.

Uh, how dumb is that? Why would Jesus have to mention to the thief that he is telling him that statement "today?" - Talk about unecessary! When else would he be making the statement, that he would need to clarify it in such a manner?

"Truly I say to you tomorrow, you will be with me in paradise?"

That is ridiculous. The only way it makes sense is for Jesus to be saying WHEN he would be in paradise with him. TODAY.

And as John Reese pointed out earlier, The thief was asking for Jesus to remember him in the future when he came into his kingdom.

42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.

And Jesus was telling him that he would be with him in Paradise, not in some future time, but that very day, "today."

Sparko

March 30th 2005, 12:48 PM

he Bible says that Jesus is born from God making Him His only born Son born out of the very substance of God before all of creation and He His True Literal Son and is equally Divine with Him.

The Father is The Only God and Jesus is our only Lord His only born Son who was born from Him in eternity equally Divine with Himself.

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. " 1st Corinthians 8:6

If you truly believe that Jesus was equally divine as the Father, but you don't believe in the trinity, then you truly are in trouble, my friend.

You seem to believe in polytheism. That there is more than one God.

If Jesus is equally divine as the Father and they are not ONE God, then you have TWO Gods.

But the bible is clear that there is only ONE true God and no other.

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

So if Jesus truly is as divine as the Father (which I do beleive) then he must be the SAME God as the Father (since there can only be ONE God) Thus you have two persons in one God. The Holy spirit is spoken of as a person also and is divine, therefore you have three persons in ONE GOD. Trinity.

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

----

Jesus was called God directly also:

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

Krusader

March 30th 2005, 01:26 PM

I can't be an Arian heritic because I don't believe what arius believed.

You believe in the Trinitarian heresy so would it be right for me to call you an Arian heretic?

Arius like the Jehovah's Witness today teach that Jesus was born from nothing making Him created. The Bible says that Jesus is born from God making Him His only born Son born out of the very substance of God before all of creation and He His True Literal Son and is equally Divine with Him.

[ I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made] This much of THE NICENE CREED I agree with.

The Father is The Only God and Jesus is our only Lord His only born Son who was born from Him in eternity equally Divine with Himself.

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. " 1st Corinthians 8:6

"God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of HIS SON Jesus Christ our Lord." 1st Corinthians 1:9

Arians don't believe God can really give birth to a son just like Trinitarians so there belief is closer to yours than mine.

I know that "God sent His only begotten Son into the world" 1st John 4:9 meaning that he already had a Son born from Him before he ever sent Him down here to be born again, this time as a human.

I do believe that Christ had two natures but I don't know anything about a hypthoseisawhata. This like most false trinitarian doctrines are not important because they are not Biblical. Jesus was born in eternity with the full divine nature and even though he gave up all his divine power and immortality did not change the fact that he still was Divine. He was the Divine Son of God who died for our sins. Humanity and Divinity both died. I don't know why anyone would believe that only Jesus's human part died. God doesn't like human sacrifices. "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. " Romans 5:10 "I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore," Rev 1:18

My prayer for you is that Jesus's God bless you with the promise of Ephesians 1:17

The hypostatic union is the doctrinal explanation of Christ's two natures in one being. This was a doctrinal explanation that derived from the fight against monophysitism. You really need to study these things before condemning them.

Secondly, are you saying that there was a time that the Second Person of the Godhead did not exist - that He was "born in eternity" from the Father - that there was a time when God the Father was not a father?

Tsmith

March 30th 2005, 08:15 PM

Uh, how dumb is that? Why would Jesus have to mention to the thief that he is telling him that statement "today?" - Talk about unecessary! When else would he be making the statement, that he would need to clarify it in such a manner?

"Truly I say to you tomorrow, you will be with me in paradise?"

That is ridiculous. The only way it makes sense is for Jesus to be saying WHEN he would be in paradise with him. TODAY.

And as John Reese pointed out earlier, The thief was asking for Jesus to remember him in the future when he came into his kingdom.

42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.

And Jesus was telling him that he would be with him in Paradise, not in some future time, but that very day, "today."

Maybe we should stick to the facts instead of what you consider "dumb". This was a Hebrew idiom, for your information. Here are a few other examples of it being used.

Deuteronomy 4:26 I call the heavens and the earth to witness against you today that you shall soon utterly perish from off the land to which you go over the Jordan to possess it; you shall not prolong your days on it, but shall utterly be destroyed.

Deuteronomy 8:19 And it shall be, if you shall forget Jehovah your God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you today that perishing you shall perish;

Deuteronomy 30:18 I have declared to you today that you shall certainly perish. You shall not prolong your days in the land to which you are crossing the Jordan, to go in there to possess it.

1 Kings 1:51 And it was told to Solomon, saying, Adonijah is afraid of King Solomon. And, behold, he has laid hold on the horns of the altar, saying, Let King Solomon swear to me as of today that he will not put his servant to death by the sword.

In each of these verses we note that the use of "today" is for the absoluteness of what is said, placing emphasis on when the statement was made. This same idiom is employed by Jesus at Luke 23:43. E.W. Bullinger explains1: "So here (in Luke 23:43), in the absence of hoti (="that"), there may be a doubt as to the actual words included in the dependent clause. But the doubt is resolved (1) by the common Hebrew idiom, "I say unto thee this day," which is constantly used for very solemn emphasis; as well as (2) by the usage observable in other passages where the verb is connected with the Gr. semeron= to-day."

Tsmith

March 30th 2005, 08:17 PM

I see:
modern = invalid;
a single manuscript with a mark where you want it = "the historic punctuation";
a single manuscript with a mark where you want it trumps all other manuscripts;
comments on the Greek text by exegetical scholars do not reflect the scholars' understanding of Greek grammar.

:smile:

Modern is not invalid, but modern isn't valid itself either. It is only valid if it is true. To appeal to such does nothing to prove your point. However, if we look at ancient we see how those of ancient times view it.

The commentators have a theology. If they comment theologically, it is theological. If they comment grammatically, it is grammatical. Unfortunately, most commentators mix the two.

Again, lets just deal with the facts.

Tsmith

March 30th 2005, 08:30 PM

Because I did before. It is you that have not fully engaged my points.

I was not referring to the Corinthians passage, but the Phil passage that was tautological. As is your illegitimate importing of corporate "body" into the general resurrection when 1 Corinthians 15 makes it clear that it is individual bodies, as is your taking a spiritual analogy that is made and forcing it into obviously physical passages.

And you demand your accusations to be true because you say so. I have engaged your points, and perhaps after this weekend (I will not be home very much starting Friday and am busy over the next two days) will egnage them some more.

Perhaps you can deal with the tautology in Phil 3 now that I have made it clear which passage I was referring to in that statement.

Shall we safely then say that you've dropped your point on them being called a body, and this the group was "your body" in Corinthians?

Thus, moving to Phil 3:21, you still have the problem that it is only a single body that is spoken of, not a plural of bodies.

dizzle

March 30th 2005, 08:40 PM

Err no. And I will grab this next week. I will be scarce and distracted for possibly a week, my life just got incredibly busy.

InChristAlways

March 30th 2005, 10:49 PM

PioneerSDA

March 30th 2005, 11:32 PM

What verse are you talking about? If you are talking about Phil. here, then you are incorrect. The Greek noun is singular, not plural. "Body" here is the correct translation, not "bodies". Unless you are speaking of a different verse.

May God and Christ His Divine Son bless you.

I was talking about Philipians 3:21 where bodies was wrongly translated body. I know you said that the Greek has a singular noun but you did not show me anything. Please show me this Greek verse you are talking about and which manuscript it is from so we might all learn if you are right or if you are just saying things.

My sincere prayer for you is to be like Paul who said "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. ""...I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." 1st Corinthians 11:1 ; Galations 2:20

PioneerSDA

March 31st 2005, 12:04 AM

The hypostatic union is the doctrinal explanation of Christ's two natures in one being. This was a doctrinal explanation that derived from the fight against monophysitism. You really need to study these things before condemning them. Secondly, are you saying that there was a time that the Second Person of the Godhead did not exist - that He was "born in eternity" from the Father - that there was a time when God the Father was not a father?

May God the Father and Christ His equally Divine Son bless you.

Hypowhata? Monophysomethinga? I don't need to learn this theoligcal language to read a Bible. Thank God there are some writen in English.

I think that is such a silly question to ask if there was a time when the Son was not the Son. Doesn't the very definition of the word son give you that answer? Son (male offspring younger than the parent equal in nature)
Am I a heretic because I say the Messiah has His origin/beginning in eternity before all of creation according to the prophet Micah?

"Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; One will come from you to be ruler over Israel for Me. His origin is from antiquity, from eternity." Micah 5:2 Holman Christian Standard Bible

[ You really need to study these things before condemning them.]

Well Crusader in this regard you are like a parent who tells his son "Do as I say and not as I do" You called me an arian and I don't even believe Jesus is created. I believe in the full divinity of God's only born Son. But you only believe in His one third divinity. Crusader, would I be wrong in saying that you are asking me to deny that Jesus Christ is the true, literal, only born Son of God having the same Divine nature as His Father even though He is younger and does have a diferent substance and therefore deny the gospel of Jesus Christ?

"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." John 3:16

Don't you believe that God really had an only born Son to give to save us or did he only give his twin or did he only give one third of himself or however your trinitarian theology tries to rewrite the Bible?

My sincere prayer for you is that Jesus's God bless you with the promise of Ephesians 1:17 "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowlege of Him"

PioneerSDA

March 31st 2005, 12:33 AM

:smile:

Here is the punctuation in Luke 23:43 in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament:

amhn soi legw, shmeron met' emou esh en tw paradeisw.

That is exactly the same punctuation as in the New Revised Standard Version:

Truly I tell to you, today you will be with me in Paradise. — Luke 23:43

Here are relevant exerpts from The New International Greek Testament Commentary:

The use of shmeron ["today" -JR] thus presents no problem; it refers to the day of crucifixion as the day of entry into paradise.

. . .

The criminal's petition expresses the hope that he will attain to life at the parousia; Jesus' reply assures him of immediate entry into paradise. — I . Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC), page 873

Here’s what another Greek scholar wrote:

In our Lord’s answer, the word to-day stands foremost, because Jesus wishes to contrast the nearness of the promised happiness with the remote future to which the prayer of the thief refers. To-day, before the setting of the sun shining upon us. — Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke.

Yet another Greek scholar wrote:

The Lucan narrative is unique in having a scene in which one of the criminals with Jesus joins in the mocking of Jesus explicitly. He is in time corrected by the other criminal, who acknowledges Jesus’ innocence and begs to be remembered when Jesus comes in his kingly heritage. Jesus answers with the promise that he will be with him in paradise that very day (23:39-43). — Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Anchor Bible: the Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV, page 1507

May God and Christ His equally Divine Son bless you. Thank you very much for you input. I'd ask all of those scholars the same thing I am going to ask you. Why would Christ tell that man he was going to heaven with Him that same day when Christ didn't even go to heaven until after He was resurrected? John 17:20 Why would Christ take him to heaven before his disciples when He told them that they wouldn't go until His second coming? John 14:1-3. And about the modern Greek manuscript you kindly showed me I'd like to say that Luke didn't even use any punctuation so that had to be added by those Nestle editors.

[Exegetical Insight
When the New Testament was first written there were no punctuation marks. In fact, the words were run together one after another without any separation. Punctuation and versification entered the text of manuscripts at a much later period.] quoted from "Yes, You Can Learn Biblical Greek" Chapter 4 of Basics of Biblical Greek:Punctuation and Syllabification
http://www.teknia.com/level1/04%20punctuation.html

May Jesus's God bless you with the promise of Ephesians 1:17 "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him"

PioneerSDA

March 31st 2005, 12:42 AM

Maybe we should stick to the facts instead of what you consider "dumb". This was a Hebrew idiom, for your information. Here are a few other examples of it being used.

Deuteronomy 4:26 I call the heavens and the earth to witness against you today that you shall soon utterly perish from off the land to which you go over the Jordan to possess it; you shall not prolong your days on it, but shall utterly be destroyed.

Deuteronomy 8:19 And it shall be, if you shall forget Jehovah your God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you today that perishing you shall perish;

Deuteronomy 30:18 I have declared to you today that you shall certainly perish. You shall not prolong your days in the land to which you are crossing the Jordan, to go in there to possess it.

1 Kings 1:51 And it was told to Solomon, saying, Adonijah is afraid of King Solomon. And, behold, he has laid hold on the horns of the altar, saying, Let King Solomon swear to me as of today that he will not put his servant to death by the sword.

In each of these verses we note that the use of "today" is for the absoluteness of what is said, placing emphasis on when the statement was made. This same idiom is employed by Jesus at Luke 23:43. E.W. Bullinger explains1: "So here (in Luke 23:43), in the absence of hoti (="that"), there may be a doubt as to the actual words included in the dependent clause. But the doubt is resolved (1) by the common Hebrew idiom, "I say unto thee this day," which is constantly used for very solemn emphasis; as well as (2) by the usage observable in other passages where the verb is connected with the Gr. semeron= to-day."

I didn't know that today was used like that in the Old Testament. Thank you very much for contributing to this post.

My sincere prayer for you is that one day you will be like Paul who said "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. ""I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. " 1st Corinthians 11:1 ; Galations 2:20

PioneerSDA

March 31st 2005, 12:56 AM

Wouldn't it have made better sense if Jesus would have said "that day" if it was to be at His coming?

For example:

John 14:20 "At that day you will know that I [am] in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

Thank you for your concern. May Jesus the equally Divine Son of God who is a seperate person from His Father bless you even if He doesn't know good grammar in your eyes.

Who am I point my fist toward heaven shaking it at the Divine Son of God standing on the right hand of the Father demanding to know "Why didn't you say 'that day' instead of 'to day' when you were dieing for my sins. It would have made much more sense. Thank you for creating me with you Father and everything but gosh, why don't you learn some grammar in all those uncountable years since your birth in eternity?"

Jesus was a Hebrew and He spoke like a Hebrew. T Smith showed us some great examples of how today was used like that in the Old Testament. Please read His post # 37. I hope it will be a blessing to you as it was to me.

I saw you quoted a verse from John 14. Than you must have saw John 14: 1-3 when Jesus promises to take all of His believers to heaven at His second coming not as soon as they die.

"Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. " John 14:1-3

Jesus praticed what he preached and He didn't go to heaven until after His ressurrection as well. please see John 20:17

May Jesus's God bless you with the promise of Ephesians 1:17 " that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory may give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowlege of Him"

PioneerSDA

March 31st 2005, 02:21 AM

If you truly believe that Jesus was equally divine as the Father, but you don't believe in the trinity, then you truly are in trouble, my friend.

You seem to believe in polytheism. That there is more than one God.

If Jesus is equally divine as the Father and they are not ONE God, then you have TWO Gods.

But the bible is clear that there is only ONE true God and no other.

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

So if Jesus truly is as divine as the Father (which I do beleive) then he must be the SAME God as the Father (since there can only be ONE God) Thus you have two persons in one God. The Holy spirit is spoken of as a person also and is divine, therefore you have three persons in ONE GOD. Trinity.

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

----

Jesus was called God directly also:

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

May God and Christ His only male offspring bless you.
Thank you very much for bringing that to my attention. I certainly don't want to be a pollytheist. I left the SDA church for that very reason because it taught tritheism. On Gen 1:26 they say that is the trinity talking when the Bible says that is God talking to His Son. Maybe I should clarify how I mean equal. When I say that Jesus is equally divine with God I only mean that they have the same Divine nature. I don't believe that they are equal in age. I believe in the Father (originator) and His Son (male offspring younger than Himself with the same nature) I don't believe they are equal in authority. Jesus always calls his Father "My God" but the Father has no God. You seemed very concerend that I only believe in one God and you quoted some very good Isaiah passages. I believe Paul was refering to these when he wrote 1st Corinthians 8. Please let's look at a couple of these verses together.

"...there is none other God but one For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him..."1st Corinthians 8:4-6

The Apostle Paul is very clear that the One God to Christians is the Father but let's keep reading. "...and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."1st Corinthians 8:6

The Apostle Paul also said that we have One Lord who must be equally Divine (even though He Himself is not the One God or any part of the One God) because He created us along with God the Father. Earlier in first Corinthians the Apostle Paul shares with us the relationship between this One God and One Lord.

"God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." 1st Corinthians 1:9

He says that this One Lord is the His Son so I am not worshiping two Gods by not believing in the trinity. I am worshipping One God and His equally Divine Son who He gave birth to in eternity according to the scriptures. Is this so much unlike what the Ancient Jews believed?

"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is HIS SON's name, if thou canst tell? " Proverbs 30:4

"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. " Daniel 3;25

The Prophet Daniel was such a faithful witness that even a pagan king can recognize Jesus better than us because we don't believe God is powerful and truthful enough to really give birth an only born Son and our unbiblical trinitarian minds make Jesus out to be some kind of third head instead of who he said he was.

"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. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. " John 3:16,17 K.J.V.

You seemed very concerened that I learn the truth of the Comforter well don't worry. I am a Christian and I have accepted Jesus into my heart. I believe I feel as happy as diciples did when Jesus told them "...he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." John 14:17,18 K.J.V.

Surely I know that the Father is God and Jesus is Lord and I even know who the Spirit is because the Apostle Paul said "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty. " 2nd Corinthians 3:17

You seemed very concerened that I know who the only true (original) God is. Well John recorded Jesus giving us the answer when he was praying to His heavenly Father and said "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. " John 17:3

"..God sent his only begotten Son into the world.."1st John 4:9 The Bible is clear that Jesus was God's only born before he ever came into the world to be born again, this time as a human.

Jesus told us that to have eternal life we must believe the Father is the only true (original) God and in His only born Son. I am not denying the divinity of Christ. I am not calling Him a lesser God or another God or another part of God. I am just saying that He is God's true literal Son and that means he has the same Divine nature as His Father. I do not worship two Gods. I worship One God and His only born equally Divine Son who He gave birth to in eternity.

"We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we can know the True One. And our lives are in the True One and in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and the eternal life." 1st John 5:20 New Century Version

My sincere prayer is that Jesus's God blesses you with the promise of Ephesians 1:17 "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowlege of Him"

Tsmith

March 31st 2005, 09:36 AM

May God and Christ His Divine Son bless you.

I was talking about Philipians 3:21 where bodies was wrongly translated body. I know you said that the Greek has a singular noun but you did not show me anything. Please show me this Greek verse you are talking about and which manuscript it is from so we might all learn if you are right or if you are just saying things.

My sincere prayer for you is to be like Paul who said "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. ""...I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." 1st Corinthians 11:1 ; Galations 2:20

The word is SWMA, which is a singular noun.

Sparko

March 31st 2005, 01:35 PM

Maybe we should stick to the facts instead of what you consider "dumb". This was a Hebrew idiom, for your information. Here are a few other examples of it being used.

Uh, Jesus was not speaking Hebrew, but Aramaic and the book was written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Sure is funny watching you have to rationalize such a clear passage away as a figure of speech, when it is so clearly saying that the thief will be in paradise with Jesus on that very day. The thief wanted Jesus to remember him some day, and Jesus said, "today you will be with me in paradise" - clear, concise, non ambiguous.

And all those examples you gave? They clearly are indeed saying that God's judgment was being handed out "today" but when Jesus was speaking, he was indeed saying WHEN the theif would be in heaven. Using a completely different mode of speech in different situations to change the context of what Jesus said on the cross is just wrong, buddy.

You can try to twist the scripture all you want but a plain reading of the text is usually the correct one. And you can't get much plainer than "today you will be with me in paradise"

Sparko

March 31st 2005, 02:12 PM

I certainly don't want to be a pollytheist. I left the SDA church for that very reason because it taught tritheism. On Gen 1:26 they say that is the trinity talking when the Bible says that is God talking to His Son. Maybe I should clarify how I mean equal. When I say that Jesus is equally divine with God I only mean that they have the same Divine nature.

If I have a son and his nature is the same as mine, then we are both humans. If my dog has a son who shares his nature then they are both dogs.

If God has a son who shares his same nature, then they are both Gods.

If Jesus has the same divine nature as the Father (which I agree he does) then, both are Gods.

You are now faced with there being TWO Gods.

However, as we will both agree, there is only ONE God. But Jesus is indeed divine.

So how can we reconsile this? We can't have two Gods. The only way to resolve it is to say there are two persons but one God. One divine substance revealed in two persons. The Father is God and the Son is God, and they are the SAME God, but different persons.

Throw in the holy spirit and you have the Trinity.

Anything less and you have poly theism. If you indeed think that Jesus us divine and of the same nature as the Father, then you either must accept the trinity, or you are stuck with two Gods and are polytheistic.

That is simple logic.

"...there is none other God but one For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him..."1st Corinthians 8:4-6

The Apostle Paul is very clear that the One God to Christians is the Father but let's keep reading. "...and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."1st Corinthians 8:6

Instead of saying that Jesus is not God, Paul is actually forcing his readers to understand that Jesus IS God. If there is only one God and Jesus is Lord, then he is God.

He also said this:

Colossian 1:15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For 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. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Jesus created ALL things. That means he is not created. He created all things. Who is the creator? God is the creator. Who created all things? Jesus. Therefore Jesus is God.

Tsmith

March 31st 2005, 07:57 PM

Uh, Jesus was not speaking Hebrew, but Aramaic and the book was written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Sure is funny watching you have to rationalize such a clear passage away as a figure of speech, when it is so clearly saying that the thief will be in paradise with Jesus on that very day. The thief wanted Jesus to remember him some day, and Jesus said, "today you will be with me in paradise" - clear, concise, non ambiguous.

And all those examples you gave? They clearly are indeed saying that God's judgment was being handed out "today" but when Jesus was speaking, he was indeed saying WHEN the theif would be in heaven. Using a completely different mode of speech in different situations to change the context of what Jesus said on the cross is just wrong, buddy.

You can try to twist the scripture all you want but a plain reading of the text is usually the correct one. And you can't get much plainer than "today you will be with me in paradise"

Perhaps you were unaware of this, but Hebrew was also spoken in the day. Further, you can speak another language and use an idiom from the other. So, for example, in the LXX we find the Hebrew idiom. Interesting, isn't it?

Why don't you demonstrate some of your claims here instead of merely asserting them? For example, when God says he tells them something "today" the event is not taking place that day, but he is informing them that day. Does not fit your position.

The text is clear. The adverb falls into the second position of the verb, and is thus modifying the verb. The verb is LEGW, so "say today" is how it literally translates. Thus demanding that the comma go after "today".

Tsmith

March 31st 2005, 08:00 PM

Sparko

April 1st 2005, 09:49 PM

You have two BIG problems.

1) angels are called gods

2) Col 1:16 does not say he created things, but it says another did. Grammar dictates this, with the first statement being locative and the last being intermediate. Jesus serves as the intermediate agent in creation, not the creator.

1> Do you believe that Angels are Gods? If so then you have proven God a liar when he said he is the ONLY God. Nice going.

2> See also:
John1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Which means even if he was the intermediary, and the Father created through the Son, it still means that Jesus was NOT created, since it says ALL THINGS and ALL powers and authorities in heaven and on earth. And John 1:3 nails it down to all created things were created by Jesus. Jesus is uncreated. Jesus is God.

Tsmith

April 1st 2005, 11:00 PM

1> Do you believe that Angels are Gods? If so then you have proven God a liar when he said he is the ONLY God. Nice going.

2> See also:
John1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Which means even if he was the intermediary, and the Father created through the Son, it still means that Jesus was NOT created, since it says ALL THINGS and ALL powers and authorities in heaven and on earth. And John 1:3 nails it down to all created things were created by Jesus. Jesus is uncreated. Jesus is God.

On point #1, you must keep his statements in context. Such statements are made with regards to idiols. They are not real gods, only he is. All others are gods by God's will. They have divinity because God has given it to them, not because they were created as such.

On point #2, your position is only valid based on the 4th century punctuation of the text. The ancient punctuation, as testified by nearly every early church Father places the final clause of verse 3, hO GEGONEN, with verse 4. Thus state, "What came to be in him [Christ] was life, and the life was the light of men." How did life come to be in Christ if he is eternal? It cannot. He had a time when life was not in him, for it "came to be in him". Origen, in his commentary on John notes this point too. He writes: "On the words, 'All things were made by Him,' there is still one point to be examined. The 'word' is, as a notion, from 'life,' and yet we read, 'What was made in the Word was life, and the life was the light of men.' Now as all things were made through Him, was the life made through Him, which is the light of men, and the other notions under which the Saviour is presented to us? Or must we take the 'all things were made by Him' subject to the exception of the things which are in Himself? The latter course appears to be the preferable one."

Sparko

April 1st 2005, 11:19 PM

On point #1, you must keep his statements in context. Such statements are made with regards to idiols. They are not real gods, only he is. All others are gods by God's will. They have divinity because God has given it to them, not because they were created as such.

On point #2, your position is only valid based on the 4th century punctuation of the text. The ancient punctuation, as testified by nearly every early church Father places the final clause of verse 3, hO GEGONEN, with verse 4. Thus state, "What came to be in him [Christ] was life, and the life was the light of men." How did life come to be in Christ if he is eternal? It cannot. He had a time when life was not in him, for it "came to be in him". Origen, in his commentary on John notes this point too. He writes: "On the words, 'All things were made by Him,' there is still one point to be examined. The 'word' is, as a notion, from 'life,' and yet we read, 'What was made in the Word was life, and the life was the light of men.' Now as all things were made through Him, was the life made through Him, which is the light of men, and the other notions under which the Saviour is presented to us? Or must we take the 'all things were made by Him' subject to the exception of the things which are in Himself? The latter course appears to be the preferable one."

there you go with the ancient punctuation thing again. If that were the case then why do all modern translations translate it the same way then? You seem to just be spouting random scholarly "sound bites" and jargon that have no bearing on the topic at all but are just meant to try to cow others into thinking you are a scholar, when in fact you make no sense at all and seem to just be repeating some one else's ideas, but not clearly.

Let me try:

The hypertransic reading of the predicate intransitive in the 2nd century manuscripts show that the present translations are indeed correct. All normative textual contexts agree with modern translation efforts. Modern punctuation techniques are in step with the original author's intent as shown by the dialectic posttextual expression.

In the works of the early church fathers, a predominant concept is the distinction between destruction and creation. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a predeconstructivist deappropriation that includes consciousness as a reality, proving once and for all that Jesus is God.

The End.

Tsmith

April 1st 2005, 11:52 PM

there you go with the ancient punctuation thing again. If that were the case then why do all modern translations translate it the same way then? You seem to just be spouting random scholarly "sound bites" and jargon that have no bearing on the topic at all but are just meant to try to cow others into thinking you are a scholar, when in fact you make no sense at all and seem to just be repeating some one else's ideas, but not clearly.

Let me try:

The hypertransic reading of the predicate intransitive in the 2nd century manuscripts show that the present translations are indeed correct. All normative textual contexts agree with modern translation efforts. Modern punctuation techniques are in step with the original author's intent as shown by the dialectic posttextual expression.

In the works of the early church fathers, a predominant concept is the distinction between destruction and creation. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a predeconstructivist deappropriation that includes consciousness as a reality, proving once and for all that Jesus is God.

The End.

Here you are simply wrong. There are modern Bibles that do punctuate it properly, such as the New Jerusalem Bible.

With that in mind, the author's original intent is clearly found in the use of staircase parallelism. Note it.

EN ARCH HN O LOGOS
KAI O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON
KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS
OUTOS HN PROS TON QEON
PANTA DI AUTOU EGENETO
KAI CWROS AUTOU EGENETO OUDE EN
O GEGONEN ENB AUTW ZWH HN
KAI H ZWH HN TO FWS TWN ANQRWPWN
KAI TO FWS EN TH SKOTIA FAINEI
KAI H SKOTIA AUTO OU KATELAMEN

I am sorry you are not liking the facts, but truth is truth.

Sparko

April 2nd 2005, 01:17 AM

Tsmith

April 2nd 2005, 01:29 AM

So you rearrange the words to fit your doctrine then shoehorn it into technojargon terminology and claim that was the way it was written by the original authors (who did not use punctuation at all), but for some strange reason the manuscripts we currently have do not agree with what you are saying? Or do they and the evil modern translators are ignoring it? All of them?

There is no reason to get upset. Seee. the NA27 GNT does agree. It places a full stop before hO GEGONEN, indicating that the sentence ends before it and a new one begins. I am hardly alone in this.

The Catholic Answer Bible states: "Connection with v[erse] 3 reflects fourth-century anti-Arianism."

Roberton's Word Pictures: "Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with ho gegonen. The early uncials had no punctuation. . . That which has come into being (Joh_1:3) in the Logos was life."
+

Here are how the early church Father's did it too.

Theophilus: Book II, Chapter XXII.
Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence."

Tertullian: Against Hermogenes, Chapter XX.
"Now in this there is all the greater reason why there should be shown the material (if there were any) out of which God made all things, inasmuch as it is therein plainly revealed by whom He made all things. "In the beginning was the Word" -that is, the same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth -"and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made."

Origen: Commentary on the Book of John, Book II, Chapter IX, P4.
"Seeing, then, that all things which have been created are said to have been made through Christ, and in Christ, as the Apostle Paul most clearly indicates, when he says, "For in Him and by Him were all things created, whether things in heaven or things on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or powers, or principalities, or dominions; all things were created by Him, and in Him; "and as in his Gospel John indicates the same thing, saying, "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 anything made;""

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, CHAP. XI. P1.
"The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: "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 nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.""

Athanasius, Against the Heathen, Part III, §42.
"as also the Divine says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.""

Sparko

April 2nd 2005, 01:56 AM

There is no reason to get upset. Seee. the NA27 GNT does agree.

Yet again you bring NA27 GNT to support your claims for another case of ancient punctuation?

Is your whole doctrinal system based on NA27 GNT? do you realize that the original did not have the punctuation in it? that later redactors added in the punctuation that might have reflected their ideas? That they could be wrong? That no other manuscripts agree with you? that you are basing everything on ONE piece of evidence when hundreds and thousands of other pieces disagree?

Tsmith

April 2nd 2005, 10:58 AM

Yet again you bring NA27 GNT to support your claims for another case of ancient punctuation?

Is your whole doctrinal system based on NA27 GNT? do you realize that the original did not have the punctuation in it? that later redactors added in the punctuation that might have reflected their ideas? That they could be wrong? That no other manuscripts agree with you? that you are basing everything on ONE piece of evidence when hundreds and thousands of other pieces disagree?

You have provided NO evidence. As an FYI, the NA27 text is the basis for modern translations such as the NASB are the NA text. In the case of that one, they used the 26th edition as the 27th was simply not yet available.

Simply put, there is no good evidence available today to support the modern punctuation. The most you can do is appeal to translations that use it, but that is committing a fallacy known as appealing to an authority. In other words, yes they use the modern punctuation, but they give no basis for why. I have given you two unbelievably solid lines of evidence:

1) The poetic structure that John used, which in term demands that hO GEGONEN goes with verse 4.
2) The early church which nearly unanimously connected it to verse 4 until after the Arian controversy, which demanded they move it in order to sustain Trinitarianism.

Point two really hits home as to why most Bible translators connect it with verse 3 today. They are attempting to sustain their doctrine. Trinitarians cannot have life coming into Christ, because that takes away from the concept of his being eternal.

John Reece

April 2nd 2005, 11:29 AM

Nestle-Aland 26th and 27th editions and the latest (3rd and 4th) editions of The United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament are one and the same text.

Bruce Metzger provides this commentary on the punctuation of John 1:3-4 (first, an explanation of the punctuation selected by majority vote of the Editorial Committee of UBS [= NA27]; second, he presents his own dissenting opinion enclosed in brackets):

1:3-4 oude en. o gegonen

Should the words o gegonen be joined with what goes before or with what follows? The oldest manuscripts (. . .) have no punctuation here, and in any case the presence of punctuation in Greek manuscripts, as well as in versional and patristic sources, cannot be regarded as more that the reflection of current exegetical understanding of the meaning of the passage.

A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took o gegonen with what follows. When, however, in the fourth century Arians and the Macedonian heretics began to appeal to the passage to prove that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things, orthodox writers preferred to take o gegonen with the preceding sentence, thus removing the possibility of heretical usage of the passage.

The punctuation adopted for the text is in accord with what a majority regarded as the rhythmical balance of the opening verses of the Prologue, where the climactic or “stair-case” parallelism seems to demand that the end of one line should match the beginning of the next.

[On the other hand, however, none of these arguments is conclusive and other considerations favor taking o gegonen with the preceding sentence. Thus, against the consideration of the so-called rhythmical balance (which after all is present in only a portion of the Prologue, and may not necessarily involve o gegonen) must be set John’s fondness for beginning a sentence or clause with en and a demonstrative pronoun (cf. 13:35; 15:8; 16:26; 1 Jn 2:3, 4, 5; 3:10, 16, 19, 24; 4:2, etc.). It was natural for Gnostics, who sought support from the Fourth Gospel for their doctrine of the origin of Ogdoad to take o gegonen with the following sentence (“That which has been made in him was life” — whatever that may be supposed to mean).* It is more consistent with the Johannine repetitive style, as well as with Johannine doctrine (cf. 5:26, 39; 6:53), to say nothing concerning the sense of the passage, to punctuate a full stop after o gegonen. B.M.M.]

* Despite valiant attempts of commentators to bring sense out of taking o gegonen with what follows, the passage remains intolerably clumsy and opaque. One of the difficulties that stands in the way of ranging the clause with en autw zwh hn (“in him was life”) is that the perfect tense of gegonen would require estin instead of hn (see also the comments on 1:4).

1:4 hn

In order to relieve the difficulty of meaning when o gegonen (verse 3) is taken as the subject of hn (“that-which-has-come-into-being in him was life”), the tense of the verb was changed from imperfect to present (estin) in ) D Old Latin syrc copsa,fay and many early ecclesiastical writers. The presence, however, of the second hn (in the clause h zwh hn to fwV [“the life was the light”]) seems to require the first.

— Bruce M. Metzgar, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

Sparko

April 2nd 2005, 11:58 AM

Simply put, there is no good evidence available today to support the modern punctuation. The most you can do is appeal to translations that use it, but that is committing a fallacy known as appealing to an authority. In other words, yes they use the modern punctuation, but they give no basis for why. I have given you two unbelievably solid lines of evidence:

1) The poetic structure that John used, which in term demands that hO GEGONEN goes with verse 4.
2) The early church which nearly unanimously connected it to verse 4 until after the Arian controversy, which demanded they move it in order to sustain Trinitarianism.

A. See John Reece's post above

B. You are using an "appeal to an authority" yourself, Mr. Pot.

Tsmith

April 2nd 2005, 12:09 PM

A. See John Reece's post above

B. You are using an "appeal to an authority" yourself, Mr. Pot.

The problem with Metzger's argument is that it doesn't actually deal with the passage itself. It is a very theoretical position.

The rhythm of the passage is undeniably found in hO GEGONEN, as moving it completely destroyes it. My post above shows this in the staircase parallelism.

As for my so-called appeals to authority.. are you referencing my citation of Robertson and the Catholic Answer Bible? These are hardly appeals to authority, as unlike you I used those to simply show I am not alone in my position, but I provided all the evidence. You, however, have yet to provide any.

Sparko

April 2nd 2005, 12:31 PM

The problem with Metzger's argument is that it doesn't actually deal with the passage itself. It is a very theoretical position.

The rhythm of the passage is undeniably found in hO GEGONEN, as moving it completely destroyes it. My post above shows this in the staircase parallelism.

As for my so-called appeals to authority.. are you referencing my citation of Robertson and the Catholic Answer Bible? These are hardly appeals to authority, as unlike you I used those to simply show I am not alone in my position, but I provided all the evidence. You, however, have yet to provide any.

(As Metzger points out, the verse doesn't make much sense if you punctuate it like you want to)

I meant that you are appealing to the authority of whoever punctuated the manuscript you so fondly like to use 'as evidence.'

That is exactly the same thing as me appealing to the authority of those who choose NOT to use that punctuation.

sure you think your guys had good reason for doing so, but then so do I think that of my guys.

Since we are both appealing to authority we might as well add the fallacy of ad populem to it. There are more of my guys than your guys. neener neener neener!:teeth:

Since you have not proven anything, and most modern bible translators DO agree with my stance, I have nothing to prove to you. You are the one who is making the claim against the accepted views and translations, not me. All I need to do is point that fact out, which I have done.

Apeals to authority are fine when we are discussing the authorities themselves. In regards to translations, to refer to the credentials of the scholars involved to support their own work, is perfectly fine. As you seem to realize yourself since you are using that tact yourself, but try to tell me that I am committing a fallacy but don't think you are.

:ahem:

Tsmith

April 2nd 2005, 12:43 PM

(As Metzger points out, the verse doesn't make much sense if you punctuate it like you want to)

I meant that you are appealing to the authority of whoever punctuated the manuscript you so fondly like to use 'as evidence.'

That is exactly the same thing as me appealing to the authority of those who choose NOT to use that punctuation.

sure you think your guys had good reason for doing so, but then so do I think that of my guys.

Since we are both appealing to authority we might as well add the fallacy of ad populem to it. There are more of my guys than your guys. neener neener neener!:teeth:

Since you have not proven anything, and most modern bible translators DO agree with my stance, I have nothing to prove to you. You are the one who is making the claim against the accepted views and translations, not me. All I need to do is point that fact out, which I have done.

Apeals to authority are fine when we are discussing the authorities themselves. In regards to translations, to refer to the credentials of the scholars involved to support their own work, is perfectly fine. As you seem to realize yourself since you are using that tact yourself, but try to tell me that I am committing a fallacy but don't think you are.

:ahem:

I have hardly appealed to authority. Citing the punctuation used by the ANF is not an appeal to authority. Why? Because I am showing 1) how those who natively spoke Koine Greek understood the grammar and 2) I am showing how the early church understood the punctuation. This is not a appeal to authority, but a submission of evidence.

Further, you have not delt with the rhythm of the passage, which I clearly showed demands that hO GEGONEN goes to verse four.

So yes, you are committing the fallacy and no I am not.

PioneerSDA

April 2nd 2005, 04:05 PM

The word is SWMA, which is a singular noun.

Today is Saturday and it's time to say Happy Sabbath Tsmith. Thank you for trying to help but I need to see the verse and Greek and the name of the manuscript. This is not a thread of he said and she said. We need to see the facts here. Have a great Sabbath and may Yahweh and His equally divine Son who he gave birth to in eternity bless you.

Tsmith

April 2nd 2005, 04:44 PM

Today is Saturday and it's time to say Happy Sabbath Tsmith. Thank you for trying to help but I need to see the verse and Greek and the name of the manuscript. This is not a thread of he said and she said. We need to see the facts here. Have a great Sabbath and may Yahweh and His equally divine Son who he gave birth to in eternity bless you.

Sorry. You can probably check just about any text. I have the NA27 GNT and the Westcott and Hort GNT. But have the singular.

PioneerSDA

April 2nd 2005, 05:29 PM

Sorry. You can probably check just about any text. I have the NA27 GNT and the Westcott and Hort GNT. But have the singular.

Thanks for your quick respone.
Why would Paul say we ressurrect with only one body? So we won't have seperate bodies, just on giant human body or something? I really don't uderstand. Please help me out with this.

Tsmith

April 2nd 2005, 05:34 PM

Thanks for your quick respone.
Why would Paul say we ressurrect with only one body? So we won't have seperate bodies, just on giant human body or something? I really don't uderstand. Please help me out with this.

There will certainly be seperate bodies, but the reference Paul is making is simply of the collective whole. For the collective body to be changed, each one on an individual level must experiance some type of change too.

PioneerSDA

April 2nd 2005, 05:56 PM

There will certainly be seperate bodies, but the reference Paul is making is simply of the collective whole. For the collective body to be changed, each one on an individual level must experiance some type of change too.

Thanks for clearing that up.
I started this forum because I didn't think that the people who say Christ didn't resurrect with a physical body would go so far to say that we won't resurrect with physical bodies as well. Since we will be like Him, if we resurrect with physical bodies than He must have had one as well. Is this correct reasoning?

Tsmith

April 2nd 2005, 06:17 PM

Thanks for clearing that up.
I started this forum because I didn't think that the people who say Christ didn't resurrect with a physical body would go so far to say that we won't resurrect with physical bodies as well. Since we will be like Him, if we resurrect with physical bodies than He must have had one as well. Is this correct reasoning?

I think so. :)

Whether or not we and Christ are resurrected in the same bodies I personally find insignificant. Assuming it is the same body, it is "changed" and I believe such a change takes flesh out of the picture. The substances of the body changes, one no longer flesh, but spirit.

Sparko

April 2nd 2005, 06:32 PM

I have hardly appealed to authority. Citing the punctuation used by the ANF is not an appeal to authority. Why? Because I am showing 1) how those who natively spoke Koine Greek understood the grammar and 2) I am showing how the early church understood the punctuation. This is not a appeal to authority, but a submission of evidence.

Further, you have not delt with the rhythm of the passage, which I clearly showed demands that hO GEGONEN goes to verse four.

So yes, you are committing the fallacy and no I am not.

But for the one manuscript that you can show with the punctuation you like, there are several others without it. And do you know when it was punctuated and by whom?

So if you are not appealing to authority, neither am I. If Iam so are you. You cant have it both ways.

...and you have not dealt with the fact that if you punctuate it like you want the verse makes no sense.

Tsmith, so far I see you as a one-trick pony. Every argument you have used in this thread and the other one (about the thief on the cross) you resort to the same old argument. The ancient punctuation does not agree. There WAS no punctuation in the original and the context of the verses makes it clear that the current translators have it right and you are wrong.

get a new pony, dude.

Tsmith

April 2nd 2005, 06:40 PM

But for the one manuscript that you can show with the punctuation you like, there are several others without it. And do you know when it was punctuated and by whom?

So if you are not appealing to authority, neither am I. If Iam so are you. You cant have it both ways.

...and you have not dealt with the fact that if you punctuate it like you want the verse makes no sense.

Tsmith, so far I see you as a one-trick pony. Every argument you have used in this thread and the other one (about the thief on the cross) you resort to the same old argument. The ancient punctuation does not agree. There WAS no punctuation in the original and the context of the verses makes it clear that the current translators have it right and you are wrong.

get a new pony, dude.

Sounds like you're getting upset, forced to resort to ad hominem.

The ancient punctuation does not require punctionation marks. Why? Because when the ancients quoted only verse three, did not quote hO GEGONEN. When they quoted verse 4, they quoted hO GEGONEN. Thus we know how it was understood.

Yet, this does not take away from the poetic rhythm of the passage. If we allign the stairsteps of it, hO GEGONEN can only go with verse 4, or else the rhythm is simply destroyed.

As for Luke and the theif, the evidence speaks for itself. There are many other lines of evidence that I did not present too.. but what I presented was more than sufficient for you to drop the issue.

Sparko

April 2nd 2005, 06:43 PM

Sounds like you're getting upset, forced to resort to ad hominem.

The ancient punctuation does not require punctionation marks. Why? Because when the ancients quoted only verse three, did not quote hO GEGONEN. When they quoted verse 4, they quoted hO GEGONEN. Thus we know how it was understood.

Yet, this does not take away from the poetic rhythm of the passage. If we allign the stairsteps of it, hO GEGONEN can only go with verse 4, or else the rhythm is simply destroyed.

As for Luke and the theif, the evidence speaks for itself. There are many other lines of evidence that I did not present too.. but what I presented was more than sufficient for you to drop the issue.

Since you have no other argument other than that, and no one is buying it, I guess we are indeed done.

Tsmith

April 2nd 2005, 07:05 PM

Since you have no other argument other than that, and no one is buying it, I guess we are indeed done.

It would be much easier for you to accept the truth than to get upset as you are.

Sparko

April 3rd 2005, 01:58 PM

It would be much easier for you to accept the truth than to get upset as you are.

Sorry, if you think I am getting upset. I am not.

peace.

:flowers:

Tsmith

April 3rd 2005, 02:25 PM

Sorry, if you think I am getting upset. I am not.

peace.

:flowers:

If you weren't, you wouldn't getting so defensive and somewhat personal, you'd simply deal with the facts. You can't do that though and maintain your theology.

Sparko

April 3rd 2005, 03:42 PM

If you weren't, you wouldn't getting so defensive and somewhat personal, you'd simply deal with the facts. You can't do that though and maintain your theology.

but I did. You just won't accept it.

Tsmith

April 3rd 2005, 03:44 PM

but I did. You just won't accept it.

No you didn't. I'm still waiting for a comment from you on the poetic rhythm that I demonstrated exists in the passage and why it demands that hO GEGONEN goes to verse 4. You also have not delt with the fact that the early church almost unanimously connected hO GEGONEN to verse 4. And of course the implications of all this.

Sparko

April 3rd 2005, 03:56 PM

OK, since you accuse me of ad hom, lets go through your quotes of the early church fathers:

There is no reason to get upset. Seee. the NA27 GNT does agree. It places a full stop before hO GEGONEN, indicating that the sentence ends before it and a new one begins. I am hardly alone in this.

The Catholic Answer Bible states: "Connection with v[erse] 3 reflects fourth-century anti-Arianism."

Roberton's Word Pictures: "Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with ho gegonen. The early uncials had no punctuation. . . That which has come into being (Joh_1:3) in the Logos was life."
+

Here are how the early church Father's did it too.

Theophilus: Book II, Chapter XXII.
Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence."

That completely agrees with what I said. The Word created everything and without him not one thing which was created came into existance. which did not include God naturally. Since the word is God it can't include God. Since we know the Word became flesh, we know that the Word is Jesus. Thus Jesus is God and uncreated.

Tertullian: Against Hermogenes, Chapter XX.
"Now in this there is all the greater reason why there should be shown the material (if there were any) out of which God made all things, inasmuch as it is therein plainly revealed by whom He made all things. "In the beginning was the Word" -that is, the same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth -"and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made."

Ditto. all things were made by the Word. The word was God, the word was Jesus.

Origen: Commentary on the Book of John, Book II, Chapter IX, P4.
"Seeing, then, that all things which have been created are said to have been made through Christ, and in Christ, as the Apostle Paul most clearly indicates, when he says, "For in Him and by Him were all things created, whether things in heaven or things on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or powers, or principalities, or dominions; all things were created by Him, and in Him; "and as in his Gospel John indicates the same thing, saying, "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 anything made;""

ditto. agrees with me.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, CHAP. XI. P1.
"The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: "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 nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.""

Again, it says the Word was God and all things were made by the Word and nothign was made without him. And we know the Word was Jesus because the Word became flesh (John 1:14)

Athanasius, Against the Heathen, Part III, §42.
"as also the Divine says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.""

Yep.

So far all of you quotes have supported what I said. Jesus is God and created everything. Thanks for the help.

Tsmith

April 3rd 2005, 04:42 PM

OK, since you accuse me of ad hom, lets go through your quotes of the early church fathers:

That completely agrees with what I said. The Word created everything and without him not one thing which was created came into existance. which did not include God naturally. Since the word is God it can't include God. Since we know the Word became flesh, we know that the Word is Jesus. Thus Jesus is God and uncreated.

Ditto. all things were made by the Word. The word was God, the word was Jesus.

ditto. agrees with me.

Again, it says the Word was God and all things were made by the Word and nothign was made without him. And we know the Word was Jesus because the Word became flesh (John 1:14)

Yep.

So far all of you quotes have supported what I said. Jesus is God and created everything. Thanks for the help.

Now you're avoiding the issues. The primary force of this discussion as been on where hO GEGONEN goes, because that has dramatic implications as to the meaning of John 1:3. Now you just say, "This agrees with me" when in fact it doesn't, because it attaches the words to verse 4, which has been the very focal point of the discussion.

If it goes with verse 3, it disconnects Christ from experiencing a creation in and of himself. However, if it goes with verse 4, it places him within the realm of created things.

None of these statements say that Jesus created, but it says that these things were created THROUGH Jesus. If created through Jesus, the act of creating was done BY somebody else. Origen points this out in his commentary on the text, as the grammar is defined as a passive of intermediate agency.

Let me give it to you in an overview of these verses, point by point.

Verse 3

PANTA DI AUTOU EGENETO - all things came into being through him
Dana and Mantey4 define this as a "Passive with Intermediate Agent." Jesus is not shown to be the creator, but the intermediate agent through whom God created. Wallace explains, "The subject of a passive verb receives the action that is expressed by dia + genitive . Here , the agent named is intermediate , not ultimate . Though common , this usage is not as frequent as upo + genitive for ultimate agency."

With this point in mind, we find that 3rd century Church writer, Origen, in his commentary on the book of John explains, "Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He."

CWRIS AUTOU - apart from him
"Without him" is somewhat lacking in the translation, as CWRIS literally denotes a separation. We thus render this as "apart from him."

EGENETO OUDE EN - not one thing came into being
Definitely so, for as Col. 1:16 explains, all things were created in Christ (EN AUTW)5. We take this as a locational statement, in that God created everything within his Son, and so through his Son, everything exists. Does this make the Son uncreated? No, for as we will come to see, what was created in the Son was also life for himself.

While we see no need to take Jesus' own life as an exception of the nothing, for his own life certain is not separate from him, it is worth noting that even if this were to be successfully argued that his own life must be separate from what is stated in John 1:3, this really does not present an issue. We note that Origen writes: "On the words, 'All things were made by Him,' there is still one point to be examined. The 'word' is, as a notion, from 'life,' and yet we read, 'What was made in the Word was life, and the life was the light of men.' Now as all things were made through Him, was the life made through Him, which is the light of men, and the other notions under which the Saviour is presented to us? Or must we take the 'all things were made by Him' subject to the exception of the things which are in Himself? The latter course appears to be the preferable one."

Is it grammatical to say there can be an exception as Origen, a native speaker of this original language argues for? Absolutely. Hebrews 2:8 provides a fantastic demonstration of this, stating the following:

Hebrews 2:8 You subjected all things under his feet." For in order to subject all things under him, He left nothing not subjected to him. But now we do not yet see all things being subject to him;

We note that it states here that "nothing" (OUDEN) was left not subjected to Christ. Is this an absolute statement, or one with exception? Certainly, it is one with exception, for as the following verse explains.

1 Corinthians 15:27 For "He subjected all things under His feet;" but when He says that all things have been subjected, it is plain that it excepts Him who has subjected all things to Him.

Is there a stated exception to the "nothing" that was created through Christ? Origen spoke of it being "the things which are in Himself." What was he speaking of? Going forward, we will find out.

O GENONEN - what has come into being
Many connect this to verse 3 (KIV, NIV, NASB, etc), as the construction in certain texts makes this connection. However, upon examining the earliest Christian writers we find they, in great majority, connecting these words to verse 4. While each translations, the punctuation is obvious. These writers did not connect O GEGONEN to verse 3.

Theophilus: Book II, Chapter XXII.
Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence."

Tertullian: Against Hermogenes, Chapter XX.
"Now in this there is all the greater reason why there should be shown the material (if there were any) out of which God made all things, inasmuch as it is therein plainly revealed by whom He made all things. "In the beginning was the Word" -that is, the same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth -"and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made."

Origen: Commentary on the Book of John, Book II, Chapter IX, P4.
"Seeing, then, that all things which have been created are said to have been made through Christ, and in Christ, as the Apostle Paul most clearly indicates, when he says, "For in Him and by Him were all things created, whether things in heaven or things on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or powers, or principalities, or dominions; all things were created by Him, and in Him; "and as in his Gospel John indicates the same thing, saying, "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 anything made;""

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, CHAP. XI. P1.
"The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: "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 nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.""

Athanasius, Against the Heathen, Part III, §42.
"as also the Divine says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.""

It is noteworthy that as the 4th century came and the doctrine of the Trinity was spreading, Church writers changed their rendering of this verse to better support this doctrine. Around the time of the Nicene Council we find this shift occurred. Thus, The Catholic Answer Bible states6: "Connection with v[erse] 3 reflects fourth-century anti-Arianism." Thus we find the following.

Pseudo (from centuries after his death) Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, Chapter IV.
"The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was "the only true God," did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: "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 anything made that was made."

All things considered, it is no surprise that Robertson notes6: "Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with ho gegonen. The early uncials had no punctuation. . . That which has come into being (Joh_1:3) in the Logos was life."

Verse 4

EN AUTO ZWH HN - in him life was
Keeping in mind the reading provided by Ignatius and that we must properly connect O GEGONEN to verse 4. Thus, "What has come into being", EN AUTO ZHH HN, "in him was life." Yes, this life is what has come into him. This life is the exception that Origen spoke of, yet what does it mean?

KAI H ZWH HN TO PWN TWN ANQRWPWN - and the life was the light of men
Who or what is the light of men? According to this very author it is none other than Christ himself.

John 1:7 He came for a witness, that he might witness concerning the Light, that all might believe through Him. 8 He was not that Light, but that he might witness concerning the Light. 9 He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world.

Christ is the light of men. Now if the life is the light of men, the life must be Jesus himself. Yet how can the life come into him if he himself is the life? The answer is found in the poetic rhythm of the passage. Lightfoot's commentary explains7, "Much of the prologue is written in the rhythm and style of Hebrew poetry." Verse four is an example of this too, demonstrating the parallelism and rhythm of the passage.

EN ARCH HN O LOGOS
KAI O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON
KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS
OUTOS HN PROS TON QEON

PANTA DI AUTOU EGENETO
KAI CWROS AUTOU EGENETO OUDE EN
O GEGONEN ENB AUTW ZWH HN
KAI H ZWH HN TO FWS TWN ANQRWPWN
KAI TO FWS EN TH SKOTIA FAINEI
KAI H SKOTIA AUTO OU KATELAMEN

As a locative statement, the life coming into Christ clearly is to be taken as an account of his creation, for he himself is the life. In other words, this is a poetic way of saying that life came to encompass him. He now lived, and him being alive, he was the light of men.

All of this having been considered, a number of translations agree with the rendering necessary for this logical conclusion, though the translators themselves may disagree theologically.

Bible in Basic English: What came into existence in him was life, and the life was the light of men.
New Jerusalem Bible: What has come into being in him was life, life that was the light of men;
New Revised Standard Version: What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.

Sparko

April 4th 2005, 12:30 PM

Now you're avoiding the issues.

Avoiding the issue? First you accuse me of Ad Hom and getting upset, then when I go back and show you that all the evidence you used actually supports what I had said originally, you claim I am avoiding the issue. That's pretty funny.

The primary force of this discussion as been on where hO GEGONEN goes, because that has dramatic implications as to the meaning of John 1:3. Now you just say, "This agrees with me" when in fact it doesn't, because it attaches the words to verse 4, which has been the very focal point of the discussion.

Actually the primary force of this discussion is the bodily resurrection and this is a side track.

and yes, John 1 and Colossian 1 say that Jesus is God and he created everything. And the quotes you provided from the early church fathers said the same thing.

So now you are forced to try to twist that into something else with more obfuscation, eh?

OK let's go...

If it goes with verse 3, it disconnects Christ from experiencing a creation in and of himself. However, if it goes with verse 4, it places him within the realm of created things.

None of these statements say that Jesus created, but it says that these things were created THROUGH Jesus. If created through Jesus, the act of creating was done BY somebody else. Origen points this out in his commentary on the text, as the grammar is defined as a passive of intermediate agency.

Let me give it to you in an overview of these verses, point by point.

Please do. :ahem:

Verse 3

PANTA DI AUTOU EGENETO - all things came into being through him
Dana and Mantey4 define this as a "Passive with Intermediate Agent." Jesus is not shown to be the creator, but the intermediate agent through whom God created. Wallace explains, "The subject of a passive verb receives the action that is expressed by dia + genitive . Here , the agent named is intermediate , not ultimate . Though common , this usage is not as frequent as upo + genitive for ultimate agency."

Whether you think Jesus was some intermediary or not, He is the Word. Since this verse is speaking of the Word and verse 1 says that the Word was God. Therefore even if the Word was intermediary (a channel) through which the Father created (also using the Holy Spirit) it does nothing to say that the word was CREATED. The Word is uncreated. That is the whole point of John 1:1

With this point in mind, we find that 3rd century Church writer, Origen, in his commentary on the book of John explains, "Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He."

same as above.

CWRIS AUTOU - apart from him
"Without him" is somewhat lacking in the translation, as CWRIS literally denotes a separation. We thus render this as "apart from him."

Ah the obfuscation begins.

EGENETO OUDE EN - not one thing came into being
Definitely so, for as Col. 1:16 explains, all things were created in Christ (EN AUTW)5. We take this as a locational statement, in that God created everything within his Son, and so through his Son, everything exists. Does this make the Son uncreated? No, for as we will come to see, what was created in the Son was also life for himself.

Yes it does make Christ uncreated. Because whether he created everything directly, or the Father created through him, the passage definitely says that NOT ONE THING that came into being was made without him. Since that means he could not create himself then that must mean he did not come into being, but is uncreated. Simple logic.

While we see no need to take Jesus' own life as an exception of the nothing, for his own life certain is not separate from him, it is worth noting that even if this were to be successfully argued that his own life must be separate from what is stated in John 1:3, this really does not present an issue. We note that Origen writes: "On the words, 'All things were made by Him,' there is still one point to be examined. The 'word' is, as a notion, from 'life,' and yet we read, 'What was made in the Word was life, and the life was the light of men.' Now as all things were made through Him, was the life made through Him, which is the light of men, and the other notions under which the Saviour is presented to us? Or must we take the 'all things were made by Him' subject to the exception of the things which are in Himself? The latter course appears to be the preferable one."

What does this have to do with anything?

Is it grammatical to say there can be an exception as Origen, a native speaker of this original language argues for? Absolutely. Hebrews 2:8 provides a fantastic demonstration of this, stating the following:

Hebrews 2:8 You subjected all things under his feet." For in order to subject all things under him, He left nothing not subjected to him. But now we do not yet see all things being subject to him;

We note that it states here that "nothing" (OUDEN) was left not subjected to Christ. Is this an absolute statement, or one with exception? Certainly, it is one with exception, for as the following verse explains.

1 Corinthians 15:27 For "He subjected all things under His feet;" but when He says that all things have been subjected, it is plain that it excepts Him who has subjected all things to Him.

Is there a stated exception to the "nothing" that was created through Christ? Origen spoke of it being "the things which are in Himself." What was he speaking of? Going forward, we will find out.

Again, what does this have to do with anything? Just because you find a passage where the word "all things" has an exception (which was plainly pointed out in the verse itself) does not mean this is the case in all instances where the bible speaks of "all" does it? And John 1:3 leaves no ambiguity. It does not say "all thing" it say NOT ONE THING that came into being came into being without him. NOT ONE. That leaves NO room for an exception. It is not a generalization. When I say "all" I can mean "all" or "almost all" - but if I say "all" and then qualify it with saying "not one thing was created without him" I am specifying exactly that all means ALL.

Theophilus: Book II, Chapter XXII.
Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence."

Yes!!! The Word was GOD. Jesus IS GOD. Again agreement.

Tertullian: Against Hermogenes, Chapter XX.
"Now in this there is all the greater reason why there should be shown the material (if there were any) out of which God made all things, inasmuch as it is therein plainly revealed by whom He made all things. "In the beginning was the Word" -that is, the same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth -"and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made."

Yep. shows you wrong.

Origen: Commentary on the Book of John, Book II, Chapter IX, P4.
"Seeing, then, that all things which have been created are said to have been made through Christ, and in Christ, as the Apostle Paul most clearly indicates, when he says, "For in Him and by Him were all things created, whether things in heaven or things on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or powers, or principalities, or dominions; all things were created by Him, and in Him; "and as in his Gospel John indicates the same thing, saying, "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 anything made;""

ditto

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, CHAP. XI. P1.
"The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: "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 nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.""

ditto

Athanasius, Against the Heathen, Part III, §42.
"as also the Divine says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.""

ditto

All things considered, it is no surprise that Robertson notes6: "Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with ho gegonen. The early uncials had no punctuation. . . That which has come into being (Joh_1:3) in the Logos was life."

Actually the complete quote is:

Not anything (oude hen). “Not even one thing.” Bernard thinks the entire Prologue is a hymn and divides it into strophes. That is by no means certain. It is doubtful also whether the relative clause “that hath been made” (ho gegonen) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of ginomai. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with ho gegonen. The early uncials had no punctuation.

And Matthew Henry has this to say about it:

His agency in making the world, Joh_1:3. This is here, (1.) Expressly asserted: All things were made by him. He was with God, not only so as to be acquainted with the divine counsels from eternity, but to be active in the divine operations in the beginning of time. Then was I by him, Pro_8:30. God made the world by a word (Psa_33:6) and Christ was the Word. By him, not as a subordinate instrument, but as a co-ordinate agent, God made the world (Heb_1:2), not as the workman cuts by his axe, but as the body sees by the eye. (2.) The contrary is denied: Without him was not any thing made that was made, from the highest angel to the meanest worm. God the Father did nothing without him in that work. Now, [1.] This proves that he is God; for he that built all things is God, Heb_3:4. The God of Israel often proved himself to be God with this, that he made all things: Isa_40:12, Isa_40:28; Isa_41:4; and see Jer_10:11, Jer_10:12. [2.] This proves the excellency of the Christian religion, that the author and founder of it is the same that was the author and founder of the world. How excellent must that constitution needs be which derives its institution from him who is the fountain of all excellency!

Verse 4

EN AUTO ZWH HN - in him life was
Keeping in mind the reading provided by Ignatius and that we must properly connect O GEGONEN to verse 4. Thus, "What has come into being", EN AUTO ZHH HN, "in him was life." Yes, this life is what has come into him. This life is the exception that Origen spoke of, yet what does it mean?

Go back to verse three then. How is that translated if you put "What was come into being" in verse 4 and take it out of verse 3? It would seem to leave it as "All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being" meaning the exact same thing. NOT ONE THING was made without him. Not even himself. He is uncreated.

KAI H ZWH HN TO PWN TWN ANQRWPWN - and the life was the light of men
Who or what is the light of men? According to this very author it is none other than Christ himself.

Uh, he is our salvation? what's the problem? He shows us the light and we only have life through him.

John 1:7 He came for a witness, that he might witness concerning the Light, that all might believe through Him. 8 He was not that Light, but that he might witness concerning the Light. 9 He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world.

Christ is the light of men. Now if the life is the light of men, the life must be Jesus himself. Yet how can the life come into him if he himself is the life? The answer is found in the poetic rhythm of the passage. Lightfoot's commentary explains7, "Much of the prologue is written in the rhythm and style of Hebrew poetry." Verse four is an example of this too, demonstrating the parallelism and rhythm of the passage.

EN ARCH HN O LOGOS
KAI O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON
KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS
OUTOS HN PROS TON QEON

PANTA DI AUTOU EGENETO
KAI CWROS AUTOU EGENETO OUDE EN
O GEGONEN ENB AUTW ZWH HN
KAI H ZWH HN TO FWS TWN ANQRWPWN
KAI TO FWS EN TH SKOTIA FAINEI
KAI H SKOTIA AUTO OU KATELAMEN

As a locative statement, the life coming into Christ clearly is to be taken as an account of his creation, for he himself is the life. In other words, this is a poetic way of saying that life came to encompass him. He now lived, and him being alive, he was the light of men.

All of this having been considered, a number of translations agree with the rendering necessary for this logical conclusion, though the translators themselves may disagree theologically.

Bible in Basic English: What came into existence in him was life, and the life was the light of men.
New Jerusalem Bible: What has come into being in him was life, life that was the light of men;
New Revised Standard Version: What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.

If we read it your way, we are still stuck with NOT ONE THING CAME INTO BEING WITHOUT HIM. meaning that everything was created by and through Jesus, which was stated completely in an exclusivic manner showing that He could not be created. The rest of the verse could mean that he was born into this world (what has came into existance in him was life) or it can be taken as his act on the cross gives us life and he is the light to lead us to that life. But none of that obfuscation detracts from verse three saying that nothing was created without him (and in Coll 1:16) and in John 1:1 saying Jesus is God or that all of the quotes from the early church fathers say the same thing.

Krusader

April 4th 2005, 12:36 PM

.

Smith:

None of these statements say that Jesus created, but it says that these things were created THROUGH Jesus. If created through Jesus, the act of creating was done BY somebody else. Origen points this out in his commentary on the text, as the grammar is defined as a passive of intermediate agency.

Is it grammatical to say there can be an exception as Origen, a native speaker of this original language argues for? Absolutely. Hebrews 2:8 provides a fantastic demonstration of this, stating the following:

Origen: Commentary on the Book of John, Book II, Chapter IX, P4.
"Seeing, then, that all things which have been created are said to have been made through Christ, and in Christ, as the Apostle Paul most clearly indicates, when he says, "For in Him and by Him were all things created, whether things in heaven or things on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or powers, or principalities, or dominions; all things were created by Him, and in Him; "and as in his Gospel John indicates the same thing, saying, "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 anything made;""

Crusader: Quoting Origen is like quoting Russell on the Deity of Christ. Origen also had problems with the physical resurrection and was an allegorist. He is not recognized as an orthodox father of the early church.

Sparko

April 4th 2005, 01:04 PM

Actually Origen also said:

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

Tsmith

April 4th 2005, 07:03 PM

Avoiding the issue? First you accuse me of Ad Hom and getting upset, then when I go back and show you that all the evidence you used actually supports what I had said originally, you claim I am avoiding the issue. That's pretty funny.

But it doesn't, as we'lll see here.

Actually the primary force of this discussion is the bodily resurrection and this is a side track.

and yes, John 1 and Colossian 1 say that Jesus is God and he created everything. And the quotes you provided from the early church fathers said the same thing.

First, it is only through your inaccurate translation do you get that Jesus is God. The word QEOS in John 1:1 is an anarthrous predicate nominative, so it cannot say that the word is God, because that is modalism. That is why nearly every modern Trinitarian scholar does not believe QEOS here to be definite, but simply qualitative.

So now you are forced to try to twist that into something else with more obfuscation, eh?

This is another way of saying you have no response.

Whether you think Jesus was some intermediary or not, He is the Word. Since this verse is speaking of the Word and verse 1 says that the Word was God. Therefore even if the Word was intermediary (a channel) through which the Father created (also using the Holy Spirit) it does nothing to say that the word was CREATED. The Word is uncreated. That is the whole point of John 1:1

You assume that the word is THE God, which the text never states. The text actually contrasts THE God and the LOGOS, as QEOS. There is a distinction in the text.

same as above.

Ah the obfuscation begins.

Still no response...

Yes it does make Christ uncreated. Because whether he created everything directly, or the Father created through him, the passage definitely says that NOT ONE THING that came into being was made without him. Since that means he could not create himself then that must mean he did not come into being, but is uncreated. Simple logic.

Perhaps you missed in Hebrews 1:10 where it says "NOTHING" is not left unsubjected to him. Hmmm. Yet there is exception. You have to keep the verse in context. The "nothing" is contextually limited by what is provided in the context as an exception.. the exception found in the verse next verse.

What does this have to do with anything?

It has to do with everything. See, John 1:3 does not really say "without him nothing came to be" but it says "apart from him". Now Jesus existence did not come to be apart from himself. This statement requires no agency on Christ's part and actually his own existence would fall right within the statement of "apart from him not one thing came to be", because Christ himself is not "apart from him". As the sphere of all things created, he is the center of it, as Col 1:16 defines. You're arguing against grammar that you do not understand.

Again, what does this have to do with anything? Just because you find a passage where the word "all things" has an exception (which was plainly pointed out in the verse itself) does not mean this is the case in all instances where the bible speaks of "all" does it? And John 1:3 leaves no ambiguity. It does not say "all thing" it say NOT ONE THING that came into being came into being without him. NOT ONE. That leaves NO room for an exception. It is not a generalization. When I say "all" I can mean "all" or "almost all" - but if I say "all" and then qualify it with saying "not one thing was created without him" I am specifying exactly that all means ALL.

You reallu missed it. Hebrews 1:10 uses OUDEN, which is "nothing".

Yes!!! The Word was GOD. Jesus IS GOD. Again agreement.

You're fallaciously arguing based on a translation. This does nothing to prove your point.

Yep. shows you wrong.

Not at all. Shows I'm right, because my connection of hO GEGONEN to verse 4 is accurate.

ditto
[quote]
ditto

[quote]
ditto

ditto

ditto

ditto

Actually the complete quote is:

Not anything (oude hen). “Not even one thing.” Bernard thinks the entire Prologue is a hymn and divides it into strophes. That is by no means certain. It is doubtful also whether the relative clause “that hath been made” (ho gegonen) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of ginomai. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with ho gegonen. The early uncials had no punctuation.

Actually it is quite certain, for I've demonstrated it to be the case. Beyond that, it does not change the fact that hO GEGONEN should belong to verse 4, as I've demonstrated on other grounds as well.

And Matthew Henry has this to say about it:

His agency in making the world, Joh_1:3. This is here, (1.) Expressly asserted: All things were made by him. He was with God, not only so as to be acquainted with the divine counsels from eternity, but to be active in the divine operations in the beginning of time. Then was I by him, Pro_8:30. God made the world by a word (Psa_33:6) and Christ was the Word. By him, not as a subordinate instrument, but as a co-ordinate agent, God made the world (Heb_1:2), not as the workman cuts by his axe, but as the body sees by the eye. (2.) The contrary is denied: Without him was not any thing made that was made, from the highest angel to the meanest worm. God the Father did nothing without him in that work. Now, [1.] This proves that he is God; for he that built all things is God, Heb_3:4. The God of Israel often proved himself to be God with this, that he made all things: Isa_40:12, Isa_40:28; Isa_41:4; and see Jer_10:11, Jer_10:12. [2.] This proves the excellency of the Christian religion, that the author and founder of it is the same that was the author and founder of the world. How excellent must that constitution needs be which derives its institution from him who is the fountain of all excellency!

Unfortunately Henry shoots himself in the foot. He connects Christ to Wisdom in proverbs 8, which is expressly said by the LXX to be "created". Further, Henry does not seem to realize that the grammar is intermediate agency, not direct agency.

Go back to verse three then. How is that translated if you put "What was come into being" in verse 4 and take it out of verse 3? It would seem to leave it as "All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being" meaning the exact same thing. NOT ONE THING was made without him. Not even himself. He is uncreated.

Except, as with Hebrews 1:10, as Origen points out on verse 3, there is an exception, as specified in verse 4.

Uh, he is our salvation? what's the problem? He shows us the light and we only have life through him.

He IS the light. And the light is the life. And the life came into being. In other words, the life was *created*.

If we read it your way, we are still stuck with NOT ONE THING CAME INTO BEING WITHOUT HIM. meaning that everything was created by and through Jesus, which was stated completely in an exclusivic manner showing that He could not be created. The rest of the verse could mean that he was born into this world (what has came into existance in him was life) or it can be taken as his act on the cross gives us life and he is the light to lead us to that life. But none of that obfuscation detracts from verse three saying that nothing was created without him (and in Coll 1:16) and in John 1:1 saying Jesus is God or that all of the quotes from the early church fathers say the same thing.

Not "without him" but "apart from him" and i agree, for Christ did not come into existence apart from himself. God created him and within him all that was created, therefore nothing came into being apart from him.

Tsmith

April 4th 2005, 07:09 PM

Sparko

April 5th 2005, 02:59 PM

But it doesn't, as we'lll see here.

First, it is only through your inaccurate translation do you get that Jesus is God. The word QEOS in John 1:1 is an anarthrous predicate nominative, so it cannot say that the word is God, because that is modalism. That is why nearly every modern Trinitarian scholar does not believe QEOS here to be definite, but simply qualitative.

Sorry but every reputable scholar and every reputable translation says that the Word is God and not "a" God. This has been discussed in several other threads, and you were in at least one of them and Jaltus kicked your hiney on that matter. As far as I am concerned that dog of yours won't hunt.

You assume that the word is THE God, which the text never states. The text actually contrasts THE God and the LOGOS, as QEOS. There is a distinction in the text.

There can only be ONE TRUE God. If the Word is not THE ONE TRUE GOD then he is a false God. Is Jesus a false God? Or instead of Modalism, do you believe in polytheism?

Perhaps you missed in Hebrews 1:10 where it says "NOTHING" is not left unsubjected to him. Hmmm. Yet there is exception. You have to keep the verse in context. The "nothing" is contextually limited by what is provided in the context as an exception.. the exception found in the verse next verse.

Again, when John 1:3 says "not one thing that was made was made apart from him" It eliminates the possibility of ONE thing that was made without him. Therefore Jesus can't be created. He had to exist before he could be part of the creation of anything, eh?

It has to do with everything. See, John 1:3 does not really say "without him nothing came to be" but it says "apart from him". Now Jesus existence did not come to be apart from himself. This statement requires no agency on Christ's part and actually his own existence would fall right within the statement of "apart from him not one thing came to be", because Christ himself is not "apart from him". As the sphere of all things created, he is the center of it, as Col 1:16 defines. You're arguing against grammar that you do not understand.

And you are arguing logic that you clearly do not understand. How can someone be part of the creation of themselves? That is illogical and assinine. If he created all things and that "all" is qualified by saying that it does indeed mean all by saying "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made."

That specifically eliminates the possibility that the Word was created. All of your arguing about grammar and such is just spitting into the wind of logic even using your own version of the verse.

You're fallaciously arguing based on a translation. This does nothing to prove your point.

Good one! Let me try: You're fallaciously arguing based on a translation. This does nothing to prove your point. ...I said it last so I win.

Actually it is quite certain, for I've demonstrated it to be the case. Beyond that, it does not change the fact that hO GEGONEN should belong to verse 4, as I've demonstrated on other grounds as well.

Again, that makes no difference. It still shows that the word was uncreated as I stated above.

He IS the light. And the light is the life. And the life came into being. In other words, the life was *created*.

No, he was BORN in human flesh. He always existed.

Not "without him" but "apart from him" and i agree, for Christ did not come into existence apart from himself. God created him and within him all that was created, therefore nothing came into being apart from him.

Again, that fails basic logic 101. The law of noncontrdiction. Something can't be made and creator at the same time. Even if he is the channel through which God created, he could not be that channel until God created him FIRST which means that at least ONE thing (the Word) was created apart from the Word. Which is what John 1:3 says did not happen. And the word Choris means "Separate, Apart, without any, independent, besides" and so it is clearly saying that NOT one thing was made that was made without him.

If you are just going to repeat the same thing over on your next reply, then don't bother. I can repeat myself all day long too.

Tsmith

April 5th 2005, 07:01 PM

I actually wrote you a long response, point by point and then I got to the conclusion and I realized that your entire response doesn't deal with the one most critical point that simply cannot be overcome by your argument.

If in Hebrews 2 it says NOTHING was left unsubjected to him, and yet the Father himself was not, when in John 1:3 when it says NOT ONE came to be apart from Christ, it can just as well except Christ. Why? Because in Hebrews 2, the Father is the one causing the subjecting that is spoken of, so it excepts him. In John 1, the creation is coming about through Christ's agency, and so it excepts him.

Simple and clear. It is amazing that Origen can see grammatically that Hebrews 1:3 allows for an exception, but you cannot. I guess it is because Origen spoke and read Greek natively and you do not.

Sparko

April 5th 2005, 07:13 PM

Tsmith

April 5th 2005, 07:33 PM

Repeat:

No one thing that was made means NOT ONE THING THAT WAS MADE. If Jesus was made, then the verse is false. You can't take it to have an exception. That is what the purpose of the verse is for. It is to show you that the Word is God and the Creator and the word is not created. That is why John stated it so clearly. For you to deny that shows that your heart is sealed against the truth of God (and basic logic!!)

I am done with this, since you seem to just be repeating yourself.

Hey If I found a verse in the bible where "nothing" literally meant no thing without exception, would that prove in your mind that John 1:3 meant NO THING without exception?

I don't think it would. You would still try to use Hebrews 2 and ignore my example. Because you will intuitively know that because something can be true in one instance does not make it true in every instance when speaking about such things. Therefore Hebrews 2 does not prove that not one thing has an exception in John 1:3.

A fallacy of equivication.

Again you fail logic.

Apparently you fail to realize that it was common in Greek to use hyperbole. I have demonstrated that statement in John 1:3 does allow for exception, as demonstrated by Hebrews 2. You have not overcome this, but you have rambled on about why it is wrong, yet without engaging the evidence.

Perhaps one day you'll come to realize that your position is unfounded. Just as with Hebrews 2, I can go to other places to show exception, I can do the same with John 1:3. In fact, John 1:4 provides the exception, as Origen explained.

I did not equivocate, I did not commit any fallacy. I demonstrated a fact of grammar.

Sparko

April 6th 2005, 11:00 AM

And some day you will find out that it was not hyperbole. What would the point of hyperbole (exaggeration) be here? The whole purpose of John 1 is to show that the Word is God, the creator and Jesus! There is no other purpose for John chapter 1! If it were exaggeration, then to what end? Was John trying to purposly mislead us into believing the Word was the creator and Jesus (as well as Colossians 1) and only the really smart people like you would understand the trick? How ridiculous! :rofl:

The words are plain and it makes sense as read in plain language that the Word is God and that he created all things and not one thing was created without him. To say otherwise John would not be using hyperbole but stating an outright LIE! To try to analyze it into pieces and twist the plain meaning into some hidden meaning is just your rationalization because you do not want to admit that Jesus is God. But the bible is clear, here in John, and in Colossians and several other places that Jesus is God.

And Origen agreed that NOT ONE THING meant NOT ONE THING. You are even twisting the quotes that you provided that people can go and read for themselves.

Origen: Commentary on the Book of John, Book II, Chapter IX, P4.
"Seeing, then, that all things which have been created are said to have been made through Christ, and in Christ, as the Apostle Paul most clearly indicates, when he says, "For in Him and by Him were all things created, whether things in heaven or things on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or powers, or principalities, or dominions; all things were created by Him, and in Him; "and as in his Gospel John indicates the same thing, saying, "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 anything made;""

Does that sound like hyperbole to you? Does Origen say it is hyperbole? NO.

And Origen also said this:

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

Showing Origen clearly believed both the Holy Spirit and the Son were uncreated and had no beginning. He even used the word Trinity! So to use Origen to support your anti-trinitarian idea that Jesus is not God and was created is laughable.

Krusader

April 6th 2005, 12:30 PM

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 07:17 PM

That is nice and all, except that the NA27 and these translations are all modern. Let us jump back in time and see the historic punctuation.

Manuscript 1209 from the 3rd century places a punctuation mark called a hypostigma after SHMERON (today), not before it.

As for your scholar quotes.. I don't see anything on grammar, I just see comments on theology.

Please show me this Manuscript 1209 if it is possible. I've been looking at all these different English Bibles that go back way before the King James and examining the punctuation of this verse. It is very interesting to me. If anyone else would like to see the site is called studylight.org. There is also a interlinear Bible there where you can click on all the Greek words and see their English definition so there is no excuse for us not to see John 1:1,2 in the original language for ourselves. There was two "thes" purposely left out of all the English translations. Why is everbody trying to hide this even the JW's are no better. They should have left the "thes" in instead of putting an "a" and then no one could have said anything about it. May God and His Divine Son who He gave birth to in eternity who is equally divine with himself bless you.

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 07:25 PM

And some day you will find out that it was not hyperbole. What would the point of hyperbole (exaggeration) be here? The whole purpose of John 1 is to show that the Word is God, the creator and Jesus! There is no other purpose for John chapter 1! If it were exaggeration, then to what end? Was John trying to purposly mislead us into believing the Word was the creator and Jesus (as well as Colossians 1) and only the really smart people like you would understand the trick? How ridiculous! :rofl:

You entirely do not understand my position. When I say it is hyperbole, it is not an exaggeration in the sense that the writer is intended to overstate things, but rather it is an exaggeration in the same way that Hebrews 2 is, where the Greek mind understands the qualification, as was common within the language. I am amazed that you keep calling Jesus creator when no text EVER does such. The most we ever find is Christ is the intermediate agent in creation.

The words are plain and it makes sense as read in plain language that the Word is God and that he created all things and not one thing was created without him. To say otherwise John would not be using hyperbole but stating an outright LIE! To try to analyze it into pieces and twist the plain meaning into some hidden meaning is just your rationalization because you do not want to admit that Jesus is God. But the bible is clear, here in John, and in Colossians and several other places that Jesus is God.

The text never says Christ created anything, it says God created through Christ. Hyperbole was common in the Greek, where the qualifications are always considered implied. There are numerous examples of this in scripture. In the case of John 1:3, the qualification is in the very next verse.

And Origen agreed that NOT ONE THING meant NOT ONE THING. You are even twisting the quotes that you provided that people can go and read for themselves.

No he did not, because he said that "it is plain THAT IT EXCEPTS what was created in him".

Origen: Commentary on the Book of John, Book II, Chapter IX, P4.
"Seeing, then, that all things which have been created are said to have been made through Christ, and in Christ, as the Apostle Paul most clearly indicates, when he says, "For in Him and by Him were all things created, whether things in heaven or things on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or powers, or principalities, or dominions; all things were created by Him, and in Him; "and as in his Gospel John indicates the same thing, saying, "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 anything made;""

Does that sound like hyperbole to you? Does Origen say it is hyperbole? NO.

You cannot get around Origen's own words that says there is an exception to John 1:3.. and he says the exception is found in verse 4. No way around it.

And Origen also said this:

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

Showing Origen clearly believed both the Holy Spirit and the Son were uncreated and had no beginning. He even used the word Trinity! So to use Origen to support your anti-trinitarian idea that Jesus is not God and was created is laughable.

I do not deny Origen's theology, though there are many aspects of it I am certain you do not agree with, but Origen's theology is not at issue here. The issue is the grammar and I am appealing to him soley on a grammartical basis. Origen spoke Koine Greek natively and so he is quite the authority on this matter and as to whether John 1:3 has an exception. Origen plainly states that John 1:3 DOES have an exception and he quotes that exception as being what is stated in verse 4.

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 07:26 PM

[QUOTE=Tsmith]Apparently you fail to realize that it was common in Greek to use hyperbole. I have demonstrated that statement in John 1:3 does allow for exception, as demonstrated by Hebrews 2. You have not overcome this, but you have rambled on about why it is wrong, yet without engaging the evidence.

Crusader: However, the writer of John 1:1 was not a Greek but a Jew. Hebraic hyperbole is found in Scripture. For instance, if your eye offends you pluck it out, or your hand offends you, cut it off. This type of hyperbole was often used by Jewish rabbis to make theological points. Jesus used it.

John 1:1 in no way, shape of form is hyperbole. It is a theological presentation of the nature of the Word.

The question is not if he was a Greek, but if he was using the Greek language. The answer is yes. Hyperbole is common in the Greek language, where an exception is supplied in the context. In the case of John 1:3, the very next verse provides the exception, and this is in accordance with Origen, who spoke the language natively.

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 07:30 PM

Please show me this Manuscript 1209 if it is possible. I've been looking at all these different English Bibles that go back way before the King James and examining the punctuation of this verse. It is very interesting to me. If anyone else would like to see the site is called studylight.org. There is also a interlinear Bible there where you can click on all the Greek words and see their English definition so there is no excuse for us not to see John 1:1,2 in the original language for ourselves. There was two "thes" purposely left out of all the English translations. Why is everbody trying to hide this even the JW's are no better. They should have left the "thes" in instead of putting an "a" and then no one could have said anything about it. May God and His Divine Son who He gave birth to in eternity who is equally divine with himself bless you.

You can find an image of it at http://scripturaltruths.com/resurrection/paradise/

As for the John 1:1,2 stuff, what exactly do you mean? You're not making a lot of sense honestly. John 1:1c is the same grammar at Acts 28:4 where it says "the man is a murderer".

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 08:53 PM

If you truly believe that Jesus was equally divine as the Father, but you don't believe in the trinity, then you truly are in trouble, my friend.

You seem to believe in polytheism. That there is more than one God.

If Jesus is equally divine as the Father and they are not ONE God, then you have TWO Gods.

But the bible is clear that there is only ONE true God and no other.

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

So if Jesus truly is as divine as the Father (which I do beleive) then he must be the SAME God as the Father (since there can only be ONE God) Thus you have two persons in one God. The Holy spirit is spoken of as a person also and is divine, therefore you have three persons in ONE GOD. Trinity.

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

----

Jesus was called God directly also:

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

Hello John Sparks. I would like to reply to your same thread again because I wasn't as thourough last time and I'd like to respect you the same as I expect from you.

[However, the word “God” is used in a few places with reference to the fact that Jesus, as the Son of God possesses all the attributes and qualities of divinity. One striking example of this is John 1:1 where it says, “the word [Jesus] was with [the]God [the Father]and the word [Jesus] was God (a divine Being, possessing the attributes of God).” Please note that in the Greek Scriptures the word the, the definite article, is before the word God when used with reference to the Father, because it is speaking of a particular person. However, it is not used when the word refers to Christ, because then, it is not referring to a person, but to a quality. It is not saying that Jesus, or the Word was the person, God. He was not the same Person He was with, but He had the attributes, the qualities of God, or of divinity.
Jesus then, is truly God by nature!! ] quoted from The Divinity of Christ by David Clayton in the section called is Jesus Truly God?
http://restorationministry.com/Open_Face/html/2000/open_face_dec__2000.htm

I don't deny that the Son of God is God of all the creation, still I know that His Father is the God of all even of His only born Son Jesus Christ.(Ephesians 4:6) When you want to prove the Divinity of Christ don't forget Matthew 1:23 where Jesus is called "God with us" and Revelation 22:13 where Jesus calls himself "the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." even in the New Word Translation/J.W.'s Bible.

You quoted John 1:1,2 from and English translation where the translators purposely left out the "the" . It should say "the Word was with The God" and also for John 1:2 "He was with THE God in the beginning" John 1:1,2 Even though the Son has the same Divine nature does not make Him the same person he was with. I don't think John was denying the divinity of God's Son, just making a distinction between Him and His Father so maybe no one would think are part of the same substance.

Whatever the case maybe, English translators have no right to purposely leave these "thes" out when the Apostle John put them in. Who was inspired by God John or them?

You quoted this one
"And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." Hebrews 1:6

Why do you believe Jesus wasn't God's firstborn before He came into the world when this verse makes it clear that he was already? "God sent His only born Son into the world" 1st John 4:9. It is very clear that angels are worshipping the Son of God but it's also clear that God the Father had to tell them to do so. If he were the second part of some God instead of His only born than wouldn't they already know they were to worship Him?

"But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom." Hebrews 1:8

God recognized the divinity of His only born or do you think that God is calling His Son God as to say "you are my God" because that would be clearly against the Scriptures because the Bible says that the Son of God(God of Creation) has a God but the Father (God of all) has no God. Surely we belong to Christ and Christ is our head and He is our God but who does He belong to? Who is His head and Who is His God? "And ye are Christ's; and Christ [is] God's." 1st Corinthians 3:23 Please see also 1st Corinthians 11:3. I believe my formal Pastor believed in the hypotstwhata union because when Jesus was dying on the cross he called the Father "My God" so my Pastor says that it was only Christ's humanity crying out but divinity would never do that. Well is Christ divided? Was it only Christ's humanity that cried out calling His Father "My God" when he has glorified and ascended to heaven in Revelation 3:12. Surely the Son of God is the God of all of Creation but His Father is God of all even the God of His only born Son and the Father makes it very clear in the very next verse where God put's His equally Divine Son in His place as second best.

"Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. " Hebrews 1:9
The Father recognizes the divinity of His Son but also He tells the Son I am your God because the Father has no God.

Thank You For your time. May God and His equally Divine Son who He gave birth to in eternity bless you.

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 09:01 PM

The word is SWMA, which is a singular noun.

What are you talking about? What word and where did you get it from and is it online for me to see or is there a library where I can see it for myself? Thanks for all your help.

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 09:15 PM

You have two BIG problems.

1) angels are called gods
2) Col 1:16 does not say he created things, but it says another did. Grammar dictates this, with the first statement being locative and the last being intermediate. Jesus serves as the intermediate agent in creation, not the creator."

[angels are called gods]

So because Jesus is called God, that means he's an angel? That doesn't make much sense. God is called God, is He also an angel?

Why won't you just accept that Jesus is God has one uncreated Son who was litterally born from Him and is His only true Son. Just like we inherit our human nature from our parents so Jesus inherited His Father's Divine nature and can rightfully be called God.

For the sake of argument let's say that your second point is correct that [Jesus serves as the intermediate agent in creation, not the creator.] than that would mean that Jesus can't possibly be created because He is the one who God creates through.

Jesus was born in eternity and that means before all of creation.

"Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; One will come from you to be ruler over Israel for Me. His origin is from antiquity,
from eternity." Micah 5:2

May God and His equally Divine Son bless you.

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 09:41 PM

1> Do you believe that Angels are Gods? If so then you have proven God a liar when he said he is the ONLY God. Nice going.

2> See also:
John1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Which means even if he was the intermediary, and the Father created through the Son, it still means that Jesus was NOT created, since it says ALL THINGS and ALL powers and authorities in heaven and on earth. And John 1:3 nails it down to all created things were created by Jesus. Jesus is uncreated. Jesus is God.

Surely there are two beings uncreated but there is only one being unbegotten and that is the God and Father of all.

Do you remember Alexander from the Arian Heresy? Let's please look at one author said Alexander believed.

[“Alexander declared:—‘The Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the Father, differing only in this one respect, that the Father is unbegotten. He is the exact image of His Father. Everything is found in the image which exists in its archetype [original]; and it was this that our Lord taught when He said, ‘My Father is greater than I.’ And accordingly we believe that the Son proceeded from the Father; for He is the reflection of the glory of the Father, and the figure of His substance. But let no one be led from this to the supposition that the Son is unbegotten, as is believed by some who are deficient in intellectual power:]The Two Republics, written by A. T. Jones (Page 333) quoted in the Formation of the Trinity Doctrine
http://smyrna.org/Books/Formulation_of_the_Trinity/The_Formulation_of_the_Trinity.htm

If this is really what Alexander believed than I can believe it also because this is very biblical that there is one God and His only born Son

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 09:46 PM

"

[angels are called gods]

So because Jesus is called God, that means he's an angel? That doesn't make much sense. God is called God, is He also an angel?

Why won't you just accept that Jesus is God has one uncreated Son who was litterally born from Him and is His only true Son. Just like we inherit our human nature from our parents so Jesus inherited His Father's Divine nature and can rightfully be called God.

For the sake of argument let's say that your second point is correct that [Jesus serves as the intermediate agent in creation, not the creator.] than that would mean that Jesus can't possibly be created because He is the one who God creates through.

Jesus was born in eternity and that means before all of creation.

"Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; One will come from you to be ruler over Israel for Me. His origin is from antiquity,
from eternity." Micah 5:2

May God and His equally Divine Son bless you.

Back up. Where did I ever say that because angels are called gods that Jesus is an angel. I said that angels are called gods to prove that it is appropriate to apply the title to others.

Now, as for Jesus serving as intermediate agent in creation, it does not remove himself from being created because scripture never says he is intermediate agent in the creation of "all creation".

Nevertheless, this does not negate Jesus' prior existence in heaven. Scriptures like John 8:58, Phil 2:6;7 and Col 1:15 demonstrate him to have been in existence for much longer.

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 09:49 PM

What are you talking about? What word and where did you get it from and is it online for me to see or is there a library where I can see it for myself? Thanks for all your help.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm?version=GNTwh&StringToSearch=Phil+3:21

Notice where it says swma thV tapeinwsewV hmwn This is the reference in question.

Sparko

April 6th 2005, 09:54 PM

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 09:56 PM

On point #1, you must keep his statements in context. Such statements are made with regards to idiols. They are not real gods, only he is. All others are gods by God's will. They have divinity because God has given it to them, not because they were created as such.

On point #2, your position is only valid based on the 4th century punctuation of the text. The ancient punctuation, as testified by nearly every early church Father places the final clause of verse 3, hO GEGONEN, with verse 4. Thus state, "What came to be in him [Christ] was life, and the life was the light of men." How did life come to be in Christ if he is eternal? It cannot. He had a time when life was not in him, for it "came to be in him". Origen, in his commentary on John notes this point too. He writes: "On the words, 'All things were made by Him,' there is still one point to be examined. The 'word' is, as a notion, from 'life,' and yet we read, 'What was made in the Word was life, and the life was the light of men.' Now as all things were made through Him, was the life made through Him, which is the light of men, and the other notions under which the Saviour is presented to us? Or must we take the 'all things were made by Him' subject to the exception of the things which are in Himself? The latter course appears to be the preferable one."

Where does the Bible ever say that created angels have divinity? Only one born from God's Divine Substance can inherit His Divine nature.

For the sake of argument let's say your last point is correct that Jesus had life come into Him. That still doesn't prove He is created. In John 5:26 Jesus talks about the life He inherited from His Father. It is "life in himself" or "self existence" which only God can have. Is God's only born Son eternal? Ofcourse not because that would mean that He is not really God's literal Son because eternal beings can have no beginning but Christ is self existance and that proves He is not created. "...His origin is from antiquity,
from eternity" Micah 5:2 Holman Christian Standard Bible.
I believe for someone to have his origin in eternity before all of creation would have to be self existent.

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 10:05 PM

Pioneer, you seem to be playing word games. You say Jesus is not created but begotten.

Let me ask you this: was there a time when God the Father existed but Jesus his Son did not?

I say no. Jesus was always with the Father.

--

Also, do you say they are two separate beings? That they are both divine, but complete separate entities?

I say no, they are two different persons, but one divine entity/being/substance (three if you include the Holy Spirit)

"...His origin is from antiquity, from eternity" Micah 5:2 Holman Christian Standard Bible

You say the Messiah has no origin but scriptures says His origin is in eternity. Who am I to believe?

If Jesus was always with the Father than he is His Father's twin and not His Son.

How am I playing word games? Aren't begotten and created two seperate words with two seperate defintions? Jesus called Himself "..the only born Son of God"John 3:18 K.J.V but never the only created son. That wouldn't even make since because God has many created sons but only one True literal born Son.

Yes the Holy Spirit was with the Father just like your spirit is always with you. It is yours and not a seperate person.

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 10:07 PM

Where does the Bible ever say that created angels have divinity? Only one born from God's Divine Substance can inherit His Divine nature.

For the sake of argument let's say your last point is correct that Jesus had life come into Him. That still doesn't prove He is created. In John 5:26 Jesus talks about the life He inherited from His Father. It is "life in himself" or "self existence" which only God can have. Is God's only born Son eternal? Ofcourse not because that would mean that He is not really God's literal Son because eternal beings can have no beginning but Christ is self existance and that proves He is not created. "...His origin is from antiquity,
from eternity" Micah 5:2 Holman Christian Standard Bible.
I believe for someone to have his origin in eternity before all of creation would have to be self existent.

Psalms 8:5, a reference to the angels, calls them "gods".

As for Micah 5:2, that Hebrew word by no means demands eternity. The same word, Olam, is used in Genesis 6:4 for men. A better translation would be "from ancient times."

In John 6:57 Jesus says "I live because of the Father" or "I live by means of the Father". In other words, the Father gives Christ life. So he is not self existent, but his life is derived from another source.

The life Christ has in himself is from God, and that life is not a self sustaining life, for else Christ would not have died. Rather, that is a reference to his ability to give life. He has the life in himself to give others, and because of such he can resurrect the dead. This is the context as defined in verse 25.

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 10:11 PM

Back up. Where did I ever say that because angels are called gods that Jesus is an angel. I said that angels are called gods to prove that it is appropriate to apply the title to others.

Now, as for Jesus serving as intermediate agent in creation, it does not remove himself from being created because scripture never says he is intermediate agent in the creation of "all creation".

Nevertheless, this does not negate Jesus' prior existence in heaven. Scriptures like John 8:58, Phil 2:6;7 and Col 1:15 demonstrate him to have been in existence for much longer.

You are very correct. He has existed much longer. He has existed from all time from before all created things for He was already there in the beginning of creation with the God so he can't be created.
"...His origin is from antiquity,from eternity." Micah 5:2
He was born in eternity and that must mean before all creation.

Angels are not called Gods in the Greek New Testament.

Sparko

April 6th 2005, 10:12 PM

"...His origin is from antiquity, from eternity" Micah 5:2 Holman Christian Standard Bible

You say the Messiah has no origin but scriptures says His origin is in eternity. Who am I to believe?

If Jesus was always with the Father than he is His Father's twin and not His Son.

How am I playing word games? Aren't begotten and created two seperate words with two seperate defintions? Jesus called Himself "..the only born Son of God"John 3:18 K.J.V but never the only created son. That wouldn't even make since because God has many created sons but only one True literal born Son.

Yes the Holy Spirit was with the Father just like your spirit is always with you. It is yours and not a seperate person.

OK, then I take it you think they are two separate beings/entities, like you and your own son would be, right?

So if you are a human and your son is a human, how many humans do you have? Two. Right?

If the Father is a God and Jesus is a God (that is what 'Divine' means, you know) and they are not the same entity, how many Gods do you have? TWO.

If you think they are both divine and are separate entities then you believe in TWO Gods.

I on the other hand think they are both divine but there is only ONE God, so if they are both "Gods" then they must, by logical implication, be the SAME God, even though they are two persons.

You can't have it your way and claim to not be polytheistic.

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 10:16 PM

You are very correct. He has existed much longer. He has existed from all time from before all created things for He was already there in the beginning of creation with the God so he can't be created.
"...His origin is from antiquity,from eternity." Micah 5:2
He was born in eternity and that must mean before all creation.

Angels are not called Gods in the Greek New Testament.

No, he was born in "ancient times". The preposition le' does not allow olam to be eternal, because it denotes the point of origin. It is "from olam" not "in olam" or "before olam". This really is no different than Genesis 6:4.

As for them being called them in the NT.. so? The NT does not exist in issolation, you can not take it apart from the Hebrew scriptures, as the NT is dependant on the OT.

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 10:17 PM

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 10:26 PM

Psalms 8:5, a reference to the angels, calls them "gods".

As for Micah 5:2, that Hebrew word by no means demands eternity. The same word, Olam, is used in Genesis 6:4 for men. A better translation would be "from ancient times."

In John 6:57 Jesus says "I live because of the Father" or "I live by means of the Father". In other words, the Father gives Christ life. So he is not self existent, but his life is derived from another source.

The life Christ has in himself is from God, and that life is not a self sustaining life, for else Christ would not have died. Rather, that is a reference to his ability to give life. He has the life in himself to give others, and because of such he can resurrect the dead. This is the context as defined in verse 25.

I know angels are called gods in the Old Testament but we are talking about the Greek New Testament. In the Greek New Testament the only beings that are called gods are worshipped except for that one time when Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament.

About Micah 5:2 the same Hebrew word for everlasting is used in Psalms 90:2. So would the translation be better From ancient times to ancient times thou art God just because you feel like it is? The Bible is clear that God's Son was born before time.

Also the Father is called the Ancient of Days and He is from eternity. Wouldn't it be safe to say that the only Son born from His Divine Substance would be born in eternity before all of creation? You and your organization say He is created but He said He was born from God so who should I believe?

No created being can give life and no created being can create.

Thank you for your quick response.

Sparko

April 6th 2005, 10:31 PM

It is not polytheism. The men in Psa. 82:6 were called gods, because they had authority possessed from God. The angels in Psa. 8:5 were also called gods, because they are divine beings themselves.

Uh. Angels are heavenly beings. they are spiritual beings, they are not divine.

The judges called gods were not true gods were they? They were instead evil men.

Again, if you think Angels are true gods then you are calling God a liar, aren't you? He said he is the only true God and besides him there is no other, no not one.

But this is besides the point I was making to Pioneer. She says that Jesus is truely Divine just like the Father is. Made from the same substance, but she thinks they are two seperate beings.

Logically, that can't be because God said there is only one God, himself. So if Jesus is the same divine substance, then he must be the same God as the Father.

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 10:35 PM

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 10:40 PM

Uh. Angels are heavenly beings. they are spiritual beings, they are not divine.

The judges called gods were not true gods were they? They were instead evil men.

Again, if you think Angels are true gods then you are calling God a liar, aren't you? He said he is the only true God and besides him there is no other, no not one.

But this is besides the point I was making to Pioneer. She says that Jesus is truely Divine just like the Father is. Made from the same substance, but she thinks they are two seperate beings.

Logically, that can't be because God said there is only one God, himself. So if Jesus is the same divine substance, then he must be the same God as the Father.

Don't you know that you are only hurting your own argument. Me and T Smith both know that the Father is the only True/original God because there is nowhere in the Bible where Jesus is called the True/original God. But I want to prove to T Smith that just because Jesus is not the True/Original God does not make Him a false God or a lesser God. It only means that the Father is original and the Son is born from Him but equally Divine. Like the heavenly sanctuary in hebrews. It was the true one but did that make the sancuary on earth a false one?

I know the Father is the Only God and His Son is His Only Born Son. What is your point? We already discussed this. Paul is clearly said that the One God of the Bible is the Father and the One Lord is His Son. "... there is but one God, the Father...and one Lord..""his Son Jesus Christ" 1st Corinthians 8:6 ; 1st Corinthians 1:9

"...what is His name and what is HIS SON's name if thou canst tell" Proverbs 30:4 is talking about creation.

Is there two Gods in this verse or One God and One Son?

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 10:42 PM

I know angels are called gods in the Old Testament but we are talking about the Greek New Testament. In the Greek New Testament the only beings that are called gods are worshipped except for that one time when Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament.

About Micah 5:2 the same Hebrew word for everlasting is used in Psalms 90:2. So would the translation be better From ancient times to ancient times thou art God just because you feel like it is? The Bible is clear that God's Son was born before time.

Also the Father is called the Ancient of Days and He is from eternity. Wouldn't it be safe to say that the only Son born from His Divine Substance would be born in eternity before all of creation? You and your organization say He is created but He said He was born from God so who should I believe?

No created being can give life and no created being can create.

Thank you for your quick response.

The Greek New Testament again is not issolate. You cannot say that because nobody is called it outside of the men referenced in John 10, quoting from Psalms 82, that there is any significance in this. Hebrews 2 quotes Psalms 8:5, where the Hebrew reads "gods", where the LXX here is quoted which reads "angels."

As for Psalms 90:2, "from distant time to distant time" would probably be the best translation. Let me provide you the following from the Theological Wordbook of the OT, as it explains the meaning very well. In considering this note that there is no Hebrew word that actually means eternal

_________________________________________________________
(1631a) ~l'A[ (±ôl¹m) forever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world, etc. (RSV Similar in general, but substitutes "always" for "in the world" in Psa 73:12 and "eternity" for "world" in Eccl 3:11.) Probably derived from ±¹lam I, "to hide," thus pointing to what is hidden in the distant future or in the distant past. The Ugaritic cognate is ±lm, "eternity."

Though ±ôl¹m is used more than three hundred times to indicate indefinite continuance into the very distant future, the meaning of the word is not confined to the future. There are at least twenty instances where it clearly refers to the past. Such usages generally point to something that seems long ago, but rarely if ever refer to a limitless past, Thus in Deut 32:7 and Job 22:15 it may refer to the time of one's elders. In Prov 22:28; Prov 23:10; Jer 6:16; Jer 18:15; Jer 28:8 it points back somewhat farther. In Isa 58:12; Isa 61:4; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4, and in the Aramaic of Ezr 4:15, 19 it clearly refers to the time just before the exile. In 1Sam 27:8, in Isa 51:9 and Isa 63:9, 11 and perhaps Ezek 36:2, it refers to the events of the exodus from Egypt. In Gen 6:4 it points to the time shortly before the flood. None of these past references has in it the idea of endlessness or limitlessness, but each points to a time long before the immediate knowledge of those living. In Isa 64:3 the KJV translates the word "beginning of the world." In Psa 73:12 and Eccl 3:11 it is translated "world, " suggesting the beginning of a usage that developed greatly in post biblical times.

Jenni holds that its basic meaning "most distant times" can refer to either the remote past or to the future or to both as due to the fact that it does not occur independently (as a subject or as an object) but only in connection with prepositions indicating direction (min "since," ±ad "until," l® "up to") or as an adverbial accusative of direction or finally as the modifying genitive in the construct relationship. In the latter instance ±œl¹m can express by itself the whole range of meanings denoted by all the prepositions "since, until, to the most distant time"; i.e. it assumes the meaning "(unlimited, incalculable) continuance, eternity." (THAT II, p. 230) J. Barr (Biblical Words for Time (2 1969), p. 73) says, "We might therefore best state the "basic meaning" as a kind of range between 'remotest time' and 'perpetuity"'. But as shown above it is sometimes used of a not-so-remote past. For the meaning of the word in its attributive use we should note the designation of the Lord as °el ±œl¹m, "The Eternal God" (Gen 21:33).

The LXX generally translates ±œl¹m by aiœn which has essentially the same range of meaning. That neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that sometimes it is thought desirable to repeat the word, not merely saying "forever, " but "forever and ever."

Both words came to be used to refer to a long age or period-an idea that is sometimes expressed in English by "world." Post biblical Jewish writings refer to the present world of toil as h¹±œl¹m hazzeh and to the world to come as h¹±œl¹m habb¹°.
______________________________________________________________

As for Jesus, he was created from God's substance. Hebrews 1:3 defines him as "a reproduction of [God's] being." Hence he is God's son. Unique amoung creation, the only one that is God's physical son.

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 10:45 PM

Uh. Angels are heavenly beings. they are spiritual beings, they are not divine.

The judges called gods were not true gods were they? They were instead evil men.

Again, if you think Angels are true gods then you are calling God a liar, aren't you? He said he is the only true God and besides him there is no other, no not one.

But this is besides the point I was making to Pioneer. She says that Jesus is truely Divine just like the Father is. Made from the same substance, but she thinks they are two seperate beings.

Logically, that can't be because God said there is only one God, himself. So if Jesus is the same divine substance, then he must be the same God as the Father.

The angels are called gods. I accept it. Apparently you do not. God is the only "true" God, but that word "true" in Greek is not always in contrast with false, but commonly is in reference to the archetype. As for God's statement of there being no other, those statements are in a context of God discussing the idols.

As for the men, they were not false gods, for in parallel they are called "sons of the most high". It is therefore impossible to take this statement of them being "gods" in a negative light.

Jesus is of divine substance, but he is a different being, for Hebrews 1:3 defines him as a "reproduction of [God]'s being". If there is the original being, God, and the reproduction, Jesus, that is two beings.

Sparko

April 6th 2005, 10:47 PM

"...His origin is from antiquity, from eternity" Micah 5:2 Holman Christian Standard Bible

If the Bible is true and there are two uncreated beings and One was born from the other in eternity and the other one was never born than how can they be the same person or any part of the same person?

First 'from eternity' is the same thing as saying "uncreated" since eternity is FOREVER, eh?

But you totally ignored the rest of my post. If you have two divine entities then you have TWO Gods.

there is only ONE God, therefore if Jesus is a God then he is THE God. The Father is THE God too.

How? I don't know how. If man could understand God then he would be greater than God. Can an ant understand a human?

But logically we have:

1 The Father is Divine (a God)
2. The Son is Divine (a God)
3. they are separate persons
4. There is only ONE God and no other.

You have to come up with an explanation that fits all those facts.

the only logical answer is that they are both divine and therefore the SAME God. One God revealed in two persons (I will leave the Holy Spirit for later)

Any other answer leaves you with two Gods and denies #5. Or says that Jesus is not divine and denies #2.

If you agree with all 5 points above (let me know please) then you must believe that Jesus is the same God as the Father but a separate person. How is left for when we get to heaven to ask him. But those 5 points are taught in the bible.

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 10:53 PM

No, he was born in "ancient times". The preposition le' does not allow olam to be eternal, because it denotes the point of origin. It is "from olam" not "in olam" or "before olam". This really is no different than Genesis 6:4.

As for them being called them in the NT.. so? The NT does not exist in issolation, you can not take it apart from the Hebrew scriptures, as the NT is dependant on the OT.

The Old Testament and New Testament were written in diferent languages and the Hebrew language alows beings to be called "Elohim" Gods that are not worshipped but the Greek New Testament does not allow it except when Jesus was quoting from the OT that one time. But of course this is coming from a person that doesn't know anything about Greek. I looked in my concordance and saw how the word God Theos was used and it is not a generic term like the Hebrew God Elohim. I really don't think you have an argument.

I never said O.T. and N.T. were isolated. I think you are getting upset because you know I have a point and you have to recognize the Divinity of God's only born "uncreated"

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 10:53 PM

First 'from eternity' is the same thing as saying "uncreated" since eternity is FOREVER, eh?

But you totally ignored the rest of my post. If you have two divine entities then you have TWO Gods.

there is only ONE God, therefore if Jesus is a God then he is THE God. The Father is THE God too.

How? I don't know how. If man could understand God then he would be greater than God. Can an ant understand a human?

But logically we have:

1 The Father is Divine (a God)
2. The Son is Divine (a God)
3. they are separate persons
4. There is only ONE God and no other.

You have to come up with an explanation that fits all those facts.

the only logical answer is that they are both divine and therefore the SAME God. One God revealed in two persons (I will leave the Holy Spirit for later)

Any other answer leaves you with two Gods and denies #5. Or says that Jesus is not divine and denies #2.

If you agree with all 5 points above (let me know please) then you must believe that Jesus is the same God as the Father but a separate person. How is left for when we get to heaven to ask him. But those 5 points are taught in the bible.

Logic says there are two but are the same God? I don't know what logic school you went to, but to say two people are one being is absurd. Language simply does not allow for it. Nowhere in the Bible do you have a person that is not a distinict being. Not only does english not all for it, but neither does Greek. Hence it is called a mystery.

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 10:57 PM

First 'from eternity' is the same thing as saying "uncreated" since eternity is FOREVER, eh?

But you totally ignored the rest of my post. If you have two divine entities then you have TWO Gods.

there is only ONE God, therefore if Jesus is a God then he is THE God. The Father is THE God too.

How? I don't know how. If man could understand God then he would be greater than God. Can an ant understand a human?

But logically we have:

1 The Father is Divine (a God)
2. The Son is Divine (a God)
3. they are separate persons
4. There is only ONE God and no other.

You have to come up with an explanation that fits all those facts.

the only logical answer is that they are both divine and therefore the SAME God. One God revealed in two persons (I will leave the Holy Spirit for later)

Any other answer leaves you with two Gods and denies #5. Or says that Jesus is not divine and denies #2.

If you agree with all 5 points above (let me know please) then you must believe that Jesus is the same God as the Father but a separate person. How is left for when we get to heaven to ask him. But those 5 points are taught in the bible.

Surely He is uncreated but the text does not say He is from eternity. It says His origin/beginning is from eternity so He can't be the same person or any part of the same person who doesn't have an origin. The very word Son means you have to have a beginning and the very word begotten means you have to have a beginning. Surely he is not created because His beginning was before creation.

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 10:59 PM

The Old Testament and New Testament were written in diferent languages and the Hebrew language alows beings to be called "Elohim" Gods that are not worshipped but the Greek New Testament does not allow it except when Jesus was quoting from the OT that one time. But of course this is coming from a person that doesn't know anything about Greek. I looked in my concordance and saw how the word God Theos was used and it is not a generic term like the Hebrew God Elohim. I really don't think you have an argument.

I never said O.T. and N.T. were isolated. I think you are getting upset because you know I have a point and you have to recognize the Divinity of God's only born "uncreated"

Where have I remotely indicated that I might be upset? This is hardly the case. I am simply trying to help you.

Greek and Hebrew are surprisingly similar in many ways. For example, in Psalms 82:6, the LXX literally translates ELOHIM to QEOI, which is "gods" in Greek. There is no difference in the word.

Friberg provides the following for QEOS "(1) as the supreme divine being, the true, living, and personal God (MT 1.23; possibly JN 1.1b); (2) as an idol god (AC 14.11); feminine goddess (AC 19.37); (3) of the devil as the ruling spirit of this age god (2C 4.4a); (4) as an adjective divine (probably JN 1.1b); (5) figuratively; (a) of persons worthy of reverence and respect as magistrates and judges gods (JN 10.34); (b) of the belly when the appetite is in control god (PH 3.19) "

BDAG also provides the following in reference to QEOS: "one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients"

BDAG also states the following: "4. that which is nontranscendent but considered worthy of special reverence or respect, god (Artem. 2, 69 p. 161, 17: gonei/j and dida,skaloi are like gods; Simplicius in Epict. p. 85, 27 acc. to ancient Roman custom children had to call their parents qeoi,; s. 2 above and note on se,bomai).

a. of humans qeoi, (as ~yhil{a/) J 10:34f (Ps 81:6; humans are called q. in the OT also Ex 7:1; 22:27; cp. Philo, Det. Pot. Insid. 161f, Somn. 1, 229, Mut. Nom. 128, Omn. Prob. Lib. 43, Mos. 1, 158, Decal. 120, Leg. All. 1, 40, Migr. Abr. 84). q. gi,netai tw/n lambano,ntwn (a benefactor) proves to be a god to recipients Dg 10:6 (cp. Pliny, NH 2, 7, 18; s. 2 above, beg.— Aristot., Pol. 3, 8, 1, 1284a of the superior pers. as a god among humans; Arcesilaus [III BC] describes Crates and Polemo as qeoi, tinej=‘a kind of gods’ [Diog. L. 4, 22]; Antiphanes says of the iambic poet Philoxenus: qeo.j evn avnqrw,poisin h=n [Athen. 14, 50, 643d]; Diod. S. 1, 4, 7 and 5, 21, 2 of Caesar; for honors accorded Demetrius, s. IKertész, Bemerkungen zum Kult des Demetrios Poliorketes: Oikumene 2, ’78, 163-75 [lit.]; Dio Chrys. 30 [47], 5 Puqago,raj evtima/to w`j qeo,j; Heliod. 4, 7, 8 swth.r k. qeo,j, addressed to a physician; BGU 1197, 1 [4 BC] a high official, and 1201, 1 [2 BC] a priest qeo,j and ku,rioj; PMich 209, 11f [II/III AD] oi=daj a;delfe, o[tei ouv mo,non w-j avdelfo,n se e;cw, avlla. kai. w`j pate,ra k. ku,rion k. qeo,n; Just., A I, 26, 2 [Si,mwn] qeo.j evnomi,sqh kai. … w`j qeo.j teti,mhtai; Tat. 3, 2 mh. qeo.j w;n [Empedocles]; Ath. 30, 2 VAnti,nouj … e;tuce nomi,zesqai qeo,j of benefactors in gener. AcJ 27 [Aa II/1, 166, 4]).—JEmerton, JTS 11, ’60, 329-32."

So, I do have a very solid position. Hopefully that is now clear.

Sparko

April 6th 2005, 11:03 PM

Surely He is uncreated but the text does not say He is from eternity. It says His origin/beginning is from eternity so He can't be the same person or any part of the same person who doesn't have an origin. The very word Son means you have to have a beginning and the very word begotten means you have to have a beginning. Surely he is not created because His beginning was before creation.

Well I guess if you won't address the rest of my points I will take it as you are at a loss of words for now.

That is fine. Just think about it for a while. You are almost there. Pray about it. write it out.

----------------

And TSMITH: The bible does teach that Jesus is a person and so is the Father, and they are not the SAME person. but it also teached that they are both God and there is one God.

The only logical answer is that they are the same God revealed in two persons. And yes, how that can be IS a mystery. But either that is true, or the bible is wrong and I don't believe the bible is wrong.

And Pioneer is correct in that the Hebrew can call other being Elohim and not mean true Gods. But exalted beings high in stature.

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 11:06 PM

The Greek New Testament again is not issolate. You cannot say that because nobody is called it outside of the men referenced in John 10, quoting from Psalms 82, that there is any significance in this. Hebrews 2 quotes Psalms 8:5, where the Hebrew reads "gods", where the LXX here is quoted which reads "angels."

As for Psalms 90:2, "from distant time to distant time" would probably be the best translation. Let me provide you the following from the Theological Wordbook of the OT, as it explains the meaning very well. In considering this note that there is no Hebrew word that actually means eternal

_________________________________________________________
(1631a) ~l'A[ (±ôl¹m) forever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world, etc. (RSV Similar in general, but substitutes "always" for "in the world" in Psa 73:12 and "eternity" for "world" in Eccl 3:11.) Probably derived from ±¹lam I, "to hide," thus pointing to what is hidden in the distant future or in the distant past. The Ugaritic cognate is ±lm, "eternity."

Though ±ôl¹m is used more than three hundred times to indicate indefinite continuance into the very distant future, the meaning of the word is not confined to the future. There are at least twenty instances where it clearly refers to the past. Such usages generally point to something that seems long ago, but rarely if ever refer to a limitless past, Thus in Deut 32:7 and Job 22:15 it may refer to the time of one's elders. In Prov 22:28; Prov 23:10; Jer 6:16; Jer 18:15; Jer 28:8 it points back somewhat farther. In Isa 58:12; Isa 61:4; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4, and in the Aramaic of Ezr 4:15, 19 it clearly refers to the time just before the exile. In 1Sam 27:8, in Isa 51:9 and Isa 63:9, 11 and perhaps Ezek 36:2, it refers to the events of the exodus from Egypt. In Gen 6:4 it points to the time shortly before the flood. None of these past references has in it the idea of endlessness or limitlessness, but each points to a time long before the immediate knowledge of those living. In Isa 64:3 the KJV translates the word "beginning of the world." In Psa 73:12 and Eccl 3:11 it is translated "world, " suggesting the beginning of a usage that developed greatly in post biblical times.

Jenni holds that its basic meaning "most distant times" can refer to either the remote past or to the future or to both as due to the fact that it does not occur independently (as a subject or as an object) but only in connection with prepositions indicating direction (min "since," ±ad "until," l® "up to") or as an adverbial accusative of direction or finally as the modifying genitive in the construct relationship. In the latter instance ±œl¹m can express by itself the whole range of meanings denoted by all the prepositions "since, until, to the most distant time"; i.e. it assumes the meaning "(unlimited, incalculable) continuance, eternity." (THAT II, p. 230) J. Barr (Biblical Words for Time (2 1969), p. 73) says, "We might therefore best state the "basic meaning" as a kind of range between 'remotest time' and 'perpetuity"'. But as shown above it is sometimes used of a not-so-remote past. For the meaning of the word in its attributive use we should note the designation of the Lord as °el ±œl¹m, "The Eternal God" (Gen 21:33).

The LXX generally translates ±œl¹m by aiœn which has essentially the same range of meaning. That neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that sometimes it is thought desirable to repeat the word, not merely saying "forever, " but "forever and ever."

Both words came to be used to refer to a long age or period-an idea that is sometimes expressed in English by "world." Post biblical Jewish writings refer to the present world of toil as h¹±œl¹m hazzeh and to the world to come as h¹±œl¹m habb¹°.
______________________________________________________________

As for Jesus, he was created from God's substance. Hebrews 1:3 defines him as "a reproduction of [God's] being." Hence he is God's son. Unique amoung creation, the only one that is God's physical son.

Very interesting. You believe that Jesus was born from God's Divine Substance? Than how is he created? The only reason I am created is because I was born from a created being. And Adam was born from the created dirt so he was created. And angels were all born from a created material or they were born from nothing so they are created. But if Jesus was born from God's Divine Substance proves that He is God's only born and inherited His Father's Divine nature and can also be called God because He is equally Divine with Himself. Arius went wrong because He said Jesus was born from nothing but Jesus said He was born from God.

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 11:06 PM

And TSMITH: The bible does teach that Jesus is a person and so is the Father, and they are not the SAME person. but it also teached that they are both God and there is one God.

The only logical answer is that they are the same God revealed in two persons. And yes, how that can be IS a mystery. But either that is true, or the bible is wrong and I don't believe the bible is wrong.

And Pioneer is correct in that the Hebrew can call other being Elohim and not mean true Gods. But exalted beings high in stature.

Your argument fails in that a different person is always a different being. The Bible teaches that there is God and Jesus is a different TYPE of God. How can I say that? Because in John 1:18 Jesus is called MONOGENHS QEOS, where the adjective modifies the noun, making Jesus a different type.

And as for the Hebrew.. the same in true in Greek. Which blows a huge whole in your whole Jesus is called God so he must be the same God argument.

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 11:21 PM

Well I guess if you won't address the rest of my points I will take it as you are at a loss of words for now.

That is fine. Just think about it for a while. You are almost there. Pray about it. write it out.

----------------

And TSMITH: The bible does teach that Jesus is a person and so is the Father, and they are not the SAME person. but it also teached that they are both God and there is one God.

The only logical answer is that they are the same God revealed in two persons. And yes, how that can be IS a mystery. But either that is true, or the bible is wrong and I don't believe the bible is wrong.

And Pioneer is correct in that the Hebrew can call other being Elohim and not mean true Gods. But exalted beings high in stature.

I can be won over to Trinitarianism about as quickly as I can be an Arian. I have the missing link between your two false doctrines. If I was to be a Trinitarian, I'd have to deny all the scriptures that teach Christ christ's true sonship. To you humans can have a son and their son be a seperate person/substance but God is not able to do that. Your false doctrine is insulting to the Most High. Just like theirs that says God can't really give birth to a Son equal in Divinity to Himself. You think your teachings are so different. They both deny the true literal Sonship of Christ so what good are they? They only get in the way of the gospel. "For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son" Don't worry, I will answer all of your points. I don't want to be like you. I was so hurt when you only answered the first part of my post # 47 that I worked so hard on like you didn't even read the rest of it. Will you ask for some respect from me that you are noth willing to give?

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 11:31 PM

I don't think this topic could be any more off topic!

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 11:52 PM

If I have a son and his nature is the same as mine, then we are both humans. If my dog has a son who shares his nature then they are both dogs.

If God has a son who shares his same nature, then they are both Gods.

If Jesus has the same divine nature as the Father (which I agree he does) then, both are Gods.

You are now faced with there being TWO Gods.

However, as we will both agree, there is only ONE God. But Jesus is indeed divine.

So how can we reconsile this? We can't have two Gods. The only way to resolve it is to say there are two persons but one God. One divine substance revealed in two persons. The Father is God and the Son is God, and they are the SAME God, but different persons.

Throw in the holy spirit and you have the Trinity.

Anything less and you have poly theism. If you indeed think that Jesus us divine and of the same nature as the Father, then you either must accept the trinity, or you are stuck with two Gods and are polytheistic.

That is simple logic.

Instead of saying that Jesus is not God, Paul is actually forcing his readers to understand that Jesus IS God. If there is only one God and Jesus is Lord, then he is God.

He also said this:

Colossian 1:15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For 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. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Jesus created ALL things. That means he is not created. He created all things. Who is the creator? God is the creator. Who created all things? Jesus. Therefore Jesus is God.

For the sake of argument let's say there is one uncreated human father and it is possible for him to give birth to a son before time in eternity so he does give birth to a son and lets say it is alright to worship humans so the son worships his father. Why does he do this? Because this is his father(originator) Even though there two humans because they have the same exact nature but there is only "one human and father of them all". There is only one true (original) human. If I was a created animal who worshipped these humans would I be a polytheist because I worship the one human and his one son like my animal scriptures told me to?

This is the same way with God the Father. He is the God and Father of all. He is the only true (original) God but one day in eternity He decided he was going to give birth to an equally Son but you are calling Him a liar. You say God "He is not your Son, He is you Twin and the same age as you. Not only is He your twin he is your siameese twin and stuck to you because although humans can have children and they are a seperate person/substance from themselves God is not able to do that. He is not as powerful as humans"

John Sparks I really don't understand why can't you believe what Jesus said. He is God's only born Son. John 3:16
"God sent His only born Son into the world" 1st John 4:9

I know you know Hebrews 1:6 what about Hebrews 1:5. The Bible is clear that God gave birth His equally Divine Son before He ever sent Him into the world to be born again, this time as a human.

If Paul wanted to call Jesus God in 1st Corinthians 8:6 than don't you think he would have used that word just like he did in Titus 2:13. In the Greek Language God and Lord don't mean the same thing. Sorry to bust your bubble. Humans were called lords that weren't worshipped in the New Testaments but humans were never called gods in the New Testament except for that one time that Jesus was quoting from the O.T.

Keep in mind that I don't know Greek at all but I did look at an interlinear Bible on studylight.org/isb where you can see Bible verses in Greek and click on the Greek Words and you see the English definiton. Well when i looked up Colosians 1:15. I didn't see that "of" in the original Greek. My theory is that the English Translators only put "of" in their because they thought it would sound better. Well I think "before" would sound better instead. Jesus was "the firstborn before creation" I think that sounds alot better and makes alot more sense. It goes along with the rest of the Bible that says Jesus is God's only begotten/uncreated Son.

PioneerSDA

April 6th 2005, 11:54 PM

I don't think this topic could be any more off topic!

The thread starter is not concerned about that. Why are you?

Thank you for all of your quick responses.

Please answer my post #123.

Tsmith

April 6th 2005, 11:56 PM

The thread starter is concerned about that. Why are you?

I'm not.. just found it funny.

PioneerSDA

April 7th 2005, 12:10 AM

I'm not.. just found it funny.

I really didn't find it funny. One time you and Dee Dee Warren were having an argument about nothing and it went on for along time and then lately everybody was quoting Origen and I really hate his teachings. He is the one that invented that false eternal generation theory that gave way for the trinity doctrine.

I sure hope there is no rule about threads going off topic. Well if you won't tell the Moderators I won't.

I'm just really glad this thread has been livining up a bit. It's thanks to you and John Sparks, I haven't had a thread come to life like this before.

Doesn't Hebrews 1:3 prove that Jesus is exacly like His Father in every way?
Please reply to my Post #123

PioneerSDA

April 7th 2005, 12:43 AM

Where have I remotely indicated that I might be upset? This is hardly the case. I am simply trying to help you.

Greek and Hebrew are surprisingly similar in many ways. For example, in Psalms 82:6, the LXX literally translates ELOHIM to QEOI, which is "gods" in Greek. There is no difference in the word.

Friberg provides the following for QEOS "(1) as the supreme divine being, the true, living, and personal God (MT 1.23; possibly JN 1.1b); (2) as an idol god (AC 14.11); feminine goddess (AC 19.37); (3) of the devil as the ruling spirit of this age god (2C 4.4a); (4) as an adjective divine (probably JN 1.1b); (5) figuratively; (a) of persons worthy of reverence and respect as magistrates and judges gods (JN 10.34); (b) of the belly when the appetite is in control god (PH 3.19) "

BDAG also provides the following in reference to QEOS: "one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients"

BDAG also states the following: "4. that which is nontranscendent but considered worthy of special reverence or respect, god (Artem. 2, 69 p. 161, 17: gonei/j and dida,skaloi are like gods; Simplicius in Epict. p. 85, 27 acc. to ancient Roman custom children had to call their parents qeoi,; s. 2 above and note on se,bomai).

a. of humans qeoi, (as ~yhil{a/) J 10:34f (Ps 81:6; humans are called q. in the OT also Ex 7:1; 22:27; cp. Philo, Det. Pot. Insid. 161f, Somn. 1, 229, Mut. Nom. 128, Omn. Prob. Lib. 43, Mos. 1, 158, Decal. 120, Leg. All. 1, 40, Migr. Abr. 84). q. gi,netai tw/n lambano,ntwn (a benefactor) proves to be a god to recipients Dg 10:6 (cp. Pliny, NH 2, 7, 18; s. 2 above, beg.— Aristot., Pol. 3, 8, 1, 1284a of the superior pers. as a god among humans; Arcesilaus [III BC] describes Crates and Polemo as qeoi, tinej=‘a kind of gods’ [Diog. L. 4, 22]; Antiphanes says of the iambic poet Philoxenus: qeo.j evn avnqrw,poisin h=n [Athen. 14, 50, 643d]; Diod. S. 1, 4, 7 and 5, 21, 2 of Caesar; for honors accorded Demetrius, s. IKertész, Bemerkungen zum Kult des Demetrios Poliorketes: Oikumene 2, ’78, 163-75 [lit.]; Dio Chrys. 30 [47], 5 Puqago,raj evtima/to w`j qeo,j; Heliod. 4, 7, 8 swth.r k. qeo,j, addressed to a physician; BGU 1197, 1 [4 BC] a high official, and 1201, 1 [2 BC] a priest qeo,j and ku,rioj; PMich 209, 11f [II/III AD] oi=daj a;delfe, o[tei ouv mo,non w-j avdelfo,n se e;cw, avlla. kai. w`j pate,ra k. ku,rion k. qeo,n; Just., A I, 26, 2 [Si,mwn] qeo.j evnomi,sqh kai. … w`j qeo.j teti,mhtai; Tat. 3, 2 mh. qeo.j w;n [Empedocles]; Ath. 30, 2 VAnti,nouj … e;tuce nomi,zesqai qeo,j of benefactors in gener. AcJ 27 [Aa II/1, 166, 4]).—JEmerton, JTS 11, ’60, 329-32."

So, I do have a very solid position. Hopefully that is now clear.

I don't know these languages so I will have to take your word for it that they are similar in ways but I know one way they are not similar. In the Greek New Testament the only beings called gods are beings who are worshipped. The only time that beings were called gods who weren't worshipped in the Greek New Testament is when Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament. So why did you show me the Septuagint? Isn't the Septuagint just quoting from the O.T. like Jesus is? You haven't disproved my point. Show me some Greek writing that is not talking about the O.T. where beings are called Gods who are not worshipped. Greek is more similar to English than it is to Hebrew. and in my language. God means deity, one who is worshipped. And the only time where God doesn't mean that is when I am reading the Old Testament that was translated from the Hebrew that has a generic word for God elohim or when I am reading that one part of the GNT where jesus is quoting the O.T.

Greek and English don't have generic word for God like the Hebrew "elohim" In our languages God mean God, not angels. God means God, not humans. Jesus might not be the same God but he is the same type of God as His Father even if they have diferent substances/entities and the Son is younger.

God creates. His Son creates. God gives life. His Son also gives life. Which no created being can ever do, I don't know where an organization would ever get the idea that God could give a created angel the power to create. That really doesn't make any sense when you think about it. He is God's only born. He never said he was His first created. Sometimes arians are just as bad as trinitarians reading their false doctrines into scriptures. You've heard the Arian view about John 1:1,2 and you've heard the trinitarian view. Now let's read a diferent view. I am really interested in hearing your comment about this quote.
[However, the word “God” is used in a few places with reference to the fact that Jesus, as the Son of God possesses all the attributes and qualities of divinity. One striking example of this is John 1:1 where it says, “the word [Jesus] was with [the]God [the Father]and the word [Jesus] was God (a divine Being, possessing the attributes of God).” Please note that in the Greek Scriptures the word the, the definite article, is before the word God when used with reference to the Father, because it is speaking of a particular person. However, it is not used when the word refers to Christ, because then, it is not referring to a person, but to a quality. It is not saying that Jesus, or the Word was the person, God. He was not the same Person He was with, but He had the attributes, the qualities of God, or of divinity.

Jesus then, is truly God by nature!! He possesses all the fullness of the godhead (Col. 2:9). He possesses “all power [exousia - authority, not dunamis as in Matt. 6:13]” in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). The ability to give life, to create, to know all things, to see all things, to do all things are His. The apostle Paul declares that in His pre-existence He was “in the form of God (Phil. 2:6),” that He is “the express image” of God (Heb. 1:3),” that He is before all things (Col. 1:17) and that He upholds all things “by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3). Therefore, none can deny the divinity or godhood of Jesus Christ. To do this, one must first of all deny the Scriptures.

Yet, even as we take account of the truth of the full divinity of Jesus Christ, we must also acknowledge, if we are honest, that the Bible consistently speaks of God as a single individual Person, and makes it clear that this Person is exclusively, God the Father. The following verses illustrate this truth clearly.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:3)

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3)

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:6)

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph 4:6)

And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. (Rev 21:22)

These verses are just examples. There are dozens more which teach the same truth. How then can we reconcile ttwo truths, both of which are clearly taught by Scripture, yet which seems to contradict each other?

(a) That Jesus is God by nature, fully divine.

(b) That there is only one God, who is the Father.] quoted from The Divinity of Christ by David Clayton under the section is Jesus truly God?
http://restorationministry.com/Open_Face/html/2000/open_face_dec__2000.htm

Thank you for all of your help. May God and His Divine Son who He gave birth to in eternity bless you.

PioneerSDA

April 7th 2005, 01:18 AM

OK, then I take it you think they are two separate beings/entities, like you and your own son would be, right?

So if you are a human and your son is a human, how many humans do you have? Two. Right?

If the Father is a God and Jesus is a God (that is what 'Divine' means, you know) and they are not the same entity, how many Gods do you have? TWO.

If you think they are both divine and are separate entities then you believe in TWO Gods.

I on the other hand think they are both divine but there is only ONE God, so if they are both "Gods" then they must, by logical implication, be the SAME God, even though they are two persons.

You can't have it your way and claim to not be polytheistic.

"...Ye believe in God believe also in me""...the only born Son of God"John 14:1 ;John 3:18

I have no problem calling Jesus, God after all He created me with His Father's Divine power thus proving that He himself is uncreated. He is God's only born.

But I can never call Jesus the One God of the Bible. The Scriptures are very clear that the only "One God" is the Father.

"there is but one God, the Father" 1st Corinthians 8:6 "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Ephesians 4:6 "For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; " Titus 2:5

Jesus the Son of God is My Lord and My God and I worship Him as such but He is not the true Original God. He Himself said that that is His Father John 17:3

No if Jesus is not the One God of the Bible and He is not the One True God of the Bible than how can I say that the trinity is true and they are siamese twins instead of One God the Father and His only born Son who He gave birth to in eternity.

T Smith was very correct to say that Jesus was born from the substance of the Father as the "express image His person"Hebrews 1:3 that's why I don't understand how can he say He is created. It is not possible for a created being to be born from an uncreated being. Thus Jesus "the Only born Son of God" must also be uncreated.

Express image - strong's #5481 charakter {khar-ak-tare'}
1) the instrument used for engraving or carving

2) the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it

a) a mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression

b) the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile

God has only one reproduction who came from His own Divine substance. He only has One Son who is exactly like/equal to Himself and that is His only born

So John Sparks will you stop tempting me to not believe the Bible that Jesus is God's only born Son who He sent into the world to save sinners? I am a sinner who needs to be saved and I can't afford to trust my salvation on your unbiblical doctrine. Thank you very much.

Krusader

April 7th 2005, 10:55 AM

"...Ye believe in God believe also in me""...the only born Son of God"John 14:1 ;John 3:18

I have no problem calling Jesus, God after all He created me with His Father's Divine power thus proving that He himself is uncreated. He is God's only born.

But I can never call Jesus the One God of the Bible. The Scriptures are very clear that the only "One God" is the Father.

"there is but one God, the Father" 1st Corinthians 8:6 "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Ephesians 4:6 "For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; " Titus 2:5

Jesus the Son of God is My Lord and My God and I worship Him as such but He is not the true Original God. He Himself said that that is His Father John 17:3

No if Jesus is not the One God of the Bible and He is not the One True God of the Bible than how can I say that the trinity is true and they are siamese twins instead of One God the Father and His only born Son who He gave birth to in eternity.

T Smith was very correct to say that Jesus was born from the substance of the Father as the "express image His person"Hebrews 1:3 that's why I don't understand how can he say He is created. It is not possible for a created being to be born from an uncreated being. Thus Jesus "the Only born Son of God" must also be uncreated.

Express image - strong's #5481 charakter {khar-ak-tare'}
1) the instrument used for engraving or carving

2) the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it

a) a mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression

b) the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile

God has only one reproduction who came from His own Divine substance. He only has One Son who is exactly like/equal to Himself and that is His only born

So John Sparks will you stop tempting me to not believe the Bible that Jesus is God's only born Son who He sent into the world to save sinners? I am a sinner who needs to be saved and I can't afford to trust my salvation on your unbiblical doctrine. Thank you very much.

Pioneer, why don't you be more clear in your thinking? To summarize, you are saying that the One True God is the Father. This would make Jesus an "untrue god," or false god.

Also, what you are really stressing is that Jesus was "born in eternity," or came into being by an act of the One True God. That there was a time that Jesus did not exist. This is, in fact, Arianism (not semi-arianism). You believe that Jesus has divine qualities, but that He is a lesser being, not to be equated with the Father.

Don't call yourself "semi-Arian," what you are preaching here is pure Arianism.

PioneerSDA

April 7th 2005, 01:14 PM

Pioneer, why don't you be more clear in your thinking? To summarize, you are saying that the One True God is the Father. This would make Jesus an "untrue god," or false god.

Also, what you are really stressing is that Jesus was "born in eternity," or came into being by an act of the One True God. That there was a time that Jesus did not exist. This is, in fact, Arianism (not semi-arianism). You believe that Jesus has divine qualities, but that He is a lesser being, not to be equated with the Father.

Don't call yourself "semi-Arian," what you are preaching here is pure Arianism.

If I don't believe what a Semi-Arian believes, than what does a Semi-Arian believe?

The first time I ever heard this word was when I saw this Trinitarian SDA website about how Ellen G White and the pioneers were Semi-Arians and they suposedly changed their minds. This was the definiton they gave me
[2. Semi Arianism. Semi Arians attempted a compromise be between the orthodox and Arian position on the nature of Christ. They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a different nature from God (anomoios dissimilar), but neither did they accept the Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was "of one substance ( homoousios) with the Father." Semi Arians taught that Christ was similar ( homoios) to the Father, or of like substance ( homoiousios), but still subordinate.]http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/trinitydoc.pdf

What is your definition of a Semi-Arian sense you say I am not one?

There are two reasons why I can't be an Arian.

#1 Arians believe Jesus is a created being and he was created at the beginning of creation not before creation in eternity
#2 Arians believe Jesus isn't equally Divine with His Father.

Where have I ever said that Jesus was a created being, a lesser being than His Father, an untrue false god?

Are you saying that because the Father is "The Only True God"John 17:3 like Jesus himself said that that must mean that Jesus is a false God? That is just not true. Hbr 8:2 speaks of the true (original) tabernacle in heaven but does that make the one on earth a false one?

Maybe I can give an example that will help.
1st Adam was created than Eve was formed from the substance of Adam.
Who was the only true (original) human? Ofcourse it was Adam but did that mean that she was a lesser being? No, she was equal with Adam because she had the same human nature.

That's similar to how when God gave birth to "His only born Son" out of His own Divine substance in eternity and His Son inherited the same nature and is equal with His Father even if they are not the same age.

And I don't like newer Bible translations but maybe you do and maybe this will help. KJV calls Christ "the only begotten Son"John 1:18 but other translations call Him the "only begotten God". Millions of people say God can't give birth to a Son in eternity equal in nature to Himself but I believe God rather than man.

Krusader

April 7th 2005, 02:06 PM

If I don't believe what a Semi-Arian believes, than what does a Semi-Arian believe?

The first time I ever heard this word was when I saw this Trinitarian SDA website about how Ellen G White and the pioneers were Semi-Arians and they suposedly changed their minds. This was the definiton they gave me
[2. Semi Arianism. Semi Arians attempted a compromise be between the orthodox and Arian position on the nature of Christ. They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a different nature from God (anomoios dissimilar), but neither did they accept the Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was "of one substance ( homoousios) with the Father." Semi Arians taught that Christ was similar ( homoios) to the Father, or of like substance ( homoiousios), but still subordinate.]http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/trinitydoc.pdf

What is your definition of a Semi-Arian sense you say I am not one?

There are two reasons why I can't be an Arian.

#1 Arians believe Jesus is a created being and he was created at the beginning of creation not before creation in eternity
#2 Arians believe Jesus isn't equally Divine with His Father.

Where have I ever said that Jesus was a created being, a lesser being than His Father, an untrue false god?

Are you saying that because the Father is "The Only True God"John 17:3 like Jesus himself said that that must mean that Jesus is a false God? That is just not true. Hbr 8:2 speaks of the true (original) tabernacle in heaven but does that make the one on earth a false one?

Maybe I can give an example that will help.
1st Adam was created than Eve was formed from the substance of Adam.
Who was the only true (original) human? Ofcourse it was Adam but did that mean that she was a lesser being? No, she was equal with Adam because she had the same human nature.

That's similar to how when God gave birth to "His only born Son" out of His own Divine substance in eternity and His Son inherited the same nature and is equal with His Father even if they are not the same age.

And I don't like newer Bible translations but maybe you do and maybe this will help. KJV calls Christ "the only begotten Son"John 1:18 but other translations call Him the "only begotten God". Millions of people say God can't give birth to a Son in eternity equal in nature to Himself but I believe God rather than man.

Let me ask you this Pioneer, do you believe that the Holy Ghost is a separate Person in the Godhead?

Sparko

April 7th 2005, 05:32 PM

Jesus is of divine substance, but he is a different being, for Hebrews 1:3 defines him as a "reproduction of [God]'s being". If there is the original being, God, and the reproduction, Jesus, that is two beings.

They you too are polytheistic.

You have TWO Gods. The Father and his clone, Jesus.

Sparko

April 7th 2005, 06:32 PM

You said I never responded fully to your post #47 So I will try to do so here.

May God and Christ His only male offspring bless you.
Thank you very much for bringing that to my attention. I certainly don't want to be a pollytheist. I left the SDA church for that very reason because it taught tritheism. On Gen 1:26 they say that is the trinity talking when the Bible says that is God talking to His Son. Maybe I should clarify how I mean equal. When I say that Jesus is equally divine with God I only mean that they have the same Divine nature. I don't believe that they are equal in age. I believe in the Father (originator) and His Son (male offspring younger than Himself with the same nature) I don't believe they are equal in authority. Jesus always calls his Father "My God" but the Father has no God. You seemed very concerend that I only believe in one God and you quoted some very good Isaiah passages. I believe Paul was refering to these when he wrote 1st Corinthians 8. Please let's look at a couple of these verses together.

OK. First, I disagree that the Father is older than the Son. I say they were always Father and Son, from eternity. never were they apart.

If you are correct and the Father is older than the Son, then the Father would have had to create time before he 'begot' the son. That would make at least ONE thing that was created without the Son, and would show John 1:3 and Col 1:16 false, correct?

"...there is none other God but one For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him..."1st Corinthians 8:4-6

The Apostle Paul is very clear that the One God to Christians is the Father but let's keep reading. "...and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."1st Corinthians 8:6

Since the Father is called Lord also throughout the bible, doesn't that tell you that Paul is saying that they are one and the same?

The Apostle Paul also said that we have One Lord who must be equally Divine (even though He Himself is not the One God or any part of the One God) because He created us along with God the Father. Earlier in first Corinthians the Apostle Paul shares with us the relationship between this One God and One Lord.

"God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." 1st Corinthians 1:9

Yes, but the bible also directly calls Jesus God directly:

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

--

He says that this One Lord is the His Son so I am not worshiping two Gods by not believing in the trinity. I am worshipping One God and His equally Divine Son who He gave birth to in eternity according to the scriptures. Is this so much unlike what the Ancient Jews believed?

"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is HIS SON's name, if thou canst tell? " Proverbs 30:4

"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. " Daniel 3;25

The Prophet Daniel was such a faithful witness that even a pagan king can recognize Jesus better than us because we don't believe God is powerful and truthful enough to really give birth an only born Son and our unbiblical trinitarian minds make Jesus out to be some kind of third head instead of who he said he was.

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? I never said Jesus was not the son of God. But that means the son of God the Father. It does not mean that he is not God the Son.

"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. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. " John 3:16,17 K.J.V.

The actual word here in greek really means "preeminent" or "first" in the sense of inheritence.

You seemed very concerened that I learn the truth of the Comforter well don't worry. I am a Christian and I have accepted Jesus into my heart. I believe I feel as happy as diciples did when Jesus told them "...he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." John 14:17,18 K.J.V.

And who did Jesus say would come? Himself, yes, But who did he say would come right before he said that:

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

We see that the Father will send ANOTHER counselor. It can't be Jesus because he says ANOTHER. But he said it would also be him. That is because the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity and is the Counselor Jesus spoke of. And since the Holy Spirit is God and Jesus is God, even though the Father is sending ANOTHER counselor to us, we have Jesus too, because he is God.

And we know the counselor is the Holy Spirit because Jesus tells us so:

26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Surely I know that the Father is God and Jesus is Lord and I even know who the Spirit is because the Apostle Paul said "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty. " 2nd Corinthians 3:17

and the Holy Spirit is a person too!

Isaiah 63: 10 Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them.

Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

How can a force be grieved? Only a person can feel grief.

Luke 12:10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Blasphemy is a sin against God, to speak irreverently or slander God Himself. You can’t blaspheme an impersonal force. This verse shows the Holy Spirit is a person, equal to God.

1 Corinthians 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

Hebrews 10:15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

Acts1:16 and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus--
:
The Holy Spirit testifies and teaches, is called a "he" and a "who", can be grieved, and can be blasphemed. He is a person and he is God.

You seemed very concerened that I know who the only true (original) God is. Well John recorded Jesus giving us the answer when he was praying to His heavenly Father and said "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. " John 17:3

"..God sent his only begotten Son into the world.."1st John 4:9 The Bible is clear that Jesus was God's only born before he ever came into the world to be born again, this time as a human.

John also said that "the word was God" in john 1:1. And as you yourself said previously, the greek actually says THE God. The word was THE God. Not "a" God. THE God. The one and only God. the true God.

Jesus told us that to have eternal life we must believe the Father is the only true (original) God and in His only born Son. I am not denying the divinity of Christ. I am not calling Him a lesser God or another God or another part of God. I am just saying that He is God's true literal Son and that means he has the same Divine nature as His Father. I do not worship two Gods. I worship One God and His only born equally Divine Son who He gave birth to in eternity.

But if there are two Gods, whether you worship both or not, two beings being equally divine would be two Gods, right?

And there cannot be two Gods, even if you don't worship the second one. God made that very clear!

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me"

God specifically says that no God existed before him and none came after him, so he could not have begotten another God could he?

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

This clearly says that apart from God there is NO OTHER. None is like God. So you can't have the Father and the Son being two beings and both being equally divine because then you have someone who is LIKE God, right? And God says none is like him. He says there is no God besides him. No other Rock.

But we do know Jesus was the rock too.

1 Cor. 10:4 "...for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." See also 1 Peter 2:6-8.

"We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we can know the True One. And our lives are in the True One and in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and the eternal life." 1st John 5:20 New Century Version

Actually the "he" in the last sentence refers to Jesus as being the true God. Who is the eternal life? Jesus is.

John 4:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=4&verse=14&version=31&context=verse)
but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

John 6:54 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&verse=54&version=31&context=verse)
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:68 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&verse=68&version=31&context=verse)
Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

John 10:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=10&verse=28&version=31&context=verse)
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.

John 1:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&verse=4&version=31&context=verse)
In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

John 14:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=14&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

My sincere prayer is that Jesus's God blesses you with the promise of Ephesians 1:17 "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowlege of Him"

My sincere prayer to you is

2 Kings 6:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=12&chapter=6&verse=17&version=31&context=verse)
And Elisha prayed, "O LORD , open his eyes so he may see." Then the LORD opened the servant's eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

I pray that the Father will open your eyes to the truth.

--
Here are some other passage comparisons that show Jesus is YHWH, Lord God of Abraham.

YHWH is Creator

Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

Isaiah 48:13 "My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together.

Jesus is Creator

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col. 1:16-17 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. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

YHWH is the "First and the Last"

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

Isaiah 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last."

Jesus is the "First and the Last"

Rev. 1:17 "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.’"

Rev. 2:8 "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again."

Rev. 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

YHWH is "I AM" (ego eimi)

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"

Isaiah 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."

See also Deut. 32.39

Jesus is "I AM" (ego eimi in Greek)

John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (NKJV)

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

YHWH is Judge

Ezekiel 34:17 "`As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats. 20 "`Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21 Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, 22 I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another.

Jesus is Judge

Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

John 5: 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him

YHWH is Savior

Isaiah 43:3 "For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior"

Isaiah 45:21 "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Hosea 13: 4 "But I am the LORD your God, [who brought you] out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.

Jesus is Savior

John 4:42 "They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.’"

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world

YHWH is Shepherd

Psalm 23:1 Psalm 23 A psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.

Isaiah 40:11 He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young.

Ezekiel 34:11 "`For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign LORD. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.

Jesus is Shepherd

John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

Hebrews 13:20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,

See also John 10:14,16; 1 Pet. 2:25

John 10: 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

YHWH is the Light

Psalm 27:1 "The LORD is my light and my salvation -- whom shall I fear?"

Isaiah 60:20 Your sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end.

1 John 1:5 "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."

Jesus is the Light

John 8:12 "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Luke 2:32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel."

See also John 1:7-9

Sparko

April 7th 2005, 06:43 PM

"...Ye believe in God believe also in me""...the only born Son of God"John 14:1 ;John 3:18

I have no problem calling Jesus, God after all He created me with His Father's Divine power thus proving that He himself is uncreated. He is God's only born.

But I can never call Jesus the One God of the Bible. The Scriptures are very clear that the only "One God" is the Father.

"there is but one God, the Father" 1st Corinthians 8:6 "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Ephesians 4:6 "For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; " Titus 2:5

Jesus the Son of God is My Lord and My God and I worship Him as such but He is not the true Original God. He Himself said that that is His Father John 17:3

No if Jesus is not the One God of the Bible and He is not the One True God of the Bible than how can I say that the trinity is true and they are siamese twins instead of One God the Father and His only born Son who He gave birth to in eternity.

T Smith was very correct to say that Jesus was born from the substance of the Father as the "express image His person"Hebrews 1:3 that's why I don't understand how can he say He is created. It is not possible for a created being to be born from an uncreated being. Thus Jesus "the Only born Son of God" must also be uncreated.

Express image - strong's #5481 charakter {khar-ak-tare'}
1) the instrument used for engraving or carving

2) the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it

a) a mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression

b) the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile

God has only one reproduction who came from His own Divine substance. He only has One Son who is exactly like/equal to Himself and that is His only born

So John Sparks will you stop tempting me to not believe the Bible that Jesus is God's only born Son who He sent into the world to save sinners? I am a sinner who needs to be saved and I can't afford to trust my salvation on your unbiblical doctrine. Thank you very much.

Uh, if you believe that there is only one God and you have no problem calling Jesus God, and you think he is equal in divinity to God, then you practically already DO believe in the Trinity. You just won't admit to the term. At least a Twonity :-) - Once you admit that the Holy Spirit is God, then you will have the whole thing...

If you believe that Jesus is God, and the Father is God, and there is ONE God, then you must either believe in TWO Gods or at least a 2/3rd of the Trinity.

:thumb:

Tsmith

April 7th 2005, 07:03 PM

They you too are polytheistic.

You have TWO Gods. The Father and his clone, Jesus.

I am hardly polytheistic, you simply have no concept of what the word "god" means and what Biblical monotheism really is.

Tsmith

April 7th 2005, 07:05 PM

Tsmith

April 7th 2005, 07:06 PM

I really didn't find it funny. One time you and Dee Dee Warren were having an argument about nothing and it went on for along time and then lately everybody was quoting Origen and I really hate his teachings. He is the one that invented that false eternal generation theory that gave way for the trinity doctrine.

I sure hope there is no rule about threads going off topic. Well if you won't tell the Moderators I won't.

I'm just really glad this thread has been livining up a bit. It's thanks to you and John Sparks, I haven't had a thread come to life like this before.

Doesn't Hebrews 1:3 prove that Jesus is exacly like His Father in every way?
Please reply to my Post #123

Hebrews 1:3 proves only that Jesus is made of the same type of stuff as his Father. And that there are thus two of that type of stuff. Two beings.

Sparko

April 7th 2005, 07:08 PM

I am hardly polytheistic, you simply have no concept of what the word "god" means and what Biblical monotheism really is.

:lmbo:

You believe in several Gods and still claim to be monotheistic?

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

Tsmith

April 7th 2005, 07:13 PM

I don't know these languages so I will have to take your word for it that they are similar in ways but I know one way they are not similar. In the Greek New Testament the only beings called gods are beings who are worshipped. The only time that beings were called gods who weren't worshipped in the Greek New Testament is when Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament. So why did you show me the Septuagint? Isn't the Septuagint just quoting from the O.T. like Jesus is? You haven't disproved my point. Show me some Greek writing that is not talking about the O.T. where beings are called Gods who are not worshipped. Greek is more similar to English than it is to Hebrew. and in my language. God means deity, one who is worshipped. And the only time where God doesn't mean that is when I am reading the Old Testament that was translated from the Hebrew that has a generic word for God elohim or when I am reading that one part of the GNT where jesus is quoting the O.T.

You err in taking the New Testament in issolation. It is no such thing, it is part of the common Greek literature of the day. Therefore, my appeal to the LXX is entirely viable, as it too is Koine Greek.

So, when I go to Psalms 82:6 in the LXX, I am entirely justified in my argument. As I have shown via Greek lexicons, your argument on the meaning is 100% false.

Greek and English don't have generic word for God like the Hebrew "elohim" In our languages God mean God, not angels. God means God, not humans. Jesus might not be the same God but he is the same type of God as His Father even if they have diferent substances/entities and the Son is younger.

The Greek word QEOS is actually very generic and is used for multiple people, include God, men, and those who deliver the word of God. I have demonstrated this with BDAG. They are not even the same type of God. John 1:18 rules this out, because the type of God Jesus is is modified by the adjective. God the Father is not this type of God.

God creates. His Son creates. God gives life. His Son also gives life. Which no created being can ever do, I don't know where an organization would ever get the idea that God could give a created angel the power to create. That really doesn't make any sense when you think about it. He is God's only born. He never said he was His first created. Sometimes arians are just as bad as trinitarians reading their false doctrines into scriptures. You've heard the Arian view about John 1:1,2 and you've heard the trinitarian view. Now let's read a diferent view. I am really interested in hearing your comment about this quote.

The son does not create. The son only gives life because the Father has given him the authority to do so. You're right that no created things can do these things, UNLESS God gives him the power and authority to do so. Jesus has been given these things, as scripture clearly testifies. Revelation 3:14 and Proverbs 8:22 both speak of him as being the first created.... and if you care to make translation issue out of either of these I will be happy to provide you the full weight of evidence that these are the correct views.

[However, the word “God” is used in a few places with reference to the fact that Jesus, as the Son of God possesses all the attributes and qualities of divinity. One striking example of this is John 1:1 where it says, “the word [Jesus] was with [the]God [the Father]and the word [Jesus] was God (a divine Being, possessing the attributes of God).” Please note that in the Greek Scriptures the word the, the definite article, is before the word God when used with reference to the Father, because it is speaking of a particular person. However, it is not used when the word refers to Christ, because then, it is not referring to a person, but to a quality. It is not saying that Jesus, or the Word was the person, God. He was not the same Person He was with, but He had the attributes, the qualities of God, or of divinity.

Jesus then, is truly God by nature!! He possesses all the fullness of the godhead (Col. 2:9). He possesses “all power [exousia - authority, not dunamis as in Matt. 6:13]” in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). The ability to give life, to create, to know all things, to see all things, to do all things are His. The apostle Paul declares that in His pre-existence He was “in the form of God (Phil. 2:6),” that He is “the express image” of God (Heb. 1:3),” that He is before all things (Col. 1:17) and that He upholds all things “by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3). Therefore, none can deny the divinity or godhood of Jesus Christ. To do this, one must first of all deny the Scriptures.

Yet Jesus was given the fullness of the godhead (Col 1:19), he was GIVEN all power (Matthew 28:18). The rest is indeed true. I do not deny his divinity, but his divinity was given to him.

Yet, even as we take account of the truth of the full divinity of Jesus Christ, we must also acknowledge, if we are honest, that the Bible consistently speaks of God as a single individual Person, and makes it clear that this Person is exclusively, God the Father. The following verses illustrate this truth clearly.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:3)

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3)

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:6)

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph 4:6)

And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. (Rev 21:22)

These verses are just examples. There are dozens more which teach the same truth. How then can we reconcile ttwo truths, both of which are clearly taught by Scripture, yet which seems to contradict each other?

(a) That Jesus is God by nature, fully divine.

(b) That there is only one God, who is the Father.] quoted from The Divinity of Christ by David Clayton under the section is Jesus truly God?
http://restorationministry.com/Open_Face/html/2000/open_face_dec__2000.htm

Thank you for all of your help. May God and His Divine Son who He gave birth to in eternity bless you.

You may want to go to www.scripturaltruths.com. I think you'll understand my position much better after reviewing the studies there.

Sparko

April 7th 2005, 07:13 PM

Hebrews 1:3 proves only that Jesus is made of the same type of stuff as his Father. And that there are thus two of that type of stuff. Two beings.

Stuff? God Stuff? Wouldn't that make TWO Gods?

Tsmith

April 7th 2005, 07:14 PM

:lmbo:

You believe in several Gods and still claim to be monotheistic?

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

Care to keep those in context? Who is he talking about? Idols.

Psalms 82:6 You are gods, sons of the most high.

Psalms 8:5 You made him a little lower than the gods...

Tsmith

April 7th 2005, 07:15 PM

Stuff? God Stuff? Wouldn't that make TWO Gods?

Hardly. God is not God because of simply what he is made of. He has power, he has authority, he has knowledge. Christ only has of these what he has been given.

Sparko

April 7th 2005, 07:36 PM

Care to keep those in context? Who is he talking about? Idols.

Psalms 82:6 You are gods, sons of the most high.

Psalms 8:5 You made him a little lower than the gods...

Context?

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

Is there any God besides me? No,

Does that NEED any context?

I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Does that NEED any context?

NO!

Of course he was talking about Idols. What are idols? FALSE GODS. Why are they FALSE? Because "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

There are NO OTHER Gods. NONE. None were before God and none after God.

Hardly. God is not God because of simply what he is made of. He has power, he has authority, he has knowledge. Christ only has of these what he has been given.

of course if something was made of the same "stuff" God was made of he would have all of the same attributes of God and would BE God. If you had a son, would he be human? Why? because he is made of the same stuff you are.

Jesus is called OUR God.

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

who will be coming in the Glorious appearing? Jesus. Who is our Savior? Jesus, who is OUR God? Jesus.

So, if the Father and Son are two different Beings, then you have TWO different Gods.

Tsmith

April 7th 2005, 08:06 PM

Context?

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

Is there any God besides me? No,

Does that NEED any context?

I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Does that NEED any context?

NO!

Of course he was talking about Idols. What are idols? FALSE GODS. Why are they FALSE? Because "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

There are NO OTHER Gods. NONE. None were before God and none after God.

of course if something was made of the same "stuff" God was made of he would have all of the same attributes of God and would BE God. If you had a son, would he be human? Why? because he is made of the same stuff you are.

Jesus is called OUR God.

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

who will be coming in the Glorious appearing? Jesus. Who is our Savior? Jesus, who is OUR God? Jesus.

So, if the Father and Son are two different Beings, then you have TWO different Gods.

Wow yes.. it doesn't need a context for you to misrepresent it. Is God saying that there are no angels who are called gods? No. Is he saying there are no judges who are called gods? No. He is saying that these idols are not real gods. Reading Isaiah 40-46 this is glaringly apparent.

"God" is a title, it is not a stuff. You err in comparing "God" to "human". Human is a type of being, God is a title. Human is not a title.

Titus 2:13 does not call Christ God. It says "the appearing of the glory of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ." That is a literal, word for word translation of the text.

Yes, I have two different gods.. the jews had many called gods. They referenced the angels as gods and the judges as gods. None of these were considered false gods either. You simply fail to graps the meaning and use of the word "god".

Tsmith

April 7th 2005, 08:09 PM

Does the Bible allow only for the one true God (John 17:3) and false gods? Or do we find scripture assigning other classes the title of “god” for various reasons?

The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary helps us to answer this question, noting3: “This term deity is used… in a singular sense of the one true God in a plural of majesty of excellence … [and] of judges or prophets as ‘to whom the word of God came’ (John 10:35; Ps. 82:6), and whom God consequently dignified with authority to bear His own name.”

The psalmist envisioned God presiding over an assembly of judges. The word gods (’ělōhîm) is used here for authorities in Israel (cf. 45:6; Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9). Some have thought this refers to angels (e.g., the Syriac trans.) in God’s heavenly court. However, the remainder of the psalm clarifies that these are God’s representatives who are in authority on earth. (Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.)

An example of what is describe by Unger is found in Psalm 82. In this particular chapter, the human judges are called gods, demonstrating their agency for God. They serve by his appointment, judging the nation in his behalf.

Psalm 82:1 A Psalm of Asaph God stands in the assembly of the mighty; He judges in the midst of the gods.

Keil & Delitzsch’s Commentary on the Old Testament notes4: “Everywhere among men, but here pre-eminently, those in authority are God's delegates and the bearers of His image, and therefore as His representatives are also themselves called elohim, “gods”.”

It is interesting to note that some have attempted to dismiss this as sarcasm, arguing that they really are not to be called “gods” at all. However, note the following verse.

Psalm 82:6 I have said, You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.

How could they be sarcastically called “sons of the Most High”? It would not make any sense, and yet the statement “You are gods” is used in parallel here. We thus find that K&D5 notes that “the idea that the appellation elohim, which they have given to themselves, is only sarcastically given back to them in Psa_82:1 (Ewald, Olshausen), is refuted by Psa_82:6, according to which they are really elohim by the grace of God.”

Why then the following verse?

Psalm 82:7 But you shall die as men, and fall like one of the rulers.

We will again make reference to Keil and Delitzsch, as they note: “They shall die off כּאדם, like common men not rising in any degree above the mass (cf. בּני אדם, opp. בּני אישׁ, Psa_4:3; Psa_49:3); they shall fall like any one (Jdg_16:7, Oba_1:11) of the princes who in the course of history have been cast down by the judgment of God (Hos_7:7). Their divine office will not protect them.”

Further clarification can be found elsewhere in scripture on this matter as well, where there is a strong possibility of a reference to the judges as gods.

Exodus 22:8 If the thief is not found, the master of the house shall be brought to God [or, the gods], to see whether or not he put out his hand to his neighbor's goods.

It is interesting to note that numerous translations provide the rendering of “judges” or “gods” instead of “God”, as ELOHIM is used here. The Amplified Bible highlights the matter, providing the following.

Exodus 22:8 But if the thief is not found, the house owner shall appear before God [the judges as His agents] to find whether he stole his neighbor's goods. (bracketed text included in original)

It is difficult to be certain whether this is a direct reference to God or not, though it seems unlikely, for it states that they “shall be brought to ELOHIM”, something rather difficult to fully gather, unless it is speaking of the judges as God’s agents.

John Gill highlights this issue further, noting6: “Here called Elohim, gods, because they were God's vicegerents, and represented him, and acted under his power and authority; and who at this present were Moses, and those that judged the people under him, and afterwards the seventy elders, and all such who in succeeding times were judges in Israel, and bore the office of civil magistrates.”

Therefore, the title ELOHIM was appropriately applied to the human judges, for they acted in God’s authority, as his personal agents, where the agent takes the name or title of the one whom he or they are representing.

The same would be said of QEOS as well in Greek. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature explains7: “Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: o]j a] para. tou/ qeou/ la,bwn e;cei, tau/ta toi/j evpideome,noij corhgw/n, qeo.j gi,netai tw/n lambana,ntwn one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother). Such understanding led to the extension of the mng. of q[eos][god] to pers[ons] who elicit special reverence (cp. pass. under 4 below; a similar development can be observed in the use of se,bomai and cognates).”

An example of this type of legal agency is clearly demonstrated in the gospel accounts. Comparing the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke we find that each author writes from their own perspective, one providing the view in terms of agency, and the other providing the details of the actual event.

Matthew 8:5 And Jesus, entering into Capernaum, a centurion came near to Him, begging Him, 6 and saying, Lord, my child has been laid in the house, a paralytic, being grievously tormented.

Within this first passage we have found that the centurion is said to have come to Jesus, begging him for help. Yet, let us note what Luke writes regarding this same passage.

Luke 7:3 And having heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him, asking Him that He might come to restore his slave. 4 And coming to Jesus, they earnestly begged Him, saying, He to whom You give this is worthy.

Is this a contradiction? Not at all, as Adam Clarke explains: “It is a usual form of speech in all nations, to attribute the act to a person which is done not by himself, but by his authority.” Thus, when it says that the “elders of the Jews” were the ones that begged him, we note that it says “he sent them.” These were acting as his legal agents.

This point is highlighted further by G.W. Buchanan8: “As apostle or agent he was sent with the full authority of the one who sent him. A man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has power of attorney for the one who sent him. . . He has the authority of an ambassador who speaks in behalf of a king in negotiating for his country (Ber. 5:5). Jesus said that the one who received his apostles whom he had sent received Jesus himself, and not only Jesus, but the one who had sent him. (John 13:20). . . Legally Jesus was identical with the Father, but physically the Father was greater. . . As an ambassador or apostle, the Son has authority over everything since he is given legal authority and is supported in everything he does "by the word of [God's] power." He speaks for the One who sent him.”

For these reasons we do not have a problem applying the title “God” to Jesus, and even the proper name Jehovah in cases of legal agency. Jehovah can very well do things, with his son acting as his legal agent. In truth, if Christ is acting as God’s agent, any title applicable to God is potentially applicable to Christ at that time. Does that make Christ Almighty God? No, but simply his legal agent.

Tsmith

April 7th 2005, 08:11 PM

Let us look at some examples in Isaiah to prove how we MUST keep this in the context of idols.

Isaiah 45:5 I am Jehovah, and there is none else; there is no God except Me. I will clothe you, though you do not know Me,

We find that Jehovah makes the statement, “there is no God except Me.” Does this therefore mean that what we have thus far discussed on the judges and angels is false? Not at all, for within the context, we he is making reference to certain ones. Who?

Beginning in Isaiah chapter 40, we find that Jehovah is making a comparison between himself and idol gods. This continues on in the next several chapters, including 45. Here are a few scriptural examples from the context to demonstrate this.

Isaiah 44:10 Who has formed a god, or poured out an image to no profit?

Isaiah 44:15 And it shall be for a man to burn; yea, he takes of them and is warmed; and he kindles it and bakes bread. Yea, he makes a god and worships; he makes a carved image and bows to it. 16 He burns half of it in the fire; he eats flesh on half of it; he roasts roast, and is satisfied. Then he warms himself and says, Ah, I am warm; I have seen the fire. 17 And he makes a god of the rest, his carved image; he bows to it and worships, and prays to it, and says, Deliver me, for you are my god.

Isaiah 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth. I did not say to Jacob's seed, Seek Me in vain. I Jehovah speak righteousness, declaring right things. 20 Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, escaped ones of the nations; the ones who set up the wood of their carved image, and the ones who pray to a god who cannot save; they know nothing.

An example that demonstrates for us that we must take these verses in a contextually limited sense is found in chapter 43. We find here that Jehovah makes a statement that we must take contextually limited, or we find ourselves 1) with a contradiction or 2) trying to explain away what is stated elsewhere.

Isaiah 43:11 I, I am Jehovah; and there is no Savior besides Me.

Now, the statement is clearly found in the context of Jehovah’s discussion on idols.

Isaiah 42:17 they are turned back; they are ashamed with shame, those trusting in the carved image, who say to cast images, You are our gods.

If we were to isolate this statement of “no Savior besides Me” to an absolute sense, and not in the sense of idols, it would contradict scripture!

Judges 3:15 And the sons of Israel cried to Jehovah, even Jehovah raised up a savior to them, Ehud the son of Gera, a son of the Benjamite, a man with his right hand impeded. And the sons of Israel sent a present by his hand to Eglon the king of Moab.

The Hebrew word Yasha is found in used at Judges 3:15 in application to Ehud, the same word that Jehovah uses of himself in Isaiah 43:11. Do we deny that Ehud was a savior to Israel? No, and neither do we deny that Jehovah is a savior to Israel, which is the context of Isaiah 43. The point is that all salvation comes from Jehovah, be it through another as God’s agent or directly from God himself. Jehovah saved Israel through Ehud, and so Ehud could rightly be called a savior, but Jehovah was the ultimate source of this saving.

Therefore, in consideration of the following verses, we realize that the statement is made in the contextual confinements of idols.

Isaiah 43:10 You are My witnesses, says Jehovah; and My servant whom I have elected; that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed; nor shall any be after Me.

Specifically, this again is speaking within the context of idols. Does it mean that no angels were formed? That no judges were formed? For these ones we have seen are called gods, are they not? Certainly so! Note the following verse.

Psalm 136:2 O give thanks to the God of gods; for His mercy endures forever.

Are these idol gods that Jehovah is the God of? Most certainly not, for he is not the god of such things. He is the god of the living.

Luke 20:38 But He is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to Him.

And yet, are idols alive? Are they living? No they are not, for they are not even real, and yet the gods spoken of in Psalm 136:2 must be, for he is the God of them!

Isaiah 41:23 Reveal the near things hereafter, so that we may know that you are gods. Yea, do good, or do evil, that we may gaze and see together. 24 Behold, you are of nothing; and your work of nothing; he who chooses you is an abomination.

Idols are “nothing,” they are not real gods. They are simply a statue that someone forms and worships. A piece of wood, some molded metal. They are not alive at all. Yet Jehovah is “the God of the gods,” the God of the angels, the God of the judges. These ones can rightfully be called gods, for they are appointed by God himself, and in the case of angels, they partake of the divine nature of spirit.

Another example of a contextually limited passage is found within Jeremiah, and as with Isaiah, the context is very explicit.

Jeremiah 10:11 So you shall say to them, The gods who have not made the heavens and the earth, they shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens.

As can be seen from the following, the context is unquestionably speaking of idols.

Jeremiah 10:3 For the ordinances of the people are vanity. For one cuts a tree out of the forest with the axe, the work of the hands of the craftsman. 4 They adorn it with silver and with gold; they make them strong with nails and hammers, so that it will not wobble. 5 They are like a rounded post, and they cannot speak; carrying they must be carried, because they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil nor good; it is not with them.

The people of the nations were making their gods, yet these gods were incapable for doing anything, for we know they were “nothing” (Isa. 41:24).

Sparko

April 7th 2005, 08:35 PM

Wow yes.. it doesn't need a context for you to misrepresent it. Is God saying that there are no angels who are called gods? No. Is he saying there are no judges who are called gods? No. He is saying that these idols are not real gods. Reading Isaiah 40-46 this is glaringly apparent.

right they are not REAL Gods. He is saying there are no REAL Gods beside him. He is the only true God.

"God" is a title, it is not a stuff. You err in comparing "God" to "human". Human is a type of being, God is a title. Human is not a title.

God is what he is. It is not a just a title in reference to YHWH, it is WHAT he is. "Father" is a title. God is his nature. God is what he IS.

If God, whatever he is, had a son, who was his EXPRESS image, in every way, that would mean his Son had all of his attributes and powers. That would make him a God. And if you think he is another being, then you have TWO Gods.

He expressly says that there are NO OTHER Gods beside him. NONE, Nada, Zip, Zilch.

Titus 2:13 does not call Christ God. It says "the appearing of the glory of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ." That is a literal, word for word translation of the text.

Not it is not. Actually if you want to get LITERAL word for word , in order, it says in Greek:

Waiting the blessed hope and appearing the glory/glorious the great God and Savior, our Jesus Christ.

That is word for word literal.

Jamieson, Faucet and Brown says:

the glorious appearing--There is but one Greek article to both "hope" and "appearing," which marks their close connection (the hope being about to be realized only at the appearing of Christ). Translate, "The blessed hope and manifestation (compare Note, see on Tit_2:11) of the glory." The Greek for "manifestation" is translated "brightness" in 2Th_2:8. As His "coming" (Greek, "parousia") expresses the fact; so "brightness, appearing," or "manifestation" (epiphaneia) expresses His personal visibility when He shall come.

the great God and our Saviour Jesus--There is but one Greek article to "God" and "Saviour," which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being. "Of Him who is at once the great God and our Saviour." Also (2) "appearing" (epiphaneia) is never by Paul predicated of God the Father (Joh_1:18; 1Ti_6:16), or even of "His glory" (as ALFORD explains it): it is invariably applied to CHRIST'S coming, to which (at His first advent, compare 2Ti_1:10) the kindred verb "appeared" (epephanee), Tit_2:11, refers (1Ti_6:14; 2Ti_4:1, 2Ti_4:8). Also (3) in the context (Tit_2:14) there is no reference to the Father, but to Christ alone; and here there is no occasion for reference to the Father in the exigencies of the context. Also (4) the expression "great God," as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as "the true God" is predicated of Christ, 1Jo_5:20. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. Deu_7:21; Deu_10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making "the great God" to be the Father, "our Saviour," the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to "the glory" of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God.

Yes, I have two different gods.. the jews had many called gods. They referenced the angels as gods and the judges as gods. None of these were considered false gods either. You simply fail to graps the meaning and use of the word "god".

Yep you are a polytheist and heretical.

Tsmith

April 7th 2005, 09:04 PM

right they are not REAL Gods. He is saying there are no REAL Gods beside him. He is the only true God.

Within this context. Every time you reply you refuse to engage Psalms 82:6 and 8:5. 8:5 especially damages your position.

God is what he is. It is not a just a title in reference to YHWH, it is WHAT he is. "Father" is a title. God is his nature. God is what he IS.

That is absurd. God is not a nature, God is his position. You have absolutely no backing for this position. Grammatically, God is a title. Nothing more.

If God, whatever he is, had a son, who was his EXPRESS image, in every way, that would mean his Son had all of his attributes and powers. That would make him a God. And if you think he is another being, then you have TWO Gods.

Except "express image" has nothing to do with attributes and powers. Christ himself says he does nothing of himself. Yes, they are two gods. One is the Almighty God, the other is a god. The angels are gods too according to Psalms 8:5. This is called excepting scripture.. You refuse to engage all of the facts, you only take the ones you want. There is no picking and choosing in scripture.

He expressly says that there are NO OTHER Gods beside him. NONE, Nada, Zip, Zilch.

Yes, he also says there is no savior other than him, yet scripture expressly calls Ehud a savior. Hence we know we MUST contextually qualify these statements.

Not it is not. Actually if you want to get LITERAL word for word , in order, it says in Greek:

Waiting the blessed hope and appearing the glory/glorious the great God and Savior, our Jesus Christ.

Apparently you do not know Greek, do you?

It is EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU

"appearking of the glory [DOXHS is a genitive, so we say "of"] of the great God [again, a genitive, so we say "of"] and our savior (hHMWN is genitive pronoun, so in English we put it in reverse order, instead of "savior of us" we say "our savior] Jesus Christ.

That is word for word literal.

Jamieson, Faucet and Brown says:

the glorious appearing--There is but one Greek article to both "hope" and "appearing," which marks their close connection (the hope being about to be realized only at the appearing of Christ). Translate, "The blessed hope and manifestation (compare Note, see on Tit_2:11) of the glory." The Greek for "manifestation" is translated "brightness" in 2Th_2:8. As His "coming" (Greek, "parousia") expresses the fact; so "brightness, appearing," or "manifestation" (epiphaneia) expresses His personal visibility when He shall come.

the great God and our Saviour Jesus--There is but one Greek article to "God" and "Saviour," which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being. "Of Him who is at once the great God and our Saviour." Also (2) "appearing" (epiphaneia) is never by Paul predicated of God the Father (Joh_1:18; 1Ti_6:16), or even of "His glory" (as ALFORD explains it): it is invariably applied to CHRIST'S coming, to which (at His first advent, compare 2Ti_1:10) the kindred verb "appeared" (epephanee), Tit_2:11, refers (1Ti_6:14; 2Ti_4:1, 2Ti_4:8). Also (3) in the context (Tit_2:14) there is no reference to the Father, but to Christ alone; and here there is no occasion for reference to the Father in the exigencies of the context. Also (4) the expression "great God," as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as "the true God" is predicated of Christ, 1Jo_5:20. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. Deu_7:21; Deu_10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making "the great God" to be the Father, "our Saviour," the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to "the glory" of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God.

Actually the single article is used to denote the single concept. Note what Smyth's grammar states: "The single article, use with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion... the generals and captains (the commanding offers)... the largest and smallest ships... the calumniation and envy of the multitude..."

The single notion in Titus 2:13 is the single appearing, which is what Jesus spoke of in Luke.

Luke 9:26 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My Words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that one when He comes in His glory, and that of the Father, and of the holy angels.

Yep you are a polytheist and heretical.

No, I'm not, you just don't have Biblical monotheism.

PioneerSDA

April 7th 2005, 11:07 PM

I'm not.. just found it funny.

I'm sorry I was rude to you last night. I shouldn't have snapped at you just because you thought something was funny. I seriously need to learn how to take a joke. When you get some free time please answer my post #123

Tsmith

April 7th 2005, 11:18 PM

I'm sorry I was rude to you last night. I shouldn't have snapped at you just because you thought something was funny. I seriously need to learn how to take a joke. When you get some free time please answer my post #123

Thanks. I'll reply now.

Tsmith

April 7th 2005, 11:23 PM

Very interesting. You believe that Jesus was born from God's Divine Substance? Than how is he created? The only reason I am created is because I was born from a created being. And Adam was born from the created dirt so he was created. And angels were all born from a created material or they were born from nothing so they are created. But if Jesus was born from God's Divine Substance proves that He is God's only born and inherited His Father's Divine nature and can also be called God because He is equally Divine with Himself. Arius went wrong because He said Jesus was born from nothing but Jesus said He was born from God.

He is created much inthe same way I am, hence Prov 8 speaks of it as birth. I was born of my parents substance, but I did not exist at one point. My parents each produced a cell and those 2 cells produced me.

In the case of God, he produced a being. He gave that being life (Hence John 1:4 says "What came to be in him was life".

The key to Jesus' divinity is that it was not something that was inheritly is, but in God's creation of Christ he chose for him to be divine. That is why it says that "God happily chose for the fulness to dwell in him." (Col 1:19)

PioneerSDA

April 7th 2005, 11:37 PM

Let me ask you this Pioneer, do you believe that the Holy Ghost is a separate Person in the Godhead?

No, I don't believe the Holy Spirit is a seperate person in the Godhead. He is the spirit/mind of the only person in the Godhead and that is the Father.

The Word Godhead in the Bible doesn't mean trinity. It means Divinity.

[What about where it says that in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead?

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead 2320 bodily.” (Colossians 2:9) the Greek word qeothtoV that was translated Godhead in this verse was only used once in the Bible. Paul makes it clear what he was referring to earlier in this letter. “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.” (Colossians 1:19) This fullness is further clarified in the following verse: “God [the Father] was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” (2 Corinthians 5:19)

When it says that in Christ was “all the fulness of the Godhead,” the term Godhead refers to God, the Father, who is the head of His Son. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3)

The Bible says that we also can be filled with all the fullness of God. “And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.” (Ephesians 3:19)

This is accomplished by God allowing us to be partakers of His divine nature. “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine 2304 nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2 Peter 1:4) The Greek word that was translated divine was also translated Godhead in Acts 17:29.

God was in Christ, and Christ can be in us, which is our hope of glory. “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” (Colossians 1:27)] quoted from The Truth About God By Lynnford Beachy of Smyrna Gospel Ministries which is found in the "Tracts" section of present-truth.net

PioneerSDA

April 7th 2005, 11:47 PM

He is created much inthe same way I am, hence Prov 8 speaks of it as birth. I was born of my parents substance, but I did not exist at one point. My parents each produced a cell and those 2 cells produced me.

In the case of God, he produced a being. He gave that being life (Hence John 1:4 says "What came to be in him was life".

The key to Jesus' divinity is that it was not something that was inheritly is, but in God's creation of Christ he chose for him to be divine. That is why it says that "God happily chose for the fulness to dwell in him." (Col 1:19)

Again I would like to restate my argument. That created beings are born from other created beings. They inherited their created nature. A uncreated being can not give birth to a created being. He inherits his uncreated nature. So if what you say is true that Jesus was the only being who was produced from God's substance than He did inherit His Father's Divine nature. Did God give it to Him? Yes He did, but he can only give it by inheritence.

Tsmith

April 7th 2005, 11:50 PM

Again I would like to restate my argument. That created beings are born from other created beings. They inherited their created nature. A uncreated being can not give birth to a created being. He inherits his uncreated nature. So if what you say is true that Jesus was the only being who was produced from God's substance than He did inherit His Father's Divine nature. Did God give it to Him? Yes He did, but he can only give it by inheritence.

I don't see any basis for concluding that a nature per say is uncreated. What do I mean? God has a nature and within that nature God is uncreated. However, nothing would prohibit God from creating another and giving him that same type of nature. The mode of existence would be the same, the only difference would be one is created and the other is uncreated.

What you are arguing could go back to Adam. It is like saying the unborn cannot have the born. In other words, because Adam was not born, he cannot have anyone born of him. The position is simply invalid.

PioneerSDA

April 8th 2005, 12:34 AM

You err in taking the New Testament in issolation. It is no such thing, it is part of the common Greek literature of the day. Therefore, my appeal to the LXX is entirely viable, as it too is Koine Greek.

So, when I go to Psalms 82:6 in the LXX, I am entirely justified in my argument. As I have shown via Greek lexicons, your argument on the meaning is 100% false.

The Greek word QEOS is actually very generic and is used for multiple people, include God, men, and those who deliver the word of God. I have demonstrated this with BDAG. They are not even the same type of God. John 1:18 rules this out, because the type of God Jesus is is modified by the adjective. God the Father is not this type of God.

The son does not create. The son only gives life because the Father has given him the authority to do so. You're right that no created things can do these things, UNLESS God gives him the power and authority to do so. Jesus has been given these things, as scripture clearly testifies. Revelation 3:14 and Proverbs 8:22 both speak of him as being the first created.... and if you care to make translation issue out of either of these I will be happy to provide you the full weight of evidence that these are the correct views.

Yet Jesus was given the fullness of the godhead (Col 1:19), he was GIVEN all power (Matthew 28:18). The rest is indeed true. I do not deny his divinity, but his divinity was given to him.

You may want to go to www.scripturaltruths.com. I think you'll understand my position much better after reviewing the studies there.

[You err in taking the New Testament in issolation. It is no such thing, it is part of the common Greek literature of the day. Therefore, my appeal to the LXX is entirely viable, as it too is Koine Greek.]

In the Greek New Testament Theos is always a being who is worshipped even when it refers to men. The only exception is when the Greek is quoting from the Old Testament translating from the Hebrew language where the generic Hebrew word for god (elohim) is used I've said that in my last statements and I don't mind saying it again. LXX does not prove your argument because it is translating from the Hebrew and is the exeption. Please show me Greek passages by a Greek writer who is not quoting from Hebrew where theos doesn't mean a being who is worshipped. I don't believe you will find any, but what do I know. You are the Greek expert.
[I have shown via Greek lexicons, your argument on the meaning]

Please show me the post # where you used these Greek lexicons. I haven't seen them.

[The Greek word QEOS is actually very generic and is used for multiple people, include God, men, and those who deliver the word of God.]

Please show me these scriptures in the Greek New Testament that isn't quoting from the O.T. where theos does not mean a being who is worshipped.

[I have demonstrated this with BDAG.]

How did you demostrate this and what was the post #? What is a BDAG?

[They are not even the same type of God. John 1:18 rules this out, because the type of God Jesus is is modified by the adjective. God the Father is not this type of God.]

You say because Jesus is "only begotten" than that proves He is not the same type as the Father. So how does this make Him the same type as the angels when the angels are never called only begotten?

[The son does not create.]

You say He doesn't. He says He does. Who am I to believe?

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Revelation 22:12,13

And the Father says His only born does create but you say He doesn't. Who am I to believe?

"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:" Hebrews 1:8-10

Revelation 3:14 should be translated beginner and not beginning. Why? Because Revelation 22:12,13 calls Him the Alpha and Omega. John 1:1 says the word was in the beginning and not that He started His beginning there. Just like John 1:2 says He was with God in the beginning, not God began him in the beginning. Jesus was born before the beginning of creation in eternity.

God can only give His Divine nature by inheritence and a Son can only receive inheritence by being born out of His Divine Substance thus making Him also equally Divine because He has the same nature. That's why He's God's only born (uncreated) Son.

PioneerSDA

April 8th 2005, 12:43 AM

How would Jesus inherit a created substance from an uncreated God?

What you are arguing could go back to Adam. It is like saying the unborn cannot have the born. In other words, because Adam was not born, he cannot have anyone born of him. The position is simply invalid.[/QUOTE]

I don't know why you are bringing up Adam. I already covered this in my other post # 123. I took it all the back to the angels. Created beings are either born from other created beings or they are born from nothing.

Arius from the Arian Contreversy taught that Jesus was born from nothing making Him a created being.

Jesus taught that He was born from the Divine Substance of God which I thought you agreed with. So where do you get created from "only begotten."

Tsmith

April 8th 2005, 08:40 AM

Unfortunately I have work this morning. However, when I return, I'll demonstrate that Greek uses "god" in a generic sense and so we will be able to conclude that portion of the discussion. I will also demonstrate that Jesus does not create, that Revelation 22:13 is about the Father and not the Son and that Rev 3:12 is not possibly "beginner" from a linguistic perspective and also from a scriptural perspective, because to say such would contradict scripture.

and just as an FYI, BDAG is A Greek-English Leixcon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.

Tsmith

April 8th 2005, 09:02 AM

[You err in taking the New Testament in issolation. It is no such thing, it is part of the common Greek literature of the day. Therefore, my appeal to the LXX is entirely viable, as it too is Koine Greek.]

In the Greek New Testament Theos is always a being who is worshipped even when it refers to men. The only exception is when the Greek is quoting from the Old Testament translating from the Hebrew language where the generic Hebrew word for god (elohim) is used I've said that in my last statements and I don't mind saying it again. LXX does not prove your argument because it is translating from the Hebrew and is the exeption. Please show me Greek passages by a Greek writer who is not quoting from Hebrew where theos doesn't mean a being who is worshipped. I don't believe you will find any, but what do I know. You are the Greek expert.
[I have shown via Greek lexicons, your argument on the meaning]

Please show me the post # where you used these Greek lexicons. I haven't seen them.

[The Greek word QEOS is actually very generic and is used for multiple people, include God, men, and those who deliver the word of God.]

Please show me these scriptures in the Greek New Testament that isn't quoting from the O.T. where theos does not mean a being who is worshipped.

[I have demonstrated this with BDAG.]

How did you demostrate this and what was the post #? What is a BDAG?

[They are not even the same type of God. John 1:18 rules this out, because the type of God Jesus is is modified by the adjective. God the Father is not this type of God.]

You say because Jesus is "only begotten" than that proves He is not the same type as the Father. So how does this make Him the same type as the angels when the angels are never called only begotten?

[The son does not create.]

You say He doesn't. He says He does. Who am I to believe?

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Revelation 22:12,13

And the Father says His only born does create but you say He doesn't. Who am I to believe?

"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:" Hebrews 1:8-10

Revelation 3:14 should be translated beginner and not beginning. Why? Because Revelation 22:12,13 calls Him the Alpha and Omega. John 1:1 says the word was in the beginning and not that He started His beginning there. Just like John 1:2 says He was with God in the beginning, not God began him in the beginning. Jesus was born before the beginning of creation in eternity.

God can only give His Divine nature by inheritence and a Son can only receive inheritence by being born out of His Divine Substance thus making Him also equally Divine because He has the same nature. That's why He's God's only born (uncreated) Son.

Maybe I can do this before I go after all.

Demonstrating that QEOS is generic, consider the reference BDAG provides"

"hat which is nontranscendent but considered worthy of special reverence or respect, god (Artem. 2, 69 p. 161, 17: gonei/j and dida,skaloi are like gods; Simplicius in Epict. p. 85, 27 acc. to ancient Roman custom children had to call their parents qeoi,; s. 2 above and note on se,bomai). "\

Also, more importantly, this reference: "Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: o]j a] para. tou/ qeou/ la,bwn e;cei, tau/ta toi/j evpideome,noij corhgw/n, qeo.j gi,netai tw/n lambana,ntwn one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother)."

John 1:18 proves Jesus is a different type because MONOGENHS modifies the noun QEOS. This modification places Jesus within a different class of QEOS than that of the Father.

Rev 22:13 is a quote from the Father. We know this because verse 12 is a quote from Isaiah 55:11 where it is the Father. Further, Rev 22:16's use of the personal pronoun-proper name denotes a speaker change just as in Rev 1:9.

Hebrews 1:10 speaks of Christ "making" and there is a semantic difference between create and make. In Gen 1:26 both are said to "make" but only God is said to "create" in verse 27.

Rev 3:14 states that the meaning "first-created" is the "linguistically probable" meaning. Further, Jesus cannot be the beginner of the creation, because John 1:3 and Col 1:16 define Christ as the intermediate agent in creation. Thus to call him the beginner would be a contradiction. Further, if we examine EVERY example of ARCH with a genitive as at Rev 3:14, it NEVER provides such a definition. I give you the following examples to demonstrate such.

Genesis 49:3 Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength and the first of my children (ROUBHN PRWTOTOKOS MOU OU ISCUS KAI ARCH TEKNWN MOU), hard to be endured, hard and self-willed.

Numbers 24:20 And having seen Amalec, he took up his parable and said, Amalec is the first of the nations (ARCH EQNWN AMALHK); yet his seed shall perish.

Deuteronomy 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the first-born of the hated one to give to him double of all things which shall be found by him, because he is the first of his children (OTI ESTIN ARCH TEKNWN AUTOU), and to him belongs the birthright.

Proverbs 8:22 The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works (KURIOS EKTISEN ME ARCHN ODWN AUTOU EIS ERGA AUTOU).

Jeremiah 2:3 in following the Holy One of Israel, saith the Lord, Israel was the holy people to the Lord, and the first-fruits of his increase (ARCH GENHMATWN): al that devoured him shall offend; evils shall come upon them, saith the Lord.

Genesis 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon (KAI EGENETO ARCH THS BASILEIAS AUTOU BASULWN), and Orech, and Archad, and Chalanne, in the land of Senaar.

Exodus 12:2 This month shall be to you the beginning of months (O MHN UMIN ARCH MHNWN): it is the first to you among the months of the year.

Exodus 34:22 And thou shalt keep to me the feast of weeks, the beginning of wheat-harvest (KAI EORTHN EBDOMADWN POIHSEIS MOI ARCHN QERISMOU PURWN); and the feast of ingathering in the middle of the year.

2 Samuel 21:9 And he gave them into the hand of the Gabaonites, and they hanged them up to the sun in the mountain before the lord: and they fell, even the seven together: moreover they were put to death in the days of harvest at the commencement, in the beginning of barley-harvest (EN ARCH QERISMOU KRIQWN).

Psalm 111:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS KURIOU SUNESIS), and all that act accordingly have a good understanding; his praise endures for ever and ever.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS QEOU); and there is good understanding to all that practice it: and piety toward God is the beginning of discernment (EUSENEIA DE EIS QEON ARCH AISQHSEWS); but the ungodly will set at nought wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS KURIOU), and the counsel of saints is understanding: for to know the law is the character of a sound mind.

Psalm 137:6 May my tongue cleave to my throat, if I do not remember thee; if I do not prefer Jerusalem as the chief of my joy (EN ARCH THS EUFROSUNHS MOU).

Job 40:19 This is the first of the formation of the Lord (TOUT ESTIN ARCH PLASMATOS KURIOU); made to be played with by his angels.

Matthew 24:8 "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs (PANTA DE TOUTA ARCH WDINWN).

Mark 13:8 "For nation will arise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs (ARCH WDINWN TOUTA).

Hopefully this helps you see that Rev 3:14 is indeed beginning, not beginner. Some argue for "ruler" but this is unlikely, as the probable use would be of the term ARCWN as in Rev 1:5.

As for the created producing the uncreated, this is an interesting theory, but you've put forth nothing to demonstrate that claim, and you've not overturned my objection on Adam. If your position be true, Adam could not birth anything as he himself was not born. Illogical and impossible

Sparko

April 8th 2005, 11:09 AM

Within this context. Every time you reply you refuse to engage Psalms 82:6 and 8:5. 8:5 especially damages your position.

Because when it calls angels "gods" it is using the hebrew word Elohim which can refer to exalted or respected people as such. It does not mean they were actual Gods.

That is absurd. God is not a nature, God is his position. You have absolutely no backing for this position. Grammatically, God is a title. Nothing more.

That is ridiculous. God is the supreme being. There is NONE like him. That is what he said. There are no other such beings in the universe or out of it. Nada.

Except "express image" has nothing to do with attributes and powers.

Christ himself says he does nothing of himself. Yes, they are two gods. One is the Almighty God, the other is a god. The angels are gods too according to Psalms 8:5. This is called excepting scripture.. You refuse to engage all of the facts, you only take the ones you want. There is no picking and choosing in scripture.

Durn! Then you better stop, huh? (picking and choosing scripture) That's pretty much what you have been doing this whole time. When ever I point out what a verse says, instead of engaging that verse, you go to another verse that says something else and try to apply it to the first verse. But if I try that, you tell me it is out of context.

Your method of apologetics is haphazard and illogical and bordering on dishonest. Whenever cornered you move the goal posts. You commit fallacies of equivication and toss out irrelevant comparisons.

Yes, he also says there is no savior other than him, yet scripture expressly calls Ehud a savior. Hence we know we MUST contextually qualify these statements.

Talk about taking things out of context!! God is clearly speaking of Savior as in the ultimate savior, of men's souls which Ehud was not. But which Jesus is called, again showing him to be God.

Yes words can have different meanings depending on the situation. Just like the word 'god' in reference to angels. It does not mean that they are Gods. It means they are higher beings. But when the bible calls Jesus God, as in John 1:1 and Titus 2:13 and in several other places, it compared him to the ONE God of which there is no other. Therefore he IS that one God.

Apparently you do not know Greek, do you?

It is EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU

"appearing of the glory [DOXHS is a genitive, so we say "of"] of the great God [again, a genitive, so we say "of"] and our savior (hHMWN is genitive pronoun, so in English we put it in reverse order, instead of "savior of us" we say "our savior] Jesus Christ.

Studylight.org interlinear has:

prosdexomenoi thn makarian elpida kai epifaneian thv dochv tou megalou qeou kai swthrov hmwn Ihsou Xristou,

And you said you wanted LITERAL WORD FOR WORD, so I gave it to you.

Don't go around claiming one thing and saying another. The literal word for word translation says

Waiting the blessed hope and appearing the glory/glorious the great God and Savior our Jesus Christ.

Actually the single article is used to denote the single concept. Note what Smyth's grammar states: "The single article, use with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion... the generals and captains (the commanding offers)... the largest and smallest ships... the calumniation and envy of the multitude..."

The single notion in Titus 2:13 is the single appearing, which is what Jesus spoke of in Luke.

Luke 9:26 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My Words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that one when He comes in His glory, and that of the Father, and of the holy angels.

Right, God will not be making an appearance will he? God is invisible and spirit. Only Jesus will be making an appearance in the future, but the word "God" in Titus 2:13 is linked to "glorious appearing" which you just admitted refers to Jesus in Luke 9:26 and we know from other scriptures. Therefore
God=Jesus.

Also you are leaving out the second phrase linked by one article in this verse, "God and Savior" - which means both refer to the same person, which is listed as Jesus Christ.

==

No, I'm not, you just don't have Biblical monotheism.

IF you believe in more than one God, then you are polytheistic by definition. Monotheism is the belief that there is only ONE GOD and no other. NONE. That is what I believe. That is what the bible teaches.

TSmith,

This is getting tedious. I am tired of your semantic shenanigans. I am also tired of you repeating yourself, and trying to twist scripture to fit your own notions and your use of illogic, scriptural gymnastics and so on.

This is probably the last response you will get from me. If it is, I just want you to know that it is not because I am backing away, but because I can see there is no reasoning with you. This thread has gone on long enough and is going in strange tangents and circles.

May God bless you and open your heart and mind to the truth.

PioneerSDA

April 8th 2005, 03:02 PM

Because when it calls angels "gods" it is using the hebrew word Elohim which can refer to exalted or respected people as such. It does not mean they were actual Gods.

That is ridiculous. God is the supreme being. There is NONE like him. That is what he said. There are no other such beings in the universe or out of it. Nada.

Durn! Then you better stop, huh? (picking and choosing scripture) That's pretty much what you have been doing this whole time. When ever I point out what a verse says, instead of engaging that verse, you go to another verse that says something else and try to apply it to the first verse. But if I try that, you tell me it is out of context.

Your method of apologetics is haphazard and illogical and bordering on dishonest. Whenever cornered you move the goal posts. You commit fallacies of equivication and toss out irrelevant comparisons.

Talk about taking things out of context!! God is clearly speaking of Savior as in the ultimate savior, of men's souls which Ehud was not. But which Jesus is called, again showing him to be God.

Yes words can have different meanings depending on the situation. Just like the word 'god' in reference to angels. It does not mean that they are Gods. It means they are higher beings. But when the bible calls Jesus God, as in John 1:1 and Titus 2:13 and in several other places, it compared him to the ONE God of which there is no other. Therefore he IS that one God.

Studylight.org interlinear has:

prosdexomenoi thn makarian elpida kai epifaneian thv dochv tou megalou qeou kai swthrov hmwn Ihsou Xristou,

And you said you wanted LITERAL WORD FOR WORD, so I gave it to you.

Don't go around claiming one thing and saying another. The literal word for word translation says

Waiting the blessed hope and appearing the glory/glorious the great God and Savior our Jesus Christ.

Right, God will not be making an appearance will he? God is invisible and spirit. Only Jesus will be making an appearance in the future, but the word "God" in Titus 2:13 is linked to "glorious appearing" which you just admitted refers to Jesus in Luke 9:26 and we know from other scriptures. Therefore
God=Jesus.

Also you are leaving out the second phrase linked by one article in this verse, "God and Savior" - which means both refer to the same person, which is listed as Jesus Christ.

==

IF you believe in more than one God, then you are polytheistic by definition. Monotheism is the belief that there is only ONE GOD and no other. NONE. That is what I believe. That is what the bible teaches.

TSmith,

This is getting tedious. I am tired of your semantic shenanigans. I am also tired of you repeating yourself, and trying to twist scripture to fit your own notions and your use of illogic, scriptural gymnastics and so on.

This is probably the last response you will get from me. If it is, I just want you to know that it is not because I am backing away, but because I can see there is no reasoning with you. This thread has gone on long enough and is going in strange tangents and circles.

May God bless you and open your heart and mind to the truth.

Studylight.org has three diferent greek manuscripts. Please give the name of the one you used.

Thank you very much.

Sparko

April 8th 2005, 03:11 PM

Studylight.org has three diferent greek manuscripts. Please give the name of the one you used.

Thank you very much.

I was using the Nestlé-Aland 26 manuscript, but the 1894 Textus Receptus and the 1991 Byzantine say the same thing in the same order.

PioneerSDA

April 8th 2005, 03:35 PM

Maybe I can do this before I go after all.

Demonstrating that QEOS is generic, consider the reference BDAG provides"

"hat which is nontranscendent but considered worthy of special reverence or respect, god (Artem. 2, 69 p. 161, 17: gonei/j and dida,skaloi are like gods; Simplicius in Epict. p. 85, 27 acc. to ancient Roman custom children had to call their parents qeoi,; s. 2 above and note on se,bomai). "\

Also, more importantly, this reference: "Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: o]j a] para. tou/ qeou/ la,bwn e;cei, tau/ta toi/j evpideome,noij corhgw/n, qeo.j gi,netai tw/n lambana,ntwn one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother)."

John 1:18 proves Jesus is a different type because MONOGENHS modifies the noun QEOS. This modification places Jesus within a different class of QEOS than that of the Father.

Rev 22:13 is a quote from the Father. We know this because verse 12 is a quote from Isaiah 55:11 where it is the Father. Further, Rev 22:16's use of the personal pronoun-proper name denotes a speaker change just as in Rev 1:9.

Hebrews 1:10 speaks of Christ "making" and there is a semantic difference between create and make. In Gen 1:26 both are said to "make" but only God is said to "create" in verse 27.

Rev 3:14 states that the meaning "first-created" is the "linguistically probable" meaning. Further, Jesus cannot be the beginner of the creation, because John 1:3 and Col 1:16 define Christ as the intermediate agent in creation. Thus to call him the beginner would be a contradiction. Further, if we examine EVERY example of ARCH with a genitive as at Rev 3:14, it NEVER provides such a definition. I give you the following examples to demonstrate such.

Genesis 49:3 Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength and the first of my children (ROUBHN PRWTOTOKOS MOU OU ISCUS KAI ARCH TEKNWN MOU), hard to be endured, hard and self-willed.

Numbers 24:20 And having seen Amalec, he took up his parable and said, Amalec is the first of the nations (ARCH EQNWN AMALHK); yet his seed shall perish.

Deuteronomy 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the first-born of the hated one to give to him double of all things which shall be found by him, because he is the first of his children (OTI ESTIN ARCH TEKNWN AUTOU), and to him belongs the birthright.

Proverbs 8:22 The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works (KURIOS EKTISEN ME ARCHN ODWN AUTOU EIS ERGA AUTOU).

Jeremiah 2:3 in following the Holy One of Israel, saith the Lord, Israel was the holy people to the Lord, and the first-fruits of his increase (ARCH GENHMATWN): al that devoured him shall offend; evils shall come upon them, saith the Lord.

Genesis 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon (KAI EGENETO ARCH THS BASILEIAS AUTOU BASULWN), and Orech, and Archad, and Chalanne, in the land of Senaar.

Exodus 12:2 This month shall be to you the beginning of months (O MHN UMIN ARCH MHNWN): it is the first to you among the months of the year.

Exodus 34:22 And thou shalt keep to me the feast of weeks, the beginning of wheat-harvest (KAI EORTHN EBDOMADWN POIHSEIS MOI ARCHN QERISMOU PURWN); and the feast of ingathering in the middle of the year.

2 Samuel 21:9 And he gave them into the hand of the Gabaonites, and they hanged them up to the sun in the mountain before the lord: and they fell, even the seven together: moreover they were put to death in the days of harvest at the commencement, in the beginning of barley-harvest (EN ARCH QERISMOU KRIQWN).

Psalm 111:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS KURIOU SUNESIS), and all that act accordingly have a good understanding; his praise endures for ever and ever.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS QEOU); and there is good understanding to all that practice it: and piety toward God is the beginning of discernment (EUSENEIA DE EIS QEON ARCH AISQHSEWS); but the ungodly will set at nought wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS KURIOU), and the counsel of saints is understanding: for to know the law is the character of a sound mind.

Psalm 137:6 May my tongue cleave to my throat, if I do not remember thee; if I do not prefer Jerusalem as the chief of my joy (EN ARCH THS EUFROSUNHS MOU).

Job 40:19 This is the first of the formation of the Lord (TOUT ESTIN ARCH PLASMATOS KURIOU); made to be played with by his angels.

Matthew 24:8 "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs (PANTA DE TOUTA ARCH WDINWN).

Mark 13:8 "For nation will arise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs (ARCH WDINWN TOUTA).

Hopefully this helps you see that Rev 3:14 is indeed beginning, not beginner. Some argue for "ruler" but this is unlikely, as the probable use would be of the term ARCWN as in Rev 1:5.

As for the created producing the uncreated, this is an interesting theory, but you've put forth nothing to demonstrate that claim, and you've not overturned my objection on Adam. If your position be true, Adam could not birth anything as he himself was not born. Illogical and impossible

I'd like you to please read this very interesting quote that provides a fresh prespective on Revelation 3:14 (one I've never seen before) and please tell me what you think about it.

[The "Beginning of the creation of God" - so that means He's created, right? Well, no. The Greek work 'arche' means, :"arche, a beginning, origin, first cause..." (Liddell & Scott). Thus the phrase found in 3:14 means that He was the "first cause", the "origin", of creation, not its first production. Here is how the New English Bible renders it: "To the angel of the church at Laodicea write: 'These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the prime source of all God's creation...'", perfectly apt words for the Logos to communicate.

So is the English 'beginning' a poor translation? No, it's an excellent, comprehensive translation, having the same range of meanings as 'arche': "beginning, The first cause; origin; the first state; commencement..." (Webster's International). The Jehovah's Witness misunderstanding of this verse could have been avoided, not only by checking a Greek lexicon, but by getting up and grabbing the English dictionary off the shelf!] quoted from Is Jesus Christ Creator or creature?
http://thriceholy.net/christf.html

I don't support this site because it is trinitarian but I do like this quote very much. Have a great day at work!

PioneerSDA

April 8th 2005, 03:46 PM

I was using the Nestlé-Aland 26 manuscript, but the 1894 Textus Receptus and the 1991 Byzantine say the same thing in the same order.

Thank you very much. I love that studylight.org/isb
because it has that interlinear Bible for free so when someone told me that there was extra "thes" left out of John 1:1,2, God blessed me to find that site so I could check it out for myself. I found another interlinear Bible online that is easier for me to read because it has the English lined up to the Greek word for word and it has another line where it writes the greek so it's easier to pronounce for someone like me who doesn't know how to speak greek. I think the word for it is transliteral. I'm not sure. Anyways you might want to check this website out for another free online interlinear Bible but the site says you need to have an Acrobat Reader to view it because it is in PDF format.
http://www.scripture4all.org/

Krusader

April 8th 2005, 04:07 PM

Actually, in the earliest editions of the New World Translation by Jehovah's Witnesses, arche is translated as origin. It was later modified to fit with their theology.

PioneerSDA

April 8th 2005, 05:12 PM

No, he was born in "ancient times". The preposition le' does not allow olam to be eternal, because it denotes the point of origin. It is "from olam" not "in olam" or "before olam". This really is no different than Genesis 6:4.

As for them being called them in the NT.. so? The NT does not exist in issolation, you can not take it apart from the Hebrew scriptures, as the NT is dependant on the OT.

His point of origin is in eternity before all of creation. The Messiah is not created. He is called Yahweh in the Old Testament so how can He be created?

Isaiah 40:3

That's right he inherited His Father's name because He is His only born. A created being can never be called Yahweh.

You say Jesus is being talked about in Proverbs 8 but you haven't shown me any scriptures where Jesus is called the Wisdom of God.

For the sake of argument let's say it is Jesus talking in Proverbs 8:22 The Hebrew word qanah is never used in all of the Hebrew Old Testament to mean created.

So many if not all times God bara'/creates things. He bara' heaven and earth. He bara' man. If Solomon was saying that God created this wisdom he would have said he bara' wisdom according to all the Biblical examples of the Hebrew Old Testament.

PioneerSDA

April 8th 2005, 05:14 PM

Actually, in the earliest editions of the New World Translation by Jehovah's Witnesses, arche is translated as origin. It was later modified to fit with their theology.

Have you seen these earlier New World Translations? If you have please give me the sources so I can see them for myself. Also, please tell me where you got this information. Thank you very much.

Krusader

April 8th 2005, 05:24 PM

Have you seen these earlier New World Translations? If you have please give me the sources so I can see them for myself. Also, please tell me where you got this information. Thank you very much.

Pioneer, I believe you will find the reference in Martin's "The Kingdom of the Cults." I have a friend married to a JW who actually has one of the first NWTs put out. It's very valuable, as you will never find one in a used book store nowadays - the JWs have bought them all out and put them out of commission.

PioneerSDA

April 8th 2005, 05:26 PM

You said I never responded fully to your post #47 So I will try to do so here.

OK. First, I disagree that the Father is older than the Son. I say they were always Father and Son, from eternity. never were they apart.

If you are correct and the Father is older than the Son, then the Father would have had to create time before he 'begot' the son. That would make at least ONE thing that was created without the Son, and would show John 1:3 and Col 1:16 false, correct?

Since the Father is called Lord also throughout the bible, doesn't that tell you that Paul is saying that they are one and the same?

Yes, but the bible also directly calls Jesus God directly:

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

--

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? I never said Jesus was not the son of God. But that means the son of God the Father. It does not mean that he is not God the Son.

The actual word here in greek really means "preeminent" or "first" in the sense of inheritence.

And who did Jesus say would come? Himself, yes, But who did he say would come right before he said that:

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

We see that the Father will send ANOTHER counselor. It can't be Jesus because he says ANOTHER. But he said it would also be him. That is because the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity and is the Counselor Jesus spoke of. And since the Holy Spirit is God and Jesus is God, even though the Father is sending ANOTHER counselor to us, we have Jesus too, because he is God.

And we know the counselor is the Holy Spirit because Jesus tells us so:

26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

and the Holy Spirit is a person too!

Isaiah 63: 10 Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them.

Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

How can a force be grieved? Only a person can feel grief.

Luke 12:10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Blasphemy is a sin against God, to speak irreverently or slander God Himself. You can’t blaspheme an impersonal force. This verse shows the Holy Spirit is a person, equal to God.

1 Corinthians 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

Hebrews 10:15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

Acts1:16 and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus--
:
The Holy Spirit testifies and teaches, is called a "he" and a "who", can be grieved, and can be blasphemed. He is a person and he is God.

John also said that "the word was God" in john 1:1. And as you yourself said previously, the greek actually says THE God. The word was THE God. Not "a" God. THE God. The one and only God. the true God.

But if there are two Gods, whether you worship both or not, two beings being equally divine would be two Gods, right?

And there cannot be two Gods, even if you don't worship the second one. God made that very clear!

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me"

God specifically says that no God existed before him and none came after him, so he could not have begotten another God could he?

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

This clearly says that apart from God there is NO OTHER. None is like God. So you can't have the Father and the Son being two beings and both being equally divine because then you have someone who is LIKE God, right? And God says none is like him. He says there is no God besides him. No other Rock.

But we do know Jesus was the rock too.

1 Cor. 10:4 "...for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." See also 1 Peter 2:6-8.

Actually the "he" in the last sentence refers to Jesus as being the true God. Who is the eternal life? Jesus is.

John 4:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=4&verse=14&version=31&context=verse)
but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

John 6:54 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&verse=54&version=31&context=verse)
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:68 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&verse=68&version=31&context=verse)
Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

John 10:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=10&verse=28&version=31&context=verse)
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.

John 1:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&verse=4&version=31&context=verse)
In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

John 14:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=14&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

My sincere prayer to you is

2 Kings 6:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=12&chapter=6&verse=17&version=31&context=verse)
And Elisha prayed, "O LORD , open his eyes so he may see." Then the LORD opened the servant's eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

I pray that the Father will open your eyes to the truth.

--
Here are some other passage comparisons that show Jesus is YHWH, Lord God of Abraham.

YHWH is Creator

Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

Isaiah 48:13 "My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together.

Jesus is Creator

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col. 1:16-17 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. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

YHWH is the "First and the Last"

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

Isaiah 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last."

Jesus is the "First and the Last"

Rev. 1:17 "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.’"

Rev. 2:8 "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again."

Rev. 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

YHWH is "I AM" (ego eimi)

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"

Isaiah 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."

See also Deut. 32.39

Jesus is "I AM" (ego eimi in Greek)

John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (NKJV)

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

YHWH is Judge

Ezekiel 34:17 "`As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats. 20 "`Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21 Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, 22 I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another.

Jesus is Judge

Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

John 5: 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him

YHWH is Savior

Isaiah 43:3 "For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior"

Isaiah 45:21 "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Hosea 13: 4 "But I am the LORD your God, [who brought you] out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.

Jesus is Savior

John 4:42 "They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.’"

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world

YHWH is Shepherd

Psalm 23:1 Psalm 23 A psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.

Isaiah 40:11 He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young.

Ezekiel 34:11 "`For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign LORD. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.

Jesus is Shepherd

John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

Hebrews 13:20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,

See also John 10:14,16; 1 Pet. 2:25

John 10: 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

YHWH is the Light

Psalm 27:1 "The LORD is my light and my salvation -- whom shall I fear?"

Isaiah 60:20 Your sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end.

1 John 1:5 "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."

Jesus is the Light

John 8:12 "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Luke 2:32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel."

See also John 1:7-9

["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. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. " John 3:16,17 K.J.V. ] quote from myself

[The actual word here in greek really means "preeminent" or "first" in the sense of inheritence.] quote from John Sparks

Dear John Sparks. I don't know if you are aware of it but there is a big conspiracy about this whole only begotten/monogenes thing and I think you have bought into it. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you say that the Greek word that was translated only begotten 'monogenes' does not have anything to do with birth but means preminence or something like that. Well, I wanted to see if that was true or not. No, I don't think you are a liar. I believe you thought you were telling me the truth but stil the Bible says to "prove all things and hold fast to what is good" 1st Thes. 5:21

I went to the best free Strong's Concordance I've found on line
http://www.tgm.org/bible.htm
because this one has a section where you can search using Strong's numbers. The # for monogenes is 3439 so I put that in put the dot for Greek and pressed the search button and I found out that only begotten/monogenes is used some times when it is not applied to Jesus even though most English Bible translations didn't want me to know that because it is against their doctrines. Well I found this interlinear Bible that has to be the most unbias I've seen. I talked to you about it in my last post. Well I wanted to show a couple of Bible verses from there to show how monogenes is used in the Greek New Testament so we can see if it only means preeminece or does it mean that the parents gave birth to their children. Instead of translating the word monogenes into only begotten. This Bible version translated it into "only generated." I'm guessing they did this because mono means only in the English dictionary so I guess generated came from the Greek Genes. I can see a resembelance. Like how Genesis is greek for origins. Am I right? Anyways, all these Bible verses I am about to quote are taken from Concordant Greek Text Sublinear, an ultra literal English translation sublinear (© Copyright 1999 Concordant Publishing Concern),
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

"In this was made appear the love of the God in us that the Son of Him the only generated has commissioned the God into the system that we should be living through Him." 1st John 4:9 CGTS

"and be perceiving man from the throng implores saying teacher I am beseeching of you on look on the son of me that only generated to me he is" Luke 9:38 CGTS

"that daughter only generated was to him as of years two ten and this from died in yet the to be under leading him the throngs together choked him" Luke 8:42 CGTS

"As yet he nears to the gate of the city and be perceiving was out fetched having died only generated son to the mother of him and she was widow and throng of the city enough was together to her." Luke 7:12 CGTS

PioneerSDA

April 8th 2005, 05:33 PM

Pioneer, I believe you will find the reference in Martin's "The Kingdom of the Cults." I have a friend married to a JW who actually has one of the first NWTs put out. It's very valuable, as you will never find one in a used book store nowadays - the JWs have bought them all out and put them out of commission.

The next time you talk to your friend please find out the year of this edition or the next time you read the Kingdom of The Cults please find the year the the edition of these Jehovah's Witnesses Bibles that you are talking about because we are not here to discuss Hear Say. We are here to discuss facts so we need sources so other people can check the things we say. I'm not saying you are a liar I just have to follow the Apostle's Paul admonition to "Prove all things and hold fast to what is good" 1st Thes. 5:21

Thank you very much.

PioneerSDA

April 8th 2005, 05:48 PM

I don't see any basis for concluding that a nature per say is uncreated. What do I mean? God has a nature and within that nature God is uncreated. However, nothing would prohibit God from creating another and giving him that same type of nature. The mode of existence would be the same, the only difference would be one is created and the other is uncreated.

What you are arguing could go back to Adam. It is like saying the unborn cannot have the born. In other words, because Adam was not born, he cannot have anyone born of him. The position is simply invalid.

I never said a created nature couldn't be created. But God's uncreated nature can not be created. In order for Him to give it to a being He had to birth that being out of His own substance.

In all the Bible's examples, everyone who could give birth, gave birth to children with the same nature as themselves.

Humans give birth to humans with equal natures and equal to themselves.
Even animals give birth to animals with equal natures and equal to themselves.

So what you are suggesting is that when God birthed a Son he could not birth a Son equal to Himself.

Are God's creations better than God?

Have you forgotten that man is created in God's image and not the other way around.

As you have already pointed out in a previous post in a diferent forum. Angels can't marry and reproduce. So in that way humans can do something that angels can't do that God did. Maybe that is one way we were made in His image.

I think you suggest that all who are all called sons of God are equal and created.

Maybe Abraham is an example. He has many people who are called sons. Jews, Muslims, and Christians all claim Abraham as their Father. After all Abraham does mean father of many nations. But Abraham only had two real sons begotten from his own substance. Just like how God has many beings who are called His sons but only one true literal only born equally Divine Son.

Sparko

April 8th 2005, 06:02 PM

["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. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. " John 3:16,17 K.J.V. ] quote from myself

[The actual word here in greek really means "preeminent" or "first" in the sense of inheritence.] quote from John Sparks

Dear John Sparks. I don't know if you are aware of it but there is a big conspiracy about this whole only begotten/monogenes thing and I think you have bought into it. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you say that the Greek word that was translated only begotten 'monogenes' does not have anything to do with birth but means preminence or something like that. Well, I wanted to see if that was true or not. No, I don't think you are a liar. I believe you thought you were telling me the truth but stil the Bible says to "prove all things and hold fast to what is good" 1st Thes. 5:21

I went to the best free Strong's Concordance I've found on line
http://www.tgm.org/bible.htm
because this one has a section where you can search using Strong's numbers. The # for monogenes is 3439 so I put that in put the dot for Greek and pressed the search button and I found out that only begotten/monogenes is used some times when it is not applied to Jesus even though most English Bible translations didn't want me to know that because it is against their doctrines. Well I found this interlinear Bible that has to be the most unbias I've seen. I talked to you about it in my last post. Well I wanted to show a couple of Bible verses from there to show how monogenes is used in the Greek New Testament so we can see if it only means preeminece or does it mean that the parents gave birth to their children. Instead of translating the word monogenes into only begotten. This Bible version translated it into "only generated." I'm guessing they did this because mono means only in the English dictionary so I guess generated came from the Greek Genes. I can see a resembelance. Like how Genesis is greek for origins. Am I right? Anyways, all these Bible verses I am about to quote are taken from Concordant Greek Text Sublinear, an ultra literal English translation sublinear (© Copyright 1999 Concordant Publishing Concern),
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

"In this was made appear the love of the God in us that the Son of Him the only generated has commissioned the God into the system that we should be living through Him." 1st John 4:9 CGTS

"and be perceiving man from the throng implores saying teacher I am beseeching of you on look on the son of me that only generated to me he is" Luke 9:38 CGTS

"that daughter only generated was to him as of years two ten and this from died in yet the to be under leading him the throngs together choked him" Luke 8:42 CGTS

"As yet he nears to the gate of the city and be perceiving was out fetched having died only generated son to the mother of him and she was widow and throng of the city enough was together to her." Luke 7:12 CGTS

Hi,

You are missing an important quote:

Hebrews 11:17 where it calls Isaac Abraham's only begotten son (monogenes) but we know that Isaac was not Abraham's only son, nor his first. But he was the one who was to inherit God's promise. He had the inheritance and the pre-eminence.

Monogenes means the primary or first in regards to preeminence and promise.

And in the sense of giving birth, yes Jesus was born in a human body and he is the son of the Father so he indeed is God's son in a real physical sense that way. So monogenes can be used in that manner to in reference to Jesus but it does not mean that God made him exist in some manner that was not called "creation"

If Jesus did not exist at one time and then he did begin to exist, then he came to be and he used not to be. If the Father was responsible for Jesus coming to exist, then he, by definition, CREATED him. Because that is what created means. Making something to exist that did not exist before. So to call that act "begetting" instead of "created" is just semantics (word games)

If you begat something you are creating it, causing it to exist.

Dictionary.com:

Begat

To father; sire.
To cause to exist or occur; produce: Violence begets more violence.
Create:

To cause to exist; bring into being.
To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
To invest with an office or title; appoint.
To produce through artistic or imaginative effort:
If you are talking about making a person who did not exist begin to exist, then begat and create mean the same thing.

PioneerSDA

April 8th 2005, 07:18 PM

Maybe I can do this before I go after all.

Demonstrating that QEOS is generic, consider the reference BDAG provides"

"hat which is nontranscendent but considered worthy of special reverence or respect, god (Artem. 2, 69 p. 161, 17: gonei/j and dida,skaloi are like gods; Simplicius in Epict. p. 85, 27 acc. to ancient Roman custom children had to call their parents qeoi,; s. 2 above and note on se,bomai). "\

Also, more importantly, this reference: "Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: o]j a] para. tou/ qeou/ la,bwn e;cei, tau/ta toi/j evpideome,noij corhgw/n, qeo.j gi,netai tw/n lambana,ntwn one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother)."

John 1:18 proves Jesus is a different type because MONOGENHS modifies the noun QEOS. This modification places Jesus within a different class of QEOS than that of the Father.

Rev 22:13 is a quote from the Father. We know this because verse 12 is a quote from Isaiah 55:11 where it is the Father. Further, Rev 22:16's use of the personal pronoun-proper name denotes a speaker change just as in Rev 1:9.

Hebrews 1:10 speaks of Christ "making" and there is a semantic difference between create and make. In Gen 1:26 both are said to "make" but only God is said to "create" in verse 27.

Rev 3:14 states that the meaning "first-created" is the "linguistically probable" meaning. Further, Jesus cannot be the beginner of the creation, because John 1:3 and Col 1:16 define Christ as the intermediate agent in creation. Thus to call him the beginner would be a contradiction. Further, if we examine EVERY example of ARCH with a genitive as at Rev 3:14, it NEVER provides such a definition. I give you the following examples to demonstrate such.

Genesis 49:3 Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength and the first of my children (ROUBHN PRWTOTOKOS MOU OU ISCUS KAI ARCH TEKNWN MOU), hard to be endured, hard and self-willed.

Numbers 24:20 And having seen Amalec, he took up his parable and said, Amalec is the first of the nations (ARCH EQNWN AMALHK); yet his seed shall perish.

Deuteronomy 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the first-born of the hated one to give to him double of all things which shall be found by him, because he is the first of his children (OTI ESTIN ARCH TEKNWN AUTOU), and to him belongs the birthright.

Proverbs 8:22 The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works (KURIOS EKTISEN ME ARCHN ODWN AUTOU EIS ERGA AUTOU).

Jeremiah 2:3 in following the Holy One of Israel, saith the Lord, Israel was the holy people to the Lord, and the first-fruits of his increase (ARCH GENHMATWN): al that devoured him shall offend; evils shall come upon them, saith the Lord.

Genesis 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon (KAI EGENETO ARCH THS BASILEIAS AUTOU BASULWN), and Orech, and Archad, and Chalanne, in the land of Senaar.

Exodus 12:2 This month shall be to you the beginning of months (O MHN UMIN ARCH MHNWN): it is the first to you among the months of the year.

Exodus 34:22 And thou shalt keep to me the feast of weeks, the beginning of wheat-harvest (KAI EORTHN EBDOMADWN POIHSEIS MOI ARCHN QERISMOU PURWN); and the feast of ingathering in the middle of the year.

2 Samuel 21:9 And he gave them into the hand of the Gabaonites, and they hanged them up to the sun in the mountain before the lord: and they fell, even the seven together: moreover they were put to death in the days of harvest at the commencement, in the beginning of barley-harvest (EN ARCH QERISMOU KRIQWN).

Psalm 111:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS KURIOU SUNESIS), and all that act accordingly have a good understanding; his praise endures for ever and ever.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS QEOU); and there is good understanding to all that practice it: and piety toward God is the beginning of discernment (EUSENEIA DE EIS QEON ARCH AISQHSEWS); but the ungodly will set at nought wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS KURIOU), and the counsel of saints is understanding: for to know the law is the character of a sound mind.

Psalm 137:6 May my tongue cleave to my throat, if I do not remember thee; if I do not prefer Jerusalem as the chief of my joy (EN ARCH THS EUFROSUNHS MOU).

Job 40:19 This is the first of the formation of the Lord (TOUT ESTIN ARCH PLASMATOS KURIOU); made to be played with by his angels.

Matthew 24:8 "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs (PANTA DE TOUTA ARCH WDINWN).

Mark 13:8 "For nation will arise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs (ARCH WDINWN TOUTA).

Hopefully this helps you see that Rev 3:14 is indeed beginning, not beginner. Some argue for "ruler" but this is unlikely, as the probable use would be of the term ARCWN as in Rev 1:5.

As for the created producing the uncreated, this is an interesting theory, but you've put forth nothing to demonstrate that claim, and you've not overturned my objection on Adam. If your position be true, Adam could not birth anything as he himself was not born. Illogical and impossible

Dear T-Smith,

I don't mean to offend you by only responding to one of the points you made. It's just that I only have a little bit of time right now because the Computer Lab closes at 5p.m today instead of it's usual time. 11 p.m. I will respond to all of your points by Sunday. Please be patient.

[Hebrews 1:10 speaks of Christ "making" and there is a semantic difference between create and make. In Gen 1:26 both are said to "make" but only God is said to "create" in verse 27.]

I really don't want to argue with you about the difference between make and create. You are the Greek expert so I'll just take your word for it until I have some time to study that for myself. I have met alot of people on T-Web who just have debating spirits, they argue just to argue, disagree just to disagree but I'm one to talk, alot of times I am that person who does that that's why I am glad that I'm writing you to let you know that I agree with you. Jesus is being talked about in Hebrews 1:10. Let's please look at that verse again together.

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

According to the Father, His only born Son used His own hands to make everything.

"Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I [am] he; I [am] the first, I also [am] the last. Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: [when] I call unto them, they stand up together." Isaiah 48:12,13

Than this must mean that this is Jesus talking in the Old Testament because he said he made the world with His hand.

So you say that God made things by Jesus Christ but that doesn't make Jesus a Co Creator.

If you have a son and you give him your credit card (buying power) to buy a present for someone. You bought the present right but didn't your son by the present also?

That's the same when God gave His Son His creative power to create with His own hands so that means His Son is also a creator so I can rightfully call God's only born and (uncreated son) My Lord and My God just like Thomas did.

PioneerSDA

April 8th 2005, 07:34 PM

Hi,

You are missing an important quote:

Hebrews 11:17 where it calls Isaac Abraham's only begotten son (monogenes) but we know that Isaac was not Abraham's only son, nor his first. But he was the one who was to inherit God's promise. He had the inheritance and the pre-eminence.

Monogenes means the primary or first in regards to preeminence and promise.

And in the sense of giving birth, yes Jesus was born in a human body and he is the son of the Father so he indeed is God's son in a real physical sense that way. So monogenes can be used in that manner to in reference to Jesus but it does not mean that God made him exist in some manner that was not called "creation"

If Jesus did not exist at one time and then he did begin to exist, then he came to be and he used not to be. If the Father was responsible for Jesus coming to exist, then he, by definition, CREATED him. Because that is what created means. Making something to exist that did not exist before. So to call that act "begetting" instead of "created" is just semantics (word games)

If you begat something you are creating it, causing it to exist.

Dictionary.com:

Begat

To father; sire.
To cause to exist or occur; produce: Violence begets more violence.
Create:

To cause to exist; bring into being.
To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
To invest with an office or title; appoint.
To produce through artistic or imaginative effort:
If you are talking about making a person who did not exist begin to exist, then begat and create mean the same thing.

Can someone be created if they are born before creation?

Do begat and create mean the same thing in the Greek New Testament? The Greek word for begat in Genes. Please show me one time where this word is used to mean create in the Bible.

You might not think that Jesus has an origin in eternity but the prophet Micah disagrees with you.

"...His origin is from antiquity, from eternity." Micah 5:2 Holman Christian Standard Bible.

Hebrews 11:17 does not change the meaning of monogenes. It still means only generated and not preminence. Can we redefine words when ever we feel like it? Yes I'm directing this question to you,Mr John Sparks?

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called." Hebrews 11:17,18

Abraham had two begotten sons but only one begotten son of the promise.

PioneerSDA

April 8th 2005, 07:49 PM

Hi,

You are missing an important quote:

Hebrews 11:17 where it calls Isaac Abraham's only begotten son (monogenes) but we know that Isaac was not Abraham's only son, nor his first. But he was the one who was to inherit God's promise. He had the inheritance and the pre-eminence.

Monogenes means the primary or first in regards to preeminence and promise.

And in the sense of giving birth, yes Jesus was born in a human body and he is the son of the Father so he indeed is God's son in a real physical sense that way. So monogenes can be used in that manner to in reference to Jesus but it does not mean that God made him exist in some manner that was not called "creation"

If Jesus did not exist at one time and then he did begin to exist, then he came to be and he used not to be. If the Father was responsible for Jesus coming to exist, then he, by definition, CREATED him. Because that is what created means. Making something to exist that did not exist before. So to call that act "begetting" instead of "created" is just semantics (word games)

If you begat something you are creating it, causing it to exist.

Dictionary.com:

Begat

To father; sire.
To cause to exist or occur; produce: Violence begets more violence.
Create:

To cause to exist; bring into being.
To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
To invest with an office or title; appoint.
To produce through artistic or imaginative effort:
If you are talking about making a person who did not exist begin to exist, then begat and create mean the same thing.

John Sparks, I don't understand why you have a problem calling Jesus the "only begotten/ generated" Son of God. Aren't you one of those Trinitarians who believes in Eternal Generation? If you are, than I have this quote for you.

[The theory of “eternal generation” is specifically designed to do away with the literal Sonship of Christ, while seeking to harmonize the Bible statements that Christ is the “begotten Son of God.” If Origen and the early Catholic councils understood monogenes to have no reference to begotten, they would have used this argument in their attempt to discard the literal Sonship of Christ, rather than inventing and accepting the confusing theory of “eternal generation.”] quoted from God's Love on Trial by Lynford Beechy Begotten Deleted from Newer Translations
http://smyrna.org/Books/God_on_Trial/Gods_Love_on_Trial.htm#“Begotten”%20Deleted%20from%20Newer%20Translations

Tsmith

April 8th 2005, 07:52 PM

Because when it calls angels "gods" it is using the hebrew word Elohim which can refer to exalted or respected people as such. It does not mean they were actual Gods.

So does the Greek word. So your entire point on Jesus being called God goes out the window.

That is ridiculous. God is the supreme being. There is NONE like him. That is what he said. There are no other such beings in the universe or out of it. Nada.

You are here using God as a proper name, like we would The President for George Bush. Nevertheless, it is still just a title.

Durn! Then you better stop, huh? (picking and choosing scripture) That's pretty much what you have been doing this whole time. When ever I point out what a verse says, instead of engaging that verse, you go to another verse that says something else and try to apply it to the first verse. But if I try that, you tell me it is out of context.

Your method of apologetics is haphazard and illogical and bordering on dishonest. Whenever cornered you move the goal posts. You commit fallacies of equivication and toss out irrelevant comparisons.

I already engaged you by proving the text must be contextually limited. Your reply was nothing more than a denial. So I them went and proved from other scripture that you denial holds no water either. Now you just go and disregard the point and come back with this as your reply.

Talk about taking things out of context!! God is clearly speaking of Savior as in the ultimate savior, of men's souls which Ehud was not. But which Jesus is called, again showing him to be God.

You are so inconsistent. You pick and choose when it is in the ultimate sense and when it isn't. Jesus saves by God's power according to Acts 2:22. All Jesus' actions were from God. If that is the case, it is speaking in Isaiah about Gods in the ultimate sense, something Jesus is not, so it is no problem. Either way I have no issue.

Yes words can have different meanings depending on the situation. Just like the word 'god' in reference to angels. It does not mean that they are Gods. It means they are higher beings. But when the bible calls Jesus God, as in John 1:1 and Titus 2:13 and in several other places, it compared him to the ONE God of which there is no other. Therefore he IS that one God.

He is not the one God. That is the Father according to 1 Cor 8:6. John 1:1 makes him no more than one God than John 6:70 makes Judas Satan THE Devil. Titus 2:13 doesn't even reference Christ.

Studylight.org interlinear has:

prosdexomenoi thn makarian elpida kai epifaneian thv dochv tou megalou qeou kai swthrov hmwn Ihsou Xristou,

And you said you wanted LITERAL WORD FOR WORD, so I gave it to you.

Don't go around claiming one thing and saying another. The literal word for word translation says

Waiting the blessed hope and appearing the glory/glorious the great God and Savior our Jesus Christ.

No it is not. Because you are not dealing with the Greek cases. If everything was nominative and accusative, this would be correct, but your inaccurate translation fails to take into account all the genitives.

Right, God will not be making an appearance will he? God is invisible and spirit. Only Jesus will be making an appearance in the future, but the word "God" in Titus 2:13 is linked to "glorious appearing" which you just admitted refers to Jesus in Luke 9:26 and we know from other scriptures. Therefore
God=Jesus.

Wrong answer. The verse never says God will appear. It says the GLORY of God will appear. This is what Stephen saw in Acts 7 and what Jesus said he will come in within the verse I referenced in Luke.

Also you are leaving out the second phrase linked by one article in this verse, "God and Savior" - which means both refer to the same person, which is listed as Jesus Christ.

Hardly the case. As Smyth's grammar points out, the singular article shows a single concept. In the case of Titus, the single appearing. You clearly do not know Greek, so I wish you wouldn't pretend you do.

IF you believe in more than one God, then you are polytheistic by definition. Monotheism is the belief that there is only ONE GOD and no other. NONE. That is what I believe. That is what the bible teaches.

You yourself said that the word "god" carried multiple senses. Apply a different sense to Jesus.. and I'm no longer a polytheist. Wow. Amazing.

TSmith,

This is getting tedious. I am tired of your semantic shenanigans. I am also tired of you repeating yourself, and trying to twist scripture to fit your own notions and your use of illogic, scriptural gymnastics and so on.

This is probably the last response you will get from me. If it is, I just want you to know that it is not because I am backing away, but because I can see there is no reasoning with you. This thread has gone on long enough and is going in strange tangents and circles.

May God bless you and open your heart and mind to the truth.

You are backing away. You're not engaging my points. You're running from them.

Sparko

April 8th 2005, 07:57 PM

Can someone be created if they are born before creation?

First, Jesus was not created. He was not born either (except via Mary)
YOU are the one who says that God made Jesus by begetting, and that means he is uncreated.

If that is the case then when God begat him, he also CREATED Jesus. That means that the bible is wrong when it says that Jesus created everything. That means you are wrong to say that God made Jesus to exist.

That is what I am trying to point out to you, Pioneer. That your position makes no sense.

Either Jesus always existed (which is what I believe)

or he did not exist at one time and therefore he is created.

Do begat and create mean the same thing in the Greek New Testament? The Greek word for begat in Genes. Please show me one time where this word is used to mean create in the Bible.

Begat is old english. It was used for both monogenes and protokotos in the bible but neither is an exact translation as I have shown, that is why newer english translations use "first born" and "one and only" which express it better but still don't capture it exactly.

You might not think that Jesus has an origin in eternity but the prophet Micah disagrees with you.

"...His origin is from antiquity, from eternity." Micah 5:2 Holman Christian Standard Bible.

I went over that with you before. 'Origin' doesn't mean that he had a beginning. The hebrew word môtsâ'âh is the feminine of which means 'his source'

Strongs: môtsâ'
a going forth, that is, (the act) an egress, or (the place) an exit; hence a source or product; specifically dawn, the rising of the sun (the East), exportation, utterance, a gate, a fountain, a mine, a meadow (as producing grass): - brought out, bud, that which came out, east, going forth, goings out, that which (thing that) is gone out, outgoing, proceeded out, spring, vein, [water-] course [springs].

What it is saying is that his source is eternity. He comes from eternity. Eternity is forever, without time. If he comes from eternity, that means he always existed. It is a poetic way of saying he always existed.

Hebrews 11:17 does not change the meaning of monogenes. It still means only generated and not preminence. Can we redefine words when ever we feel like it? Yes I'm directing this question to you,Mr John Sparks?

Pioneer. Was Isaac Abraham's only generated son?

Of course not. He wasn't even his first! So if the bible says monogenes in regard to Isaac it doesn't mean "only generated" does it?

What does it mean? It means the son who inherits the promises of God. The number 1 son in terms of prominence. It even says it right after it calls him his only begotten:

"Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called." Hebrews 11:17,18

Abraham had two begotten sons but only one begotten son of the promise.

:doh:

That is exactly what I am saying!!!!!! The word doesn't actually mean "born" or "only" does it? because Isaac was not the first born. or only generated. he was the one who got the promises of God. He got the inheritance. He was the preeminant one.

Tsmith

April 8th 2005, 08:05 PM

I'd like you to please read this very interesting quote that provides a fresh prespective on Revelation 3:14 (one I've never seen before) and please tell me what you think about it.

[The "Beginning of the creation of God" - so that means He's created, right? Well, no. The Greek work 'arche' means, :"arche, a beginning, origin, first cause..." (Liddell & Scott). Thus the phrase found in 3:14 means that He was the "first cause", the "origin", of creation, not its first production. Here is how the New English Bible renders it: "To the angel of the church at Laodicea write: 'These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the prime source of all God's creation...'", perfectly apt words for the Logos to communicate.

So is the English 'beginning' a poor translation? No, it's an excellent, comprehensive translation, having the same range of meanings as 'arche': "beginning, The first cause; origin; the first state; commencement..." (Webster's International). The Jehovah's Witness misunderstanding of this verse could have been avoided, not only by checking a Greek lexicon, but by getting up and grabbing the English dictionary off the shelf!] quoted from Is Jesus Christ Creator or creature?
http://thriceholy.net/christf.html

I don't support this site because it is trinitarian but I do like this quote very much. Have a great day at work!

I am very much aware of this position and have studied the use in scripture. As I demonstrated, with the genitive, it never carries that meaning. BDAG states that the probable meaning here is first-created, and each of the examples I provided go to demonstrate that point. You may want to consider this discussion on the matter: http://www.scripturaltruths.com/deity/beginning/

Tsmith

April 8th 2005, 08:07 PM

His point of origin is in eternity before all of creation. The Messiah is not created. He is called Yahweh in the Old Testament so how can He be created?

Isaiah 40:3

That's right he inherited His Father's name because He is His only born. A created being can never be called Yahweh.

You say Jesus is being talked about in Proverbs 8 but you haven't shown me any scriptures where Jesus is called the Wisdom of God.

For the sake of argument let's say it is Jesus talking in Proverbs 8:22 The Hebrew word qanah is never used in all of the Hebrew Old Testament to mean created.

So many if not all times God bara'/creates things. He bara' heaven and earth. He bara' man. If Solomon was saying that God created this wisdom he would have said he bara' wisdom according to all the Biblical examples of the Hebrew Old Testament.

He is not called Jehovah in the OT. I'm not sure where you are getting this from.

Proverbs 8 uses QANAH because it speaks of his creation as birth. The LXX therefore translates QANAH as EKTISEN, which literally means created.

PioneerSDA

April 8th 2005, 10:44 PM

He is not called Jehovah in the OT. I'm not sure where you are getting this from.

Proverbs 8 uses QANAH because it speaks of his creation as birth. The LXX therefore translates QANAH as EKTISEN, which literally means created.

Nobody is called Jehovah in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Hebrew language doesn't have the letter Jay. Jesus was called Yahweh in the Old Testament according to John the Baptist and I trust him more. He was inspired by God and new Jesus wasn't a created being.

"The voice of one who calls out, "Prepare the way of Yahweh in the wilderness! Make a level highway in the desert for our God." Isaiah 40:3 World English Bible
"... Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. " Matthew 3:3
"...Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. " Mark 1:3
"...Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. " Luke 3:4

About Proverbs 8
The LXX is only a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and is not inspired by God. Haven't you demonstrated many times before how translators have made mistakes? If Qanah really means create in Proverbs 8:22 shouldn't there be another example of it within the Hebrew O.T.? The word Qanah is used many times in the Hebrew Scriptures but it never means created.
And you still haven't even attempted to prove by the Bible that Jesus is being talked about in Proverbs 8.

If Revelation 3:14 said that Jesus was the first created instead of him being the beginning/source of creation than that would contradict the Bible which said that "God created all things by Jesus Christ" Ephesians 3:9
Textus Receptus 1894 and 1991 Byzantine studylight.org/isb

Tsmith

April 8th 2005, 11:17 PM

Nobody is called Jehovah in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Hebrew language doesn't have the letter Jay. Jesus was called Yahweh in the Old Testament according to John the Baptist and I trust him more. He was inspired by God and new Jesus wasn't a created being.

"The voice of one who calls out, "Prepare the way of Yahweh in the wilderness! Make a level highway in the desert for our God." Isaiah 40:3 World English Bible
"... Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. " Matthew 3:3
"...Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. " Mark 1:3
"...Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. " Luke 3:4

Not at all. Notice he does not make "the way FOR Jehovah" by "of Jehovah". Jesus' actions were the way of Jehovah. The verse in Isaiah originally applied to Israel's return from Babylon. "the way of Jehovah" was Israel's way of return from Babylon. In the NT, "the way of Jehovah" was his way of salvation.. the sacrifice of his son.

About Proverbs 8
The LXX is only a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and is not inspired by God. Haven't you demonstrated many times before how translators have made mistakes? If Qanah really means create in Proverbs 8:22 shouldn't there be another example of it within the Hebrew O.T.? The word Qanah is used many times in the Hebrew Scriptures but it never means created.
And you still haven't even attempted to prove by the Bible that Jesus is being talked about in Proverbs 8.

You didn't address my point at all here..

Qanah is used because Qanah is used for a child being born. Proverbs 8 uses language for birth.

On that note, the Theological Wordbook of the OT does provide "create" for QANAH. Additionally, The Jewish Study Bible states: “In fact, ‘kanah’ refers to acquisition by means including creation, as here.”

If Revelation 3:14 said that Jesus was the first created instead of him being the beginning/source of creation than that would contradict the Bible which said that "God created all things by Jesus Christ" Ephesians 3:9
Textus Receptus 1894 and 1991 Byzantine studylight.org/isb

First of all, that is a textual variant that is not accepted by modern critical texts. But the NA27 and WH GNTs omit "through Jesus Christ". Nevertheless, I have no issue with that. To say through Christ was created "TA PANTA" is just a generalization. As a collective whole, they were created through Christ. It does not isolate and remove Christ from the realm of created things. Notice that TA PANTA, literally "the all" is not quite the same thing as "all creation". The latter is much more absolute and would provide significantly more weight in placing Christ in the realm of the uncreated. However, in Colossians 1:15 Christ is identifed as being part of creation, with the genitive "of all creation", placing him within creation. This is what the text says and I accept it.

Sparko

April 9th 2005, 12:12 AM

Not at all. Notice he does not make "the way FOR Jehovah" by "of Jehovah".

Actually it does.

"The voice of one who calls out, "Prepare the way of Yahweh in the wilderness! Make a level highway in the desert for our God." Isaiah 40:3 World English Bible

(GNB) A voice cries out, "Prepare in the wilderness a road for the LORD!
Clear the way in the desert for our God!

(GW) A voice cries out in the desert: "Clear a way for the LORD. Make a straight highway in the wilderness for our God.

(HNV) The voice of one who calls out, "Prepare the way of the LORD in the wilderness! Make a level highway in the desert for our God.

(KJVA) The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

(LITV) The voice of him who cries in the wilderness: Prepare the way of Jehovah; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

(MKJV) The voice of him who cries in the wilderness, Prepare the way of Jehovah, make straight a highway in the desert for our God.

It even goes on to say:

Isa 40:10 Behold, the Lord Jehovah will come with a strong hand, and His arm shall rule for Him; behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him.
Isa 40:11 He shall feed His flock like a shepherd; He shall gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and shall gently lead those with young.

Who came? Jesus. who was the shepherd? Jesus. Who does Isaiah say it will be? YHWH.

PioneerSDA

April 9th 2005, 12:45 AM

First, Jesus was not created. He was not born either (except via Mary)
YOU are the one who says that God made Jesus by begetting, and that means he is uncreated.

If that is the case then when God begat him, he also CREATED Jesus. That means that the bible is wrong when it says that Jesus created everything. That means you are wrong to say that God made Jesus to exist.

That is what I am trying to point out to you, Pioneer. That your position makes no sense.

Either Jesus always existed (which is what I believe)

or he did not exist at one time and therefore he is created.

Begat is old english. It was used for both monogenes and protokotos in the bible but neither is an exact translation as I have shown, that is why newer english translations use "first born" and "one and only" which express it better but still don't capture it exactly.

I went over that with you before. 'Origin' doesn't mean that he had a beginning. The hebrew word môtsâ'âh is the feminine of which means 'his source'

Strongs: môtsâ'
a going forth, that is, (the act) an egress, or (the place) an exit; hence a source or product; specifically dawn, the rising of the sun (the East), exportation, utterance, a gate, a fountain, a mine, a meadow (as producing grass): - brought out, bud, that which came out, east, going forth, goings out, that which (thing that) is gone out, outgoing, proceeded out, spring, vein, [water-] course [springs].

What it is saying is that his source is eternity. He comes from eternity. Eternity is forever, without time. If he comes from eternity, that means he always existed. It is a poetic way of saying he always existed.

Pioneer. Was Isaac Abraham's only generated son?

Of course not. He wasn't even his first! So if the bible says monogenes in regard to Isaac it doesn't mean "only generated" does it?

What does it mean? It means the son who inherits the promises of God. The number 1 son in terms of prominence. It even says it right after it calls him his only begotten:

"Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called." Hebrews 11:17,18

:doh:

That is exactly what I am saying!!!!!! The word doesn't actually mean "born" or "only" does it? because Isaac was not the first born. or only generated. he was the one who got the promises of God. He got the inheritance. He was the preeminant one.

According to you beget means the same as create so does that mean that Jesus became a created being inside Mary’s womb?

You said that the only time Jesus was born was by His earthy mother but what does Jesus say?
“I proceeded forth and came from God” John 8:42
“I came out from God.” John 16:27
“I came forth from the Father” John 16:28
“To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world” John 18:37

Is Jesus saying that He was born from the Father before He ever came into the world?

"...Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” Hebrews 1:5,6
“God sent his only born Son into the world” 1st John 4:9

God makes it clear that Jesus was His First and only born before He ever sent Him into the world from heaven.

Biblically speaking all created things were made from things already created or they were made from nothing. Jesus was not born from created things or from nothing so he is not created and this is the Bible, not the English dictionary speaking.

The Bible says Jesus created all created things. It does not say Jesus originated all things. He is not the Father which means originator. God the Father is the God and Father/originator of all even the originator of his Son who he gave birth to in eternity.

Alright according to you Jesus’s source is in eternity and not his origin. I agree with you. But that still doesn’t change the fact that the Father doesn’t’ have a source at all. If Micah wanted to say that Jesus always existed than he would have said he was from everlasting and not that “His source is from old is from everlasting” Micah 5:2 Just because Micah believed the Bible that the Messiah would be the Divine Son of God, don’t blame him or try to change his words to fit your false doctrine.

Yes, Isaac was Abraham’s only generated son of the promise. The word only generated does not change it’s meaning just because you want it to.

Present day Christians have some nerve to try and change the defintion. The Church Fathers always called Jesus the only generated Son. Why? Because they all spoke Ancient Greek. They never heard of this premininent business. Why do you think they invented that fake eternal generated doctrine in the first place. It is because they knew that Christ was called the only generated Son before he was ever born from Mary.

“God sent His only generated Son into the world” 1st John 4:9

Besides that, it is only English Christians saying that foolishness. Spanish people know that Monogenes means only generated. Why? Because their language comes directly from Latin and Latin came directly from Greek.

“in hoc apparuit caritas Dei in nobis quoniam Filium suum unigenitum misit Deus in mundum ut vivamus per eum” Latin Vulgate 425 A.D.

“En esto se mostró el amor de Dios para con nosotros:[a] en que Dios envió a su Hijo unigénito al mundo para que vivamos por él.”1 Juan 4:9 (Reina-Valera 1995)

Don’t let English Scholars lie to you. Monogenes means Only Generated when it translates into any language.
You say Abraham was not God’s only generated son or even his first son but what does God say?
“And he said, Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac,…”Genesis 22:2
“…hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.” Genesis 22:12
“…hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.” Genesis 22:16”

Where God was concerned Ishmael doesn’t count. So Paul followed God’s example in the Old Testament and He rightfully called Isac Abraham’s only generated Son. Please stop trying to redefine it. I was reading the Trinitarian Church Father’s just today and they didn’t have a problem calling Him God’s only generated Son. Why because the Bible doesn’t have a problem with it.

PioneerSDA

April 9th 2005, 01:46 AM

Not at all. Notice he does not make "the way FOR Jehovah" by "of Jehovah". Jesus' actions were the way of Jehovah. The verse in Isaiah originally applied to Israel's return from Babylon. "the way of Jehovah" was Israel's way of return from Babylon. In the NT, "the way of Jehovah" was his way of salvation.. the sacrifice of his son.

You didn't address my point at all here..

Qanah is used because Qanah is used for a child being born. Proverbs 8 uses language for birth.

On that note, the Theological Wordbook of the OT does provide "create" for QANAH. Additionally, The Jewish Study Bible states: “In fact, ‘kanah’ refers to acquisition by means including creation, as here.”

First of all, that is a textual variant that is not accepted by modern critical texts. But the NA27 and WH GNTs omit "through Jesus Christ". Nevertheless, I have no issue with that. To say through Christ was created "TA PANTA" is just a generalization. As a collective whole, they were created through Christ. It does not isolate and remove Christ from the realm of created things. Notice that TA PANTA, literally "the all" is not quite the same thing as "all creation". The latter is much more absolute and would provide significantly more weight in placing Christ in the realm of the uncreated. However, in Colossians 1:15 Christ is identifed as being part of creation, with the genitive "of all creation", placing him within creation. This is what the text says and I accept it.

The Preincarnate Christ is His Father’s only born and uncreated Messenger and He was the only one who had a right to use His Father’s Divine name because He inherited it from Him when He was born in eternity before all of creation, before time.

“Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name [is] in him.” Exodus 23:20,21 K.J.V.

“The angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them, and stood behind them.” Exodus 14:19 World English Bible

“Yahweh went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them on their way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light, that they might go by day and by night:” Exodus 13:21 W.E.B.

You seem to really love the LXX. You are always quoting from it. This is why I can’t understand why you can believe that Jesus is on the same level of the angels who you call gods when the LXX clearly shows that they worship him.

“Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.” Deuteronomy 32:43

The Eblish Translation of the Septuagint Bible
The Translation of the Old Testament, Including the Apocrypha.
Compiled from the Translation by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851
http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/

Also it is clear that the Father is the Branch so we know that this is His Son who must also have the name Yahweh.

“Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name by which he shall be called: Yahweh our righteousness.” Jeremiah 23:5,6 World English Bible

And again Jesus who’s also called Yahweh rebukes Satan.
“Yahweh said to Satan, "Yahweh rebuke you, Satan! Yes, Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Isn't this a burning stick plucked out of the fire?"” Zechariah 3:2 World English

PioneerSDA

April 9th 2005, 02:14 AM

Not at all. Notice he does not make "the way FOR Jehovah" by "of Jehovah". Jesus' actions were the way of Jehovah. The verse in Isaiah originally applied to Israel's return from Babylon. "the way of Jehovah" was Israel's way of return from Babylon. In the NT, "the way of Jehovah" was his way of salvation.. the sacrifice of his son.

You didn't address my point at all here..

Qanah is used because Qanah is used for a child being born. Proverbs 8 uses language for birth.

On that note, the Theological Wordbook of the OT does provide "create" for QANAH. Additionally, The Jewish Study Bible states: “In fact, ‘kanah’ refers to acquisition by means including creation, as here.”

First of all, that is a textual variant that is not accepted by modern critical texts. But the NA27 and WH GNTs omit "through Jesus Christ". Nevertheless, I have no issue with that. To say through Christ was created "TA PANTA" is just a generalization. As a collective whole, they were created through Christ. It does not isolate and remove Christ from the realm of created things. Notice that TA PANTA, literally "the all" is not quite the same thing as "all creation". The latter is much more absolute and would provide significantly more weight in placing Christ in the realm of the uncreated. However, in Colossians 1:15 Christ is identifed as being part of creation, with the genitive "of all creation", placing him within creation. This is what the text says and I accept it.

“He said, "Hear now my words. If there is a prophet among you, I Yahweh will make myself known to him in a vision. I will speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so. He is faithful in all my house. With him I will speak mouth to mouth, even plainly, and not in riddles; and he shall see Yahweh's form. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?" Numbers 12:6-8

God spoke to all other prophets in dreams but Moses saw Yahweh face to face and saw Yahweh’s form thus proving that this wasn’t the Father which no man has seen because He sits on His throne in heaven behind the light 1Timothy 6:16 but it was His only born Son who inherited His Father’s name at His birth in eternity who spoke to Moses.

“And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.” Exodus 32:23

“No one has seen God at any time. [nor seen his shape] The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.” John 1:18 ; John 5:37

“Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honour and power everlasting. Amen.” 1st Timothy 6:16

No man has seen God the Father so this must have been His only born Son who was seen in the Old Testament who was also called Yahweh “The Self Existent One”

Let no one confuse Self Existence with Eternality. God can give His son self existence (life in himself)but He can never give anyone eternality because Eternal means no beginning which only the Father has.

Tsmith

April 9th 2005, 08:52 AM

“He said, "Hear now my words. If there is a prophet among you, I Yahweh will make myself known to him in a vision. I will speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so. He is faithful in all my house. With him I will speak mouth to mouth, even plainly, and not in riddles; and he shall see Yahweh's form. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?" Numbers 12:6-8

God spoke to all other prophets in dreams but Moses saw Yahweh face to face and saw Yahweh’s form thus proving that this wasn’t the Father which no man has seen because He sits on His throne in heaven behind the light 1Timothy 6:16 but it was His only born Son who inherited His Father’s name at His birth in eternity who spoke to Moses.

“And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.” Exodus 32:23

“No one has seen God at any time. [nor seen his shape] The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.” John 1:18 ; John 5:37

“Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honour and power everlasting. Amen.” 1st Timothy 6:16

No man has seen God the Father so this must have been His only born Son who was seen in the Old Testament who was also called Yahweh “The Self Existent One”

Let no one confuse Self Existence with Eternality. God can give His son self existence (life in himself)but He can never give anyone eternality because Eternal means no beginning which only the Father has.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with a concept in ancient writings known as agency. When a person goes in representation of another, it is said that the person themself went, taking their authority, their name, everything. Let me demonstrate this.

Matthew 8:5 And Jesus, entering into Capernaum, a centurion came near to Him, begging Him, 6 and saying, Lord, my child has been laid in the house, a paralytic, being grievously tormented.

Within this first passage we have found that the centurion is said to have come to Jesus, begging him for help. Yet, let us note what Luke writes regarding this same passage.

Luke 7:3 And having heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him, asking Him that He might come to restore his slave. 4 And coming to Jesus, they earnestly begged Him, saying, He to whom You give this is worthy.

Is this a contradiction? Not at all, as Adam Clarke explains: “It is a usual form of speech in all nations, to attribute the act to a person which is done not by himself, but by his authority.” Thus, when it says that the “elders of the Jews” were the ones that begged him, we note that it says “he sent them.” These were acting as his legal agents.

This point is highlighted further by G.W. Buchanan8: “As apostle or agent he was sent with the full authority of the one who sent him. A man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has power of attorney for the one who sent him. . . He has the authority of an ambassador who speaks in behalf of a king in negotiating for his country (Ber. 5:5). Jesus said that the one who received his apostles whom he had sent received Jesus himself, and not only Jesus, but the one who had sent him. (John 13:20). . . Legally Jesus was identical with the Father, but physically the Father was greater. . . As an ambassador or apostle, the Son has authority over everything since he is given legal authority and is supported in everything he does "by the word of [God's] power." He speaks for the One who sent him.”

Now you mention John 1:18. Personally I find no reason to take this beyond Jesus' ministry on earth. Why? For one, this OT example you have brought up is specifically identified as being angels. Let me show you.

Acts 7:35 This Moses, whom they denied, saying, Who appointed you a ruler and a judge, this one God has sent as ruler and redeemer by the hand of an angel who appeared to him in the Bush.

Stephen specifically identifies it as being an angel that appeared to Moses. An Angel using God's name? Absolutely. Because of the legal agency that was given to the angel. Note that God is said to have placed his name within the angel.

Exodus 23:21 Be on guard before Him, and listen to His voice. Do not be rebellious against Him, for He will not forgive your transgressions; for My name is in Him.

God's name was in him. God had given him all the authority, and so just as "the older men of the jews" were given the title of "centurion" in their representation of him, so was the angel given the name "Jehovah" because he represented him.

With that said, could Jesus possibly be named Jehovah? No, it is impossible based on this verse alone.

Phi 2:9 Because of this also God highly exalted Him and gave Him a name above every name,

It here states that gave "gave him a name above every name." Where Jesus also named Jehovah, this would already be true. Yet, what brought about Jesus being given that name? Notice that verse 9 say "Because of this..." Because of what? Notice the reason.

Phi 2:8 and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, having become obedient until death, even the death of a cross.

He humbled himself to the point of death, and so "because of this" he was given a name above every name. He did not possess it prior, else it would not be true that it was for this reason he was given it.

Tsmith

April 9th 2005, 08:58 AM

The Preincarnate Christ is His Father’s only born and uncreated Messenger and He was the only one who had a right to use His Father’s Divine name because He inherited it from Him when He was born in eternity before all of creation, before time.

“Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name [is] in him.” Exodus 23:20,21 K.J.V.

“The angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them, and stood behind them.” Exodus 14:19 World English Bible

“Yahweh went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them on their way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light, that they might go by day and by night:” Exodus 13:21 W.E.B.

You seem to really love the LXX. You are always quoting from it. This is why I can’t understand why you can believe that Jesus is on the same level of the angels who you call gods when the LXX clearly shows that they worship him.

“Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.” Deuteronomy 32:43

The Eblish Translation of the Septuagint Bible
The Translation of the Old Testament, Including the Apocrypha.
Compiled from the Translation by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851
http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/

Also it is clear that the Father is the Branch so we know that this is His Son who must also have the name Yahweh.

“Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name by which he shall be called: Yahweh our righteousness.” Jeremiah 23:5,6 World English Bible

And again Jesus who’s also called Yahweh rebukes Satan.
“Yahweh said to Satan, "Yahweh rebuke you, Satan! Yes, Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Isn't this a burning stick plucked out of the fire?"” Zechariah 3:2 World English

Yes, God's name is in the angel. His authority, and thus he was his represenative. See my previous post.

As for the LXX, perhaps you don't realize that many are "worshipped". See 1 Chron 29:20 where the king is.

And Jeremaih 23:5,6, lots of things have the name "Jehovah" in them. Even an alter. This does little to help your position.

And Zech, the one is specifically identified as being "the angel of Jehovah" and thus we fall back into agency.

Tsmith

April 9th 2005, 09:01 AM

Actually it does.

"The voice of one who calls out, "Prepare the way of Yahweh in the wilderness! Make a level highway in the desert for our God." Isaiah 40:3 World English Bible

(GNB) A voice cries out, "Prepare in the wilderness a road for the LORD!
Clear the way in the desert for our God!

(GW) A voice cries out in the desert: "Clear a way for the LORD. Make a straight highway in the wilderness for our God.

(HNV) The voice of one who calls out, "Prepare the way of the LORD in the wilderness! Make a level highway in the desert for our God.

(KJVA) The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

(LITV) The voice of him who cries in the wilderness: Prepare the way of Jehovah; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

(MKJV) The voice of him who cries in the wilderness, Prepare the way of Jehovah, make straight a highway in the desert for our God.

It even goes on to say:

Isa 40:10 Behold, the Lord Jehovah will come with a strong hand, and His arm shall rule for Him; behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him.
Isa 40:11 He shall feed His flock like a shepherd; He shall gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and shall gently lead those with young.

Who came? Jesus. who was the shepherd? Jesus. Who does Isaiah say it will be? YHWH.

Wrong answer. The question is what John applied to himself. He did not apply it all to it. Further, note that Young's Literal Translation renders it "TO our God" which is much more agreeable with the context, where Israel is walking this road on their return from Babylon.

I'm glad you bring up Isaiah 40:10, because it specifically rules this out from being Christ. It says "his arm will rule for him" Who is his Arm? According to Isaiah 55, it is the Messiah. This can therefore ONLY be a reference to the Father.

Sparko

April 9th 2005, 10:46 AM

Wrong answer. The question is what John applied to himself. He did not apply it all to it. Further, note that Young's Literal Translation renders it "TO our God" which is much more agreeable with the context, where Israel is walking this road on their return from Babylon.

What John applied to himself? What are you talking about?

John the baptist was the voice cying out in the desert. He cried out the words of Isaiah.

And the word refer to WHO is coming? GOD is coming! Isaiah specifically says that. So when John is quoting those words, who is he saying is coming? GOD. Jehovah. YHWH.

I'm glad you bring up Isaiah 40:10, because it specifically rules this out from being Christ. It says "his arm will rule for him" Who is his Arm? According to Isaiah 55, it is the Messiah. This can therefore ONLY be a reference to the Father.

Gee what about verse 9???

9 You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, "Here is your God!" 10 See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him.

It says "Here is your God!"

Don't you get it? His arm is Jesus, but Jesus is GOD! is your arm part of your body? or does it belong to someone else? is your arm a separate being? did you create your arm? It is an extension of yourself. Part of YOU.

YHWH refers to the triune God. It encompasses the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So the Father is YHWH and Jesus is YHWH.

And back to YHWH creating THROUGH Jesus? Using Jesus as a sort of channel or something?

Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

Isaiah 48:13 "My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together.

YHWH says he did it by HIMSELF. ALONE. BY HIS OWN HAND. He is saying he had no channel or help. Therefore if everything was created through Jesus by the Father using the Holy Spirit then they all must be ONE God, YHWH. Because otherwise he didn't do it by himself, did he? If Jesus was a separate entity and a created being, then God didn't create everything alone, by himself, with his own hand.

Sparko

April 9th 2005, 11:33 AM

Wrong answer. The verse never says God will appear. It says the GLORY of God will appear. This is what Stephen saw in Acts 7 and what Jesus said he will come in within the verse I referenced in Luke.

Gee, I sure am glad we have YOU to tell us that all the translators of the bible are wrong. Wonder why they didn't get you to write the bible?

Vincent's word studies (I hope the greek letters come through OK):
And the glorious appearing (καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης)
Καὶ is explanatory, introducing the definition of the character of the thing hoped for. Looking for the object of hope, even the appearing, etc. Glorious appearing is a specimen of the vicious hendiadys by which the force of so many passages has been impaired or destroyed in translation. Rend. appearing of the glory.

RWP: The blessed hope and appearing of the glory (tēn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tēs doxēs). The word epiphaneia (used by the Greeks of the appearance of the gods, from epiphanēs, epiphainō) occurs in 2Ti_1:10 of the Incarnation of Christ, the first Epiphany (like the verb epephanē, Tit_2:11), but here of the second Epiphany of Christ or the second coming as in 1Ti_6:14; 2Ti_4:1, 2Ti_4:8. In 2Th_2:8 both epiphaneia and parousia (the usual word) occur together of the second coming.

JFB: the glorious appearing--There is but one Greek article to both "hope" and "appearing," which marks their close connection (the hope being about to be realized only at the appearing of Christ). Translate, "The blessed hope and manifestation (compare Note, see on Tit_2:11) of the glory." The Greek for "manifestation" is translated "brightness" in 2Th_2:8. As His "coming" (Greek, "parousia") expresses the fact; so "brightness, appearing," or "manifestation" (epiphaneia) expresses His personal visibility when He shall come.

Hardly the case. As Smyth's grammar points out, the singular article shows a single concept. In the case of Titus, the single appearing. You clearly do not know Greek, so I wish you wouldn't pretend you do.

Exactly where did i say I was a greek scholar? Point that out to me. But I sure can read. I can look up the greek and the definitions and read what real experts say about it. Unlike YOU who are the one pretending to be an expert in Greek but who seems to be someone who is getting all their info from that website you posted earlier. You seem to know just enough to be able to sound like you know what you are talking about and to twist things out of context. In other words you are good a blowing smoke up the rears of others.

Let's see what real experts have to say about it:

JFB: the great God and our Saviour Jesus--There is but one Greek article to "God" and "Saviour," which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being. "Of Him who is at once the great God and our Saviour." Also (2) "appearing" (epiphaneia) is never by Paul predicated of God the Father (Joh_1:18; 1Ti_6:16), or even of "His glory" (as ALFORD explains it): it is invariably applied to CHRIST'S coming, to which (at His first advent, compare 2Ti_1:10) the kindred verb "appeared" (epephanee), Tit_2:11, refers (1Ti_6:14; 2Ti_4:1, 2Ti_4:8). Also (3) in the context (Tit_2:14) there is no reference to the Father, but to Christ alone; and here there is no occasion for reference to the Father in the exigencies of the context. Also (4) the expression "great God," as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as "the true God" is predicated of Christ, 1Jo_5:20. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. Deu_7:21; Deu_10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making "the great God" to be the Father, "our Saviour," the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to "the glory" of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God.

RWP: Of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (tou megalou theou kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). This is the necessary meaning of the one article with theou and sōtēros just as in 2Pe_1:1, 2Pe_1:11. See Robertson, Grammar, p. 786. Westcott and Hort read Christou Iēsou.

2 Peter 1:1 ...to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

John Gill: and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; not two divine persons, only one, are here intended; for the word: rendered "appearing", is never used of God the Father, only of the second person; and the propositive article is not set before the word "Saviour", as it would, if two distinct persons were designed; and the copulative "and" is exegetical, and may he rendered thus, "and the glorious appearing of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ"; who, in the next verse, is said to give himself for the redemption of his people: so that here is a very illustrious proof of the true and proper deity of Christ, who will appear at his second coming; for of that appearance are the, words to be understood, as the great God, in all the glories and perfections of his divine nature; as well as a Saviour, which is mentioned to show that he will appear to the salvation of his people, which he will then put them in the full possession of; and that the brightness of his divine Majesty will not make them afraid: and this appearance will be a glorious one; for Christ will come in his own glory, in the glory of his deity, particularly his omniscience and omnipotence will be very conspicuous; and in his glory as Mediator, which will be beheld by all the saints; and in his glory as a Judge, invested with power and authority from his Father, which will be terrible to sinners; and in the glory of his human nature, with which it is now crowned; and in his Father's glory, in the same he had with him before the world was, and which is the same with his, and in that which he will receive from him as man and Mediator, and as the Judge of the whole earth; and in the glory of his holy angels, being attended with all his mighty ones: to which may be added, that saints will be raised from the dead, and with the living ones appear with Christ in glory, and make up the bride, the Lamb's wife, having the glory of God upon her; so that this will be a grand appearance indeed. Now this the Gospel directs, and instructs believers to look for, to love, to hasten to, most earnestly desire, and yet patiently wait for, most firmly believing that it will be: and this the saints have reason to look for, with longing desire and affection, and with pleasure, since it will be not only glorious in itself, but advantageous to them; they will then be glorified with Christ, and be for ever with him.

You yourself said that the word "god" carried multiple senses. Apply a different sense to Jesus.. and I'm no longer a polytheist. Wow. Amazing.

Then you are merely a heretic that denies the diety of Christ! wow! amazing! You are wrong either way! wow! amazing!

You are backing away. You're not engaging my points. You're running from them.

rriiiiigghht. <--- that was sarcasm in case you are wondering if I am agreeing with you or not.

I am tired of repeating myself and watching you twist everything around and pretend that you are some hoity-toity biblical scholar when you are just a heretic without a clue. Why don't you tell us your credentials since that seems important to you? Maybe you could impress more us if you posted your resume?

I have engaged ALL of your points. You refuse to acknowledge that. You merely repeat yourself, and say I am not engaging.

Sparko

April 9th 2005, 12:01 PM

According to you beget means the same as create so does that mean that Jesus became a created being inside Mary’s womb?

No. because unlike us, Jesus existed before he was born into a body. We didn't.

You said that the only time Jesus was born was by His earthy mother but what does Jesus say?
“I proceeded forth and came from God” John 8:42
“I came out from God.” John 16:27
“I came forth from the Father” John 16:28
“To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world” John 18:37

Is Jesus saying that He was born from the Father before He ever came into the world?

"born" he is speaking of his human side. He was born from Mary. he was also speaking of his mission. "he proceeded forth and came from God and now I am here" - that is who sent him. and where he came from. From being with God.

"...Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” Hebrews 1:5,6
“God sent his only born Son into the world” 1st John 4:9

God makes it clear that Jesus was His First and only born before He ever sent Him into the world from heaven.

It says no such thing. It says that his unique son (preeminant) son was sent into the world. And Jesus WAS born when he was sent into the world. It no where says that God somehow gave "birth" to Jesus in heaven. Did he lay an egg or something?

Biblically speaking all created things were made from things already created or they were made from nothing. Jesus was not born from created things or from nothing so he is not created and this is the Bible, not the English dictionary speaking.

Nope. that is Pioneer speaking. You are the only one who seems to think that being begotten is a loophole around being created. Created means coming to exist. Begotten (the english word not the greek word monogenes) means to come to exist. If something did not exist and then began to exist, then they were created by something somehow.

The Bible says Jesus created all created things. It does not say Jesus originated all things. He is not the Father which means originator. God the Father is the God and Father/originator of all even the originator of his Son who he gave birth to in eternity.

again, in 'eternity' there was NO TIME, right? So how could there be a time before there was a son? Time was created with the universe. Thefore if Jesus is from eternity, that means without time. So you can't say there was a 'before' when Jesus did not exist.

Alright according to you Jesus’s source is in eternity and not his origin. I agree with you. But that still doesn’t change the fact that the Father doesn’t’ have a source at all. If Micah wanted to say that Jesus always existed than he would have said he was from everlasting and not that “His source is from old is from everlasting” Micah 5:2 Just because Micah believed the Bible that the Messiah would be the Divine Son of God, don’t blame him or try to change his words to fit your false doctrine.

He was being POETIC. He DID say that he was from everlasting.

Pioneer, you are the one with the false doctrine. It seems you have made up your own doctrine in this matter because I have never heard anyone else claim the things you do. You admit Jesus created everything, that is is YHWH, that he is Divine, but that he is a separate being from the Father, which makes him another God, but you deny being polytheistic. You also claim he is uncreated but there was a time when he did not exist and that the Father caused him to begin to exist, but you refuse to admit that means he was created.

Where do you get your ideas from? Does your church teach this stuff? And if so, what church is that?

Yes, Isaac was Abraham’s only generated son of the promise. The word only generated does not change it’s meaning just because you want it to.

:doh:

You are just being obtuse now.

Don’t let English Scholars lie to you. Monogenes means Only Generated when it translates into any language.

You say Abraham was not God’s only generated son or even his first son but what does God say?
“And he said, Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac,…”Genesis 22:2
“…hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.” Genesis 22:12
“…hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.” Genesis 22:16”

Uh if it meand "only generated" shouldn't it be translated "Only only begotten" then? since the verse already has "only" in there outside of monogenes.

Where God was concerned Ishmael doesn’t count. So Paul followed God’s example in the Old Testament and He rightfully called Isac Abraham’s only generated Son. Please stop trying to redefine it. I was reading the Trinitarian Church Father’s just today and they didn’t have a problem calling Him God’s only generated Son. Why because the Bible doesn’t have a problem with it.

So if the ONLY part of Monogenes doesn't always have to be there (cuz now you are saying it means "generated" and dropping the only part) then why does the generated part need to be there?

In other words, where it says Abrahams monogenes son, at first you said monogenes means "ONLY Generated" but when I pointed out that Issaac was not Abraham's ONLY son, you dropped the ONLY part and kept insisting that the operative word was "generated" and that ONLY referred to the promise. Well I am saying that "-genes" does not necessarily mean "generated" but it means "genus" or same type of thing. It can mean "offspring" in the sense of being born literally, or it can mean of the same kind like in diety or humanity.

Anyway,

Let me know what kind of church you go to and if they teach the stuff you are claiming here. Cuz I never heard such doctrine before.

God Bless.

PioneerSDA

April 9th 2005, 05:32 PM

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with a concept in ancient writings known as agency. When a person goes in representation of another, it is said that the person themself went, taking their authority, their name, everything. Let me demonstrate this.

Matthew 8:5 And Jesus, entering into Capernaum, a centurion came near to Him, begging Him, 6 and saying, Lord, my child has been laid in the house, a paralytic, being grievously tormented.

Within this first passage we have found that the centurion is said to have come to Jesus, begging him for help. Yet, let us note what Luke writes regarding this same passage.

Luke 7:3 And having heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him, asking Him that He might come to restore his slave. 4 And coming to Jesus, they earnestly begged Him, saying, He to whom You give this is worthy.

Is this a contradiction? Not at all, as Adam Clarke explains: “It is a usual form of speech in all nations, to attribute the act to a person which is done not by himself, but by his authority.” Thus, when it says that the “elders of the Jews” were the ones that begged him, we note that it says “he sent them.” These were acting as his legal agents.

This point is highlighted further by G.W. Buchanan8: “As apostle or agent he was sent with the full authority of the one who sent him. A man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has power of attorney for the one who sent him. . . He has the authority of an ambassador who speaks in behalf of a king in negotiating for his country (Ber. 5:5). Jesus said that the one who received his apostles whom he had sent received Jesus himself, and not only Jesus, but the one who had sent him. (John 13:20). . . Legally Jesus was identical with the Father, but physically the Father was greater. . . As an ambassador or apostle, the Son has authority over everything since he is given legal authority and is supported in everything he does "by the word of [God's] power." He speaks for the One who sent him.”

Now you mention John 1:18. Personally I find no reason to take this beyond Jesus' ministry on earth. Why? For one, this OT example you have brought up is specifically identified as being angels. Let me show you.

Acts 7:35 This Moses, whom they denied, saying, Who appointed you a ruler and a judge, this one God has sent as ruler and redeemer by the hand of an angel who appeared to him in the Bush.

Stephen specifically identifies it as being an angel that appeared to Moses. An Angel using God's name? Absolutely. Because of the legal agency that was given to the angel. Note that God is said to have placed his name within the angel.

Exodus 23:21 Be on guard before Him, and listen to His voice. Do not be rebellious against Him, for He will not forgive your transgressions; for My name is in Him.

God's name was in him. God had given him all the authority, and so just as "the older men of the jews" were given the title of "centurion" in their representation of him, so was the angel given the name "Jehovah" because he represented him.

With that said, could Jesus possibly be named Jehovah? No, it is impossible based on this verse alone.

Phi 2:9 Because of this also God highly exalted Him and gave Him a name above every name,

It here states that gave "gave him a name above every name." Where Jesus also named Jehovah, this would already be true. Yet, what brought about Jesus being given that name? Notice that verse 9 say "Because of this..." Because of what? Notice the reason.

Phi 2:8 and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, having become obedient until death, even the death of a cross.

He humbled himself to the point of death, and so "because of this" he was given a name above every name. He did not possess it prior, else it would not be true that it was for this reason he was given it.

Luke 7:3 And having heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him, asking Him that He might come to restore his slave. 4 And coming to Jesus, they earnestly begged Him, saying, He to whom You give this is worthy.

"And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant. " Luke 7:3
"Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, " Luke 7:6
"And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, " Matthew 8:5

No angency here. 1st the elders of the Jews came, then the Centurion's friends came, then the Centurion himself came.

Jesus gave an example of this angency theory in his earthy ministry. He said He came in the name of Yahweh, He never said He was Yahweh. Than this would be the same thing in the O.T. Messengers would have said, I come in the name of Yahweh and not I am Yahweh.

Do you think that a being is called angel that that means he is a created being? Malak the Hebrew word means messenger or representative and Angleos the Greek word means the same thing. Just because someone is called an angel does not make him a created being. The simple fact that Moses worshipped this representative in the bush, and Joshua worshipped this same being in Joshua 5:14,15 proves that it is not a created being but it is the only born Son of God who inherited His Father's name at His birth in eternity before all of creation.

But for sake of argument let's say your agency theory is true and this was an angel using Yahweh's name in the burning bush. This can be argued because the Bible says it was an angel. What about the times when no Bible record says it is an angel? Then we have to conclude that it is Yahweh Himself speaking just like the Bible reads.

“He said, "Hear now my words. If there is a prophet among you, I Yahweh will make myself known to him in a vision. I will speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so. He is faithful in all my house. With him I will speak mouth to mouth, even plainly, and not in riddles; and he shall see Yahweh's form. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?" Numbers 12:6-8

“And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.” Exodus 32:23

There is no agency here. This is Yahweh Himself saying that Moses sees Him.

"No man hath seen God at any time....The only begotten...hath declared Him"

You say John 1:18 Where Jesus is called God's only begotten Son doesn't go beyond His earthly life but the Bible makes it clear that He was already God's first and only born Son before he ever was sent into the world. Hebrews