No bible writer teaches the Trinity as Doctrine, in context. [Archive]

Cal_Minian

June 17th 2003, 11:58 AM

Dear mickiel,

After I quoted Matthew 25:46 where Jesus speaks about “eternal punishment” you said “I understand your belief, but verse 37 calls those who you think condemned-- "righteous", explain to me how they are NOT righteous by verse 46?” You also said “I would agree that God could simply will people out of existance, but it is NOT in his revealed power to loose children.”

There are two groups that Jesus mentions, the sheep and the goats. The righteous to which you refer are the sheep, not the goats who “go away into eternal punishment.”

To help make this clear I will quote the entire passage and color code the sheep and goats .

Matthew 25:31 But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: 32 and before him shall be gathegreen all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats; 33 and he shall set the sheep on his right hand , but the goats on the left .

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand , Come, ye blessed of my Father , inherit the kingdom prepagreen for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat ; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink ; I was a stranger, and y e took me in ; 36 naked, and ye clothed me ; I was sick, and ye visited me ; I was in prison, and ye came unto me . 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink? 38 And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them , Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me .

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand , Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepagreen for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat ; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in ; naked, and ye clothed me not ; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not . 44 Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them , saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me. 46 And these shall go away into eternal punishment : but the righteous into eternal life.

As you can see, you have confounded the two groups. This thread, however, is not intended as a discussion of different views on “eternal punishment,” which is quite clearly taught by Jesus in this verse. My point in bringing up the doctrine was merely to show how the Trinity stands alone as a doctrine which is not taught as doctrine by any bible writer. You have a different view on “eternal punishment,” but you can hardly deny the existence of something that Jesus himself spoke about.

Kind Regards,
Cal_Minian

Pereynol of Sheer Dread

June 17th 2003, 12:17 PM

Cal,
How do you define "person?" Do you think the Spirit can be divine without being personal? Are the attributes of divinity and personhood with respect to God something one can separate in your estimation?

I'm interested to hear how you think concerning these matters....

Cal_Minian

June 17th 2003, 12:42 PM

Today @ 08:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125498#post125498)
cirisme:

Dear cirisme,
As a modertor who has frequently posted on this board you may be in a position to help me find someone who will explain why the Trinity stands alone.

While it is admirable that you do not consider a doctrine that no bible writer teaches, in context, to be essential for salvation, this does not help me understand why you believe it when the Trinity cleary stands alone.

If you know of a Trinitarian (or two!) who is up to directly addressing my challenge I would be most grateful if you could direct them to this thread.

Best Regards,
Cal_Minian

Cal_Minian

June 17th 2003, 12:49 PM

Today @ 09:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125532#post125532)
pereynol:

Cal,
How do you define "person?" Do you think the Spirit can be divine without being personal? Are the attributes of divinity and personhood with respect to God something one can separate in your estimation?

I'm interested to hear how you think concerning these matters....

Dear pereynol,
I consider the holy spirit to be divine because it originates with the God and Father of Jesus Christ and it is therefore of divine origin.

As to personification, my view is that the holy spirit reflects the personality of the one who sends it. I do not consider the holy spirit to be a person.

I am not offering proofs at this time because my focus is on why the Trinity stands alone as a doctrine considered essential by the owners and moderators of this board (with the exception of criseme) when it is not taught by any bible writer in the same manner as all true essentail doctrines.

Best Regards,
Cal_Minian

$cirisme

June 17th 2003, 12:50 PM

Cal,

I'm afraid this isn't my primary section, so I'm not too familiar with the regulars here. Are you interested in a structured debate? If you are, you may want to post a challenge in Coach's Quarters (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=34) which tends to bring alot of people in.

Bill the Cat

June 17th 2003, 12:50 PM

Greetings Cal.

I'm a trinitarian and I agree with you to an extent. I don't think that the earliest Christians had to understand the Trinity, but they did have to believe the divinity of Christ and accept the Monotheism commanded by God.

Cal_Minian

June 17th 2003, 01:01 PM

Today @ 09:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125559#post125559)
cirisme:

Cal,

I'm afraid this isn't my primary section, so I'm not too familiar with the regulars here. Are you interested in a structured debate? If you are, you may want to post a challenge in Coach's Quarters (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=34) which tends to bring alot of people in.

Thanks crisme!
I'll read over the forum rules and in the mean time continue to look for responses here.

Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 17th 2003, 01:22 PM

Today @ 09:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125560#post125560)
Bill the Cat:

Greetings Cal.

I'm a trinitarian and I agree with you to an extent. I don't think that the earliest Christians had to understand the Trinity, but they did have to believe the divinity of Christ and accept the Monotheism commanded by God.

Dear Bill,
Are you saying that the first century Christians were Binitarians (The Father and Son are God) and that they became Trinitarians at a later date?

Regards,
Cal

o2bwise

June 17th 2003, 01:55 PM

Hi Cal!,

Nice topic!

I think my odyssey away from Trinitarianism is inclusive of some of what you are bringing up. Here is an example of what I have done:

Go into an NT book. Reference EVERY usage of God (ho theos). Reference WHO it is referring to. If another is referred to in the same discussion, reference who this other is.

As an example, I went through 1 Thessalonians. The Father ONLY was ho theos with virtually every single text that had ho theos. Christ was mentioned AS ANOTHER within perhaps half of those ho theos texts.

I suppose a Trinitarian has to believe in a very different methodology of arriving at truth than do I.

My understanding is as follows.

Once upon a time, a very, very, very long time ago, God begat a Son. This event is something we can come closest to conceptualizing with what we know of as BIRTH.

The Son was divine, not by virtue of being God, but by virtue of being His Son. In other words, by inheritance.

The Son is revered AS the Son. Sort of like Roger's and Hammerstein's Cinderella where the prince was revered, but this reverence was not polytheism for only the King was revered AS the King (as an analogy). Christ, coming from that royal line, is revered for WHO He is (and not for who He is not).

I'll skip the impact of the incarnation for now.

The Holy Spirit is the Divine Influence of Father and Son. Whether the Word as it is in the Bible or people talking accurately about who God is or God speaking to our very hearts (telepathically) or an influence that can even create worlds.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Bill the Cat

June 17th 2003, 02:15 PM

Today @ 01:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125587#post125587)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Bill,
Are you saying that the first century Christians were Binitarians (The Father and Son are God) and that they became Trinitarians at a later date?

Regards,
Cal

Not necassarily. More along the lines of the Father was God and the Son was Lord (ruler) of their life, and the Spirit was the proof of adoption. Something like that. :huh: :shrug:

mickiel

June 17th 2003, 02:22 PM

Today @ 07:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125626#post125626)
Bill the Cat:

Not necassarily. More along the lines of the Father was God and the Son was Lord (ruler) of their life, and the Spirit was the proof of adoption. Something like that. :huh: :shrug:

They are one, meaning Jesus is one being, God is one being, they are not two beings in one. People think the staement "i and my Father are one", means Jesus is in some weird symbiosis with God. It simply means Jesus is independantly a being by himself, as is God. They are one being. The attempt to fuse them together, and create the Holy Spirit as a third being, is a human misunderstanding.

Cal_Minian

June 17th 2003, 02:45 PM

Today @ 11:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125626#post125626)
Bill the Cat:

Not necassarily. More along the lines of the Father was God and the Son was Lord (ruler) of their life, and the Spirit was the proof of adoption. Something like that. :huh: :shrug:

Dear Bill,
I can afirm the same thing that you say first century Christians believed because Bible writers clearly teach those things.

Why are you Trinitarian?

Regards,
Cal

markporter

June 17th 2003, 02:47 PM

anyone read Glenn Miller's article at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin01.html ? 'tis very good...if rather long.

Bill the Cat

June 17th 2003, 03:56 PM

Today @ 02:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125655#post125655)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Bill,
I can afirm the same thing that you say first century Christians believed because Bible writers clearly teach those things.

Why are you Trinitarian?

Regards,
Cal

It's like this. I am a trin because it makes the most sense to me. But belief in the trin is not the end all of Christianity. I don't think God will look at someone who believed in Jesus and followed His command and loved Him with all their heart, and say..." depart from me you worker of iniquity." Total committment to Christ is the key, not a philosophical understanding of Him.

Bill the Cat

June 17th 2003, 03:57 PM

Today @ 02:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125631#post125631)
mickiel:

They are one, meaning Jesus is one being, God is one being, they are not two beings in one. People think the staement "i and my Father are one", means Jesus is in some weird symbiosis with God. It simply means Jesus is independantly a being by himself, as is God. They are one being. The attempt to fuse them together, and create the Holy Spirit as a third being, is a human misunderstanding.

So mic, are you a polytheist? Do youi believe in the divinity of Christ?

Jaltus

June 17th 2003, 04:05 PM

Why is the Trinity essential?

Because it is only through the Trinity that one can understand what and who Jesus Christ really is.

Eventually every debate about the Trinity comes down to the definition of who Jesus is. If He is God, then the Trinity is obvious. If He is not God, then the Trinity is false.

However, I would say the it is clearly taught in scripture that Jesus is in fact God.

The first point of evidence: use of "Lord" as the name for God in the OT and the name for Jesus in the NT.

The second point of evidence: John's prologue.

The third point of evidence: the first chapter of Hebrews.

The fourth point of evidence: Paul's use of the shema in I Corinthians 8:6.

Cal_Minian

June 17th 2003, 04:30 PM

Today @ 01:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125711#post125711)
Jaltus:

Jaltus:
Why is the Trinity essential?

Because it is only through the Trinity that one can understand what and who Jesus Christ really is.

Cal_Minian:
A teaching that no bible writer ever articulated is essential to understand Jesus Christ? Why is it that this "essential" doctrine stands alone amongst all the other true doctrines that are taught by bible writers. (See my first post for details).

Jaltus:
Eventually every debate about the Trinity comes down to the definition of who Jesus is. If He is God, then the Trinity is obvious. If He is not God, then the Trinity is false.

Cal_Minian:
I agree that the word QEOS is used of the Son of God. However, Jesus is never called the one God of Christian monotheism. QEOS/elohim is also used of those who represent God, (cf Exodus 7:1) and that is the sense in which Jesus is QEOS.

Jaltus:
However, I would say the it is clearly taught in scripture that Jesus is in fact God.

Cal_Minian:
It is clear that the word QEOS is used of the Son of God. To state that it is "clear" that Jesus is being identified as the one God of Christian monotheism is a statement that I would truly love to see you demonstrate.

Jaltus:
The first point of evidence: use of "Lord" as the name for God in the OT and the name for Jesus in the NT.

The second point of evidence: John's prologue.

The third point of evidence: the first chapter of Hebrews.

The fourth point of evidence: Paul's use of the shema in I Corinthians 8:6.

Cal_Minian:
I would go to those passages to prove that Jesus is being DISTINGUISHED from the God of Christian monotheism, his God and Father.

However, what I am really interested in hearing from you is why the Trinity is the only essential doctrine that is not taught by any bible writer in context if it is truly essential. (See the first post in this thread for details)

Kind Regards,
Cal

markporter

June 17th 2003, 05:08 PM

" I would go to those passages to prove that Jesus is being DISTINGUISHED from the God of Christian monotheism, his God and Father."

I must be missing something in the English translation then, because my Bible clearly states "and the word was with God, and the word was God" that looks like two identical occurences of the word God to me, one saying that Jesus is him, and the other saying that he is with him.

Also, if Jesus was merely God's representative, and not God himself, then the actions which he performs would seem a little strange, he often acts as the authority is his, and not as if it is someone else's.

What about the passage where they want to kill him and say "because you, a mere man claim to be God" If he were merely claiming to be God's representative, then what is there to kill him over? what has he done wrong?

he seems to be saying 'look - here I am' a little much if he were not divine

Oh, and how about Phillipans?

"5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
___ 6Who, being in very nature[1] God,
_______did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
___ 7but made himself nothing,
_______taking the very nature[2] of a servant,
_______being made in human likeness. "

Sounds like the early church thought he was the one God to me...

o2bwise

June 17th 2003, 05:32 PM

Hi Mark,

I must be missing something in the English translation then, because my Bible clearly states "and the word was with God, and the word was God"

Yes, you are correct.

The definite article is lacking where it refers to the Word. Another viable translation would be: "and the word was divine" which is what we would expect the only begotten of God to be.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Cal_Minian

June 17th 2003, 05:34 PM

Today @ 02:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125751#post125751)
markporter:

" I would go to those passages to prove that Jesus is being DISTINGUISHED from the God of Christian monotheism, his God and Father."

I must be missing something in the English translation then, because my Bible clearly states "and the word was with God, and the word was God" that looks like two identical occurences of the word God to me, one saying that Jesus is him, and the other saying that he is with him.

Also, if Jesus was merely God's representative, and not God himself, then the actions which he performs would seem a little strange, he often acts as the authority is his, and not as if it is someone else's.

What about the passage where they want to kill him and say "because you, a mere man claim to be God" If he were merely claiming to be God's representative, then what is there to kill him over? what has he done wrong?

Dear Mark,
This thread is not the place to discuss John 1:1 in detail. However I will say that the understanding of John 1:1 cannot be determined merely from a single English translation which states that "Word was God" making it appear that the Word was the God he was with. One needs to examine the Greek which does distinguish between the Word and the Father as QEOS.

As far as authority is concerned, Jesus said that the authority was given to him by his Father after he was resurrected. (Mt 28:19-20) While on the earth he also said he did nothing “of himself” or “on his own” (John 5:19,30 NRSV).

As far as why the Jews wanted to kill him, it was because they thought he made himself out to be the Son of God (John 19:7) in personal way (John 5:18 – Greek IDIOS). He said that he was the only way to the Father (John 14:6) when the Jewish leaders considered themselves to be the way to God for the Jewish people.

Aside from all of that, Mark, I am most interested in why you consider the Trinity to be essential when it stands alone. It is the only doctrine that some Christians consider essential that is not taught by any bible writer in context. (See the first post in this thread for details.)

Kind Regards,
Cal

markporter

June 17th 2003, 06:07 PM

"The definite article is lacking where it refers to the Word. Another viable translation would be: "and the word was divine" which is what we would expect the only begotten of God to be."

oh...*realises why the original post was addressed to theologians* this must be some distinction between something being divine and something being God which I don't understand.

Cal_Minian

June 17th 2003, 06:17 PM

Today @ 02:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125751#post125751)
markporter:

Oh, and how about Phillipans?

"5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
___ 6Who, being in very nature[1] God,
_______did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
___ 7but made himself nothing,
_______taking the very nature[2] of a servant,
_______being made in human likeness. "

Sounds like the early church thought he was the one God to me...

Dear Mark,
I almost missed this because you edited it and added it to your post after I had responded.

The translation that you have given is inferior. :bonk:

There is a Greek word for "nature" which is PHUSIS and it is not found in the original Greek text.

Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, - American Standard Version

Regards,
Cal

markporter

June 17th 2003, 07:39 PM

"Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, - American Standard Version?

which means something different?

Jaltus

June 17th 2003, 07:54 PM

OldShepherd

June 17th 2003, 08:30 PM

This thread is not the place to discuss John 1:1 in detail. However I will say that the understanding of John 1:1 cannot be determined merely from a single English translation which states that "Word was God" making it appear that the Word was the God he was with. One needs to examine the Greek which does distinguish between the Word and the Father as QEOS.

If you do decide to discuss John 1:1, you might be interested in the Pre-Christian Jewish understanding of, "The Word-God". Notice in this brief quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia, in the Targums, the Aramaic translations of the Bible during the Babylonian captivity, the Aramaic word, “memra” was substituted for YHWH. This quote has over 100 citations where that was done. Before and during the time of John, Jews believed that The "Memra", i.e."The Word", was God. John wasn’t saying anything new.
-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Mediatorship.

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). "My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen"; "the Memra will roar to gather the exiled" (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra the redemption will be found" (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). "The holy Word" was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M

Cal_Minian

June 17th 2003, 09:07 PM

Today @ 04:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125888#post125888)
Jaltus:

This is in fact true. The Father is God, the Word is God, and the Word is not the Father. This is very Trinitarian. Now, if you are saying the Word is divine instead of being God, then you have serious issues to deal with, such as why John shifted the use of a single word in the text (QEOS) from being a noun to an adjective when he never does this throughout the rest of his book and you must ask why he uses ESTIN which never introduces a qualitative.

I do know my Greek.

That is just it, I am telling you it IS taught quite clearly, you just refuse to see it.

Let me ask this, who raised Jesus from the dead, Jesus or God?

According to Galatians 1:1 and I Thess 4:14, it was both God (the Father) and Jesus (when you combine the verses).

I brought up I Cor 8:6 quite intentionally.

6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

The shema:

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Hmmm, interesting....

Dear Jaltus,
I am challenging you to show where a bible writer in context teaches the doctrine that three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are the one God of Christian monotheism. Those are the basic elements necessary to define the doctrine.

You have quoted a number of scriptures, where only the Father and Son are mentioned together. The Son is called QEOS in John 1:1 but in 1Corinthians 8 it is the Father alone who is called the one God of Christian monotheism.

The fact that you need to "combine" three verses from three different books written by two different bible writers, none of which ar teaching the doctrine of the Trinity just illustrates my point that the Trinity stands alone.

I have no problem discussing these other verses with you in the near future. However before we get to that point I would like you to acknowledge that the Trinity is the only doctrine considered essential by some Christians that no bible writer articulates. (See my first post for details)

You say that the Trinity is taught clearly but in reality no bible writer teaches it. What bible writer teaches it, in context?

If no bible writer teaches it, then why in your view is it different than all the other essential doctrines?

Kind Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 17th 2003, 09:32 PM

Today @ 04:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125877#post125877)
markporter:

"Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, - American Standard Version?

which means something different?

Dear Mark,
Yes, it is significantly different. The word "form" is the Greek MORFH which is the external form.

The word grasp is intentionally vague to allow for the meaning of either taking what what does not have or holding on to what one already has. Howver, the related Greek verb hARPAZW never means holding on to what one already has.

Thus this verse cannot be used as a proof text that Jesus is QEOS in the same sense as his Father let alone the Trinity which would require three persons to have the same attributes.

See how the Trinity stands alone?

Regards,
Cal

Jaltus

June 17th 2003, 09:35 PM

"baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

One name, three people. Looks pretty consistent and in one passage to me.

However, I would say to you that very little which is part of systematic theology is something which is found unified in one place.

Show me where the Bible teaches it is by grace through faith in the atoning death of Christ only whereby salvation can be acheived.

You'll find peices of that all over the place, but you will not find such a complex understanding put in one spot. It is the samething with the Trinity. We take what the Bible tells us and think about it.

There is one God, but there are three different persons called by the tetra.

There are three with one name, which I find very clear. Too bad you probably will not.

Ron Macy

June 17th 2003, 10:21 PM

Cal,

I appreciate your thoughts on this subject and the challenge you have offered. May I add a small variation to the challenge.

Where does the Bible teach the existence of multi-personal beings of any kind, without even considering God being multi-personal?

Without the explicit definition of multi-personal beings in the Bible, it seems to me, the existence of such beings has to be brought in from some other source. Nature knows nothing of multi-personal beings. From where could such a concept have arisen?

Ron

Cal_Minian

June 18th 2003, 01:36 AM

Today @ 06:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125990#post125990)
Jaltus:

Jaltus:
"baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

One name, three people. Looks pretty consistent and in one passage to me.

Cal_Minian:

Dear Jaltus,
Matthew 28:19-20 in context is teaching the great commission. The word “God” is not used at all. Because no bible writer teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, the burden of proof rests firmly on your shoulders to provide unequivocal proof of this concept. I have seen some interpret this verse in a Trinitarian fashion.

However, the oneness Pentecostals take the Greek ONOMA (name) literally here and use it as proof of their “Jesus Only” doctrine, for if there is one literal name used in the Baptismal formula and in other verses that name is Jesus, then not only is Jesus God, but the Father becomes Jesus as well! I know you do not believe this, but that is what your “name” argument devolves into.

You see, merely listing two or three persons together in the same context does not mean that they are being equated in that context. If you insist that this must be the case you will have a hard time dealing with 1Chronicles 29:20 where the fact that worship is given to Jehovah and King David proves that David is also God!

1 Chronicles 29:20 And David said to all the assembly, Now bless Jehovah your God. And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the king. – American Standard Version

Jaltus:
However, I would say to you that very little which is part of systematic theology is something which is found unified in one place.

Show me where the Bible teaches it is by grace through faith in the atoning death of Christ only whereby salvation can be acheived.

Cal_Minian:
The apostle Paul teaches that doctrine, in detail and in context in the book of Romans. Romans chapters 3-6 immediately come to mind. In fact Romans 3:23-26 contains the language that you specify. Paul teaches the same thing in Romans 5 and 6.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; 26 for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. – American Standard Version

Paul so teaches this in the book of Hebrews. Chapters 5 and 6 come to mind. In Hebrews 5 Paul teaches that Jesus is our high priest and as such is responsible for our eternal Salvation. In the beginning of Hebrews 6 Paul calls this “the doctrine of the first principles of Christ,” and says that it is a gift that is a result of Christ’s death.

There are so many passages that combine faith in Jesus sacrifice is what leads to Salvation that listing them all would take quite some time. This doctrine is a constantly reoccurring theme in the New Testament. Frankly I am not even sure I have offered the best examples of this teaching because there are so many bible writers that teach this specific doctrine in context.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 18th 2003, 01:40 AM

Today @ 07:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126021#post126021)
Ron Macy:

Cal,

I appreciate your thoughts on this subject and the challenge you have offered. May I add a small variation to the challenge.

Where does the Bible teach the existence of multi-personal beings of any kind, without even considering God being multi-personal?

Without the explicit definition of multi-personal beings in the Bible, it seems to me, the existence of such beings has to be brought in from some other source. Nature knows nothing of multi-personal beings. From where could such a concept have arisen?

Ron

Dear Ron,
Of course you are correct. No bible writer ever teaches that there is such a thing as a multi-personal being.

Regards,
Cal

Bib Lit Major

June 18th 2003, 02:17 AM

Deleted!

OldShepherd

June 18th 2003, 03:42 AM

Today @ 11:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125987#post125987)
Cal_Minian:

Yes, it is significantly different. The word "form" is the Greek MORFH which is the external form.

That is only partially true. Let us look at the definition, of this word in the Liddell Scott Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek. And the use of a related word in the N.T.
morfh-ê , hê, form, shape, twice in Hom. (not in Hes.), soi d' epi men morphê epeôn thou hast comeliness of words, Od.11.367 (cf. Eust. ad loc.); so prob. allos men . . eidos akidnoteros pelei anêr, alla theos morphên epesi stephei God adds a crown of shapeliness to his words, Od.8.170: freq. later, morphas duo onomazein Parm.8.53 ; morphên allaxanta Emp.137.1 ; morphan brachus Pi.I.4(3).53 ; morphês metra shape and size, E.Alc.1063: periphr., morphês phusis A.Supp.496 ; morphês schêma, tupôma, E.Ion992, Ph.162; tên autên tou schêmatos morphên Arist.PA640b34 ; kai Gaia, pollôn onomatôn m. mia A.Pr.212 ; oneiratôn alinkioi morphaisin ib.449; nukterôn phantasmatôn echousi morphas Id.Fr.312 ; proupempsen anti philtatês m. spodon S.El.1159 ; of plants, Thphr.HP1.1.12 (pl.); esp. with ref. to beauty of form, huperphaton morphai Pi.O.9.65 ; hois potistaxêi charis euklea m. ib.6.76, cf. IG42 (1).121.119 (Epid., iv B. C.), LXX To.1.13, Vett.Val.1.6, etc.; sôma morphês emês OGI383.41 (Commagene, i B. C.); morphês eikonas ib.27; charaktêra morphês emês ib.60.

2. generally, form, fashion, appearance, A.Pr.78, S.Tr.699, El.199 (lyr.); outward form, opp. eidos, hekaterô tô eideos pollai m. Philol.5 ; allattonta to hautou eidos eis pollas morphas Pl.R.380d ; m. theôn X.Mem.4.3.13 , cf. Ep.Phil.2.6, Dam.Pr.304; hêrôôn eidea kai morphas A.R.4.1193 ; kata te morphas kai phônas gesticulations and cries, D.H.14.9; tên m. melanchrous, têi m. melichroas, in complexion, Ptol.Tetr.143, 144.

3. kind, sort, E. Ion 382, 1068 (lyr.), Pl.R.397c, etc. (Possibly cogn. with Lat. forma for morg[uglide]hmā, with f by dissimilation, cf. murmêx.)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2368792

Ro 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed metamorfousqh by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Be not fashioned (mh sunschmatizesqe). Present passive imperative with mh, stop being fashioned or do not have the habit of being fashioned. Late Greek verb suschmatizw, to conform to another's pattern (1 Corinthians 7:31; Philippians 2:7). In N.T. only here and 1 Peter 1:14. According to this world (twi aiwni toutwi). Associative instrumental case. Do not take this age as your fashion plate. Be ye transformed (metamorpousqe). Present passive imperative of metamorpow, another late verb, to transfigure as in Matthew 17:2 (Mark 9:2); 2 Corinthians 3:18, which see. On the distinction between schma and morph, see Philippians 2:7. There must be a radical change in the inner man for one to live rightly in this evil age, "by the renewing of your mind" (th anakainwsei tou nooß). Instrumental case. The new birth, the new mind, the new (kainoß) man. That ye may prove (eiß to dokimazein). Infinitive of purpose with eiß to, "to test" what is God's will, "the good and acceptable and perfect" (to agaqon kai euareston kai teleion).
It has been argued that morphe" means only outward appearance. However the traditional definition is not restricted to that and in the N.T. Paul uses a form of this word in a way that definitely cannot mean only outward appearance. In Romans 12:2, "be ye transformed metamorfousqh, metmorphousthe'" by the renewing of your mind" Paul is NOT telling the Christians at Rome to merely change their outward appearance, but for their entire being to be transformed.

The word grasp is intentionally vague to allow for the meaning of either taking what what does not have or holding on to what one already has. Howver, the related Greek verb hARPAZW never means holding on to what one already has.

Do you mean "sufficiently vague" or are you reading Paul's mind and telling us he deliberately chose a vague word for some purpose?

Re: "hARPAZW" the actual form which appears in Phil 2:6 is "harpagmos", again let us refer to LSJ,
arpagmoV , o, robbery, rape, Plu.2.12a; ha. ho gamos estai Vett.Val.122.1 .

2. concrete, prize to be grasped, Ep.Phil.2.6; cf. harpagma 2 .

arpagma, harpag-ma , atos, to,booty, prey, Lyc. 87, LXX Jb.29.17, al.: in pl., ib.Ez.22.25.

2. ha. eutuchias windfall, Plu.2.330d ; ouch ha. oud' hermaion poieisthai ti Hld.7.20 .

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Being (uparcwn). Rather, "existing," present active participle of uparcw. In the form of God (en morph qeou). Morph means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (arpagmon). Predicate accusative with hghsato. Originally words in -moß signified the act, not the result (-ma). The few examples of arpagmoß (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to arpagma, like baptismoß and baptisma. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won ("robbery"). To be on an equality with God (to einai isa qeoi). Accusative articular infinitive object of hghsato, "the being equal with God" (associative instrumental case qewi after isa). Isa is adverbial use of neuter plural with einai as in Revelation 21:16. Emptied himself (eauton ekenwse). First aorist active indicative of kenow, old verb from kenoß, empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a Kenosiß doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. "He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty" (Lightfoot).
Lest you be too hasty to dismiss Robertson. He taught post graduate level Biblical Greek for 47 years, wrote over 40 books including a 1200 page Greek grammar, and a 6 volume Word Picture in the N.T., quoted here. Exactly how many years of Biblical Greek do you have?

Thus this verse cannot be used as a proof text that Jesus is QEOS in the same sense as his Father let alone the Trinity which would require three persons to have the same attributes.

See how the Trinity stands alone?

Want to guess again?

OldShepherd

June 18th 2003, 03:58 AM

Today @ 03:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125613#post125613)
o2bwise:

I think my odyssey away from Trinitarianism is inclusive of some of what you are bringing up. Here is an example of what I have done:

Go into an NT book. Reference EVERY usage of God (ho theos). Reference WHO it is referring to. If another is referred to in the same discussion, reference who this other is.

As an example, I went through 1 Thessalonians. The Father ONLY was ho theos with virtually every single text that had ho theos. Christ was mentioned AS ANOTHER within perhaps half of those ho theos texts.

I suppose a Trinitarian has to believe in a very different methodology of arriving at truth than do I.

My understanding is as follows.

Did your odyssey happen to take you through John 20:28. Or the about 30 +/- O.T. יהוה/YHWH verses applied to Jesus in the N.T.? One such verse by all four gospels. The forerunner sent to prepare a path in the wilderness for YHWH.
John 20:28 apekriqh qwmaV kai eipen autw, o kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou.
"ho Theos" is the 2nd and 3rd from last words in this verse. I suppose that all anti-Trinitarians cannot discuss the Trinity without misrepresenting what Trinitarians believe, and it seems that ex-Trinis are most guilty of this.

OldShepherd

June 18th 2003, 04:28 AM

One of the most frequent arguments against the Trinity is it is supposed to be of Pagan origian. Although those who make this argument are unable to produce a single pagan Trinity, i.e. one deity manifested as three.

And there are virtually no Triads, i.e. three deities functioning and ruling, etc. in concert. All of the pagan pantheons are the ancient version of a soap opera, machinations, assassinations, and assignations, who's cheating who, and who's chariot is parked next door?

Where then did the concept of a Trinity come from? Answer, ancient pre-Christian Judaism. Let us refer to the Jewish Encyclopedia (JE) once again.

But the scoffers scoff, "The Jews reject the Trinity!" Not a good argument, at all, they also reject Jesus and say that the issue, i.e. the child, of a gentile, is as that of a beast, and worse, in the same JE.
In the Zohar.

The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity, since by its speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism. Such terms as "ma?ronita," "body," "spirit," occur frequently (e.q., "Tazria'," ed. Polna, iii. 43b); so that Christians and converts like Knorr von Rosenroth, Reuchlin, and Rittangel found in the Zohar a confirmation of Christianity and especially of the dogma of the Trinity (Jellinek, "Die Kabbala," p. 250, Leipsic, 1844 [trans]. of Franck's "La Kabbale," Paris, 1843]). Reuchlin sought on the basis of the Cabala the words "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" in the second word of the Pentateuch, as well as in Ps. cxviii. 22 (ib. p. 10), while Johann Kemper, a convert, left in manuscript a work entitled "Ma??eh Mosheh," which treats in its third section of the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity (Zettersteen, "Verzeichniss der Hebraischen und Aramaischen Handschriften zu Upsala," p. 16, Lund, 1900). The study of the Cabala led the Frankists to adopt Christianity; but the Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheism. See Christianity in Its Relation to Judaism; Polemics.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=338&letter=T

OldShepherd

June 18th 2003, 04:35 AM

Today @ 03:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126112#post126112)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Ron,
Of course you are correct. No bible writer ever teaches that there is such a thing as a multi-personal being.

Regards,
Cal
If we summarily dismiss all the "us" passages in the O.T., e.g. "Let US make man in OUR image."

And please do not insult our intelligence with that old "pluralis majesticatus", the so-called "plural of majesty." It did not exist in ancient Israel or any nation with which they came into contact. It most probably originated with Queen Victoria, who responded to something that was supposed to be humorous, "We are not amused."

Tsmith

June 18th 2003, 06:28 AM

Today @ 08:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126152#post126152)
OldShepherd:

Did your odyssey happen to take you through John 20:28. Or the about 30 +/- O.T. &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;/YHWH verses applied to Jesus in the N.T.? One such verse by all four gospels. The forerunner sent to prepare a path in the wilderness for YHWH.

I'll bite. The path was prepaired for Jehovah, for Jehovah was the one actually originating the act of saving. He did this through Jesus.

Joh 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Here we find hINA SWQH hO KOSMOS DI AUTOU. The passive verb here in this grammatical context is showing that the Father is the one that is the source of the salvation and that it is being carried out through Jesus. Thus, with Jehovah being the source, the path was made straight for YHWH, even though Jesus could be said to have walked it. So, really, there isn't even a bit of evidence from this to support Jesus being Jehovah.

John 20:28 apekriqh qwmaV kai eipen autw, o kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou.
"ho Theos" is the 2nd and 3rd from last words in this verse. I suppose that all anti-Trinitarians cannot discuss the Trinity without misrepresenting what Trinitarians believe, and it seems that ex-Trinis are most guilty of this.

Just an FYI, the John 20:28 construction is a article-substantive-pronoun-kai-article-substantive-repeated pronoun construction. In the Koine Greek, this type of grammar is always used to denote two persons under consideration. Further, I would argue this is a nominative of exclamation, not a nominative for a vocative.

markporter

June 18th 2003, 06:40 AM

going back to the John 1 bit....sorry to be annoying but I'm interested, when it says that "in the beginning was the word" are we saying that this means something other than the fact that the word is that which is there before all else? And also going back to the authority thing, are we saying that God is giving all authority to a mere human? I think that Jesus claims to be an exact representation of God in a way that only God himself can be. Oh, and the passage in John "the glory I had with you before the world began" (or whatever it says, I'm doing it from memory)....seems to be saying that he has always had God's glory in a way which only God can have...he doesn't share this glory with another.

I expect you've got answers to it all, but I would be interested to hear them.

Tsmith

June 18th 2003, 06:53 AM

Today @ 12:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125888#post125888)
Jaltus:

This is in fact true. The Father is God, the Word is God, and the Word is not the Father. This is very Trinitarian. Now, if you are saying the Word is divine instead of being God, then you have serious issues to deal with, such as why John shifted the use of a single word in the text (QEOS) from being a noun to an adjective when he never does this throughout the rest of his book and you must ask why he uses ESTIN which never introduces a qualitative.

I do know my Greek.

Apparently not so well, because you claim he uses ESTIN, which he does not. He uses HN, the imperfect of EIMI. In fact, however, he does use ESTIN in a PN construction at John 6:70, which is certainly qualitative. Here, the disciple is not said to be the person of the devil, but "a devil," belonging to the class of devil for carrying such attributes.

Let me ask this, who raised Jesus from the dead, Jesus or God?

According to Galatians 1:1 and I Thess 4:14, it was both God (the Father) and Jesus (when you combine the verses).

The grammar here does not support him causing the act of raising up. The verb ANESTH is used, which is 3rd person, just as APOQANEN is used, but of course he didn't cause his own death either, and it is also 3rd person. So your point isn't really valid here.

I brought up I Cor 8:6 quite intentionally.

6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

The shema:

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Hmmm, interesting....

Which of course only proves our point further. LORD in the Shema is actually YHWH. Thus a proper name, not a title. With regards to Jesus being our Lord, this is because God made him Lord (Acts 2:36). With God being made Lord, he wasn't always such and so the Shema disproves Christ as Jehovah.

Tsmith

June 18th 2003, 07:01 AM

Today @ 11:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126232#post126232)
markporter:

going back to the John 1 bit....sorry to be annoying but I'm interested, when it says that "in the beginning was the word" are we saying that this means something other than the fact that the word is that which is there before all else?

I'm not really sure what you are asking. Could you perhaps rephrase it.

Edit: Actually, I think I understand now. Yes, that is what we are saying. :) I would argue that John 1:1a's use of HN is an inceptive imperfect, as in John 1:10. So this is showing that hO LOGOS came into existance, just as this one came into the world. Jesus wasn't always in the world and he wasn't always in existance. If John really had wanted to articulate prior existance, he could have simply stated "Before the beginning was the Word..."

And also going back to the authority thing, are we saying that God is giving all authority to a mere human? I think that Jesus claims to be an exact representation of God in a way that only God himself can be.

He wasn't JUST a human, he was God's son, existed in heaven prior and came to earth as a PERFECT (without sin) human. Being the exact representation of God, he wasn't God himself, or else it would use the word representation. You don't represent yourself, you ARE yourself.

Oh, and the passage in John "the glory I had with you before the world began" (or whatever it says, I'm doing it from memory)....seems to be saying that he has always had God's glory in a way which only God can have...he doesn't share this glory with another.

And yet where does John say that it is God's glory? It doesn't. It says he had glory along side God, it doesn't say he had God's glory. There is a difference. One can recieve honor and glory with God (1 Chron 29:20).

-Tony

OldShepherd

June 18th 2003, 08:10 AM

Today @ 08:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126220#post126220)
Tsmith:

I'll bite. The path was prepaired for Jehovah, for Jehovah was the one actually originating the act of saving. He did this through Jesus.
Excuse me how does this answer the question posed. In the O.T. the forerunner prepared the highway in the wilderness for YHWH. And according to all four gospels that forerunner was John and Jesus was the one for whom the way was prepared

Here we find hINA SWQH hO KOSMOS DI AUTOU. The passive verb here in this grammatical context is showing that the Father is the one that is the source of the salvation and that it is being carried out through Jesus. Thus, with Jehovah being the source, the path was made straight for YHWH, even though Jesus could be said to have walked it. So, really, there isn't even a bit of evidence from this to support Jesus being Jehovah.

And what is your point I did not quote or refer to John chapter 3 at all?

Just an FYI, the John 20:28 construction is a article-substantive-pronoun-kai-article-substantive-repeated pronoun construction. In the Koine Greek, this type of grammar is always used to denote two persons under consideration. Further, I would argue this is a nominative of exclamation, not a nominative for a vocative.

I will ask the same question. Robertson had 47 years teaching graduate level Greek and you have had exactly how much Greek? And FYI, Dr. J has me beat but, yes I have had some grad level Greek.

Your explanation sounds impressive. Where did you cut and paste it from. And can you cite 2-3 examples of these "always" occurrences.

If this type of grammar is "always used to denote two persons", read the passage Thomas answered HIM, not them!

Please show us some examples of this "nominative of exclamation" And if you can, do any of them have the definite article?

And then you can explain to us how a devout Jew would use "Ho Theos", by which a Jew ALWAYS meant YHWH, as an exclamation! And Jesus, the Son of God, standing less than an arms length from him, did not correct or chastise him but rather included him in the blessing of those who believe. What were they being blessed for? Because Thomas was surprised that Jesus was alive?

And unlike English where we say "My God" and it can have several connotations, in the Greek what Thomas said was "THE Lord of me, and THE God of me." That ain't exclamation!

o2bwise

June 18th 2003, 08:42 AM

Jaltus,

you just refuse to see it.

Judging other people's hearts gets noone nowhere.

Tony (o2)

Tsmith

June 18th 2003, 08:43 AM

Well somebody seems to have a bit of a chip on their shoulder. However, my reply is below.

Today @ 01:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126267#post126267)
OldShepherd:

Excuse me how does this answer the question posed. In the O.T. the forerunner prepared the highway in the wilderness for YHWH. And according to all four gospels that forerunner was John and Jesus was the one for whom the way was prepared

And what is your point I did not quote or refer to John chapter 3 at all?

Yes, and the point is that Jesus came on behalf of God. He was his representative. I went to John 3 to demonstrate this.

I will ask the same question. Robertson had 47 years teaching graduate level Greek and you have had exactly how much Greek? And FYI, Dr. J has me beat but, yes I have had some grad level Greek.

I don't believe it matters. Robertson challanged Winer on certain points. Does that mean perhaps people should run to Robertson and say, "Who are you to challange the great grammarian?" Nope. It certainly does not.

Your explanation sounds impressive. Where did you cut and paste it from. And can you cite 2-3 examples of these "always" occurrences.

Sorry to break it to you, but I did not cut and paste from anywhere. Here are three examples, as requested:

Mark 7:10; Hebrews 8:11; John 2:12.

There are plenty of other examples I can provide, but you asked for three and three you got.

If this type of grammar is "always used to denote two persons", read the passage Thomas answered HIM, not them!

I realize it says him. I didn't say Thomas wasn't making the state to Jesus, but in saying it TO Jesus, he was speaking of two persons.

Please show us some examples of this "nominative of exclamation" And if you can, do any of them have the definite article?

Mark 3:34 is a great one. Which actually is identical grammar to John 20:28, being an exclaimation and of two persons/groups of persons.

And then you can explain to us how a devout Jew would use "Ho Theos", by which a Jew ALWAYS meant YHWH, as an exclamation! And Jesus, the Son of God, standing less than an arms length from him, did not correct or chastise him but rather included him in the blessing of those who believe. What were they being blessed for? Because Thomas was surprised that Jesus was alive?

Actually, the definite article is not really of significance here in terms of semantics, because it is simply a grammatical requirement (C.F.D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. pp. 116,117). What is of interest, however, is that this is in fact a nominative and not a vocative (which is the case used in places of direct address). This is significant because of the 88 places in the gosples where Jesus is addressed as Lord is is ALWAYS in the vocative.

And unlike English where we say "My God" and it can have several connotations, in the Greek what Thomas said was "THE Lord of me, and THE God of me." That ain't exclamation!

Actually, that is the classic definition of a nominative of exclaimation. The verb is lacking.

-Tony

o2bwise

June 18th 2003, 09:29 AM

Old Shepherd,

You are resorting to tactics such that, everything else being the same, can only influence me to suspect that the position you are trying to substantiate, is false.

Tony,

Coming from a "Greek peasant," i.e. I don't know Greek. Can you share the significance of the vocative always being used as applied to Christ? What is vocative anyway?

If you don't care to, that's cool.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Tsmith

June 18th 2003, 09:53 AM

Today @ 02:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126313#post126313)
o2bwise:

Tony,

Coming from a "Greek peasant," i.e. I don't know Greek. Can you share the significance of the vocative always being used as applied to Christ? What is vocative anyway?

If you don't care to, that's cool.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Certainly. It shows a repeated pattern of grammar. It is statistical grammar. For example. Let us say we have the word God used 100 times. If 99 of those times it is applied without question to the Father, and in one case it is questionable as to whether it should be applied to the Father or Son, based on the use of the word, the most probable use is of the Father. Of course it is not a definite thing, but it is something important for consideration. In this case, if we find that people are using the vocative in address to Jesus (Thomas himself used a vocative prior when calling Jesus Lord), if Thomas was calling him such here, he would have likely used a vocative as well.

Vocative is the Greek form of direct address. For example, the Greek for Lord is KURIOS. That is nominative. The form for direct address is KURIE, which is vocative. Now, there are cases where a nominative is used in place of a vocative, however, these are fairly few and far between. Often when a nominative is used for a vocative, a vocative starts the statement with a nominative following. Revelation has this type of grammar quite often, because there is no vocative definite article. So we would find KURIE hO QEOS (Lord the God).

I hope this helps.

-Tony

markporter

June 18th 2003, 10:50 AM

well, just to drop in again, how about all the forgiving sins stuff? Surely only the one who is offended against can forgive sins? Surely that is God? Jesus claims to have the authority to do this....and it was considered blasphemy....and he didn't say 'hang on a minute, you're misunderstanding me'

also, if Jesus were not God, and were instead a third party, that would seem to make the whole punishment for our sins thing a little unfair....I think that there are only two people who can take the punishment fairly...us (the offender) or God (he who was offended against.

o2bwise

June 18th 2003, 11:03 AM

Hey Mark,

You sound kind of implacable. I mean...if your mind is made up, why bother? Is your mind absolutely made up, regardless of what anyone says or what anyone demonstrates that the Bible seems to say?

My conviction is that Christ is divine via being born of God and thus inheriting His nature.

God is the One whose very existence did not require the prerogative of another. Even the Son required the prerogative of God to choose to be a Father (have a Son).

There is only one way to be both divine and NOT God. And that would be for God to beget a Child.

Christ, being of the royal line (divinity) can indeed forgive sins. He is the perfect representation of His Father.

Oh, I am not speaking for Tony Smith or Cal. I don't know much about what they believe, but after this small exchange, our beliefs appear to have similarities.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

markporter

June 18th 2003, 11:23 AM

Today @ 04:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126404#post126404)
o2bwise:

Hey Mark,

You sound kind of implacable. I mean...if your mind is made up, why bother? Is your mind absolutely made up, regardless of what anyone says or what anyone demonstrates that the Bible seems to say?

My conviction is that Christ is divine via being born of God and thus inheriting His nature.

God is the One whose very existence did not require the prerogative of another. Even the Son required the prerogative of God to choose to be a Father (have a Son).

There is only one way to be both divine and NOT God. And that would be for God to beget a Child.

Christ, being of the royal line (divinity) can indeed forgive sins. He is the perfect representation of His Father.

Yes, I do have to admit that my mind is rather made up...I find it very hard to challenge any belief that I hold very deeply.

Have you looked at the wisdom christology page on the tektonics site? It seems to fit in quite nicely with what you are saying....I don't think I understood your position very well earlier.

When you say that the Son required the prerogative of God to choose to be a Father, is where I would have to disagree....the Son is just as essential a part of God as the Father, neither can exist without the other...one may proceed from the other, but they are both God, and they are both essential.

Cal_Minian

June 18th 2003, 11:24 AM

Today @ 01:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126165#post126165)
OldShepherd:

If we summarily dismiss all the "us" passages in the O.T., e.g. "Let US make man in OUR image."

And please do not insult our intelligence with that old "pluralis majesticatus", the so-called "plural of majesty." It did not exist in ancient Israel or any nation with which they came into contact. It most probably originated with Queen Victoria, who responded to something that was supposed to be humorous, "We are not amused."

Dear OldShepherd,
If I said to my son 'Let us make a model ship in the image of the Titanic" would it mean that he and I were one being?

Of course not. And neither does it mean the Father is the same being with his Son just because he discusses an activity in which there are both involved!

Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 18th 2003, 11:29 AM

Today @ 07:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126374#post126374)
markporter:

well, just to drop in again, how about all the forgiving sins stuff? Surely only the one who is offended against can forgive sins? Surely that is God? Jesus claims to have the authority to do this....and it was considered blasphemy....and he didn't say 'hang on a minute, you're misunderstanding me'

also, if Jesus were not God, and were instead a third party, that would seem to make the whole punishment for our sins thing a little unfair....I think that there are only two people who can take the punishment fairly...us (the offender) or God (he who was offended against.

Mark,
Please consider the following.

John 20:20 And when he had said this, he showed
unto them his hands and his side. The disciples
therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus
therefore said to them again, Peace be unto you: as the
Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when
he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto
them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit: 23 whose soever sins
ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever
sins ye retain, they are retained. -- American Standard Version

Best Regards,
Cal

Reasonable

June 18th 2003, 11:51 AM

Today @ 03:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126374#post126374)
markporter:

Jesus claims to have the authority to do this....and it was considered blasphemy....and he didn't say 'hang on a minute, you're misunderstanding me'

Just a side note, Jesus did not always correct people when they misunderstood him. Note that the Jews misunderstood his words at John 2:19. They thought he was talking about the literal temple but there is no record that Jesus corrected them. Further proof that he did not correct them is that their understanding of meaning the literal temple was brought back up later at the trial. (see Matt 26:61) Also, the common people didn't think Jesus forgiving sins made him God. They praised God for giving such authority to a man. Your call as to who you believe but remember Jesus did pass on authority to forgive to his followers.-John 20:22,23

Sometimes Jesus' attitude with the religious leaders was "Let them be."-matt 15:14

Cal_Minian

June 18th 2003, 11:54 AM

Today @ 12:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126144#post126144)
OldShepherd:

Dear OldShepherd,
You appear to have great zeal for biblical topics and I appreciate your knowledge. I will shortly address some of the points you make for MORFH even though I created this thread for a different purpose.

Will you accept the challenge I set forth for Trinitarians in the first post on this thread?

I had said:

Thus this verse cannot be used as a proof text that Jesus is QEOS in the same sense as his Father let alone the Trinity which would require three persons to have the same attributes.

See how the Trinity stands alone?

To which you replied:
Want to guess again?

However, your quotes of Greek grammars does not prove that the Trinity does not stand alone.

No bible writer teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, in context with even the primarly elements visible. This is not true for any other true essential Christian doctrine.

The Trinity does stand alone!

If you disagree I would appreciate some examples. I am not guessing on this. I have provided the datum.

So far there has been no refutation of my premise from the Trinitarian camp.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Tsmith

June 18th 2003, 12:16 PM

Today @ 03:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126374#post126374)
markporter:

well, just to drop in again, how about all the forgiving sins stuff? Surely only the one who is offended against can forgive sins? Surely that is God? Jesus claims to have the authority to do this....and it was considered blasphemy....and he didn't say 'hang on a minute, you're misunderstanding me'

also, if Jesus were not God, and were instead a third party, that would seem to make the whole punishment for our sins thing a little unfair....I think that there are only two people who can take the punishment fairly...us (the offender) or God (he who was offended against.

John 20:23 shows that the apostles could also forgive sins. So this does not make Jesus God Almighty.

Edit: And on scrolling I find this was already replied to. Sorry. :)

-Tony

Cal_Minian

June 18th 2003, 04:41 PM

Today @ 12:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126144#post126144)
OldShepherd:

Dear OldShepherd,
I had a few minutes at lunch to look into your information on MORFH from Liddell Scott. I love Perseus, don't you?

You quote MORFH, which is the word used in Philippians 2 from Liddell Scott and it confirms what I said about the sense of the word. It basically means the outer form. Although I do not have access to my lexicons right now, I will look at them this evening. If I remember correctly, Bauer and Thayer say the same thing.

They you jump to METAMORFOW in Romans 12:2 and attempt to exegete a definition from your understanding of that one text.

First of all, you probably know that meanings of words are not derived from etymology but from usage. The fact that MORFH is a substring in the Greek word METAMORFOW does not mean they must have identical meanings. I think you probably agree with that statement. I state this for the benefit of others who may be reading this response.

I find it odd that you do not look at Perseus for the meaning of METAMORFOW since you did that for MORFH.

If we do this for METAMORFOW we find the gloss of “ transform; disguise; to be transformed, Ep.Rom.12.2” at the url http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2366804

Liddell Scott also has a section where they list synonyms of METAMORFOW. None of them support your view as expressed by your exegesis of Romans 12:2, in fact they list Romans 12:2 in this definition.
The consider METASKEUAZW to be a synonym and give it a gloss of “ put into another dress - disguise oneself.” The url for this is http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2366934

Also note that the also list “disguise” as a meaning of METAMORFOW. Thus the Greek Lexicon that you used did not support you for either MORPH or METAMORFOW.

If I recall, the sense of METAMORFOW is that of changing completely, like the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly. Thus it is not the NATURE of the change but the completeness of the change that is being stressed.

However, when I get time I will look up the word in my own copies of BDAG and Thayer. Even so, one may not derive a meaning of MORFH from METAMORFOW.

I found METAMORFOW four times in the GNT. I will be examining them in their respective contexts later on.

At this point I will state this much. The Trinity is not taught by any bible writer in context. That being the case, the burden of proof is on those who would wish to construct such a doctrine by reading between the lines of what the bible writers really taught.

Your evidence must be iron clad and unequivocal. The use of MORFH in the entire GNT as well as what Lexicons say about it is not evidence in your favor.

You need better proof, and yes the Trinity still stands alone!

Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd

June 18th 2003, 08:55 PM

Yesterday @ 11:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126313#post126313)
o2bwise:

Old Shepherd,

You are resorting to tactics such that, everything else being the same, can only influence me to suspect that the position you are trying to substantiate, is false.
Huh? Can you please explain what you are talking about? What tactics? How are my "tactics", whatever they are, any different than some others?

OldShepherd

June 18th 2003, 09:33 PM

Today @ 06:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126828#post126828)
Cal_Minian:

They you jump to METAMORFOW in Romans 12:2 and attempt to exegete a definition from your understanding of that one text.

First of all, you probably know that meanings of words are not derived from etymology but from usage. The fact that MORFH is a substring in the Greek word METAMORFOW does not mean they must have identical meanings. I think you probably agree with that statement. I state this for the benefit of others who may be reading this response.

They MAY not have identical meanings but it is very likely that they have SIMILAR meanings. And since "morphe" only occurs twice in the GNT we must look to other lexical aids.

I find it odd that you do not look at Perseus for the meaning of METAMORFOW since you did that for MORFH.

If we do this for METAMORFOW we find the gloss of “ transform; disguise; to be transformed, Ep.Rom.12.2” at the url http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2366804

Liddell Scott also has a section where they list synonyms of METAMORFOW. None of them support your view as expressed by your exegesis of Romans 12:2, in fact they list Romans 12:2 in this definition.

They consider METASKEUAZW to be a synonym and give it a gloss of “ put into another dress - disguise oneself.” The url for this is http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2366934

METASKEUAZW you say? Tsk, tsk. LSJ does NOT say they are synonyms! LSJ says they have SIMILAR meanings. Just FYI, I DO know how to read! What about the other two similar words which you (deliberately?) omitted? Lets review LSJ on metmorfoo and the other two similar words. Oh my, it appears that you made a mistake, they do support me. Now who needs stronger evidence? ANd OBTW where does any of these similar words list Rom 2:12 in the definition?
metamorph-oô , transform, Gal.19.479; heauton eis ti Ael.VH1.1 ; disguise, heauton App.BC4.41 :--mostly in Pass., to be transformed, Ep.Rom.12.2, Plu.2.52d, Luc.Asin.11; eis thêriôn idean D.S.4.81 ; eis Apollôna Ph.2.559 ; eis ichthun Ath.8.334c ; apo doxês eis doxan 2 Ep.Cor.3.18 ; to be transfigured, Ev.Matt.17.2, etc

paratektainomai , Med., prop. of timber, work into another form : then, generally, transform, alter, oude ken allôs Zeus paratektênaito not even he could make them any way else, Il. 14.54 ; aipsa ke . . epos paratektênaio could disguise, falsify it, Od. 14.131.

paraschêma^t-izô , change from the true form, transform, oneidismos esti tês hamartias pareschêmatismenos to skômma Thphr. ap. Plu.2.631e, cf. D.L.6.9 ; ho basileus . . theos en anthrôpois pareschamatistai has been transformed into . . , Diotog. ap. Stob.4.7.61.

2. in Gramm., form from another word by a slight change, Porph.in Cat.69.20, Sch.Ar.Ach.424, etc.; dub. sens. in Phld.Rh.2.97 S. ; paraschêmatisas tôi patri forming a derivative word ( [patris] ) from patêr, Hierocl.p.50 A. :--Pass., A.D.Conj.237.27 ; thêlukôi kai oudeterôi genei Et.Gen.s.v. pleioteros.

II. speak incorrectly, Suid.s.v. schêmatizomenos.

2. make false pretences, Anon. ap. eund. s.v. paraschêmatizein.

metaskeu-azô , put into another dress ( [skeuê] ), change the fashion of, transform, sautên Ar.Ec.499 ; ta harmata eis ton auton tropon X.Cyr. 6.2.8 ; m. nomon amend, Din.1.42; put into a fresh shape, tas lexeis D.H.Comp.6 .

II. Med., exchange one's equipment with another, App.Pun.8; m. eis tous hoplitas Jul.Or.2.60a .

2. pack up so as to change one's quarters, ta hautou para tina X.Eph.5.13 : abs., shift oneself, ek . . eis . . Luc.Tox.57, cf. Ach.Tat.3.1.

3. clothe oneself differently, oiketikais esthêsesin m. disguise oneself in . . , Polyaen.6.49: pf. Pass., pothen meteskeuasthe; Philostr.Her.Prooem.1.

Also note that the also list “disguise” as a meaning of METAMORFOW. Thus the Greek Lexicon that you used did not support you for either MORPH or METAMORFOW.

"meanings of words are not derived from etymology but from usage." Do you recall making this statement, above? Can we say "smoke screen" I'll rephrase the question I asked earlier was Paul telling the church to put on a disguise or was he telling them to become completely TRANSFORMED?

If I recall, the sense of METAMORFOW is that of changing completely, like the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly. Thus it is not the NATURE of the change but the completeness of the change that is being stressed.

Now I think you have it. A complete change NOT just a disguise or an outward appearance. So was Paul's understanding of "morphe" in Philippians different than his understanding of the root word "morphe" in Romans?

Your evidence must be iron clad and unequivocal. The use of MORFH in the entire GNT as well as what Lexicons say about it is not evidence in your favor.

You need better proof, and yes the Trinity still stands alone!

Well my evidence IS iron clad, at least I did not have to resort to misrepresentation as someone else did, and if all else seems to fall short, I can always go to Ignatius, Polycarp, Mathetes, Justin, Barnabas, et al.

Cal_Minian

June 18th 2003, 10:02 PM

Today @ 06:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127206#post127206)
OldShepherd:

They MAY not have identical meanings but it is very likely that they have SIMILAR meanings. And since "morphe" only occurs twice in the GNT we must look to other lexical aids.

METASKEUAZW you say? Tsk, tsk. LSJ does NOT say they are synonyms! LSJ says they have SIMILAR meanings. Just FYI, I DO know how to read! What about the other two similar words which you (deliberately?) omitted? Lets review LSJ on metmorfoo and the other two similar words. Oh my, it appears that you made a mistake, they do support me. Now who needs stronger evidence? ANd OBTW where does any of these similar words list Rom 2:12 in the definition?
metamorph-oô , transform, Gal.19.479; heauton eis ti Ael.VH1.1 ; disguise, heauton App.BC4.41 :--mostly in Pass., to be transformed, Ep.Rom.12.2, Plu.2.52d, Luc.Asin.11; eis thêriôn idean D.S.4.81 ; eis Apollôna Ph.2.559 ; eis ichthun Ath.8.334c ; apo doxês eis doxan 2 Ep.Cor.3.18 ; to be transfigured, Ev.Matt.17.2, etc

paratektainomai , Med., prop. of timber, work into another form : then, generally, transform, alter, oude ken allôs Zeus paratektênaito not even he could make them any way else, Il. 14.54 ; aipsa ke . . epos paratektênaio could disguise, falsify it, Od. 14.131.

paraschêma^t-izô , change from the true form, transform, oneidismos esti tês hamartias pareschêmatismenos to skômma Thphr. ap. Plu.2.631e, cf. D.L.6.9 ; ho basileus . . theos en anthrôpois pareschamatistai has been transformed into . . , Diotog. ap. Stob.4.7.61.

2. in Gramm., form from another word by a slight change, Porph.in Cat.69.20, Sch.Ar.Ach.424, etc.; dub. sens. in Phld.Rh.2.97 S. ; paraschêmatisas tôi patri forming a derivative word ( [patris] ) from patêr, Hierocl.p.50 A. :--Pass., A.D.Conj.237.27 ; thêlukôi kai oudeterôi genei Et.Gen.s.v. pleioteros.

II. speak incorrectly, Suid.s.v. schêmatizomenos.

2. make false pretences, Anon. ap. eund. s.v. paraschêmatizein.

metaskeu-azô , put into another dress ( [skeuê] ), change the fashion of, transform, sautên Ar.Ec.499 ; ta harmata eis ton auton tropon X.Cyr. 6.2.8 ; m. nomon amend, Din.1.42; put into a fresh shape, tas lexeis D.H.Comp.6 .

II. Med., exchange one's equipment with another, App.Pun.8; m. eis tous hoplitas Jul.Or.2.60a .

2. pack up so as to change one's quarters, ta hautou para tina X.Eph.5.13 : abs., shift oneself, ek . . eis . . Luc.Tox.57, cf. Ach.Tat.3.1.

3. clothe oneself differently, oiketikais esthêsesin m. disguise oneself in . . , Polyaen.6.49: pf. Pass., pothen meteskeuasthe; Philostr.Her.Prooem.1.

"meanings of words are not derived from etymology but from usage." Do you recall making this statement, above? Can we say "smoke screen" I'll rephrase the question I asked earlier was Paul telling the church to put on a disguise or was he telling them to become completely TRANSFORMED?

Now I think you have it. A complete change NOT just a disguise or an outward appearance. So was Paul's understanding of "morphe" in Philippians different than his understanding of the root word "morphe" in Romans?

Well my evidence IS iron clad, at least I did not have to resort to misrepresentation as someone else did, and if all else seems to fall short, I can always go to Ignatius, Polycarp, Mathetes, Justin, Barnabas, et al.

Dear OldShepherd,
If you recall I defined the cognate as being a complete change like that of a caterpillar to a butterfly.

However, the butterfly has the same nature as the caterpillar. In your example from Romans the Christians still have the same nature as well, but they have completely changed in a different way.

Therefore your example has no merit.

Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd

June 18th 2003, 10:06 PM

Yesterday @ 10:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126275#post126275)
Tsmith:

Well somebody seems to have a bit of a chip on their shoulder. However, my reply is below.

I could say the same about you. Being convinced of one's beliefs, and equally convinced that 19th century theologies are false, is not necessarily having a chip on their shoulder.

Yes, and the point is that Jesus came on behalf of God. He was his representative. I went to John 3 to demonstrate this.

Now all you have to do is back up this interpretation from scripture. That when the prophesied forerunner prepares a path FOR יהוה YHWH someone representing YHWH fulfills that prophecy

I don't believe it matters. Robertson challanged Winer on certain points. Does that mean perhaps people should run to Robertson and say, "Who are you to challange the great grammarian?" Nope. It certainly does not.

Robertson had the requisite scholastic qualifications to challenge another Greek scholar. Someone with little or no formal Greek training does NOT!

I realize it says him. I didn't say Thomas wasn't making the state to Jesus, but in saying it TO Jesus, he was speaking of two persons.

Is kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou in the proper construction for a third person reference? Or is it in the second person, I-you?

Mark 3:34 is a great one. Which actually is identical grammar to John 20:28, being an exclaimation and of two persons/groups of persons.

But this is NOT direct address! Whereas Thomas was talking to only one person, Jesus, Jesus was talking to a mixed GROUP, the multitude, and referred them as another group, His mothers and brothers.

Actually, that is the classic definition of a nominative of exclaimation. The verb is lacking.

On which page is the classic definition found? Does direct address ever omit the verb? Which does NOT answer the rest of my question. Would a devout Jew use "O Theos mou" as an exclamation? And would Jesus, the Son of God, standing an arms length away, not correct or chastise him for blasphemy?

OldShepherd

June 18th 2003, 10:15 PM

Today @ 12:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127229#post127229)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
If you recall I defined the cognate as being a complete change like that of a caterpillar to a butterfly.

However, the butterfly has the same nature as the caterpillar. In your example from Romans the Christians still have the same nature as well, but they have completely changed in a different way.

Therefore your example has no merit.

Regards,
Cal

You are right, I do recall that "you", NOT the sources, defined the cognate. And NO the Christians in Rome after the "metamorphosis" do NOT have the same nature. Paul also wrote to the Corinthian church.
2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, [b]all things are become new.
Paul, was NOT telling the Romans to put on a disguise or make some superficial change! And I notice you avoided the bulk of my post. Embarrassed about getting caught misrepresenting the sources? Whose argument has no merit, mine or the one which resorts to deception?

OldShepherd

June 18th 2003, 10:22 PM

Today @ 01:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126425#post126425)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
If I said to my son 'Let us make a model ship in the image of the Titanic" would it mean that he and I were one being?

Of course not. And neither does it mean the Father is the same being with his Son just because he discusses an activity in which there are both involved!

Regards,
Cal

Ah but you ain't God! And this doesn't explain "in OUR image." Twins, maybe? Also, isn't it correct according to your belief, Jesus did not exist prior to His incarnation, birth in Bethlehem? And Trinitarians understand "being" and "person" are not synonymous?

AVmetro

June 18th 2003, 10:57 PM

You have quoted a number of scriptures, where only the Father and Son are mentioned together. The Son is called QEOS in John 1:1 but in 1Corinthians 8 it is the Father alone who is called the one God of Christian monotheism.

And Christ the only Lord of Christianity. Yet Trinitarians do not follow your line of reasoning and exclude the Father. See also Jude4. How is your reasoning consistent?

The fact that you need to "combine" three verses from three different books written by two different bible writers, none of which ar teaching the doctrine of the Trinity just illustrates my point that the Trinity stands alone.

In other words you're asking that we largely ignore scriptural harmonization?

Yes, it is significantly different. The word "form" is the Greek MORFH which is the external form.

If granted, then what is the significance of "form of God"?

The word grasp is intentionally vague to allow for the meaning of either taking what what does not have or holding on to what one already has. Howver, the related Greek verb hARPAZW never means holding on to what one already has.

Hoover's article (with which I'm sure you're familar) cites several examples in favor of the Trinitarian view. However, I believe that context is most important in deciding the meaning of the word 'grasp'. The point Paul is getting across being set in Phil2:3,5 and paralleled to the relationship between Christ and His Father.

Matthew 28:19-20 in context is teaching the great commission. The word “God” is not used at all.

I think you've already demonstrated to us that the word 'theos' as applied to anything is a futile argument. Had it been applied to Christ or another in this verse, you would simply assert that it demonstrates His 'divinity' as opposed to His ontological oneness with the Father.

8<

However, the oneness Pentecostals take the Greek ONOMA (name) literally here and use it as proof of their “Jesus Only” doctrine, for if there is one literal name used in the Baptismal formula and in other verses that name is Jesus, then not only is Jesus God, but the Father becomes Jesus as well! I know you do not believe this, but that is what your “name” argument devolves into.

Here is the problem with the above and in fact precisely what I knew would happen to begin. Jaltus has presented you with a verse which could teach the doctrine of the Trinity. However, all that you have to do in turn is present an alternate explanation and deny any truth to ours. Want another example? John 1:10 explicity teaches the preexistence of Christ as well as His inclusion in the act of creation. However, a 'christadelphian' I once debated managed to apply a seperate definition to each occurence of "world" in the same sentence! Now all he has to say is-

"I know you do not believe this, but that is what your {preexistence} argument devolves into."

See?

You see, merely listing two or three persons together in the same context does not mean that they are being equated in that context.

Well, in the above senario, we would at least be agreeing that the Holy Spirit is a 'person' :smile: Of course I agree with you in that the above would not consitute proof on it's own. However, it is the implications of the context itself upon which the argument is based. Not merely the three mentioned together. Jaltus already gave one or two reasons 'why' in the case of Matthew.

If you insist that this must be the case you will have a hard time dealing with 1Chronicles 29:20 where the fact that worship is given to Jehovah and King David proves that David is also God!

No, we wouldn't. The word (worship) in the above carries a wide range of applications. In fact you know this so I'm curious as to why you presented it as an example (?).

Which of course only proves our point further. LORD in the Shema is actually YHWH. Thus a proper name, not a title.

And? See Heb1:10. The word was used in the LXX to denote YHWH as well. Here we have the Father addressing His Son as 'YHWH'. See also Phil2:9 (see Baukham's take on this in 'God Crucified').

With regards to Jesus being our Lord, this is because God made him Lord (Acts 2:36). With God being made Lord, he wasn't always such and so the Shema disproves Christ as Jehovah.

Actually Christ was born 'Lord'. See:

Luk 2:11 ..because today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, was born to you in the city of David.

Of course by your above line of reasoning as applied to the below, Christ wasn't God's "Son" until His resurrection:

Act 13:33 that this God has fulfilled to us, their children, raising up Jesus; as also it has been written in the second Psalm, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You." (See Psa. 2:7)

He wasn't JUST a human, he was God's son, existed in heaven prior and came to earth as a PERFECT (without sin) human. Being the exact representation of God, he wasn't God himself, or else it would use the word representation. You don't represent yourself, you ARE yourself.

Your are proposing an objection to Oneness theology. :smile: Under the Trinitarian view, alone, this is possible. Now you can, of course, simply say "Well the Trinity is not biblical". But nevertheless, in order to refute an aspect of our doctrine you have to grant our doctrine in order to apply an objection such as the above as being irreconcilable.

And yet where does John say that it is God's glory? It doesn't. It says he had glory along side God, it doesn't say he had God's glory. There is a difference. One can recieve honor and
glory with God (1 Chron 29:20).

It says it here:

Isa 43:6-7 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him FOR my glory, I have formed
him; yea, I have made him.

*All of creation was created for the Glory of God.

Isa 48:11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

*This glory is not to be given to another. This is an important aspect of Jewish monotheism.

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and FOR him

*All that is in creation, as in Is43, was created FOR Christ.

Joh 17:5 And now Father, glorify Me with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the existence of the world.

*I'll simply concur with James White's interpretation as it agrees with the above and below.

Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying,
Blessing, and [the] honor, and [the] glory, and [the] power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, AND UNTO the Lamb forever and ever.

*Equal praise honor and glory are given to the Father and Son. Note the definite articles. In fact it is given from all of creation which was created FOR the glory of YHWH, the Father and
Son. This is the Father's glory. It would be blatant idolatry to give such in equality to a mere creature.

The glory reserved for God is given equally to the Lamb, Christ, as it is to the Father.

God bless

Tsmith

June 18th 2003, 11:04 PM

Today @ 03:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127230#post127230)
OldShepherd:

I could say the same about you. Being convinced of one's beliefs, and equally convinced that 19th century theologies are false, is not necessarily having a chip on their shoulder.

It is the way you say things that demonstrate the chip.

Now all you have to do is back up this interpretation from scripture. That when the prophesied forerunner prepares a path FOR &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; YHWH someone representing YHWH fulfills that prophecy

This one is pretty easy. There are several times within the Hebrew scriptures where Jehovah saves his people and yet someone else carries out the action. Remember, Jehovah says that he is our only Savior, and yet he raises many saviors up throughout the OT.

Robertson had the requisite scholastic qualifications to challenge another Greek scholar. Someone with little or no formal Greek training does NOT!

Ever heard of Sharp?

Is kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou in the proper construction for a third person reference? Or is it in the second person, I-you?

Perhaps you could actually start by telling me how this relates and then we can go from there.

But this is NOT direct address! Whereas Thomas was talking to only one person, Jesus, Jesus was talking to a mixed GROUP, the multitude, and referred them as another group, His mothers and brothers.

So? You have not substantiated grammatically that Thomas was actually calling Jesus his Lord and his God. Sure he said hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO QEOS MOU, but was he actually calling Jesus these? Grammtically, the evidence is against you.

On which page is the classic definition found? Does direct address ever omit the verb? Which does NOT answer the rest of my question. Would a devout Jew use "O Theos mou" as an exclamation? And would Jesus, the Son of God, standing an arms length away, not correct or chastise him for blasphemy?

What page of what? My simply point is that a nominative of exclaimation is a statement in the nominative that lacks a verb. John 20:28 is such. Thomas committed no blasphemy.

You have continued to fail to present any real evidence against anything I've said. If you choose to reply again, please provide something substantial.

-Tony

AVmetro

June 18th 2003, 11:31 PM

This one is pretty easy. There are several times within the Hebrew scriptures where Jehovah saves his people and yet someone else carries out the action. Remember, Jehovah says that he is our only Savior, and yet he raises many saviors up throughout the OT.

So Christ is merely our "savior" in the same sense as those temporal saviors in the OT? Is that what you're implying?

YHWH is our 'Savior' in a unique sense. Otherwise the word "only" would not be used in conjunction with the word. I believe Christ is within this same class for several reasons. Hence the fact He is often termed our "Only Savior" as is the Father.

God bless

Tsmith

June 18th 2003, 11:48 PM

Today @ 04:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127300#post127300)
IronMetro:

So Christ is merely our "savior" in the same sense as those temporal saviors in the OT? Is that what you're implying?

YHWH is our 'Savior' in a unique sense. Otherwise the word "only" would not be used in conjunction with the word. I believe Christ is within this same class for several reasons. Hence the fact He is often termed our "Only Savior" as is the Father.

God bless

According to John 3:16,17 God is the source of salvation and it is being carried out through Jesus. So while Jesus did something greater than any of these others could, the fact remains that God was the source of it and it was carried out THROUGH Jesus. Jesus was not the source of it.

-Tony

AVmetro

June 19th 2003, 12:40 AM

According to John 3:16,17 God is the source of salvation and it is being carried out through Jesus. So while Jesus did something greater than any of these others could, the fact remains that God was the source of it and it was carried out THROUGH Jesus. Jesus was not the source of it.

Yes, but I think you know that this is not the whole of the story. The above expresses the love of God yet the silence regarding Christ is not to His exclusion. Remember that Christ laid down His life of His "own accord" and that no one could make Him do it. Phil2 in fact tells you more. We must believe on God AND Christ in order to obtain salvation (Jn17:3-4). This is why the 'love of God' and the 'grace of God' can also be said to be the 'love and grace of Christ' and 'the salvation of Christ'. Once again, you must deal with the fact that Christ is said to be our 'ONLY Savior' whereas none other is. This is a means of divine identification. YHWH in the OT is our "ONLY Savior to the ends of the earth". Yet if this does not exclude mere temporal saviors then what is the significance of "only" used in conjunction with 'Savior'? Now look to the NT to see this same aspect applied to Christ. He too is said to be our ONLY Savior. The one in whom we are to place our trust, faith, honor and love. Christ said that if we believe God we are to believe Him also. He has placed Himself as the object of our faith on a level equal to that of God. And we are to use this belief to obtain our salvation.

God bless

OldShepherd

June 19th 2003, 01:51 AM

Today @ 01:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127284#post127284)
Tsmith:

It is the way you say things that demonstrate the chip.

Such as?

This one is pretty easy. There are several times within the Hebrew scriptures where Jehovah saves his people and yet someone else carries out the action. Remember, Jehovah says that he is our only Savior, and yet he raises many saviors up throughout the OT.

If you are going to make a comparison of something, somewhere, perhaps you could do us the courtesy of telling us exactly where you mean or are we supposed to just guess what you are talking about. And where is there one example of YHWH saying I will come, go etc. and the text clearly shows another doing the literal act?

Ever heard of Sharp?

Yes! Are you him? Again a vague reference. I assume that you mean Granville Sharp who discovered the grammatical rule named after him. And he demonstrated that his self acquired knowledge was adequate. He did not contradict major scholars, that I know of, and he very thoroughly documented his theses. Have you done any of this, to show you have the requisite knowledge to contradict a scholar who taught Greek longer than you have been alive?

So? You have not substantiated grammatically that Thomas was actually calling Jesus his Lord and his God. Sure he said hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO QEOS MOU, but was he actually calling Jesus these? Grammatically, the evidence is against you.

No it is you who have not substantiated grammatically that Thomas did NOT call Jesus Lord and God. Making a vague reference to 2-3 verses which supposedly use similar language is NOT proving my sources wrong and OBTW none of them do. I just haven't had time to post that argument.

What page of what? My simply point is that a nominative of exclaimation is a statement in the nominative that lacks a verb. John 20:28 is such. Thomas committed no blasphemy.

You said it was the "classic definition" and my question is where, in which source, and on which page, can this definition be found. "Just cuz I say so." doesn't do it. That's right that is "your" point, NOT proven from any credible source. Merely saying. "I'm right because it says so in such and such reference, on such and such page." is NOT proof of anything either. I want to know exactly what the scholar says.

Here is a link to a well know Greek grammar. Whenever you want to quote one of your grammatical rules, I'll trust Perseus.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007&query=toc&layout=&loc=822

You have continued to fail to present any real evidence against anything I've said. If you choose to reply again, please provide something substantial.

Again I have presented very credible evidence, LSJ, Robertson, you have ignored much of it and simply voiced disagreement with the rest, without presenting anything credible to refute it. For example, your underwhelming attempt to refute my view by misrepresenting LSJ. And nothing but your opinion to refute Robertsosn.

OldShepherd

June 19th 2003, 02:22 AM

Is kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou in the proper construction for a third person reference? Or is it in the second person, I-you?

Today @ 01:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127284#post127284)
Tsmith:

Perhaps you could actually start by telling me how this relates and then we can go from there.
-Tony

I can certainly do that. If Thomas had been speaking to Jesus and referring to God, in the third person, what is the proper construction? You claim to know all these proof texts" to support your arguments, how many times various words/constructions, etc. occur in the N.T. Since now you are feigning ignorance I will do it for you.
Jhn 20:17 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.
Jesus is speaking to Mary, qeon mou kai qeon umon/"My God and your God"

In John 20:28, in case you have forgotten, the construction is kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou. If Thomas, speaking to Him, Jesus, is referring to God in the third person, as you claim, should not the construction be "theon" NOT "theos"?

OldShepherd

June 19th 2003, 06:06 AM

Today @ 06:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126828#post126828)
Cal_Minian:

At this point I will state this much. The Trinity is not taught by any bible writer in context. That being the case, the burden of proof is on those who would wish to construct such a doctrine by reading between the lines of what the bible writers really taught.

Your evidence must be iron clad and unequivocal. The use of MORFH in the entire GNT as well as what Lexicons say about it is not evidence in your favor.

You need better proof, and yes the Trinity still stands alone!

Regards,
Cal

Actually your argument is flawed from the beginning. First the church preexisted both you and I, as far as I can tell it dates to about the time that Jesus told Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." And for about 2000 years +/- the church has preached and taught its doctrines and precepts.

Then along about 1850, or so, a bunch of folks, like J. Smith, J. Thomas, and of course C.T. Russell, decided, individually, the church has been wrong for all these hundreds of years and I'm going to set it straight.

Now about 140 years +/- later their followers, attack the church and tell the church you have to prove to us that you are right. It is not incumbent on the church, that has existed for hundreds of years, to prove to every misguided opponent that it is right.

If you think the church is wrong, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it, and it has a 2000 year head start.

I would not call the Trinity a "doctrine" per se, any more than I would call the omniscience, omipotence, or omnipresence of God, a "doctrine" None of these words are in the scriptures but the scriptures certainly teach those concepts. They, as does Trinity, describe the nature of God.

But I find it quite interesting that those who make the most noise about the word "Trinity" not being found or taught in the Bible, themselves use words like "Theocracy", "God's organization", "Superintendent", "pioneer", etc., none of which appear in the Bible.

Tsmith

June 19th 2003, 06:14 AM

Today @ 05:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127330#post127330)
IronMetro:

Yes, but I think you know that this is not the whole of the story. The above expresses the love of God yet the silence regarding Christ is not to His exclusion. Remember that Christ laid down His life of His "own accord" and that no one could make Him do it. Phil2 in fact tells you more. We must believe on God AND Christ in order to obtain salvation (Jn17:3-4). This is why the 'love of God' and the 'grace of God' can also be said to be the 'love and grace of Christ' and 'the salvation of Christ'. Once again, you must deal with the fact that Christ is said to be our 'ONLY Savior' whereas none other is. This is a means of divine identification. YHWH in the OT is our "ONLY Savior to the ends of the earth". Yet if this does not exclude mere temporal saviors then what is the significance of "only" used in conjunction with 'Savior'? Now look to the NT to see this same aspect applied to Christ. He too is said to be our ONLY Savior. The one in whom we are to place our trust, faith, honor and love. Christ said that if we believe God we are to believe Him also. He has placed Himself as the object of our faith on a level equal to that of God. And we are to use this belief to obtain our salvation.

God bless

Actually, it is not silent regarding Christ. There are certain aspects of the Greek grammar here that demonstrate what I am saying explicitly. It is based on these clear indications within the grammar that I am making such statements.

Tsmith

June 19th 2003, 06:23 AM

Today @ 06:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127361#post127361)
OldShepherd:

[quote]If you are going to make a comparison of something, somewhere, perhaps you could do us the courtesy of telling us exactly where you mean or are we supposed to just guess what you are talking about. And where is there one example of YHWH saying I will come, go etc. and the text clearly shows another doing the literal act?

Just a quick one. Read Gen 19. 2 angels say they are bringing the city to ruin and it says the destruction comes from Jehovah. That one just comes off the top of my head.

Yes! Are you him? Again a vague reference. I assume that you mean Granville Sharp who discovered the grammatical rule named after him. And he demonstrated that his self acquired knowledge was adequate. He did not contradict major scholars, that I know of, and he very thoroughly documented his theses. Have you done any of this, to show you have the requisite knowledge to contradict a scholar who taught Greek longer than you have been alive?

Actually, major scholars have argued against him. So yes, in a sense he has. As for my understanding of Greek, it is more than sufficient to comment on this subject. You seem focused on my age at this point, which is weak, because age has nothing to do with it.

No it is you who have not substantiated grammatically that Thomas did NOT call Jesus Lord and God. Making a vague reference to 2-3 verses which supposedly use similar language is NOT proving my sources wrong and OBTW none of them do. I just haven't had time to post that argument.

You asked for three verses! And so I gave them to you. Sheesh. No you are all like, pshh, thats nothing. Give me a break. The grammatical evidence of this construction without question leans completely in my favor, pure and simple. If you want more examples of this construction, I'll giv eyou more.

You said it was the "classic definition" and my question is where, in which source, and on which page, can this definition be found. "Just cuz I say so." doesn't do it. That's right that is "your" point, NOT proven from any credible source. Merely saying. "I'm right because it says so in such and such reference, on such and such page." is NOT proof of anything either. I want to know exactly what the scholar says.

I'm not saying I'm right because I said so, I'm saying I'm right because it is the accepted definition by scholars of the nom. of exclamation. I don't have the page right in front of me, but you can check Dana and Mantey. I know it is in there.

[b]Again I have presented very credible evidence, LSJ, Robertson, you have ignored much of it and simply voiced disagreement with the rest, without presenting anything credible to refute it. For example, your underwhelming attempt to refute my view by misrepresenting LSJ. And nothing but your opinion to refute Robertsosn.

And I can quote Robertson say, "Jesus is God" at some point I'm sure. However, when he simply makes a statement without any textual evidence, there is little to refute. He is simply offering an opinion. I can you a sound grammatical point that the type of construction I meantioned in dealing with the GNT consistantly denotes two persons or groups of persons. You asked for 2-3 examples of this and I provided three. I can provide more. So yes, I have provided grammatical reasoning and the exact amount of evidence requested by you to support this.

-Tony

Tsmith

June 19th 2003, 06:34 AM

Today @ 07:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127479#post127479)
OldShepherd:

I can certainly do that. If Thomas had been speaking to Jesus and referring to God, in the third person, what is the proper construction? You claim to know all these proof texts" to support your arguments, how many times various words/constructions, etc. occur in the N.T. Since now you are feigning ignorance I will do it for you.
Jhn 20:17 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.
Jesus is speaking to Mary, qeon mou kai qeon umon/"My God and your God"

In John 20:28, in case you have forgotten, the construction is kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou. If Thomas, speaking to Him, Jesus, is referring to God in the third person, as you claim, should not the construction be "theon" NOT "theos"?

This simply shows an ignorance of Greek grammar on your part. John 20:17 states:

LEGEI AUTH IHSOUS MH MOU hAPTOU OUPW GAR ANABEBHKA PROS TON PATHR POREUOU DE PROS TOUS ADELPHOUS MOU KAI EIPE AUTOIS ANABANIW PROS TON PATERA MOU KAI PERA hUMWN AI QEON MOU KAI QEON hUMWN

ANABAINW is 1st person, showing that Jesus is the continuing subject. PATERA is being spoken of in relation to that subject, so of course it is accusative. That is as it should. It has no bearing on John 20:28. The construction is entirely different.

Further, John 20:28 is hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO QEOS MOU. You can dropping the first article which is why I was confused.

-Tony

Dee Dee Warren

June 19th 2003, 06:53 AM

Thank you OS for your posts... you know I always find them interestikng and informative.

o2bwise

June 19th 2003, 08:05 AM

Hi Old Shepherd,

Huh? Can you please explain what you are talking about? What tactics? How are my "tactics", whatever they are, any different than some others?

1. I see a fair amount of sarcasm.

Since now you are feigning ignorance I will do it for you

in case you have forgotten
.

2. Accusing a person of cutting and pasting and questioning his knowledge of the Greek, as an example.

I will ask the same question. Robertson had 47 years teaching graduate level Greek and you have had exactly how much Greek? And FYI, Dr. J has me beat but, yes I have had some grad level Greek.

Your explanation sounds impressive. Where did you cut and paste it from. And can you cite 2-3 examples of these "always" occurrences.

In terms of how your tactics (and that may have been the wrong word) are any different, perhaps you can show me where others have accused people of cut and paste jobs.

I'm done with this. I'll not mention it again, BUT my observation STANDS.

CHARACTER is what matters. Show me you have the truth by the CHARACTER the truth has produced in you.

The word (revealed truth) works effectively in he who believes.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

o2bwise

June 19th 2003, 08:08 AM

And where is there one example of YHWH saying I will come, go etc. and the text clearly shows another doing the literal act?

Another example is the book of Job where God tells Satan he (Satan) incited HIM (God) to destroy Job without cause.

OldShepherd

June 19th 2003, 08:15 AM

Today @ 08:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126220#post126220)
Tsmith:

Just an FYI, the John 20:28 construction is a article-substantive-pronoun-kai-article-substantive-repeated pronoun construction. In the Koine Greek, this type of grammar is always used to denote two persons under consideration. Further, I would argue this is a nominative of exclamation, not a nominative for a vocative.

And can you cite 2-3 examples of these "always" occurrences.

Here are three examples, as requested:

Mark 7:10; Hebrews 8:11; John 2:12.

There are plenty of other examples I can provide, but you asked for three and three you got.

Now we must remember these three examples are to prove that the “article-substantive-pronoun-kai-article-substantive-repeated pronoun construction”, alone in and of itself, always denotes two persons under consideration. Here are, I am assuming, the best examples of that assertion.
Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

John 2:12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
Mark 7:10, there is a masculine noun, Father, and there is a feminine noun, Mother, and according to TSmith, the only way we know to distinguish two people is because of the “article-substantive-pronoun-kai-article-substantive-repeated pronoun construction”

John 2:12, again we have a feminine noun, mother, and a masculine noun, brethren, and a once again this is supposed to prove, “article-substantive-pronoun-kai-article-substantive-repeated pronoun construction”, in and of itself, always denotes two groups or persons

Heb 8:11, brothers and neighbors is NOT necessarily two groups. Therefore you irrefutable examples prove nothing concerning John 20:28.

Please show us some examples of this "nominative of exclamation" And if you can, do any of them have the definite article?

Mark 3:34 is a great one. Which actually is identical grammar to John 20:28, being an exclaimation and of two persons/groups of persons.
Mark 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
This is certainly NOT a “Nominative of Exclamation” which I cannot find in any of my Greek resources. It is the simple nominative, the words mother and brothers is simply the subject of the verb “Look”

As I said I cannot find it in any of my resources. I searched Perseus online. And in my own library I have An Introduction to New Testament Greek, R.A. Martin, Union-Hoermann Press, 1978, and Syntax of New Testament Greek, J.A. Brooks, and C.L. Winbery, University Press, 1979.

Brooks and Winbery list; Subject Nominative, Predicate Nominative, Nominative of Appelation, Independent Nominative, and Nominative of Apposition, but no “Nominative of Exclamation”

Earlier you said, “Actually, that [John 20:28] is the classic definition of a nominative of exclaimation. The verb is lacking.” If that is true then Mark 3:34, cannot be a good exaple of your so-called “Nominative of Exclamation” because it has a verb, Idh/"idé”, “Look.” So does your “Nominative of Exclamation” have a verb or not have a verb?

And I can quote Robertson say, "Jesus is God" at some point I'm sure. However, when he simply makes a statement without any textual evidence, there is little to refute. He is simply offering an opinion. I can you a sound grammatical point that the type of construction I meantioned in dealing with the GNT consistantly denotes two persons or groups of persons. You asked for 2-3 examples of this and I provided three. I can provide more. So yes, I have provided grammatical reasoning and the exact amount of evidence requested by you to support this.

Again, Robertson had 47 years of Greek scholarship under his belt. So, with those credentials, when he says,
My Lord and my God} (\Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou\). Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the _Koiné_. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing.
It would be necessary for you to prove from credible resources that “Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the _Koiné_.” is not common in the Koiné instead of making irrelevant comments like “Jesus is God.”

And simply listing a few scripture references, without quoting the scriptures, is NOT providing evidence or grammatical reasoning, which I have refuted OBTW!

OldShepherd

June 19th 2003, 08:23 AM

Today @ 08:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127574#post127574)
Tsmith:

This simply shows an ignorance of Greek grammar on your part. John 20:17 states:

This is why you are through with this thread because you have exhausted what little you might know and now must resort to insults.

OldShepherd

June 19th 2003, 08:48 AM

Here is the verse we are trying to prove that someone other that YHWH is the actual fulfillment of.
Isa 40:3 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.

TS: Just a quick one. Read Gen 19. 2 angels say they are bringing the city to ruin and it says the destruction comes from Jehovah. That one just comes off the top of my head.

Gen 19:2 has nothing relevant but 19:13 says this. Another swing and a miss.
Gen 19:13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

TS: Actually, major scholars have argued against him. So yes, in a sense he has. As for my understanding of Greek, it is more than sufficient to comment on this subject. You seem focused on my age at this point, which is weak, because age has nothing to do with it.

If you are going to cite something then cite it for crying out loud. I don’t want to have to guess what you are talking about. Which scholars, which publications? But what I think you mean is SOME, JW scholars have published arguments, not recognized by any other Greek scholars.

Not focused on your age, your qualifications, you can’t have the qualifications Robertson had because you aren’t old enough and I don’t think you have written a 1200 page Greek grammar.

O2: Another example is the book of Job where God tells Satan he (Satan) incited HIM (God) to destroy Job without cause.

And we just have to guess which chapter and verse. I just did a search on Satan in Job and I can’t find the verse. And the way you stated it, its irrelevant anyway. Read Isa 40:3, something for YHWH, something for our God, but someone other that YHWH/God is the recipient, as in the four gospels where Jesus is the one that the forerunner is preparing the way for.

Tsmith

June 19th 2003, 09:22 AM

Today @ 01:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127616#post127616)
OldShepherd:

Here is the verse we are trying to prove that someone other that YHWH is the actual fulfillment of.
Isa 40:3 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.

Gen 19:2 has nothing relevant but 19:13 says this. Another swing and a miss.
Gen 19:13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

No, I was referencing the whole chapter of Gen 19 with regards to 2 angels, Not Gen 19:2. You have to really read the whole chapter. We find that the angels are sent to destroy it, and if we go back to Gen 18:17 we see it says that Jehovah is the one saying he will do it.

If you are going to cite something then cite it for crying out loud. I don’t want to have to guess what you are talking about. Which scholars, which publications? But what I think you mean is SOME, JW scholars have published arguments, not recognized by any other Greek scholars.

I have had no intention of citing anything. This isn't a JW thing, this isn't an issolated thing, but simply, a case where xx construction is this. It is like saying QEON is the accusative of QEOS. Do I need to cite grammars to state this? No, because it is a simply fact of the grammar.

Not focused on your age, your qualifications, you can’t have the qualifications Robertson had because you aren’t old enough and I don’t think you have written a 1200 page Greek grammar.

Ever seen Dougie Howser M.D.? It is a TV show of course and I'm not saying I'm anything like him, but the point remains that age has little bearing. :)

This will be my last reply until Sunday or Monday when I return.

-Tony

Dee Dee Warren

June 19th 2003, 09:37 AM

TSmith, I take it that you are going on a trip? Have a safe return!

Cal_Minian

June 19th 2003, 02:39 PM

Yesterday @ 06:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127206#post127206)
OldShepherd:

Dear OldShepherd,

You maintain that MORFH means "nature" as in the NIV translation and that this indicates that Philippians 2 must be interpreted to mean that the Son shares the nature of God in every detail I maintain that the Greek word MORFH used here refers to the "appearance," or "form" in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven."

Lexical References for MORFH
The Greek Lexicons do not define MORPHE as "nature" in any of it's usages and specifically state that for Philippians 2:6 it means "form" or "shape."

1 Liddell Scott "form, shape," "generally, form, fashion, appearance ... cf. Ep Phil.2 6," "kind, sort"

2 Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, page 530, form, outward appearance, shape gener. of bodily form 1Cl 39:3 ( Job 4:16 ). Of the shape or form of statues ( Jos., Vi. 65 ) ... MORFHN DOULOU LABWN he too on the form of a slave Phil 2:7. The risen Christ EFANERWQH EN hETERA MORFH appeared in a different form [b] Mk 16:12. Of the preexistent Christ: EN MORFH QEOU hUPARXWN although he was in the form of God Phil 2:6.

3 Thayer page 418, fr. Hom. down, the form by which a person or thing strikes the the vision; the external appearance: children are said to reflect YUXHS TE KAI MORFHS hOMOIOTHTA (of their parents) ... EN MORFH QEOU hUPARXWN, Phil ii. 6; MORFHN DOULOU LABWN ibid. 7;-- this whole passage ... is to be explained as follows: who although (formerly when he was LOGOS ASARKOS) he bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God (the sovereign, opp to MORF. DOULOU)

OldShepherd, you said:
since "morphe" only occurs twice in the GNT we must look to other lexical aids.

Cal_Minian:
BDAG also lists Mark 16:12 where the meaning of MORFH refutes your definition. Also, you have skipped some important steps in your apparent haste to make your case. The next place to look for the Scriptural usage of MORFH would be the Septuagint usage! There are three more examples found in the LXX, see below. In addition Bauer lists Josephus and other profane Greek references which dispute your definition.

New Testament Usage (3)

1 [b] Mark 16:12 And after these things he was manifested in another form (MORFH) unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country.

2 Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form MORFH) of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,

3 Philippians 2:7 but emptied himself, taking the form (MORFHN) of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;

Septuagint Usage (3)

1 Job 4:16 I arose and perceived it not: I looked, and there, was no form (MORFH) before my eyes: but I only heard a breath and a voice, saying,

2 Daniel 3:19 Then Nabuchodonosor was filled with wrath, and the form (MORFHN) of his countenance was changed toward Sedrach, Misach, and Abdenago: and he gave orders to heat the furnace seven times more than usual, until it should burn to the uttermost.

3 Isaiah 44:13 The artificer having chosen a piece of wood, marks it out with a rule, and fits it with glue, and makes it as the form (MORFHN) of a man, and as the beauty of a man, to set it up in the house.

Cal_Minian:
I looked METAMORFOW in BDAG and they give two senses for the word. The first one is a change in external appearance and the second one is an inner change, but not a change in nature. When I get time I will present a more detailed quotation.

Thus we find that the lexical resources do not ignore the LXX and profane usage of MORFH and do not define MORFH by the usage of METAMORFOW. If they did define MORFH based upon what they have written on METAMORFOW they would still not reach your conclusion, as nowhere do they state that METAMORFOW means what you say it does.

As anyone with these lexical aids can see for themselves, MORFH does not mean what you take it to mean. In addition skipping to METAMORFOW does not help you when one looks at what these Lexicons say about that word as well.

Kind Regards,
Cal_Minian

PS I did read what you said with respect to my challenge that the Trinity is the only doctrine considered essential by some Christians that is not taught as doctrine by any bible writer. I do not know you or your world-view, but if you accept tradition over what the bible writers actually wrote, that explains why my challenge is of no interest to you.

Cal_Minian

June 19th 2003, 07:20 PM

Today @ 03:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127561#post127561)
OldShepherd:

Actually your argument is flawed from the beginning. First the church preexisted both you and I, as far as I can tell it dates to about the time that Jesus told Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." And for about 2000 years +/- the church has preached and taught its doctrines and precepts.

Then along about 1850, or so, a bunch of folks, like J. Smith, J. Thomas, and of course C.T. Russell, decided, individually, the church has been wrong for all these hundreds of years and I'm going to set it straight.

Now about 140 years +/- later their followers, attack the church and tell the church you have to prove to us that you are right. It is not incumbent on the church, that has existed for hundreds of years, to prove to every misguided opponent that it is right.

If you think the church is wrong, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it, and it has a 2000 year head start.

I would not call the Trinity a "doctrine" per se, any more than I would call the omniscience, omipotence, or omnipresence of God, a "doctrine" None of these words are in the scriptures but the scriptures certainly teach those concepts. They, as does Trinity, describe the nature of God.

But I find it quite interesting that those who make the most noise about the word "Trinity" not being found or taught in the Bible, themselves use words like "Theocracy", "God's organization", "Superintendent", "pioneer", etc., none of which appear in the Bible.

Dear OldShepherd,
It is a misrepresentation of my argument to say that it is related to whether or not the word "Trinity" is in the bible. I never make that argument. It is because no bible writer teaches the doctrine. (See my original post for details)

I am also quite suprized that you would not call the Trinity a doctrine. Everyone else does. Do a search on the web for "Doctrine of the Trinity." Walter Martin came up on this search and wrote an article on the subject.

I found the same thing on "Doctrine of Omnicience."

You say that the burden of proof is on my if I reject what has been taught by some for centuries?

So your defense against my challenge is to 1) deny that the Trinity is a doctrine and 2) to appeal to what some theologians have been teaching for centuries?

I will be modifying my original post to add responsed from Trinitarians. I want to make sure that I have understood you correctly.

Your position is that Tradition supercedes what the bible writers orginally taught. Is that correct?

Kind Regards,
Cal_Minian

OldShepherd

June 19th 2003, 08:10 PM

Today @ 09:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128183#post128183)
Cal_Minian:

I am also quite suprized that you would not call the Trinity a doctrine. Everyone else does. Do a search on the web for "Doctrine of the Trinity." Walter Martin came up on this search and wrote an article on the subject.

"Everyone else does." Please tell me you did NOT say this? Do you believe what the church has taught for 2000 years, ie. everyone else does? I am reminded of what my 4th grade teacher said when she paddled my behind for throwing erasers, "If everyone got up on top of the building and jumped off would you do it too?"

So your defense against my challenge is to 1) deny that the Trinity is a doctrine and 2) to appeal to what some theologians have been teaching for centuries?

Did you read my post? I said "doctrine per-se" and I said that is part of the nature of God just as omniscience, etc. is.

Read my post, where did I say "some theologians?"

Your position is that Tradition supercedes what the bible writers orginally taught. Is that correct?

No my position is that you cannot read or comprehend English, because you have mistated or misrepresented what I said at least three times in your reponse. Go back and read my response, if you do not understand what I said, ask me to explain, do NOT put words in my mouth, when you thoroughly understand what I said then attempt to respond.

OldShepherd

June 19th 2003, 09:13 PM

Today @ 04:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127947#post127947)

You maintain that MORFH means "nature" as in the NIV translation and that this indicates that Philippians 2 must be interpreted to mean that the Son shares the nature of God in every detail I maintain that the Greek word MORFH used here refers to the "appearance," or "form" in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven."

Lexical References for MORFH
The Greek Lexicons do not define MORPHE as "nature" in any of it's usages and specifically state that for Philippians 2:6 it means "form" or "shape."
1 Liddell Scott "form, shape," "generally, form, fashion, appearance ... cf. Ep Phil.2 6," "kind, sort"

Here are the exact quotes from LSJ as previously posted. I have taken the liberty of highlighting some relevant definitions.

Yesterday @ 11:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127206#post127206)
OldShepherd:

metamorfh-ow, transform, Gal.19.479; heauton eis ti Ael.VH1.1 ; disguise, heauton App.BC4.41 :--mostly in Pass., to be transformed, Ep.Rom.12.2, Plu.2.52d, Luc.Asin.11; eis thêriôn idean D.S.4.81 ; eis Apollôna Ph.2.559 ; eis ichthun Ath.8.334c ; apo doxês eis doxan 2 Ep.Cor.3.18 ; to be transfigured, Ev.Matt.17.2, etc

06-18-2003 @ 05:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126144#post126144)

morfh-ê , hê, form, shape, twice in Hom. (not in Hes.), soi d' epi men morphê epeôn thou hast comeliness of words, Od.11.367 (cf. Eust. ad loc.); so prob. allos men . . eidos akidnoteros pelei anêr, alla theos morphên epesi stephei God adds a crown of shapeliness to his words, Od.8.170: freq. later, morphas duo onomazein Parm.8.53 ; morphên allaxanta Emp.137.1 ; morphan brachus Pi.I.4(3).53 ; morphês metra shape and size, E.Alc.1063: periphr., morphês phusis A.Supp.496 ; morphês schêma, tupôma, E.Ion992, Ph.162; tên autên tou schêmatos morphên Arist.PA640b34 ; kai Gaia, pollôn onomatôn m. mia A.Pr.212 ; oneiratôn alinkioi morphaisin ib.449; nukterôn phantasmatôn echousi morphas Id.Fr.312 ; proupempsen anti philtatês m. spodon S.El.1159 ; of plants, Thphr.HP1.1.12 (pl.); esp. with ref. to beauty of form, huperphaton morphai Pi.O.9.65 ; hois potistaxêi charis euklea m. ib.6.76, cf. IG42 (1).121.119 (Epid., iv B. C.), LXX To.1.13, Vett.Val.1.6, etc.; sôma morphês emês OGI383.41 (Commagene, i B. C.); morphês eikonas ib.27; charaktêra morphês emês ib.60.

2. generally, form, fashion, appearance, A.Pr.78, S.Tr.699, El.199 (lyr.); outward form, opp. eidos, hekaterô tô eideos pollai m. Philol.5 ; allattonta to hautou eidos eis pollas morphas Pl.R.380d ; m. theôn X.Mem.4.3.13 , cf. Ep.Phil.2.6, Dam.Pr.304; hêrôôn eidea kai morphas A.R.4.1193 ; kata te morphas kai phônas gesticulations and cries, D.H.14.9; tên m. melanchrous, têi m. melichroas, in complexion, Ptol.Tetr.143, 144.

3. kind, sort, E. Ion 382, 1068 (lyr.), Pl.R.397c, etc. (Possibly cogn. with Lat. forma for morg[uglide]hm&#257;, with f by dissimilation, cf. murmêx.)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2368792

BDAG also lists Mark 16:12 where the meaning of MORFH refutes your definition. Also, you have skipped some important steps in your apparent haste to make your case. The next place to look for the Scriptural usage of MORFH would be the Septuagint usage! There are three more examples found in the LXX, see below. In addition Bauer lists Josephus and other profane Greek references which dispute your definition.

No actually Mark 16:12 does NOT refute my definition. If we read the parallel passage in Lu 24:16, “But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.” The reason Jesus “appeared” to be in another form was because the disciples eyes were somehow affected.

New Testament Usage (3)
[list]
1 Mark 16:12 And after these things he was manifested in another form (MORFH) unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country.

2 Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form MORFH) of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,

3 Philippians 2:7 but emptied himself, taking the form (MORFHN) of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;

Actually my previous response was an inadvertent misstatement. “morphe” only occurs two places in the GNT, twice in Philippians and once in Mark. And I am very glad that you posted Phip 2:17. That one verse more than any of the lexical arguments, irrefutably proves my argument. When Jesus took the morfh of a servant , the likeness of men, was He only a servant/man in external appearance or was He completely totally a servant?

Septuagint Usage (3)
[list]
1 Job 4:16 I arose and perceived it not: I looked, and there, was no form (MORFH) before my eyes: but I only heard a breath and a voice, saying,

2 Daniel 3:19 Then Nabuchodonosor was filled with wrath, and the form (MORFHN) of his countenance was changed toward Sedrach, Misach, and Abdenago: and he gave orders to heat the furnace seven times more than usual, until it should burn to the uttermost.

3 Isaiah 44:13 The artificer having chosen a piece of wood, marks it out with a rule, and fits it with glue, and makes it as the form (MORFHN) of a man, and as the beauty of a man, to set it up in the house.

I would be most interested in the Hebrew word which “morphe” translates in the LXX, wouldn’t you?

For example in Daniel it is the word ץלם, idol, image, and in each of the others a different word.

OldShepherd

June 19th 2003, 09:23 PM

Today @ 09:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128183#post128183)
Cal_Minian:

It is a misrepresentation of my argument to say that it is related to whether or not the word "Trinity" is in the bible. I never make that argument. It is because no bible writer teaches the doctrine. (See my original post for details)

Well lets try it again and see if you can fully comprehend my answer.
"But I find it quite interesting that those who make the most noise about the word "Trinity" not being found ->or taught<- in the Bible, themselves use words like "Theocracy", "God's Organization", "Superintendent", "pioneer", etc., none of which appear in the Bible."
Do you still maintain that I am misrepresenting your argument?

Cal_Minian

June 19th 2003, 09:52 PM

Today @ 06:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128273#post128273)
OldShepherd:

Well lets try it again and see if you can fully comprehend my answer.
"But I find it quite interesting that those who make the most noise about the word "Trinity" not being found ->or taught<- in the Bible, themselves use words like "Theocracy", "God's Organization", "Superintendent", "pioneer", etc., none of which appear in the Bible."
Do you still maintain that I am misrepresenting your argument?

Yes,
Please read the first post in this thread. An essential doctrine is a teaching, not a particular word or merely a concept.

Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 19th 2003, 10:17 PM

I would be most interested in the Hebrew word which “morphe” translates in the LXX, wouldn’t you?

For example in Daniel it is the word &#1509;&#1500;&#1501;, idol, image, and in each of the others a different word.

Job 4:16 is TeMoNaH - please forgive my transliteration. According to BDB 568 it is "likeness, form."

In Isaiah 44:13 it is TaBeNiT and BDB 125 says it is a "pattern, figure" or "image."

The verse in Daniel is on BDB 1109. TSeLeM in Daniel is Aramaic and not Hebrew. The Hebrew equivalent is on page 853.

All the references I have read say that the LXX usage of MORFH are of external appearance. This is confirmed by the context of each of these verses.

As you can see it is not necessary to look for words that resemble MORFH to determine it's meaning.

None of the lexicons we have quoted so far compare it to METAMORFAW. You might want to reconsider that argument. It does not have any merit.

Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 19th 2003, 10:25 PM

Today @ 06:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128268#post128268)
OldShepherd:

Here are the exact quotes from LSJ as previously posted. I have taken the liberty of highlighting some relevant definitions.

I read all your highlights. LSJ9 continues to prove that MORFH is used of eternal appearance and not "nature."

Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd

June 19th 2003, 10:31 PM

Yesterday @ 01:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127284#post127284)
Tsmith:

Which does NOT answer the rest of my question. Would a devout Jew use "O Theos mou" as an exclamation? And would Jesus, the Son of God, standing an arms length away, not correct or chastise him for blasphemy?

What page of what? My simply point is that a nominative of exclaimation is a statement in the nominative that lacks a verb. John 20:28 is such. Thomas committed no blasphemy.

Help me understand this. According to you Thomas said “My God” as an exclamation, of shock, surprise, etc., a “Nominative of Exclamation” but there was no blasphemy? Even the high priest would not ask Jesus if He was the Son of God but said are you the Son of the most High? So how is saying, “My God” not blasphemy?

Cal_Minian

June 19th 2003, 10:36 PM

Today @ 06:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128268#post128268)
OldShepherd:

Actually my previous response was an inadvertent misstatement. “morphe” only occurs two places in the GNT, twice in Philippians and once in Mark. And I am very glad that you posted Phip 2:17. That one verse more than any of the lexical arguments, irrefutably proves my argument. When Jesus took the morfh of a servant , the likeness of men, was He only a servant/man in external appearance or was He completely totally a servant?

Dear OldShepherd,
MORFH according to the lexicons means external appearance. Both an image and a living human can have the same MORFH, but they obviously do not have the same nature.

In the Carmen Christi the MORFH QEOU is being contrasted with the MORFH DOULOU.

Jesus emptied himself from MORFH QEOU taking (LABWN) the form of man.

That means he was no longer EN MORFH QEOU.

But you must do fancy footwork to consider that Jesus was both fully QEOU and ANQRWPOS by forcing the emptying (KENAW) of the Son to be merely metaphorical.

My view does not need to special plead the meaning of KENAW.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 19th 2003, 10:43 PM

Today @ 06:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128268#post128268)
OldShepherd: No actually Mark 16:12 does NOT refute my definition. If we read the parallel passage in Lu 24:16, “But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.” The reason Jesus “appeared” to be in another form was because the disciples eyes were somehow affected.

Dear OldShepherd,
According to Thayer and BDAG Mark 16:12 is of external appearance. Mark 16 may have been added and therefore not really inspired and therefore not a true parallel to Luke but it does show how the word was used in bible times.

Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 19th 2003, 11:10 PM

Today @ 03:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127580#post127580)
Dee Dee Warren:

Thank you OS for your posts... you know I always find them interestikng and informative.

What, no pearls for me? You were positively BEGGING me to subscribe on Paltalk last week :hmph:

Regards Cal_Minian

AVmetro

June 19th 2003, 11:14 PM

I believe OS's argument remains firm. To deny the implications of 'morphe' in regards to 'God' one would have to be consistent in their interpretation of the second occurence used in reference to "servant". I don't believe Christ simply came in the 'image' of a servant but possessed the very nature of one.

Jesus emptied himself from MORFH QEOU taking (LABWN) the form of man.

The word "being" is a present tense particple. This rules out the
possiblility that Christ ceased "being God" in the process of becoming 'man'.

Secondly:

That means he was no longer EN MORFH QEOU.

Nowhere does it state that Christ emptied Himself of His divine nature or "the form of God". It simply states that He "emptied Himself". Some believe this to refer to Christ's divine insignia etc.

But you must do fancy footwork to consider that Jesus was both fully QEOU and ANQRWPOS by forcing the emptying (KENAW) of the Son to be merely metaphorical.

Not at all. In fact the very principle of Paul's point supports us (Phil2:3,5). Christ refused to exploit that which He had.

God bless

OldShepherd

June 20th 2003, 12:39 AM

Today @ 12:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128323#post128323)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
According to Thayer and BDAG Mark 16:12 is of external appearance. Mark 16 may have been added and therefore not really inspired and therefore not a true parallel to Luke but it does show how the word was used in bible times.

Regards,
Cal

I wondered how long it would take until the tired old "that MAY not be in the original, it MIGHT have been added, therefore it MIGHT not be inspired." copout was used. And IF it is NOT in the original and is NOT inspired then how can it show us anything? You cannot eat your cake and have it too! Get off the fence take a position.

OldShepherd

June 20th 2003, 12:50 AM

Yesterday @ 11:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127634#post127634)
Tsmith:

Ever seen Dougie Howser M.D.? It is a TV show of course and I'm not saying I'm anything like him, but the point remains that age has little bearing. :)

Which was in response to this.
"Not focused on your age, your qualifications, you can’t have the qualifications Robertson had because you aren’t old enough and I don’t think you have written a 1200 page Greek grammar."

The only thing I can say is, "Oh Puh-leeze - give - me - a - break!" What's next quoting, "The Twilight Zone?" Do you have any qualifcations or not, owning a copy of BAGD and copies of all of Stafford's arguments, is NOT being qualified to dispute the known scholars like, Robertson, Wallace, or Omanson.

OldShepherd

June 20th 2003, 01:09 AM

Yesterday @ 10:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127598#post127598)
o2bwise:

1. I see a fair amount of sarcasm.

Of course, when someone repeatedly posts examples of Greek construction to support their argument, then claims to not know what I am talking about/how they apply when I mention counter examples, as if I'm supposed to roll belly up like a dead carp and say nothing, yeah I get a little sarcastic.

2. Accusing a person of cutting and pasting and questioning his knowledge of the Greek, as an example.

Asking a person if he cut and pasted is NOT the same as saying "You did. . . ," that would be an accusation!

And whenever someone disagrees with and contradicts a noted Greek scholar like A. T. Robertson, with 47 years teaching experience, yeah I think what their qualifications are, is a legitimate question.

, perhaps you can show me where others have accused people of cut and paste jobs.

Perhaps you can show me where I did? And OBTW I shamelessly cut and paste myself BUT I give proper credit. And Mr. TS arguments are starting to look more and more like warmed over arguments I have seen elsewhere. If I am having a discussion with Stafford or someone else by proxy I want to know it.

CHARACTER is what matters. Show me you have the truth by the CHARACTER the truth has produced in you.

The word (revealed truth) works effectively in he who believes.

First you accuse me of making accusations when I did not, then you imply that I have no character. Does this CHARACTER you are talking about include someone accusing another person of making an accusation, when they asked a question? Pot-kettle.

OldShepherd

June 20th 2003, 01:27 AM

Today @ 12:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128316#post128316)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
MORFH according to the lexicons means external appearance. Both an image and a living human can have the same MORFH, but they obviously do not have the same nature.

In the Carmen Christi the MORFH QEOU is being contrasted with the MORFH DOULOU.

Not if He was fully a servant in Phip 2:17 and of course we cannot interpret this passage in isolation from the rest of the bible, especially, John 1:14, e.g. "The word became flesh.", He, NOT it, did NOT stop existing as anything in becoming!

And you tap danced around my question, without ever getting close to an answer. When Jesus took on the morfh of a servant, the likeness of men, was He completely a servant/man or was He something else? Since you claim that Jesus emptied Himself of His morfh qeou and He was NOT God or man before, what was He?

And since, according to your definition, Jesus was NOT God or man after He took on the "morphé" of a servant, likeness of men, what was He?

Jesus emptied himself from MORFH QEOU taking (LABWN) the form of man.

That means he was no longer EN MORFH QEOU.

Adding to the scriptures. It does not say emptied Himself of the morfh qeou!

But you must do fancy footwork to consider that Jesus was both fully QEOU and ANQRWPOS by forcing the emptying (KENAW) of the Son to be merely metaphorical.

My view does not need to special plead the meaning of KENAW.

Nor does my view need special pleading. I said nothing about metaphorical! The verse does NOT say emptied Himself of the morfh qeou! Your view reads your presuppositions into the text. Here is where you might review how this word is used elsewhere in the GNT.

Below is Robertson's exegesis of Phip 2:6. And as before the only valid objections would be those based on a high degree of Greek language study, not just someone with a Strong's and a BAGD saying "I disagree."
Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
Being (uparcwn). Rather, "existing," present active participle of uparcw. In the form of God (en morfh qeou!/en morphé theou). Morphe means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (arpagmon). Predicate accusative with hghsato. Originally words in -moß signified the act, not the result (-ma). The few examples of arpagmoß (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to arpagma, like baptismoß and baptisma. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won ("robbery"). To be on an equality with God (to einai isa qeoi). Accusative articular infinitive object of hghsato, "the being equal with God" (associative instrumental case qewi after isa). Isa is adverbial use of neuter plural with einai as in Revelation 21:16. Emptied himself (eauton ekenwse). First aorist active indicative of kenow, old verb from kenoß, empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a Kenosis doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. "He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty" (Lightfoot).

OldShepherd

June 20th 2003, 02:27 AM

Today @ 11:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128283#post128283)
Cal_Minian:

Well lets try it again and see if you can fully comprehend my answer.
"But I find it quite interesting that those who make the most noise about the word "Trinity" not being found ->or taught<- in the Bible, themselves use words like "Theocracy", "God's Organization", "Superintendent", "pioneer", etc., none of which appear in the Bible."
Do you still maintain that I am misrepresenting your argument?

Yes,
Please read the first post in this thread. An essential doctrine is a teaching, not a particular word or merely a concept.

If at first you don't succeed.
"But I find it quite interesting that those who make the most noise about the word/essential doctrine "Trinity" not being found ->or taught<- in the Bible, themselves use words/concepts/doctrines like "Theocracy", "God's Organization on earth", "Superintendent", "pioneer", "D.D." (i.e. Dumb Dog) etc., none of which appear in the Bible."

Do you still maintain that I am misrepresenting your argument?

OldShepherd

June 20th 2003, 02:56 AM

Today @ 12:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128303#post128303)
Cal_Minian:

As you can see it is not necessary to look for words that resemble MORFH to determine it's meaning.

And once again the tired old misrepresentation of what I actually posted. Someone in another post mentioned something about truth and character. Is this an example of truth and character? metamorfw/"metamorphô" is NOT a word that resembles morfh/'morphé!"

metamorfw/"metamorphô" is a compound word formed from "meta' and the root word "morphe!." Now would you like to post something with a little integrity?

O2 and any other bystanders, you want to jump into the fray and accuse me of having a chip on my shoulder again?

o2bwise

June 20th 2003, 08:53 AM

I wondered how long it would take until the tired old "that MAY not be in the original, it MIGHT have been added, therefore it MIGHT not be inspired." copout was used. And IF it is NOT in the original and is NOT inspired then how can it show us anything? You cannot eat your cake and have it too! Get off the fence take a position.

The "spirit" of your entire dialogue continues to (to use a not so nice word) SUCK.

WHO CARES WHAT YOU BELIEVE? SHOW ME THE GOODNESS OF YOUR BELIEF BY YOUR CHARACTER!

o2bwise

June 20th 2003, 09:04 AM

Old Shepherd,

I apologise for misinterpreting your question as an accusation. I still think it was better not asked, personally. Like it's insulting to even consider it, i.e. "I consider that you might be the kind of person that would cut and paste without so much as referencing."

Regardless, I still see venom in most of your posts. That is what I "see."

As for your allusion to someone with 47 years of Greek, my conviction is as follows.

God crafted His word in a way that the SIMPLE could unearth it. I do not mean to take away from advantages that lay in understanding the original languages, BUT, I believe if someone has a LOVE for the Word and does things like word studies and comparing spiritual with spiritual, He will find the truth, even the deep things of God.

Here is a small example:
Psalm 48:7
As when you break the ships of Tarshish with an east wind.

Old Shepherd, what does this mean? I am serious. What does this mean?

This upholding of a man because of his 40+ years of whatever, I don't like it. One could have upheld Caiaphas for his formal understanding while the Son of God walked in the very midst. All that formal education and He didn't know the Messiah when He was right in front of his nose.

The simple will have a wisdom that, in general, will blow away that of "the learned."

Godspeed...

Tony (o2)

Cal_Minian

June 20th 2003, 10:44 PM

Yesterday @ 11:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128502#post128502)
OldShepherd:

And once again the tired old misrepresentation of what I actually posted. Someone in another post mentioned something about truth and character. Is this an example of truth and character? metamorfw/"metamorph&#244;" is NOT a word that resembles morfh/'morph&#233;!"

metamorfw/"metamorph&#244;" is a compound word formed from "meta' and the root word "morphe!." Now would you like to post something with a little integrity?

O2 and any other bystanders, you want to jump into the fray and accuse me of having a chip on my shoulder again?

Dear OldShepherd,
It is EISEGESIS to derive the meaning of MORFH by using METAMORFAW. The lexicons do not analyze MORFH as you do or compare it to METAMORFAW in any way.

It is an exegetical fallacy to derive your definitions merely because of an etymological or morphological similarity.

Please provide a lexicon that supports you. Otherwise I must discard your bare assertions.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 20th 2003, 10:48 PM

Yesterday @ 11:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128470#post128470)
OldShepherd:

Well lets try it again and see if you can fully comprehend my answer.
"But I find it quite interesting that those who make the most noise about the word "Trinity" not being found ->or taught<- in the Bible, themselves use words like "Theocracy", "God's Organization", "Superintendent", "pioneer", etc., none of which appear in the Bible."
Do you still maintain that I am misrepresenting your argument?

If at first you don't succeed.
"But I find it quite interesting that those who make the most noise about the word/essential doctrine "Trinity" not being found ->or taught<- in the Bible, themselves use words/concepts/doctrines like "Theocracy", "God's Organization on earth", "Superintendent", "pioneer", "D.D." (i.e. Dumb Dog) etc., none of which appear in the Bible."

Do you still maintain that I am misrepresenting your argument?

Dear OldShepherd,
Yes,

The terms you are comparing to the Trinity are not doctrines. You have already stated that you do not consider the Trinity to be a doctrine. In that respect you stand alone because a simple google search for 'doctrine of the Trinity' turns up a host of your brethern.

The Trinity stands alone in a different sense as I have proven. See the first post in this thread for details.

Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 20th 2003, 11:05 PM

Yesterday @ 10:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128432#post128432)
OldShepherd:

Not if He was fully a servant in Phip 2:17 and of course we cannot interpret this passage in isolation from the rest of the bible, especially, John 1:14, e.g. "The word became flesh.", He, NOT it, did NOT stop existing as anything in becoming!

And you tap danced around my question, without ever getting close to an answer. When Jesus took on the morfh of a servant, the likeness of men, was He completely a servant/man or was He something else? Since you claim that Jesus emptied Himself of His morfh qeou and He was NOT God or man before, what was He?

And since, according to your definition, Jesus was NOT God or man after He took on the "morph&#233;" of a servant, likeness of men, what was He?

Adding to the scriptures. It does not say emptied Himself of the morfh qeou!

Nor does my view need special pleading. I said nothing about metaphorical! The verse does NOT say emptied Himself of the morfh qeou! Your view reads your presuppositions into the text. Here is where you might review how this word is used elsewhere in the GNT.

Below is Robertson's exegesis of Phip 2:6. And as before the only valid objections would be those based on a high degree of Greek language study, not just someone with a Strong's and a BAGD saying "I disagree."
Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
Being (uparcwn). Rather, "existing," present active participle of uparcw. In the form of God (en morfh qeou!/en morph&#233; theou). Morphe means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (arpagmon). Predicate accusative with hghsato. Originally words in -moß signified the act, not the result (-ma). The few examples of arpagmoß (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to arpagma, like baptismoß and baptisma. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won ("robbery"). To be on an equality with God (to einai isa qeoi). Accusative articular infinitive object of hghsato, "the being equal with God" (associative instrumental case qewi after isa). Isa is adverbial use of neuter plural with einai as in Revelation 21:16. Emptied himself (eauton ekenwse). First aorist active indicative of kenow, old verb from kenoß, empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a Kenosis doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. "He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty" (Lightfoot).

Dear OldShepherd,
I am only relating what the Greek text literally says. Jesus was IN the form of God (EN MORFH QEOU).

The object of the verb KENAW (empty) is hEAUTWN or "himself." That's right, the Greek text says that he literally emptied "himself."

Now in what did "himself" exist? EN MORFH QEOU or in the form of God. That is what the Greek text literally says.

He emptied "himself" while "in the form of God" and took the form of a slave.

The Greek text literally says he emptied himself from being in the form of God into the form of a slave.

When you empty a glass of water into a cup, the cup is full and the glass is empty. KENAW means empty. Not only is hEAUTWN the only Greek word that fits what was emptied in this passage, but it is also the object of the verb KENAW.

If I say water was in the glass and I emptied water and it entered the cup there is no other way to understand the statement. In the same way the Greek says that he emptied himself from being in the form of God into the form of man.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 20th 2003, 11:15 PM

Yesterday @ 09:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128414#post128414)
OldShepherd:

I wondered how long it would take until the tired old "that MAY not be in the original, it MIGHT have been added, therefore it MIGHT not be inspired." copout was used. And IF it is NOT in the original and is NOT inspired then how can it show us anything? You cannot eat your cake and have it too! Get off the fence take a position.

Dear OldShepherd,
You quoted Liddell Scott for the use of Greek words in the profane Greek and the profane Greek is not inspired. That does not mean that those writers did not use the word in the proper way.

If you read through Bauer one finds the same thing. Usages in Josephus and other Greek writers tell us how the word was used in that time period.

The longer ending of Mark is no different. I am not deriving doctrine from a possible addition to the GNT. I and BDAG properly use this to show that in first century biblical langage the word means external form and not nature.

I hope that clarifies my usage of this text.

This also demonstrates that the word MORFH biblical Greek means external appearance which is exactly what the Greek lexicons say it means.

Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 20th 2003, 11:22 PM

Yesterday @ 08:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128350#post128350)
IronMetro:

I believe OS's argument remains firm. To deny the implications of 'morphe' in regards to 'God' one would have to be consistent in their interpretation of the second occurence used in reference to "servant". I don't believe Christ simply came in the 'image' of a servant but possessed the very nature of one.

The word "being" is a present tense particple. This rules out the
possiblility that Christ ceased "being God" in the process of becoming 'man'.

Secondly:

Nowhere does it state that Christ emptied Himself of His divine nature or "the form of God". It simply states that He "emptied Himself". Some believe this to refer to Christ's divine insignia etc.

Not at all. In fact the very principle of Paul's point supports us (Phil2:3,5). Christ refused to exploit that which He had.

God bless

Dear IronMetro,
Evidently both you and OS have intepreted the words "empty himself" to mean the object of empty is divine nature. That is not what the Greek text nor what I meant.

I am only relating what the Greek text literally says. Jesus was IN the form of God (EN MORFH QEOU).

The object of the verb KENAW (empty) is hEAUTWN or "himself." That's right, the Greek text says that he literally emptied "himself."

Now in what did "himself" exist? EN MORFH QEOU or in the form of God. That is what the Greek text literally says.

He emptied "himself" while "in the form of God" and took the form of a slave.

The Greek text literally says he emptied himself from being in the form of God into the form of a slave.

When you empty a glass of water into a cup, the cup is full and the glass is empty. KENAW means empty. Not only is hEAUTWN the only Greek word that fits what was emptied in this passage, but it is also the object of the verb KENAW.

If I say water was in the glass and I emptied water and it entered the cup there is no other way to understand the statement. In the same way the Greek says that he emptied himself from being in the form of God into the form of man.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 20th 2003, 11:45 PM

Yesterday @ 08:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128350#post128350)
IronMetro:

I believe OS's argument remains firm. To deny the implications of 'morphe' in regards to 'God' one would have to be consistent in their interpretation of the second occurence used in reference to "servant". I don't believe Christ simply came in the 'image' of a servant but possessed the very nature of one.

The word "being" is a present tense particple. This rules out the
possiblility that Christ ceased "being God" in the process of becoming 'man'.

Secondly:

Nowhere does it state that Christ emptied Himself of His divine nature or "the form of God". It simply states that He "emptied Himself". Some believe this to refer to Christ's divine insignia etc.

Not at all. In fact the very principle of Paul's point supports us (Phil2:3,5). Christ refused to exploit that which He had.

God bless

Dear IronMetro,
I have already corrected your impression that I was arguing for "the form of God" to be the object of KENAW (to empty.)

As I have shown the Greek literally says he emptied "himself" from being in the form of God to being in the form of man.

Now I would like to address your statement about hUPARWN. You are correct that this is a present tense participal.

But your statement that this somehow proves that the state that Jesus was in (in the form of God) could not have ever changed based on this is dubious.

In Acts 3:2 the same exact form of this word is used to describe the fact that a man was lame from birth. (XWLOS hUPARXWN)

But in verse 8 the man is healed. He is no longer lame.

Your argument is therefore unfounded.

Kind Regards,
Cal

AVmetro

June 21st 2003, 01:24 AM

Old Shepherd stated:

And whenever someone disagrees with and contradicts a noted Greek scholar like A. T. Robertson, with 47 years teaching experience, yeah I think what their qualifications are, is a legitimate question.

Correct me if I'm in error but TS seems to have employed what has been commonly referred to as "Smart's Rule" when discussing the topic of John 20:28. In light of this and what I have read, OS has every right to raise an eyebrow. :wink:

Cal_Minion stated:

Evidently both you and OS have intepreted the words "empty himself" to mean the object of empty is divine nature. That is not what the Greek text nor what I meant.

[Edit:] I now believe I see what you're getting at. But essentially the end result is to "empty himself OF the "morphe"', correct?

I am only relating what the Greek text literally says. Jesus was IN the form of God (EN MORFH QEOU).

Did I contend this?

The object of the verb KENAW (empty) is hEAUTWN or "himself." That's right, the Greek text says that he literally emptied "himself."

When did I imply that it was 'wrong'? You still have yet to explain "of what" He 'emptied' Himself.

Now in what did "himself" exist? EN MORFH QEOU or in the form of God. That is what the Greek text literally says.

You've already stated this and, again, I never contested it.

He emptied "himself" while "in the form of God" and took the form of a slave.

Agreed. But it does not say He emptied "Himself" OF the "form of God". Rather it states that while being in the "form of God" He emptied Himself. The question is, "emptied of what?" Many interpret it to be in reference to 'outward glory' (Jn17:5) or the like. You haven't given a sufficent explanation.

The Greek text literally says he emptied himself from being in the form of God into the form of a slave.

Is that a literal translation from the text or your own paraphrase which you have conveniently labeled as "..what it literally says.."?

"..emptied Himself FROM being in the form of God" or "emptied Himself [of "X"] WHILE being in the form of God" (?)

When you empty a glass of water into a cup, the cup is full and the glass is empty.

See below.

KENAW means empty. Not only is hEAUTWN the only Greek word that fits what was emptied in this passage, but it is also the object of the verb KENAW.

I again state that I do not contest this. I know that which He emptied was "Himself". It is "of what" He emptied Himself that is under dispute. It is your personal interpretation with which I disagree.

If I say water was in the glass and I emptied water and it entered the cup there is no other way to understand the statement. In the same way the Greek says that he emptied himself from being in the form of God into the form of man.

Your "glass of water" analogy would certainly work under your interpretation. Yet you have failed to provide any evidence to substaniate this other than by means of your opinion. Rather, we should look to the immediate context to garner the implications of what "empty" conveys. We read:

"Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others..."

This said, who's example are we to look to in order to carry this out? Vs5:

Have this attitude in yourselves which was ALSO in Christ Jesus,..."

Immediately following the above Paul continues with the prime example in vs6:

"...who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grapsed, BUT emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men..." [NASB]

We see in the above that Paul is addressing the Phillipians to consider one another (their own equal) to be their superior through the process of self-humiliation. He then states that this is the mind of Jesus and then proceeds directly to cite the example of Christ i.e. His refusal to exploit that which He had but rather undergo a process of willful self-abasement setting aside His rank and dignity becoming genuinely obediant "..even unto death".

Taking this into consideration, are you implying that Paul is extorting the Phillipians to "empty" themselves of their "human nature"? Or is it that He is asking that they empty themselves of pride and selfishness and replace it with the mentality of humility toward their peers (vss 3-5)? Obviously the latter. Christ did not empty Himself of His divine nature and "swap it out" for that of man. Rather, He emptied Himself i.e. "humilified" Himself BY taking the 'form of a servant'. That is, condescending to the level of a created being (John1:14).

Lastly, does Christ's "emptying Himself" really jive with the WTS's view of total recreation? Essentially He was no longer even "Himself". Therefore how could He be said to have merely "emptied it [Himself]"?

God bless

Ron Macy

June 21st 2003, 09:35 AM

There are two other things I would like to toss into this mix for consideration.

1. Has there ever been anyone else in the position of grasping at equality with God?
2. Since there is no time frame specified for when this emptying took place, when did it occur.

My thoughts are:
1. I believe there was another person who grasped at equality with God: Adam. I believe Paul is making a comparison between the two in this passage much the same way he did in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Paul is describing the humility Jesus exhibited in His response to the temptation to sin. Jesus humbled himself; Adam didn’t. I believe what ever is said of Jesus in the passage can apply to Adam before the fall. He was in the image or form of God.

2. I believe the time this emptying took place was between the time Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane and His death on the cross. I tend to go with the prayer time in the garden. There was a repeated expression of “Your will and not My will” as He prayed.

Ron

OldShepherd

June 21st 2003, 09:42 AM

Today @ 01:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129266#post129266)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
I am only relating what the Greek text literally says. Jesus was IN the form of God (EN MORFH QEOU).

The object of the verb KENAW (empty) is hEAUTWN or "himself." That's right, the Greek text says that he literally emptied "himself."

Now in what did "himself" exist? EN MORFH QEOU or in the form of God. That is what the Greek text literally says.

He emptied "himself" while "in the form of God" and took the form of a slave.

The Greek text literally says he emptied himself from being in the form of God into the form of a slave.

When you empty a glass of water into a cup, the cup is full and the glass is empty. KENAW means empty. Not only is hEAUTWN the only Greek word that fits what was emptied in this passage, but it is also the object of the verb KENAW.

If I say water was in the glass and I emptied water and it entered the cup there is no other way to understand the statement. In the same way the Greek says that he emptied himself from being in the form of God into the form of man.
Kind Regards,
Cal

No actually you are only relating part of what the Greek text says,. Note, "existing in the form of God. . .being equal with God." Even if you use the grammatically impossible, "He did not try to rob equality with God.," or some such, Jesus never ceased being God's Son.
Phip 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

"The Greek text literally says he emptied himself from being in the form of God into the form of a slave." Oh but no it does not, even by your own interpretation and definition! Shall I point out for you that your definition of "morphe" is external appearance only? And since that is you definition how can you now argue that Jesus emptied Himself of that? Using you example of a glass of water whatever Jesus emptied Himself of was internal, it filled Him up like a glass full of water, NOT His external appearance. Unless you want to now argue that "morphe" includes everything internal and everything external?

Now let us return to my previous question. What was Jesus "before" He emptied Himself, if He was neither God nor man? According to you He only had the external appearance of God.

And what was Jesus "after" He emptied Himself, since according to your definition He was neither God nor man, He only had the external appearance of a man?

OldShepherd

June 21st 2003, 09:54 AM

Today @ 12:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129263#post129263)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
Yes,

The terms you are comparing to the Trinity are not doctrines. You have already stated that you do not consider the Trinity to be a doctrine. In that respect you stand alone because a simple google search for 'doctrine of the Trinity' turns up a host of your brethern.

The Trinity stands alone in a different sense as I have proven. See the first post in this thread for details.

Regards,
Cal

Are you saying that "The WBTS is God's [Only] Organization of Earth" is NOT a doctrine of the society? And OBTW Jesus did not build a society on the rock, He built a church.

"In that respect you stand alone because a simple google search for 'doctrine of the Trinity' turns up a host of your brethern." Did you conduct a survey of every Christian in the world and determine that I alone out of all the other millions of Christians hold the view that I do? That is absolutely amazing, because that is the only way you can make that statement.

"You have already stated that you do not consider the Trinity to be a doctrine." That is NOT what I said. This is the second time I have corrected you. It would appear that your favorite tactic is to misquote what I say then attack the straw man you just invented.

OldShepherd

June 21st 2003, 10:06 AM

Today @ 11:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129429#post129429)
Ron Macy:

There are two other things I would like to toss into this mix for consideration.

1. Has there ever been anyone else in the position of grasping at equality with God?
2. Since there is no time frame specified for when this emptying took place, when did it occur.

My thoughts are:
1. I believe there was another person who grasped at equality with God: Adam. I believe Paul is making a comparison between the two in this passage much the same way he did in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Paul is describing the humility Jesus exhibited in His response to the temptation to sin. Jesus humbled himself; Adam didn’t. I believe what ever is said of Jesus in the passage can apply to Adam before the fall. He was in the image or form of God.

2. I believe the time this emptying took place was between the time Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane and His death on the cross. I tend to go with the prayer time in the garden. There was a repeated expression of “Your will and not My will” as He prayed.

Ron

Interesting thought but where does the Bible say that Adam was in a position to, was capable of, and did attempt to be equal to God?

Also your view does not take into account what Phillippians 2:6,7 says. Whatever your view of the meaning of "morphe", "kenoo", etc. whatever Jesus was in the time frame of 2:6, the emptying came at the first part of vs. 7 and resulted in the form of a servant and likeness of man, at the end of the verse, and that was long before the garden.
Phip 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Ron Macy

June 21st 2003, 03:29 PM

Old Shepherd,

You asked,
Where does the Bible say that Adam was in a position to, was capable of, and did attempt to be equal to God?

Genesis 3: 5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

To me this seems to be a statement of Adam’s attempt to be like God. Was he capable of taking on the characteristics of God such as eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, or others? No, but that doesn’t discount the attempt to usurp the position of God.

You also wrote,
Whatever your view of the meaning of "morphe", "kenoo", etc. whatever Jesus was in the time frame of 2:6, the emptying came at the first part of vs. 7 and resulted in the form of a servant and likeness of man, at the end of the verse, and that was long before the garden.

I believe you are making some assumptions here. I believe you are assuming the “form of God” makes Jesus something other than a man. I believe you are assuming Jesus couldn’t have been a man before becoming the “form of a servant.” I think such assumptions are faulty.

A similar change would be the king who takes off his kingly garments and puts on the garments and takes up the characteristics of a peasant in order to go out unrecognized among his people. He was a man before and after the transformation. As he walks among his people he has given up the rights and authority of kingship. He is like any other peasant in the realm.

Jesus had been given authority and the power to work miracles by God. This is by Jesus own statement. He had the rule over nature as well as the hearts of men. Jesus could have used that power to escape His death on the cross, but in Gethsemane, He surrendered that power and authority in order to surrender to the will of God. Jesus became a servant and obedient to the point of death.

In such a case, Philippians 2:6-7 does not require all this to have taken place long before Gethsemane.

Ron

mickiel

June 21st 2003, 04:01 PM

To believe that any human has been in a position to be like God other than Christ, is truly a blind spot.

Cal_Minian

June 21st 2003, 11:06 PM

Today @ 06:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129430#post129430)
OldShepherd:

No actually you are only relating part of what the Greek text says,. Note, "existing in the form of God. . .being equal with God." Even if you use the grammatically impossible, "He did not try to rob equality with God.," or some such, Jesus never ceased being God's Son.
Phip 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

"The Greek text literally says he emptied himself from being in the form of God into the form of a slave." Oh but no it does not, even by your own interpretation and definition! Shall I point out for you that your definition of "morphe" is external appearance only? And since that is you definition how can you now argue that Jesus emptied Himself of that? Using you example of a glass of water whatever Jesus emptied Himself of was internal, it filled Him up like a glass full of water, NOT His external appearance. Unless you want to now argue that "morphe" includes everything internal and everything external?

Now let us return to my previous question. What was Jesus "before" He emptied Himself, if He was neither God nor man? According to you He only had the external appearance of God.

And what was Jesus "after" He emptied Himself, since according to your definition He was neither God nor man, He only had the external appearance of a man?

OldShepherd:
No actually you are only relating part of what the Greek text says,. Note, "existing in the form of God. . .being equal with God." Even if you use the grammatically impossible, "He did not try to rob equality with God.," or some such, Jesus never ceased being God's Son.

Cal_Minian:
Dear OldShepherd,
Prove that “He did not try to rob equality with God” is impossible. While you are at it, prove that the phrase “existing in the form of God” must be equivalent to “being equal with God.” Many Trinitarian translations of this verse do not agree with you.

You quoted the KJV here with:
Phip 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Cal_Minian:
You quote the KJV which is an inferior translation of this verse. If you think it is accurate and literal here, show me where the Greek word for “it” occurs.

I had said:
"The Greek text literally says he emptied himself from being in the form of God into the form of a slave."

OldShepherd replies:
Oh but no it does not, even by your own interpretation and definition! Shall I point out for you that your definition of "morphe" is external appearance only? And since that is you definition how can you now argue that Jesus emptied Himself of that? Using you example of a glass of water whatever Jesus emptied Himself of was internal, it filled Him up like a glass full of water, NO)T His external appearance. Unless you want to now argue that "morphe" includes everything internal and everything external?

Cal_Minian:
Jesus emptied himself in this verse. What was he “in”? He was existing “in the form of God.” He literally emptied himself from what he was “in.” I used the example of the glass of water and the cup because both you and IronMetro were interpreting what I said to the effect that he emptied himself “of something” like the form of God. The illustration was intended to jar you to an understanding of my words. I do not compare the glass, the water and the cup in an ontological way. For the rest of the discussion I intend to deal with the Greek.

OldSheperd:
Now let us return to my previous question. What was Jesus "before" He emptied Himself, if He was neither God nor man? According to you He only had the external appearance of God.

Cal_Minian:
The belief that he had the external appearance of God does not mean that he did not exist as a being. God is a spirit (John 4:24) and other inhabitants of heaven share that description. (cf Heb 1:14). The contrast is between the form of the inhabitants of heaven (see Thayer) and the human form.

OldSheperd:
And what was Jesus "after" He emptied Himself, since according to your definition He was neither God nor man, He only had the external appearance of a man?

Cal_Minan:
Read the Carmen Christi in it’s entirety. He was also found in fashion as a man. MORFH is not the only word used to describe Jesus as a man in this verse.

The Greek text literally says he (himself) was “in” the form of God and that is what was emptied, “himself.” The text does not say he emptied himself “of something.” To insist on a meaning for this verse which requires an additional phrase to be added which is not in the Greek is special pleading.

Kind Regards,
Cal_Minian

Cal_Minian

June 21st 2003, 11:19 PM

Yesterday @ 10:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129305#post129305)
IronMetro:

Correct me if I'm in error but TS seems to have employed what has been commonly referred to as "Smart's Rule" when discussing the topic of John 20:28. In light of this and what I have read, OS has every right to raise an eyebrow. :wink:

[Edit:] I now believe I see what you're getting at. But essentially the end result is to "empty himself OF the "morphe"', correct?

Did I contend this?

When did I imply that it was 'wrong'? You still have yet to explain "of what" He 'emptied' Himself.

You've already stated this and, again, I never contested it.

Agreed. But it does not say He emptied "Himself" OF the "form of God". Rather it states that while being in the "form of God" He emptied Himself. The question is, "emptied of what?" Many interpret it to be in reference to 'outward glory' (Jn17:5) or the like. You haven't given a sufficent explanation.

Is that a literal translation from the text or your own paraphrase which you have conveniently labeled as "..what it literally says.."?

"..emptied Himself FROM being in the form of God" or "emptied Himself [of "X"] WHILE being in the form of God" (?)

See below.

I again state that I do not contest this. I know that which He emptied was "Himself". It is "of what" He emptied Himself that is under dispute. It is your personal interpretation with which I disagree.

Your "glass of water" analogy would certainly work under your interpretation. Yet you have failed to provide any evidence to substaniate this other than by means of your opinion. Rather, we should look to the immediate context to garner the implications of what "empty" conveys. We read:

"Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others..."

This said, who's example are we to look to in order to carry this out? Vs5:

Have this attitude in yourselves which was ALSO in Christ Jesus,..."

Immediately following the above Paul continues with the prime example in vs6:

"...who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grapsed, BUT emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men..." [NASB]

We see in the above that Paul is addressing the Phillipians to consider one another (their own equal) to be their superior through the process of self-humiliation. He then states that this is the mind of Jesus and then proceeds directly to cite the example of Christ i.e. His refusal to exploit that which He had but rather undergo a process of willful self-abasement setting aside His rank and dignity becoming genuinely obediant "..even unto death".

Taking this into consideration, are you implying that Paul is extorting the Phillipians to "empty" themselves of their "human nature"? Or is it that He is asking that they empty themselves of pride and selfishness and replace it with the mentality of humility toward their peers (vss 3-5)? Obviously the latter. Christ did not empty Himself of His divine nature and "swap it out" for that of man. Rather, He emptied Himself i.e. "humilified" Himself BY taking the 'form of a servant'. That is, condescending to the level of a created being (John1:14).

Lastly, does Christ's "emptying Himself" really jive with the WTS's view of total recreation? Essentially He was no longer even "Himself". Therefore how could He be said to have merely "emptied it [Himself]"?

God bless

Dear IronMetro,
You apparently continue to misconstrue my argument. The Greek does not say that he emptied himself "of something." He was existing "in" the form of God and emptied "himself" out of what he was "in." But the object of KENAW is hEAUTAU (himself) which means that it was was was emptied from being "in" the form of God.

You continue to assume that he emptied himself "of something" and then go on a search for what that contextually was, but it is special pleading to insist on an "of something" that is not in the Greek text.

Also, you do not mention my complete rubuttal of your hUPARXWN argument. Have you wisely discarded it or are you preparing a rejoinder?

Regards,
Cal_Minian

OldShepherd

June 22nd 2003, 03:09 AM

Today @ 01:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129861#post129861)
Cal_Minian:

Prove that “He did not try to rob equality with God” is impossible. While you are at it, prove that the phrase “existing in the form of God” must be equivalent to “being equal with God.” Many Trinitarian translations of this verse do not agree with you.

"Prove that “He did not try to rob equality with God” is impossible." I already have. Now you prove that Roberstson is wrong.
Robertson
Accusative articular infinitive object of \hêgêsato\, "the being equal with God" (associative instrumental case \theôi\ after \isa\). \Isa\ is adverbial use of neuter plural with \einai\ as in #Re 21:16.

"Many Trinitarian translations of this verse do not agree with you." Do tell? Which ones, for example? How many times to I have to ask you to back up your claims? After I have cited and posted my sources, I am not impressed by broad "many scholars say this," statements.

You quote the KJV which is an inferior translation of this verse. If you think it is accurate and literal here, show me where the Greek word for “it” occurs.

The word "it" is irrelevant but here is the original Greek, a literal translation and the NIV. Lets roll.
NIV Phip 2:6 Who, being in very nature {Or in the form of} God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

6 oV en morfh qeou uparcwn ouc arpagmon hghsato to einai isa qew

Who in form of God existing not grasping esteemed it to being equal with God

Jesus emptied himself in this verse. What was he “in”? He was existing “in the form of God.” He literally emptied himself from what he was “in.”

What you are doing is talking around in circles. Jesus emptied Himself, He did NOT empty something else "of" Himself. Nice try, the English might allow that but the Greek will not.

I used the example of the glass of water and the cup because both you and IronMetro were interpreting what I said to the effect that he emptied himself “of something” like the form of God. The illustration was intended to jar you to an understanding of my words. I do not compare the glass, the water and the cup in an ontological way. For the rest of the discussion I intend to deal with the Greek.

I already had breakfast, I don't want any of your waffles. Now, having been caught with an unworkable analogy you are trying to waffle out, "I didn't really mean what you think I meant."

Read the Carmen Christi in it’s entirety. He was also found in fashion as a man. MORFH is not the only word used to describe Jesus as a man in this verse.

The Greek text literally says he (himself) was “in” the form of God and that is what was emptied, “himself.” The text does not say he emptied himself “of something.” To insist on a meaning for this verse which requires an additional phrase to be added which is not in the Greek is special pleading.

I have read it in its entirety. But apparently you haven't, see Iron Metros comments which more thoroughly explain why Paul is talking about Jesus being equal with God is as the Philippians actually being equal with each other but thry should have Jesus' attitude and look on others as superior to themselves.

And my interpetation, and the churches for 2000 years, does not require an additional phrase. Jesus emptied Himself. Jesus emptied the cup. Jesus emptied the temple. What was in, Jesus took out, or made void, of no effect, as the other verses which use "kenoo" show.
Romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: kenow

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect kenow.

1 Corinthians 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.kenow

2 Corinthians 9:3 Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain kenow in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready:
"MORFH is not the only word used to describe Jesus as a man in this verse." Irrelevant, unless you can show the relevance! omoiwma hurts your case, it does not not help it. In the latter part of vs. 6 Jesus was in the "morphe" of something. Was Jesus actually, literally a servant and a man or was it ONLY outward appearance? Or are you special pleading the word "morphe" in vs. 7 vice vs. 6?

"The text does not say he emptied himself “of something.”" What the text does NOT say is that Jesus emptied something else "of" Himself. When you empty your glass of water, the water comes out of the glass. The water does not stay there and while the glass "empties."

OldShepherd

June 22nd 2003, 03:21 AM

06-20-2003 @ 10:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128624#post128624)
o2bwise:

The "spirit" of your entire dialogue continues to (to use a not so nice word) SUCK.

WHO CARES WHAT YOU BELIEVE? SHOW ME THE GOODNESS OF YOUR BELIEF BY YOUR CHARACTER!

Who cares what you believe? You jumped into this discussion with invalid accusations. I did NOT accuse anyone of anything I asked a question. If you do NOT understand the distinction then perhaps you should stay out of adult discussions.

YOU SHOW ME THE GOODNESS OF YOUR BELIEF BY YOUR CHARACTER! Instead of kneejerk hysterics simply because you agree with the other side of this argument.

OldShepherd

June 22nd 2003, 03:31 AM

Today @ 05:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129576#post129576)
Ron Macy:

Old Shepherd,

You asked,
Where does the Bible say that Adam was in a position to, was capable of, and did attempt to be equal to God?

Genesis 3: 5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

To me this seems to be a statement of Adam’s attempt to be like God. Was he capable of taking on the characteristics of God such as eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, or others? No, but that doesn’t discount the attempt to usurp the position of God.

Read the verse, the only capability that he had was "knowing good and evil."

I believe you are making some assumptions here. I believe you are assuming the “form of God” makes Jesus something other than a man. I believe you are assuming Jesus couldn’t have been a man before becoming the “form of a servant.” I think such assumptions are faulty.

Actually I am not making any assumptions. I asked the disciples of John. And John himself said that the Word became flesh. At some point He who was NOT flesh "became" flesh.

A similar change would be the king who takes off his kingly garments and puts on the garments and takes up the characteristics of a peasant in order to go out unrecognized among his people. He was a man before and after the transformation. As he walks among his people he has given up the rights and authority of kingship. He is like any other peasant in the realm.

Interesting analogy but the scripture does NOT say Jesus took off "kingly garments"

Jesus could have used that power to escape His death on the cross, but in Gethsemane, He surrendered that power and authority in order to surrender to the will of God. Jesus became a servant and obedient to the point of death.

Jesus became a servant before the crucifixion. Remember the foot washing? And I seem to remember that this king didn't have any place to lay his head, long before the garden.

o2bwise

June 22nd 2003, 08:44 AM

Hi Iron,

This said, who's example are we to look to in order to carry this out? Vs5:

Have this attitude in yourselves which was ALSO in Christ Jesus,..."

Immediately following the above Paul continues with the prime example in vs6:

"...who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality

with God a thing to be grapsed, BUT emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men..." [NASB]

We see in the above that Paul is addressing the Phillipians to consider one another (their own equal) to be their superior through the process of self- humiliation. He then states that this is the mind of Jesus and then proceeds directly to cite the example of Christ i.e. His refusal to exploit that which He had but rather undergo a process of willful self-abasement setting aside His rank and dignity becoming genuinely obediant "..even unto death".

Taking this into consideration, are you implying that Paul is extorting the Phillipians to "empty" themselves of their "human nature"? Or is it that He is asking that they empty themselves of pride and selfishness and replace it with the mentality of humility toward their peers (vss 3-5)? Obviously the latter. Christ did not empty Himself of His divine nature and "swap it out" for that of man. Rather, He emptied Himself i.e. "humilified" Himself BY taking the 'form of a servant'. That is, condescending to the level of a created being (John1:14).

I think you are going too far with your use of parallel. You seem to be denying Christ emptying Himself, in the context of being in the form of God because this is a kind of emptying that man cannot do - he cannot empty himself of his nature and assume a lower one.

Again, I think you are forcing an uneccessarily tight parallel.

The very context allows a looser parallel. Christ WAS in the form of God. He emptied Himself and took the form of man.

The parallel I see is the call to humility, it is not in requiring the specific WAY in which one manifests his humility.

Furthermore, if we simply compare spiritual with spiritual, we can test for the presence of "form." We can test it by that form's attributes.

An omniscient being knows all things. Christ did not know the time of the Second Coming and He grew in wisdom and stature. Conclusion: Christ was not omniscient.

Now, it is fair to ask, "Was it a package deal?" Did Christ have partial divine attributes? Well, He said that of His own self He could do nothing. He was subject to temptation and death, both of which divinity is not subject to.

To summarize, the parallel is a call to humility and the use of Christ as our Example. The parallel does not extend itself to the specific MEANS of humility. That is taking it too far. Taking it that far destroys the immediate context.

A bit on emptying FORM. I don't know the Greek, but I have some sense of the over-riding statements of scripture. You can test things by the presence (or absence) of that thing's attributes. Christ did not have the ATTRIBUTES of divinity. He let His divine nature go. But, that same "One" who had a divine nature is the same One who took a human nature. If you tracked that CONSCIOUS EXISTENCE through time, it would be found that the very conscious existence that had that nature, is the very same one that took the human nature.

Thus, it is still the only begotten Son of God.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Tsmith

June 22nd 2003, 09:00 PM

06-20-2003 @ 03:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128314#post128314)
OldShepherd:

Which does NOT answer the rest of my question. Would a devout Jew use "O Theos mou" as an exclamation? And would Jesus, the Son of God, standing an arms length away, not correct or chastise him for blasphemy?

Help me understand this. According to you Thomas said “My God” as an exclamation, of shock, surprise, etc., a “Nominative of Exclamation” but there was no blasphemy? Even the high priest would not ask Jesus if He was the Son of God but said are you the Son of the most High? So how is saying, “My God” not blasphemy?

Because, it is effectively no different than what Jesus himself did:

Mar 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? (Which being translated is, "My God, My God, why did You forsake Me?")

See, you take me to be saying Thomas said "Oh my God" which is not what I am saying at all.

Tsmith

June 22nd 2003, 09:04 PM

06-20-2003 @ 05:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128418#post128418)
OldShepherd:

Which was in response to this.
"Not focused on your age, your qualifications, you can’t have the qualifications Robertson had because you aren’t old enough and I don’t think you have written a 1200 page Greek grammar."

The only thing I can say is, "Oh Puh-leeze - give - me - a - break!" What's next quoting, "The Twilight Zone?" Do you have any qualifcations or not, owning a copy of BAGD and copies of all of Stafford's arguments, is NOT being qualified to dispute the known scholars like, Robertson, Wallace, or Omanson.

Stafford.. LOL. Come on. I never even flipped through a copy of JWD, FYI, much less own one. I have a brain of my own to study Greek and the scriptures on my own. I don't need Stafford to come up with a defense for me. Now that isn't to say his work isn't appreciated, because it has helped many.

-Tony

Cal_Minian

June 22nd 2003, 10:01 PM

Today @ 12:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129970#post129970)
OldShepherd:

Cal_Minian:

Prove that “He did not try to rob equality with God” is impossible. While you are at it, prove that the phrase “existing in the form of God” must be equivalent to “being equal with God.” Many Trinitarian translations of this verse do not agree with you. ”

OldShepherd:
"Prove that “He did not try to rob equality with God” is impossible." I already have. Now you prove that Roberstson is wrong.

Robertson
Accusative articular infinitive object of \hêgêsato\, "the being equal with God" (associative instrumental case \theôi\ after \isa\). \Isa\ is adverbial use of neuter plural with \einai\ as in #Re 21:16.

Cal_Minian:
Sorry, merely quoting Robertson is not proof. He does not prove it either. He merely states his preference.

I had said:
"Many Trinitarian translations of this verse do not agree with you."

OldShepherd:
Do tell? Which ones, for example? How many times to I have to ask you to back up your claims? After I have cited and posted my sources, I am not impressed by broad "many scholars say this," statements.

Cal_Minian:
I will give you a couple even though I think you should be aware of the English translations before making dubious claims. The Revised English Bible “He was in the form of God, yet he laid no claim to equality with God” is a Trinitarian bible that does not equate “form of God” with “equality with God.” The Good News bible agrees with you on MORFH as nature but says “he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.”

“ You quote the KJV which is an inferior translation of this verse. If you think it is accurate and literal here, show me where the Greek word for “it” occurs. ”

OldShepherd:
The word "it" is irrelevant but here is the original Greek, a literal translation and the NIV. Lets roll.

NIV Phip 2:6 Who, being in very nature {Or in the form of} God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

Cal_Minian:
You are a read card! You maintain that “it” is supportable in the Greek but quote the NIV which does not use the word it?

You quote the Greek:
6 OS EN MORFH QEOU hUPARXWN OUX hARPAGMON HGHSATO TO EINAI ISA QEWi.
Who in form of God existing not grasping esteemed it to being equal with God

However,
The word “it” is not represented in the Greek at all. In fact Young’s Literal Translation has the KJV rendering and puts it in brackets, showing that they added the word. Take the word out and the sentence does not equate “form of God” with being “equal with God.”

Cal_Minian:
“ Jesus emptied himself in this verse. What was he “in”? He was existing “in the form of God.” He literally emptied himself from what he was “in.” ”

OldShepherd:
What you are doing is talking around in circles. Jesus emptied Himself, He did NOT empty something else "of" Himself. Nice try, the English might allow that but the Greek will not.

Cal_Minian:
I do not need to add the word “of” to “himself.” It is your interpretation that required adding a foreign element to the verse. He was “in” the “form of God” and he “emptied himself” from the only thing he was “in,” in context!

“ I used the example of the glass of water and the cup because both you and IronMetro were interpreting what I said to the effect that he emptied himself “of something” like the form of God. The illustration was intended to jar you to an understanding of my words. I do not compare the glass, the water and the cup in an ontological way. For the rest of the discussion I intend to deal with the Greek. ”

“Read the Carmen Christi in it’s entirety. He was also found in fashion as a man. MORFH is not the only word used to describe Jesus as a man in this verse.

The Greek text literally says he (himself) was “in” the form of God and that is what was emptied, “himself.” The text does not say he emptied himself “of something.” To insist on a meaning for this verse which requires an additional phrase to be added which is not in the Greek is special pleading. ”

OldShepherd:
I have read it in its entirety. But apparently you haven't, see Iron Metros comments which more thoroughly explain why Paul is talking about Jesus being equal with God is as the Philippians actually being equal with each other but thry should have Jesus' attitude and look on others as superior to themselves.

Cal_Minian,
I read and responded to it yesterday. His proof was the present tense form of hUPARXWN which I proved was refuted. He also was laboring under the impression that the Greek text says he emptied himself “of something.” Can either you or he show me the word “of” and the word which represents the “something” that he supposedly emptied himself of in your interpretation?

OldShepherd
And my interpetation, and the churches for 2000 years, does not require an additional phrase. Jesus emptied Himself. Jesus emptied the cup. Jesus emptied the temple. What was in, Jesus took out, or made void, of no effect, as the other verses which use "kenoo" show.

Romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: kenow

Cal_Minian:
When the word KENAW is used of something in a figurative usage it means to completely destroy something as can be seen by your examples.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect kenow.

1 Corinthians 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.kenow

2 Corinthians 9:3 Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain kenow in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready:

Cal_Minian:
But the problem with your use of KENAW in this fashion is that Jesus himself is the object of KENAW, not a mere property that he had such as a prerogative! You do not really believe that Jesus was really made of no effect or completely ruined. You teach that he merely MASKED his divinity but still retained it. None of your examples are like that.

I had said:
"MORFH is not the only word used to describe Jesus as a man in this verse."

OldShepherd:
Irrelevant, unless you can show the relevance! omoiwma hurts your case, it does not not help it. In the latter part of vs. 6 Jesus was in the "morphe" of something. Was Jesus actually, literally a servant and a man or was it ONLY outward appearance? Or are you special pleading the word "morphe" in vs. 7 vice vs. 6?

I was not talking about hOMOIWMATI. Read the entire Carmen Christi again and then pray about it.

Regards,
Cal_Minian

OldShepherd

June 22nd 2003, 10:49 PM

Yesterday @ 10:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130079#post130079)
o2bwise:

I think you are going too far with your use of parallel. You seem to be denying Christ emptying Himself, in the context of being in the form of God because this is a kind of emptying that man cannot do - he cannot empty himself of his nature and assume a lower one.

Again, I think you are forcing an uneccessarily tight parallel.

I know this is addressed to Iron Metro but if I may I will interject some church history at this point. Many of us here do not read/write/speak Hebrew and Greek and we must rely on the scholars who do. Another resource to guide our understanding of the sometimes peculiarities of the original language we can look to how those who did, in fact, read/speak/write those languages, interpret the scriptures and put them into practice.

I am not saying that the writings of the early church are inspired as are the scriptures but those writings give us a snapshot of the faith and practice of those early Christians, many of whom were horribly tortured and murdered rather than renounce Jesus and their faith and bow down to tthe pagan deities of Rome. And I think that they are a better guide to the correct interpretation of the scriptures than people with little or no credentials who do NOT know the languages.
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, [130 AD]

As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing? ... Do you not see them exposed to wild beasts, that they may be persuaded to deny the Lord, and yet not overcome? Do you not see that the more of them are punished, the greater becomes the number of the rest? This does not seem to be the work of man: this is the power of God; these are the evidences of His manifestation.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-08.htm#P688_125181

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation to the Heathen [153-193-217 AD]

He awed men by the fire when He made flame to burst from the pillar of cloud-a token at once of grace and fear: if you obey, there is the light; if you disobey, there is the fire; but. since humanity is nobler than the pillar or the bush, after them the prophets uttered their voice,-the Lord Himself speaking in Isaiah, in Elias,-speaking Himself by the mouth of the prophets. But if thou dost not believe the prophets, but supposest both the men and the fire a myth, the Lord Himself shall speak to thee, "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but humbled Himself,"14 -He, the merciful God, exerting Himself to save man. And now the Word Himself clearly speaks to thee, Shaming thy unbelief; yea, I say, the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God. Is it not then monstrous, my friends, that while God is ceaselessly exhorting us to virtue, we should spurn His kindness and reject salvation?

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-50.htm

Cyprian Treatise XII.1 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews. [200-258 AD]

Also Paul to the Philippians: "Who, being established in the form of God, thought it not robbery that He was equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore also God exalted Him, and gave Him a name which is above every name, that in the name212 of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, of things in earth, and of infernal things, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord in the glory of God the Father."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-122.htm

A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity. Chapter XXII. Argument-That the Same Divine Majesty is in Christ, He Once More Asserts by Other Scriptures. [a.d. 210-280.]

But why, although we appear to hasten to another branch of the argument, should we pass over that passage in the apostle: "Who, although He was in the form of God, did not think it robbery that He should be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking up the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore also God hath highly exalted Him, and hath given Him a name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bent, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord, in the glory of God the Father? " "Who, although He was in the form of God," he says. If Christ had been only man, He would have been spoken of as in "the image" of God, not "in the form" of God. For we know that man was made after the image or likeness, not after the form, of God. Who then is that angel who, as we have said, was made in the form of God? But neither do we read of the form of God in angels, except because this one is chief and royal above all-the Son of God, the Word of God, the imitator of all His Father's works, in that He Himself worketh even as His Father. He is-as we have declared-in the form of God the Father. And He is reasonably affirmed to be in the form of God, in that He Himself, being above all things, and having the divine power over every creature, is also God after the example of the Father Yet He obtained, this from His own Father, that He should be both God of all and should be Lord, and be begotten and made known from Himself as God in the form of God the Father. He then, although He was in the form of God, thought it not robbery that He should be equal with God. For although He remembered that He was God from God the Father, He never either compared or associated Himself with God the Father, mindful that He was from His Father, and that He possessed that very thing that He is, because the Father had given it Him. Thence, finally, both before the assumption of the flesh, and moreover after the assumption of the body, besides, after the resurrection itself, He yielded all obedience to the Father, and still yields it as ever. Whence it is proved that He thought that the claim of a certain divinity would be robbery, to wit, that of equalling Himself with God the Father; but, on the other hand, obedient and subject to all His rule and will, He even was contented to take on Him the form of a servant-that is, to become man; and the substance of flesh and body which, as it came to Him from the bondage of His forefathers' sins according to His manhood, He undertook by being born, at which time moreover He emptied Himself, in that He did not refuse to take upon Him the frailty incident to humanity. Because if He had been born man only, He would not have been emptied in respect of this; for man, being born, is increased, not emptied. For in beginning to be that which He could not possess, so long as He did not exist, as we have said, He is not emptied, but is rather increased and enriched. But if Christ is emptied in being born, in taking the form of a servant, how is He man only? Of whom it could more truly have been said that He was enriched, not emptied, at the time that He was born, except because the authority of the divine Word, reposing for awhile in taking upon itself humanity, and not exercising itself with its real strength, casts itself down, and puts itself off for the time, in bearing the humanity which it has undertaken? It empties itself in descending to injuries and reproaches, in bearing abominations, in experiencing things unworthy; and yet of this humility there is present at once an eminent reward. For He has "received a name which is above every name," which assuredly we understand to be none other than the name of God. For since it belongs to God alone to be above all things, it follows that the name which is that God's who is above all things, is above every name; which name by consequence is certainly His who, although He was "in the form of God, thought it not robbery for Him to be equal with God." For neither, if Christ were not God, would every knee bend itself in His name, "of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; "nor would things visible and invisible, even every creature of all things, be subjected or be placed under man, when they might remember that they were before man. Whence, since Christ is said to be in the form of God, and since it is shown that for His nativity according to the flesh He emptied Himself; and since it is declared that He received from the Father that name which is above every name; and since it is shown that in His name "every knee of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, bend and bow" themselves; and this very thing is asserted to be a furtherance of the glory of God the Father; consequently He is not man only, from the fact that He became obedient to the Father, even to death, yea, the death of the cross; but, moreover, from the proclamation by these higher matters of the divinity of Christ, Christ Jesus is shown to be Lord and God, which the heretics will not have.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-138.htm

Tertullian, Against Praxeas [145-220 AD]

The Word was with God, and the Word was God." It is written, "Thou shalt not take God's name in vain." This for certain is He "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none. For who will deny that God is a body, although "God is a Spirit? " For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form. Now, even if invisible things, whatsoever they be, have both their substance and their form in God, whereby they are visible to God alone, how much more shall that which has been sent forth from His substance not be without substance! Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-43.htm

St. Aurelius Augustin Sermon XLII. [XCII. Ben.] [354-430 AD]

Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my Gospel."4 See, Christ is the Son of David. How is He also David's Lord? Tell us, O Apostle: "who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Acknowledge David's Lord. If thou acknowledge David's Lord, our Lord, the Lord of heaven and earth, the Lord of the Angels, equal with God, in the form of God, how is He David's Son? Mark what follows. The Apostle shows thee David's Lord by saying, "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." And how is He David's Son? "But He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, having become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him."5 Christ "of the seed of David," the Son of David, rose again because "He emptied Himself." How did He "empty Himself"? By taking that which He was not, not by losing that which He was. He "emptied Himself," He "humbled himself." Though He was God, He appeared as man. He was despised as He walked on earth, He who made the heaven. He was despised as though a mere man, as though of no power. Yea, not despised only, but slain moreover. He was that stone that lay on the ground, the Jews stumbled against it, and were shaken. And what doth He Himself say? "Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be shaken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder."6 First, He lay low, and they stumbled against Him; He shall come from above, and He will "grind" them that have been shaken "to powder."
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-06/npnf1-06-59.htm

OldShepherd

June 22nd 2003, 11:16 PM

Today @ 12:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130420#post130420)
Cal_Minian:

“ Jesus emptied himself in this verse. What was he “in”? He was existing “in the form of God.” He literally emptied himself from what he was “in.” ”

OldShepherd:
What you are doing is talking around in circles. Jesus emptied Himself, He did NOT empty something else "of" Himself. Nice try, the English might allow that but the Greek will not.

Cal_Minian:
I do not need to add the word “of” to “himself.” It is your interpretation that required adding a foreign element to the verse. He was “in” the “form of God” and he “emptied himself” from the only thing he was “in,” in context!

"He literally emptied himself from. . ." "he “emptied himself” from the only thing he was “in,”" Still talking around in circles. You object to the word "of" but I see you have added the word "from" twice.

"Emptied Himself from being in the form of God," is nonsensical. As you have pointed out with "of" the words "from being" are NOT in the text.

I refer back to my scriptural comparison again. Jesus drove the money changers, etc. out of the the temple. What was in, Jesus put out. When Jesus finished cleansing the temple the temple still stood, what had been inside was then on the outside. Please explain to us why the verb "kenoo" would behave differently than other Greek verbs.

OldShepherd

June 22nd 2003, 11:17 PM

Today @ 12:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130420#post130420)
Cal_Minian:

I was not talking about hOMOIWMATI. Read the entire Carmen Christi again and then pray about it.

That tells me nothing. You go read the entire N.T. and pray about it and you will know the truth.

OldShepherd

June 22nd 2003, 11:32 PM

Today @ 12:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130420#post130420)
Cal_Minian:

Sorry, merely quoting Robertson is not proof. He does not prove it either. He merely states his preference.

Sorry but merely saying Robertson merely states his preference does NOT address his exegesis. What you must do is prove that the "Accusative articular infinitive object of \hêgêsato\" does not mean "the being equal with God"
Robertson

Accusative articular infinitive object of \hêgêsato\, "the being equal with God" (associative instrumental case \theôi\ after \isa\). \Isa\ is adverbial use of neuter plural with \einai\ as in #Re 21:16.

I will give you a couple even though I think you should be aware of the English translations before making dubious claims.

What dubious claims? I back up everything I say and asked you to do the same, instead of giving the the old "many scholars say" hoohah.

You quote the KJV which is an inferior translation of this verse. If you think it is accurate and literal here, show me where the Greek word for “it” occurs. ”

The word "it" is irrelevant but here is the original Greek, a literal translation and the NIV. Lets roll.

You are a read card! You maintain that “it” is supportable in the Greek but quote the NIV which does not use the word it?

No I did not! I said the word "it" is irrelevant. And you still haven't shown how it makes any difference one way or another. And OBTW are there any other verses in the N.T., where "it" is properly inserted for grammatical clarity?

OldShepherd

June 22nd 2003, 11:37 PM

Today @ 11:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130385#post130385)
Tsmith:

Because, it is effectively no different than what Jesus himself did:

Mar 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? (Which being translated is, "My God, My God, why did You forsake Me?")

See, you take me to be saying Thomas said "Oh my God" which is not what I am saying at all.

It is very much different. Jesus' words on the cross were a prayer and quoting messianic scripture which prophesied of the very event He was suffering.

If, according to you, Thomas was not saying , the Greek equivalent of , "Oh my God!" in exclamation, surprise, shock, wonder, etc? What does exclamation mean?

mickiel

June 23rd 2003, 12:32 AM

Today @ 04:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130459#post130459)
OldShepherd:

It is very much different. Jesus' words on the cross were a prayer and quoting messianic scripture which prophesied of the very event He was suffering.

If, according to you, Thomas was not saying , the Greek equivalent of , "Oh my God!" in exclamation, surprise, shock, wonder, etc? What does exclamation mean?

I have always wondered why Jesus said this. I believe God would never leave or forsake Christ, and have not found evidence of that in scripture. I don't think Jesus was himself when he said this. God was there, but wouldnot interfere in his death. The way this statement has been interpited has always troubled me.

Cal_Minian

June 23rd 2003, 12:50 AM

Today @ 08:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130453#post130453)
OldShepherd:

Sorry but merely saying Robertson merely states his preference does NOT address his exegesis. What you must do is prove that the "Accusative articular infinitive object of \hêgêsato\" does not mean "the being equal with God"
Robertson

Accusative articular infinitive object of \hêgêsato\, "the being equal with God" (associative instrumental case \theôi\ after \isa\). \Isa\ is adverbial use of neuter plural with \einai\ as in #Re 21:16.

What dubious claims? I back up everything I say and asked you to do the same, instead of giving the the old "many scholars say" hoohah.

The word &quot;it&quot; is irrelevant but here is the original Greek, a literal translation and the NIV. Lets roll.

No I did not! I said the word "it" is irrelevant. And you still haven't shown how it makes any difference one way or another. And OBTW are there any other verses in the N.T., where "it" is properly inserted for grammatical clarity?

Dear OldShepherd,
You are the one who appeals to the word "it" is to support your view. You have the burden of proof. I feel no need to spend time on this until you do more than appeal to authority.

Remove the "it" from your preferred translation and the passage does not support you. If you want to keep it, prove it is the only way to properly translate the Greek.

You have the burden of proof because this is your proof-text.

Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 23rd 2003, 01:02 AM

Dear OldShepherd,
I did not insert the word "from" into a translation like you have inserted "it." I am merely explaining a concept.

The literal Greek is fine with me. Literally he was "in the form of God" but (alla) he emptied "himself." Since "himself" is the direct object of KENAW "himself" is what no longer is "in" the form of God.

That is what the Greek lilterally says. I do not need to add anything to the Greek to conform to MY theology. You do.

I do not understand your reference to the money changers. I do not see the word KENAW used in any verses with money changers.

Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd

June 23rd 2003, 02:02 AM

Today @ 02:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130477#post130477)
mickiel:

I have always wondered why Jesus said this. I believe God would never leave or forsake Christ, and have not found evidence of that in scripture. I don't think Jesus was himself when he said this. God was there, but wouldnot interfere in his death. The way this statement has been interpited has always troubled me.

Something else interesting about Jesus saying these words. In English this Psalm continues, "why are you so far from helping me." The Hebrew word translated "helping me" is ישועה/Yeshuah which is pronounced exactly like ישוע/Yeshua', Jesus' name in Aramaic/Hebrew. The disciples and everyone present would have made the connection, "My God, My God, why are you so far from Yeshua."

OldShepherd

June 23rd 2003, 02:52 AM

Today @ 03:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130494#post130494)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
I did not insert the word "from" into a translation like you have inserted "it." I am merely explaining a concept.

The literal Greek is fine with me. Literally he was "in the form of God" but (alla) he emptied "himself." Since "himself" is the direct object of KENAW "himself" is what no longer is "in" the form of God.

That is what the Greek lilterally says. I do not need to add anything to the Greek to conform to MY theology. You do.

I do not understand your reference to the money changers. I do not see the word KENAW used in any verses with money changers.

Regards,
Cal

Of course you do NOT see the relevance of the money changers. I compared how the verbs function in the sentence. And I asked why would the verb "kenoo" function completely different than other verbs in Greek? Although that passage does not use the word "kenoo." Jesus drove the money changers out thus emptying the temple. Jesus did not "drive/empty the temple from being filled," with the money changers. Which is exactly how you are trying to change the subject-verb-object in Philippians.

Jesus, the object of the sentence, was in some way filled with something which He emptied. If Jesus "kenoo" a glass of water He pours out the water, He doesn't pour out the glass from being filled with water. Something cannot be "emptied from being in" something else! Even Greek does not work that way. My previous post.
The word "it" is irrelevant but here is the original Greek, a literal translation and the NIV. Lets roll.

NIV Phip 2:6 Who, being in very nature {Or in the form of} God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

6 oV en morfh qeou uparcwn ouc arpagmon hghsato to einai isa qew

Who in form of God existing not grasping esteemed to being equal with God

You are the one who appeals to the word "it" is to support your view. You have the burden of proof. I feel no need to spend time on this until you do more than appeal to authority.

Remove the "it" from your preferred translation and the passage does not support you. If you want to keep it, prove it is the only way to properly translate the Greek.

I do not see "[i]it" anywhere in the version that I last posted. Nor so do I see anywhere in any of my posts where anything I have stated relies on the word "it", in fact I said twice that the word is irrelevant.

And should you care to look around you might find where I quoted several of the early church fathers which do, in fact support my view. And while I was searching I found many, many other ECF which also support my view. But strangely I did NOT find one ECF which did NOT support my view.

"until you do more than appeal to authority." Undisputed authority in the Greek language which you have done nothing to refute. You should acquaint yourself with the real scholastic reason that "appeal to authority" is not proper. It has to do with "logical fallacy". What I have done is not logical fallacy, any more than consulting a doctor when one is sick, or a mechanic if my car isn't running right.

This passage is an excellent example of Hebrew parallelism, one thing being expressed in slightly different ways, "equal with God" and "in the form of God", vs. 2:6, are parallel, just as "form of a servant" and "likeness of man" are in vs. 2:7.

"I do not need to add anything to the Greek to conform to MY theology. You do." And again I say NO I do not. You have to insert the words "from being" to make the verse fit your theology.

mickiel

June 23rd 2003, 04:24 AM

Today @ 07:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130525#post130525)
OldShepherd:

Something else interesting about Jesus saying these words. In English this Psalm continues, "why are you so far from helping me." The Hebrew word translated "helping me" is &#1497;&#1513;&#1493;&#1506;&#1492;/Yeshuah which is pronounced exactly like &#1497;&#1513;&#1493;&#1506;/Yeshua', Jesus' name in Aramaic/Hebrew. The disciples and everyone present would have made the connection, "My God, My God, why are you so far from Yeshua."

I think "so far from me" is easier to absorb, and more reasonable.

o2bwise

June 23rd 2003, 06:27 AM

I am only doing this because, for the record, I have NEVER seen such a consistently abrasive writing flavor.

It's a stench.

#44

Do you mean "sufficiently vague" or are you reading Paul's mind and telling us he deliberately chose a vague word for some purpose?

Want to guess again?

#45

Did your odyssey happen to take you through John 20:28. Or the about 30 +/- O.T. /YHWH verses applied to Jesus in the N.T.?

I suppose that all anti-Trinitarians cannot discuss the Trinity without misrepresenting what Trinitarians believe,

#47

And please do not insult our intelligence with that old "pluralis majesticatus", the so-called "plural of majesty."

#48

I will ask the same question. Robertson had 47 years teaching graduate level Greek and you have had exactly how much Greek? And FYI, Dr. J has me beat but, yes I have had some grad level Greek.

(bold text added for emphasis)

Your explanation sounds impressive. Where did you cut and paste it from. And can you cite 2-3 examples of these "always" occurrences.

NOTE: YOU DID NOT ASK ***IF*** HE CUT AND PASTE!

#67

METASKEUAZW you say? Tsk, tsk. LSJ does NOT say they are synonyms! LSJ says they have SIMILAR meanings. Just FYI, I DO know how to read! What about the other two similar words which you (deliberately?) omitted? Lets review LSJ on metmorfoo and the other two similar words. Oh my, it appears that you made a mistake, they do support me.

Can we say "smoke screen"

at least I did not have to resort to misrepresentation as someone else did,

The sarcasm is just dripping...

Robertson had the requisite scholastic qualifications to challenge another Greek scholar. Someone with little or no formal Greek training does NOT!

#70

Embarrassed about getting caught misrepresenting the sources? Whose argument has no merit, mine or the one which resorts to deception?

#77

If you are going to make a comparison of something, somewhere, perhaps you could do us the courtesy of telling us exactly where you mean or are we supposed to just guess what you are talking about.

#77

Yes! Are you him?

#78

You claim to know all these proof texts" to support your arguments, how many times various words/constructions, etc. occur in the N.T. Since now you are feigning ignorance I will do it for you.

In John 20:28, in case you have forgotten,

#86

And simply listing a few scripture references, without quoting the scriptures, is NOT providing evidence or grammatical reasoning, which I have refuted OBTW!

#87

This is why you are through with this thread because you have exhausted what little you might know and now must resort to insults.

(Pot-kettle, to be sure!)

#88

Gen 19:2 has nothing relevant but 19:13 says this. Another swing and a miss.

And we just have to guess which chapter and verse.

#93

No my position is that you cannot read or comprehend English, because you have mistated or misrepresented what I said at least three times in your reponse. Go back and read my response, if you do not understand what I said, ask me to explain, do NOT put words in my mouth, when you thoroughly understand what I said then attempt to respond.

#95

Well lets try it again and see if you can fully comprehend my answer.

#104

I wondered how long it would take until the tired old "that MAY not be in the original, it MIGHT have been added, therefore it MIGHT not be inspired." copout was used. And IF it is NOT in the original and is NOT inspired then how can it show us anything? You cannot eat your cake and have it too! Get off the fence take a position.

#105

The only thing I can say is, "Oh Puh-leeze - give - me - a - break!" What's next quoting, "The Twilight Zone?" Do you have any qualifcations or not, owning a copy of BAGD and copies of all of Stafford's arguments, is NOT being qualified to dispute the known scholars like, Robertson, Wallace, or Omanson.

#106

Of course, when someone repeatedly posts examples of Greek construction to support their argument, then claims to not know what I am talking about/how they apply when I mention counter examples, as if I'm supposed to roll belly up like a dead carp and say nothing, yeah I get a little sarcastic.

(A little sarcastic?!! It's a stench!)

Asking a person if he cut and pasted is NOT the same as saying "You did. . . ,"

It was an accusation. Asking “when” implies asserting it was done.

Perhaps you can show me where I did?

#48

First you accuse me of making accusations when I did not,

Your made them.

then you imply that I have no character.

“NO character?” Did not say it or imply it. Implying something is lacking is not saying there is none. I am not saying there is no good in you, by the grace of God. But, the sarcasm is incredible!

Does this CHARACTER you are talking about include someone accusing another person of making an accusation, when they asked a question?

More sarcasm.

#108

Well lets try it again and see if you can fully comprehend my answer.

#109

Now would you like to post something with a little integrity?

O2 and any other bystanders, you want to jump into the fray and accuse me of having a chip on my shoulder again?

Yes.

#121

And OBTW Jesus did not build a society on the rock, He built a church.

Did you conduct a survey of every Christian in the world and determine that I alone out of all the other millions of Christians hold the view that I do? That is absolutely amazing, because that is the only way you can make that statement.

It would appear that your favorite tactic is to misquote what I say then attack the straw man you just invented.

#127

Do tell.

Let's roll.

I already had breakfast, I don't want any of your waffles. Now, having been caught with an unworkable analogy you are trying to waffle out, "I didn't really mean what you think I meant."

#128

You jumped into this discussion with invalid accusations. I did NOT accuse anyone of anything I asked a question. If you do NOT understand the distinction then perhaps you should stay out of adult discussions.

Yes, you DID. You did not ask IF he cut and pasted, you asked WHERE the cut and paste was from. WHAT DO YOU THINK IS IMPLIED.

I'll stop here.

OldShepherd

June 23rd 2003, 07:54 AM

06-20-2003 @ 11:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128630#post128630)
o2bwise:

As for your allusion to someone with 47 years of Greek, my conviction is as follows.

God crafted His word in a way that the SIMPLE could unearth it. I do not mean to take away from advantages that lay in understanding the original languages, BUT, I believe if someone has a LOVE for the Word and does things like word studies and comparing spiritual with spiritual, He will find the truth, even the deep things of God.

And your conviction is why about 100 people followed Dsvid Koresh to their deaths, and about 1000 followed Jim Jones to their deaths, because some one convinced them that they had all these things.

Here is a small example:
Psalm 48:7
As when you break the ships of Tarshish with an east wind.

The east wind was the strong wind, the one most feared, and ancient ships were very small, storms at sea easily destroyed them. Try John Gill's Exposition of the whole Bible, which can be accessed at crosswalk. Gill cites a lot of ancient Jewish sources.

This upholding of a man because of his 40+ years of whatever, I don't like it. One could have upheld Caiaphas for his formal understanding while the Son of God walked in the very midst. All that formal education and He didn't know the Messiah when He was right in front of his nose.

The upholding a man proven and recognized in the field, who wrote of over forty books on the Bible, including a 1200 page Greek grammar which required 26 years to complete and was a standard for years after his death. And the book which I quote quite often, Robertson's, 6 volume, Word Pictures in the N.T. Now if you are prepared to prove he was no more knowledgable that Caiaphas, I'm listening. Or maybe point gun at foot, pull trigger.

The simple will have a wisdom that, in general, will blow away that of "the learned."

Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, Herbert W. Armstrong, John Thomas, and the beat goes on.

Godspeed...

Thanks.

OldShepherd

June 23rd 2003, 08:01 AM

Today @ 08:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130587#post130587)
o2bwise:

You jumped into this discussion with invalid accusations. I did NOT accuse anyone of anything I asked a question. If you do NOT understand the distinction then perhaps you should stay out of adult discussions.

Yes, you DID. You did not ask IF he cut and pasted, you asked WHERE the cut and paste was from. WHAT DO YOU THINK IS IMPLIED.

I'll stop here.

"WHAT DO YOU THINK IS IMPLIED." See you DO know the difference between an implication and an accusation, but you are still having trouble keeping them separated. See final comment in quote.

Dee Dee Warren

June 23rd 2003, 08:16 AM

o2b, I suggest you go and read Uriah's posts in the True HaMashiach thread, and I do hope you give him the same rebuke. Thank you.

I would ask that issues of personality/style be dealt with in the Locker Room or that posts that blatanly go against the rules be reported. Threads should not be sidetracked with personality disputes or discussions about the dislike of a poster's style. We do provide an outlet for that in the Locker Room. We also have an ignore feature, Lord knows I have used it a lot in the past.

And a reminder like before, yes this is a passionate subject, let's try to keep things vigorously and mightlily debated without getting ugly on either side.

Dee Dee Warren

June 23rd 2003, 08:33 AM

On the cut and paste, TSmith said he did not. It's over. That material seems to be drawn from Dan Parker's comments on the B-Greek list which was refuted there, and is refuted here:

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Smart's%20Rule%20-%20A%20Critique.htm

The B-Greek links are included in that article. I am posting the link for general information not that I expect anyone to refute it. If they would like we can reproduce bits of it in another thread and do so.

Cal_Minian

June 23rd 2003, 10:37 AM

Yesterday @ 08:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130447#post130447)
OldShepherd:

That tells me nothing. You go read the entire N.T. and pray about it and you will know the truth.

OK but it will take me awhile. :smile:

Kind Regards,
Cal

Tsmith

June 23rd 2003, 10:42 AM

Today @ 01:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130613#post130613)
Dee Dee Warren:

On the cut and paste, TSmith said he did not. It's over. That material seems to be drawn from Dan Parker's comments on the B-Greek list which was refuted there, and is refuted here:

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Smart's%20Rule%20-%20A%20Critique.htm

The B-Greek links are included in that article. I am posting the link for general information not that I expect anyone to refute it. If they would like we can reproduce bits of it in another thread and do so.

Actually, the material comes from Martin Smart, the source of it, who is a personal friend of mine and is drawn from our many discussions on the subject. So no, its not a copy and paste. As for Mr. Bowman's reply, that has already been delt with before and actually every aspect of his reply deals with a second part of the rule and not the John 20:28 construction. So don't accuse people without the facts.

-Tony

Pereynol of Sheer Dread

June 23rd 2003, 11:56 AM

Old Shepherd,
Thanks for a fine and passionate treatment of this issue; you have stood your ground wonderfully.

:cheers:

Cal_Minian

June 23rd 2003, 12:59 PM

Yesterday @ 11:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130540#post130540)
OldShepherd:

Of course you do NOT see the relevance of the money changers. I compared how the verbs function in the sentence. And I asked why would the verb "kenoo" function completely different than other verbs in Greek? Although that passage does not use the word "kenoo." Jesus drove the money changers out thus emptying the temple. Jesus did not "drive/empty the temple from being filled," with the money changers. Which is exactly how you are trying to change the subject-verb-object in Philippians.

Jesus, the object of the sentence, was in some way filled with something which He emptied. If Jesus "kenoo" a glass of water He pours out the water, He doesn't pour out the glass from being filled with water. Something cannot be "emptied from being in" something else! Even Greek does not work that way.

Dear OldShepherd,
Thank you for explaining what you meant. I have something that shows that your misgivings on this interpretation is not well founded.

This subject was discussed in an exchange back in the early 1900 between Gifford and Warren. I quote the part relating to this below. He gives a footnote of grammatical parallels at the end of the article which answers your objection. After saying that this usage is well attested in the footnote he lists a Lexicon for Sophocles which says KENAW can be used both of the container and the thing poured out. He also gives actual examples from Philo, Chrysostom anad Gregory Nanzianzus, etc.

The Journal of Theological Studies, VOL. XII, April 1911.

ON EATTON EKENWSEN, PHIL. 2:7

Again, Dr, Gifford assumes that hEAUTWN EKENWSEN requires some genitive of contents to be supplied for its proper interpretation and maintains that 'equality with God' is the only thing of which He could have emptied Himself. But why not take the words as they stand, as expressing exactly St. Paul's thought? Viz. not that He emptied Himself of anything but that what He poured out was Himself, emptying His fullness into us. (fn 1)
This interpretation removes this passage from the Kenotic controversy which has influenced the conclusions of most commentators. It also makes clearer the grammatical and logical antithesis between the clauses OUX hARPAGMON HGHSATO and hEAUTON EKENWSEN.

W. WARREN.

(1) This usage of the word is well attested.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Dee Dee Warren

June 23rd 2003, 04:43 PM

Today @ 10:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130662#post130662)
Tsmith:

Actually, the material comes from Martin Smart, the source of it, who is a personal friend of mine and is drawn from our many discussions on the subject. So no, its not a copy and paste.

I never said it was, in fact I drew attention to the fact you said it wasn't. Don't make a martyr of yourself. I said "appears" and you admit it is similar material, and admit that it all goes back to a similar source, so calm down. You admit you didn't write it, you borrowed froman origianl source as 99% of debate forum participants do, you just had the wherewithal to reword it rather than quote. Okay, so?

As for Mr. Bowman's reply, that has already been delt with before and actually every aspect of his reply deals with a second part of the rule and not the John 20:28 construction. So don't accuse people without the facts.

-Tony

Oh an ex cathedra pronouncement eh? It was also refuted on the BGreek list, and Bowman specifically deals with the 20:28 construction.

Tsmith

June 23rd 2003, 04:48 PM

Today @ 09:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130889#post130889)
Dee Dee Warren:

Oh an ex cathedra pronouncement eh? It was also refuted on the BGreek list, and Bowman specifically deals with the 20:28 construction.

By all means, show me where Rob deals with the TSPKTSRP construction and I'll be happy to answer it.

-Tony

Dee Dee Warren

June 23rd 2003, 04:56 PM

He deals with the use of the alleged Smart's rule and John 20:28. That is a portion of the purpose of the article.

Tsmith

June 23rd 2003, 05:00 PM

Today @ 09:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130900#post130900)
Dee Dee Warren:

He deals with the use of the alleged Smart's rule and John 20:28. That is a portion of the purpose of the article.

Care to provide me a specific quote that deals with the TSPKTSRP construction?

-Tony

Dee Dee Warren

June 23rd 2003, 05:01 PM

Today @ 11:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130696#post130696)
pereynol:

Old Shepherd,
Thanks for a fine and passionate treatment of this issue; you have stood your ground wonderfully.

:cheers:

I am always encouraged by a defense of Christ's rightful identity.

Cal_Minian

June 23rd 2003, 05:10 PM

Today @ 02:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130908#post130908)
Dee Dee Warren:

I am always encouraged by a defense of Christ's rightful identity.

Dear DeeDee,
You have a locker-room for fighting, do you have a place for high-fives? :teeth:

Best Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 23rd 2003, 05:17 PM

Today @ 01:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130889#post130889)
Dee Dee Warren:

I never said it was, in fact I drew attention to the fact you said it wasn't. Don't make a martyr of yourself. I said "appears" and you admit it is similar material, and admit that it all goes back to a similar source, so calm down. You admit you didn't write it, you borrowed froman origianl source as 99% of debate forum participants do, you just had the wherewithal to reword it rather than quote. Okay, so?

Oh an ex cathedra pronouncement eh? It was also refuted on the BGreek list, and Bowman specifically deals with the 20:28 construction.

Dear DeeDee,
Can you show me the post that refuted Smart's rule on B-GREEK?

Thanks in advance,
Cal

Dee Dee Warren

June 23rd 2003, 06:11 PM

Cal, since I do not know a lick of Greek, let me try and get in touch with the participants in the dicussions to find the specific posts and the particulars. I find the B-Greek archives difficult to navigate. TSmith may have the specific posts (though he may not agree that Parker was refuted) since he is personal friends with Smart.

Cal_Minian

June 23rd 2003, 06:23 PM

Today @ 03:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130935#post130935)
Dee Dee Warren:

Cal, since I do not know a lick of Greek, let me try and get in touch with the participants in the dicussions to find the specific posts and the particulars. I find the B-Greek archives difficult to navigate. TSmith may have the specific posts (though he may not agree that Parker was refuted) since he is personal friends with Smart.

Thanks DeeDee,

I would appreciate that very much. Since you did not see the posts and don't claim to understand the subject perhaps what you heard was not true at all.

Kind Regards,
Cal_Minian

Tsmith

June 23rd 2003, 06:27 PM

Today @ 11:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130935#post130935)
Dee Dee Warren:

Cal, since I do not know a lick of Greek, let me try and get in touch with the participants in the dicussions to find the specific posts and the particulars. I find the B-Greek archives difficult to navigate. TSmith may have the specific posts (though he may not agree that Parker was refuted) since he is personal friends with Smart.

It has nothing to do with whether I believe someone is refuted or not, a person simply is or is not. They can choose to reject their being refuted, but at a point you simply are or are not.

That said, I'm still hoping you will provide me at least a paragraph or two where the John 20:28 construction in relation to being of two persons was refuted.

Thanks,
Tony

Ron Macy

June 23rd 2003, 08:44 PM

OldShepherd,

Your response to Genesis 3:5-6 is curious. You said, “Read the verse, the only capability that he had was ‘knowing good and evil.’”

I believe you are trying to minimize the significance of Adam’s act. The significance is not in the characteristics of God which Adam gained, it is in the attempt to be like God. The significance is in the attempt to usurp God’s authority. That thought is what is reflected in Paul’s words in Philippians 2. “Be of humble character like Jesus who made no attempt to usurp God’s authority.” (That is my own paraphrase.)

You also wrote,
“Actually I am not making any assumptions. I asked the disciples of John. And John himself said that the Word became flesh. At some point He who was NOT flesh ‘became’ flesh.”

I am not sure I understand what you mean by “I asked the disciples of John.” Are you talking about the post New Testament writers who were students of the Apostle John or are you talking about the disciples of John the Baptist in the New Testament? More specifically, what words have they given to show being in the “form of God” is something other than a man?

I believe your allusion to John 1:14 does not apply to the passage in Philippians 2. While I do not agree Jesus was a person before He ‘became’ flesh, that has no bearing on the study of Philippians. There is no mention of a time frame for the humility of Jesus. The application of the events in Gethsemane is just as valid as what you have suggested from John 1:14. Philippians 2 cannot be used to prove Jesus gave up some pre-human existance in order to be a man. There is simply not enough information in that text to reach that conclusion.

You wrote,
“Jesus became a servant before the crucifixion. Remember the foot washing? And I seem to remember that this king didn't have any place to lay his head, long before the garden.”

I am not sure what this comment has to do with the fundamentals of my analogy. Does the fact Jesus didn’t have a place to lay his head change anything about the authority and power He had to command nature and heal the sick? Does it have anything to do with Jesus’ potential for rebelling against God? The servanthood of Jesus had to do with His relationship with God and not His relationship with His disciples. Jesus’ actions toward His disciples were only an illustration of His relationship with and surrender to God. At least that is my thought.

Ron

OldShepherd

June 23rd 2003, 10:06 PM

Today @ 02:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130735#post130735)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
Thank you for explaining what you meant. I have something that shows that your misgivings on this interpretation is not well founded.

This subject was discussed in an exchange back in the early 1900 between Gifford and Warren. I quote the part relating to this below. He gives a footnote of grammatical parallels at the end of the article which answers your objection. After saying that this usage is well attested in the footnote he lists a Lexicon for Sophocles which says KENAW can be used both of the container and the thing poured out. He also gives actual examples from Philo, Chrysostom anad Gregory Nanzianzus, etc.

The Journal of Theological Studies, VOL. XII, April 1911.

ON EATTON EKENWSEN, PHIL. 2:7

Again, Dr, Gifford assumes that hEAUTWN EKENWSEN requires some genitive of contents to be supplied for its proper interpretation and maintains that 'equality with God' is the only thing of which He could have emptied Himself. But why not take the words as they stand, as expressing exactly St. Paul's thought? Viz. not that He emptied Himself of anything but that what He poured out was Himself, emptying His fullness into us. (fn 1)
This interpretation removes this passage from the Kenotic controversy which has influenced the conclusions of most commentators. It also makes clearer the grammatical and logical antithesis between the clauses OUX hARPAGMON HGHSATO and hEAUTON EKENWSEN.

W. WARREN.

(1) This usage of the word is well attested.

Reminding you of your objection to the traditional view of the church, Warren must add the words, "emptying His fullness into us." to make his interpretation fit. Also this contradicts your interpretation, "emptying himself from being in the form of God." And it would be interesting to see how Warren deals with all this as an example for the Philippian church.

Also it would be nice to know the specific sources cited, since we have available the ECF, we could confirm them for ourselves. Just the names alone, "Philo, Chrysostom and Gregory Nanzianzus" do not help us at all.

A little doubt begins to creep in, IF "1) This usage of the word is well attested." Why aren't these cites and sources quoted in every anti-Trinintarian book and website from Timbuctu to Tuscon, and not just in this one 100+ year old cite? Do you know the answer?

And OBTW Philippians does NOT say Jesus poured out Himself. That word would be ekcew but it too would require something being poured and something from which it is poured.

Kind Regards,
Carlos.

OldShepherd

June 23rd 2003, 10:16 PM

Today @ 12:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130662#post130662)
Tsmith:

Actually, the material comes from Martin Smart, the source of it, who is a personal friend of mine and is drawn from our many discussions on the subject. So no, its not a copy and paste. As for Mr. Bowman's reply, that has already been delt with before and actually every aspect of his reply deals with a second part of the rule and not the John 20:28 construction. So don't accuse people without the facts.

-Tony

Which is why I asked where did you copy and paste it from because it appeared to be virtually identical to material I saw elsewhere. If you were the (co)author of the other material that would explain why it is so similar.

Just to set the record straight, I MAY have implied that you cut and pasted but I did NOT accuse you.

Cal_Minian

June 23rd 2003, 10:43 PM

Today @ 07:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131055#post131055)
OldShepherd:

Reminding you of your objection to the traditional view of the church, Warren must add the words, "emptying His fullness into us." to make his interpretation fit. Also this contradicts your interpretation, "emptying himself from being in the form of God." And it would be interesting to see how Warren deals with all this as an example for the Philippian church.

Also it would be nice to know the specific sources cited, since we have available the ECF, we could confirm them for ourselves. Just the names alone, "Philo, Chrysostom and Gregory Nanzianzus" do not help us at all.

A little doubt begins to creep in, IF "1) This usage of the word is well attested." Why aren't these cites and sources quoted in every anti-Trinintarian book and website from Timbuctu to Tuscon, and not just in this one 100+ year old cite? Do you know the answer?

And OBTW Philippians does NOT say Jesus poured out Himself. That word would be ekcew but it too would require something being poured and something from which it is poured.

Kind Regards,
Carlos.

Dear Carlos,
Here is the footnote in it's entirety. To find these sources in the Greek you will probably need to consult Migne's Patrology.

This usage of the word is well attested. Thus Sophocles, Lexicon, S.V. : ‘KENAW, to empty, said of the thing containing. Classical.—a. to empty, of the thing emptied our poured out’ (with references to Philo and Chrysostom among others). Suicer, too, gives examples of this sense: Chrys. In Psal. Xli PANTA TA ONTA EIS TOUS PENHTAS KENOUN; id,. Serm. Lvii THN SPODHN TAUTHN … KENWUSIN APASAN; Greg. Naz. EN TOIS PARERGOIS KENWSAI THN ISXUN

This is not the only source for this type of analysis of Phillipians 2. I merely quoted it for the specific reference to "empty himself." Also, the reference to this has been in Bauer for years. I find these things because I do my own research.

Here is another more recent one with much the same view from 1944.

Expository Times, VOLUME THE FIFTY-SIXTH, October 1944-September 1945, page 280-281, W.E Wilson

Philippians ii. 7

The theory of the kenosis propounded by certain theologians of the mid-nineteenth century to explain the incarnation stated that in becoming man the Son of God emptied Himself of certain attributes, omnipotence and omniscience, and the like and then the rest became man. This theory has been criticized from many points of view, but has the fundamental criticism been urges against it that such a proceeding could not rightly be called emptying? For KENOS means 'empty,' 'void of content.' This could render EKENOSIN inappropriate when part of the contents were left, which is what is assumed in this interpretation.
Again, emptying has two sides. The negative, most definitely expressed by the word, is that what was full not has nothing left in it. But there is also the positive. The contents are now elsewhere, possibly on the ground and so lost, but also, as possibly, now contained in some other vessel. Is it now possible that it was this last meaning that was in the Apostles mind? I think so, for there is a parallel between EN MORFH QEOU and MORFH DOULOU. The form of God had lost its contents, which were now transferred to the form of a slave. If I am right, St. Paul did not by these words intend to state that in becoming man our Lord had left something of Himself behind, but rather to emphasize the completeness of the incarnation.

You misconstrue how Warren used "pour." He was not implying that the word "pour" was found in the Greek. That being said, I would ask you to provide an analysis of the usages of the word. BDAG 312 appears to allow for the same range of meanings that Warren says KENAW has. BDAG cites Rev 16 where the bowl is poured and says of this (i.e. its contents)

Best Regards,
Cal_Minian

OldShepherd

June 24th 2003, 08:25 AM

Today @ 12:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131076#post131076)
Cal_Minian:

This is not the only source for this type of analysis of Phillipians 2. I merely quoted it for the specific reference to "empty himself." Also, the reference to this has been in Bauer for years. I find these things because I do my own research.

Here is another more recent one with much the same view from 1944.

As I said before if this view is so well attested then it should be documented in every anti-Trinitarian book and website from Timbuctu to Tuscon. Your first reference was more than 100 years old. Where in your personal research did you find a 100+ year old reference work? Your "more recent" one is almost 60 years old. So I am still not seeing that "well attested" you mentioned.

Do these two sources, you cited, have the same view? Here are your two quotes, one says "empty" one says "not empty"

The Journal of Theological Studies, VOL. XII, April 1911.

ON EATTON EKENWSEN, PHIL. 2:7

Again, Dr, Gifford assumes that hEAUTWN EKENWSEN requires some genitive of contents to be supplied for its proper interpretation and maintains that 'equality with God' is the only thing of which He could have emptied Himself. But why not take the words as they stand, as expressing exactly St. Paul's thought? Viz. not that He emptied Himself of anything but that what He poured out was Himself, emptying His fullness into us. (fn 1)

Expository Times, VOLUME THE FIFTY-SIXTH, October 1944-September 1945, page 280-281, W.E Wilson

Philippians ii. 7

The theory of the kenosis propounded by certain theologians of the mid-nineteenth century to explain the incarnation stated that in becoming man the Son of God emptied Himself of certain attributes, omnipotence and omniscience, and the like and then the rest became man. This theory has been criticized from many points of view, but has the fundamental criticism been urges against it that such a proceeding could not rightly be called emptying? For KENOS means 'empty,' 'void of content.'

You misconstrue how Warren used "pour." He was not implying that the word "pour" was found in the Greek. That being said, I would ask you to provide an analysis of the usages of the word. BDAG 312 appears to allow for the same range of meanings that Warren says KENAW has. BDAG cites Rev 16 where the bowl is poured and says of this (i.e. its contents)

I realize that Warren did not say that "pour" was in the passage but referring to your objection. Every explanation you have offered has had to add words, to what was written, to arrive at their interpretation.

As for BAGD I have searched my copy. Page 312 has nothing to do with "kenoo" In my 1979 copy kenow is on page 428, and it does NOT cite Rev. 16. The entry is too long to type but the definitions listed are, "make empty, to empty, destroy, render void, of no effect, and deprive of (its) justification."

Again, emptying has two sides. The negative, most definitely expressed by the word, is that what was full not has nothing left in it. But there is also the positive. The contents are now elsewhere, possibly on the ground and so lost, but also, as possibly, now contained in some other vessel. Is it now possible that it was this last meaning that was in the Apostles mind? I think so, for there is a parallel between EN MORFH QEOU and MORFH DOULOU. The form of God had lost its contents, which were now transferred to the form of a slave. If I am right, St. Paul did not by these words intend to state that in becoming man our Lord had left something of Himself behind, but rather to emphasize the completeness of the incarnation.

Here is the last paragraph of your last post. Does this support anything? I am not going to let my eternal fate rest on "possibly", "possible", "I think so", and "If I am right."

Very Best Regards,
Carlos

OldShepherd

June 24th 2003, 08:58 AM

Today @ 10:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131022#post131022)
Ron Macy:

OldShepherd,

Your response to Genesis 3:5-6 is curious. You said, “Read the verse, the only capability that he had was ‘knowing good and evil.’”

I believe you are trying to minimize the significance of Adam’s act. The significance is not in the characteristics of God which Adam gained, it is in the attempt to be like God. The significance is in the attempt to usurp God’s authority. That thought is what is reflected in Paul’s words in Philippians 2. “Be of humble character like Jesus who made no attempt to usurp God’s authority.” (That is my own paraphrase.)

Paul was telling the Philippians who were all equal in God's sight to "esteem other better than themselves.." If they were not equal then this makes no sense. If Jesus was NOT equal with God this makes no sense. Jesus humbled Himself from something to something. What are those somethings listed in Philippians 2:1-11?

Where does any Biblical writer interpret Adam's sin as trying to be equal with God?

I am not sure I understand what you mean by “I asked the disciples of John.” * * *More specifically, what words have they given to show being in the “form of God” is something other than a man?

Actually I was referring to the early church fathers and I have posted several quotes from them on this thread. Funny that every single early church father who ever wrote about Philippians 2:6-7, got it wrong, but people on this board 2000 years later got it right.

I believe your allusion to John 1:14 does not apply to the passage in Philippians 2. While I do not agree Jesus was a person before He ‘became’ flesh, that has no bearing on the study of Philippians. There is no mention of a time frame for the humility of Jesus.

Do you think that for God the creator of the heaven and earth to temporarily lay aside His omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc, and become a helpless baby was NOT humility?

Even if you substitute "divine being" or "a god" for God, as some heretical groups do, was it or was it not a complete act of humility for Jesus to lay aside the glory that He had, with the father, before the world began (John 17:5) and become a wet and dirty diapered helpless infant dependent on others for His every need?

The application of the events in Gethsemane is just as valid as what you have suggested from John 1:14. Philippians 2 cannot be used to prove Jesus gave up some pre-human existance in order to be a man. There is simply not enough information in that text to reach that conclusion.

Then you have NOT read the New Testament. Of course we must also ignore everything that was written by the church in its first three hundred years of existence.

Cal_Minian

June 24th 2003, 01:34 PM

Today @ 05:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131361#post131361)
OldShepherd:

Carlos:
As I said before if this view is so well attested then it should be documented in every anti-Trinitarian book and website from Timbuctu to Tuscon. Your first reference was more than 100 years old. Where in your personal research did you find a 100+ year old reference work? Your "more recent" one is almost 60 years old. So I am still not seeing that "well attested" you mentioned.

Cal:
Please read the quote again in its entirety. You will see that in the context of Warren, the well attested has to do with the usage of “empty” in the Greek and not to theological references expressed by other theologians. Also as I mention below, these two references are in the entry for kenaw in your 1979 BAG.

OldShepherd:
Do these two sources, you cited, have the same view? Here are your two quotes, one says "empty" one says "not empty"

Cal:
I will quote them again below and there will address your concern.

You said:
I realize that Warren did not say that "pour" was in the passage but referring to your objection. Every explanation you have offered has had to add words, to what was written, to arrive at their interpretation.

Cal:
The only words I am concerned with are those in the actual translation. Neither my translation or my interpretation requires the adding of words. Now, when explaining a concept it is sometimes necessary to add words for various reasons. Sometimes the person to whom one is speaking has less than the average ability to grasp concepts. Perhaps English is not their primary language. On occasion, the individual is intentionally obstinate and therefore throws out objections as a roadblock when they are on the losing side of an argument. In the case of Warren and his article I think his protagonist Gifford probably fits the this latter category.

OldShepherd:
As for BAGD I have searched my copy. Page 312 has nothing to do with "kenoo" In my 1979 copy kenaw is on page 428, and it does NOT cite Rev. 16. The entry is too long to type but the definitions listed are, "make empty, to empty, destroy, render void, of no effect, and deprive of (its) justification."

Cal:
I have been quoting from BDAG, not BAGD. It is the third edition from 2000 and I highly recommend it. You mention below you have the 1979 BAG. ekcew on page 429 lists in parenthesis my two sources. You had used the word ekcew as an example why Warren was not correct in his view. I quoted Rev. 16 in the entry for ekcew and not kenaw. The page in your 1979 BAG is 246.

Now here are the two quotes again. You did not quote them in their entirety which makes it hard to see the whole picture.

Expository Times, VOLUME THE FIFTY-SIXTH, October 1944-September 1945, page 280-281, W.E Wilson

Philippians ii. 7

The theory of the kenosis propounded by certain theologians of the mid-nineteenth century to explain the incarnation stated that in becoming man the Son of God emptied Himself of certain attributes, omnipotence and omniscience, and the like and then the rest became man. This theory has been criticized from many points of view, but has the fundamental criticism been urges against it that such a proceeding could not rightly be called emptying? For kenos means 'empty,' 'void of content.' This could render ekenwsin inappropriate when part of the contents were left, which is what is assumed in this interpretation.
Again, emptying has two sides. The negative, most definitely expressed by the word, is that what was full not has nothing left in it. But there is also the positive. The contents are now elsewhere, possibly on the ground and so lost, but also, as possibly, now contained in some other vessel. Is it now possible that it was this last meaning that was in the Apostles mind? I think so, for there is a parallel between en morfh qeou and morfh doulou. The form of God had lost its contents, which were now transferred to the form of a slave. If I am right, St. Paul did not by these words intend to state that in becoming man our Lord had left something of Himself behind, but rather to emphasize the completeness of the incarnation.

The Journal of Theological Studies, VOL. XII, April 1911.

ON ‘EATTON EKENWSEN, PHIL. 2:7

Again, Dr, Gifford assumes that ‘ eautwn ekenwsen requires some genitive of contents to be supplied for its proper interpretation and maintains that 'equality with God' is the only thing of which He could have emptied Himself. But why not take the words as they stand, as expressing exactly St. Paul's thought? Viz. not that He emptied Himself of anything but that what He poured out was Himself, emptying His fullness into us. (fn 1)
This interpretation removes this passage from the Kenotic controversy which has influenced the conclusions of most commentators. It also makes clearer the grammatical and logical antithesis between the clauses ‘ ouc arpagmon hghsato ’ and ‘ eauton ekenwsen ’.

W. WARREN.

(1) This usage of the word is well attested. Thus Sophocles, Lexicon, S.V. : ‘kenaw, to empty, said of the thing containing. Classical.—a. to empty, of the thing emptied our poured out’ (with references to Philo and Chrysostom among others). Suicer, too, gives examples of this sense: Chrys. In Psal. Xli ‘ panta ta onta eis tous penhtas kenoun ’; id,. Serm. Lvii ‘ thn spodhn tauthn ’ … ‘ kenwusin apasan; ’ Greg. Naz. ‘ en tois paregois kenwsin thn iscun ’,

OldShepherd, you had said:
Do these two sources, you cited, have the same view? Here are your two quotes, one says "empty" one says "not empty"

Cal:
The author is describing the view that many Trinitarians today hold. That the phrase “empty himself” has an implied “genitive of contents” which refers to attributes that the divine Son possessed but that were not evident in the man Jesus such as omnipresence and omniscience. One Trinitarian view is that he emptied himself of these attributes and another is that he suppressed them. The author’s view is not that he emptied himself of attributes but that he literally emptied ALL of himself from the form of God into the form of a slave.

Would you mind giving me a concise description of what your view is on what was emptied in your own words?

OldShepherd:
Here is the last paragraph of your last post. Does this support anything? I am not going to let my eternal fate rest on "possibly", "possible", "I think so", and "If I am right."

Very Best Regards,
Carlos

Cal:
It is a sign of humility not to be dogmatic when the Greek can possibly mean more than one thing.

The only reason I am addressing this is because the Philippians passage was brought out to counter the devastating argument in the first post of this thread which has apparently struck a tender spot in the Trinitarian dogma. No bible writer teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, in context like all other true Christian doctrine.

Since Trinitarians brought up Philippians 2 because of their lack of cogent defense against my arguments it is they who bear the burden of proof. It is their proof-text.

I have shown that even some Trinitarian bibles do not share the views expressed on this verse by Trinitarians in these threads.

I have demonstrated that the literal rendering of the Carmen Christi allows for the interpretation that the Son of God emptied “himself” while existing in the form of God and that “empty himself” need not be equivalent to empty himself of prerogatives as the Trinitarians claim. However, the word kenaw when literally used for “empty” does not allow for some contents to remain in what was emptied. The word when used figuratively means to destroy or nullify completely and not merely to mask attributes.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 24th 2003, 02:21 PM

06-16-2003 @ 01:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124691#post124691)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Theologians,
Paul told Timothy that Christian doctrine in taught in Scripture. He said at 2 Timothy 3:16 that

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

In practice we find all essential doctrines taught, in context, by bible writers. In fact we generally find the true essential doctrines taught in context by multiple bible writers. Other Bible passages may expand upon these doctrines, but this is only after these doctrines have already been explicitly taught in context with all the necessary primary components to define the core teaching.

For example, we may not all agree on the significance of Baptism but all Christians understand that Baptism in some form is something taught in the bible and that a single bible writer articulates all the primary elements in context in one passage. All the writers of the gospel accounts teach the doctrine of Baptism all in one place in context. (Matt 3:1-16; Mark 1:1-9; 16:15-16; Luke 3:1-21; John 1:25-33.)

We do not need to derive the concept of Baptism by taking an “immersion” verse, a “water” verse and a “repentance” verse and through “systematic theology” create the new concept of “Baptism.” The bible writers have already combined those elements for us so that we know it is indeed an essential bible teaching.

Thus it is by example that bible writers themselves set the high standard by which we should examine doctrines to determine truth.

My challenge to Trinitarians, should they choose to accept it, is to explain why the Trinity stands alone in this regards. Why is the Trinity considered an essential Christian teaching if not even one bible writer ever teaches it in context as a clear doctrine for Christians?

I have presented a hermeneutic that can be falsified. Baptism, Eternal Punishment, Eternal Salvation through faith in Christ, the Resurrection of the dead are all essential doctrines for Christians. My premise can be falsified by providing an essential Christian doctrine, which is derived in the same manner as the Trinity. This challenge has been presented to Trinitarians in the past and not one has been able to provide a counter example.

In his service,
Cal_Minian

There have been no substantive refutations to my arguments from this thread. One Trinitarian attempted to prove that the doctrine of Salvation through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus by grace was not taught as a primary doctrine. I quoted two passages from different books, which contained the primary elements. (See the thread for details)

Another poster attempted to say that the Trinity was not a doctrine at all even though a google search brings up hundreds of papers by Trinitarians who disagree.

Then there is the appeal to the Church Fathers and tradition, which supposedly takes precedence over the bible.

Another attempt was made to compare the doctrine of the Trinity to mere concepts of “theocracy” or “one organization” which would apply if the argument was that the word “Trinity” is not found in the bible. Of course the word “Trinity” is not in the bible, but that is not my argument. It is that no bible writer teaches the doctrine of the Trinity that is devastating to Trinitarians.

There was even a moderator on this site that said that believing in the deity of Christ was sufficient for Salvation and that believing the Trinity was not necessary for Salvation.

Is there no substantive Trinitarian defense for my arguments?

Kind Regards,
Cal

Bill the Cat

June 24th 2003, 02:27 PM

Cal, some things are not spelled out in one verse. Like Eschatology. When will the rapture take place? When will the resurrection happen. Give me one verse in context that specifically spells out these doctrines.

It's a no can do scenario that you have built. Trinitarianism is more a construct, not a concept. It shows the harmonization between the monotheistic verses and the acceptance of the Deity of Christ contrasted against the separation verses.

Tsmith

June 24th 2003, 03:03 PM

Today @ 07:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131586#post131586)
Bill the Cat:

Cal, some things are not spelled out in one verse. Like Eschatology. When will the rapture take place? When will the resurrection happen. Give me one verse in context that specifically spells out these doctrines.

It's a no can do scenario that you have built. Trinitarianism is more a construct, not a concept. It shows the harmonization between the monotheistic verses and the acceptance of the Deity of Christ contrasted against the separation verses.

You miss the point. These are not essential doctrines as is who God is, where we get salvation from and what we must do to get saved. These are essential things that are clearly stated in scripture. The Trinity, however, is not clearly stated by a single author at any point. This is where the issue arises.

-Tony

Bill the Cat

June 24th 2003, 03:10 PM

But to believe in One God is absolutely essential. From there, accepting the Divinity of Christ is too. Harmonizing the two is the trinity.

Cal_Minian

June 24th 2003, 03:14 PM

Today @ 05:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131383#post131383)
OldShepherd:

Dear OldSheperd, you said:
Paul was telling the Philippians who were all equal in God's sight to "esteem other better than themselves.." If they were not equal then this makes no sense. If Jesus was NOT equal with God this makes no sense. Jesus humbled Himself from something to something. What are those somethings listed in Philippians 2:1-11?

In Philippians 2:9-10 we find a possible answer to your question.

ASV Philippians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; 10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,

There are a number of interesting non-Trinitarian applications to these verses.

Philippians 2:9
dio kai o qeos auto uperuywsen kai ecarisato autw to onoma to uper pan onoma 10 ina en tw onomati Ihsou pan kamyh epouraniwn kai epigeiwn kai katacqoniwn

The phrase ina en tw onomati Ihsou pan gonu kamyh is a Greek purpose or result clause. It can be recognized by the ina followed by the subjunctive. In the verse above kamyh is in the subjunctive.

This means that because of what Christ did in verses 6-8 God exalted him with the result that every knee would bend and confess him as Lord.

In this group who would bend their knee because the Father exalted Jesus are “things in heaven.”

Scripture teaches that Jesus became lower than the angels (Heb 2:7-9) when he became a man on earth but that as a result (Greek result clause) of the exaltation of him they would bend their knees to him.

And there, Carlos is the answer to your question. It was in comparison to those other inhabitants of heaven that Jesus humbled himself.

Another interesting non-Trinitarian point is that the Greek word for “gave” is ecarisato . You can see that this word is derived from “grace” or caris of which BDAG says on page 1078 means to “give freely as a favor, give graciously.” Thus it was by “grace” that the Christ was given these things.

Interesting, yes?

Kind Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 24th 2003, 03:25 PM

Today @ 11:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131586#post131586)
Bill the Cat:

Cal, some things are not spelled out in one verse. Like Eschatology. When will the rapture take place? When will the resurrection happen. Give me one verse in context that specifically spells out these doctrines.

It's a no can do scenario that you have built. Trinitarianism is more a construct, not a concept. It shows the harmonization between the monotheistic verses and the acceptance of the Deity of Christ contrasted against the separation verses.

Dear Bill,
Thanks for the response.

First of all, I do not state that all the primary elements of an essential Christian doctrine must be found in one verse. They must be taught in context in a passage that may be on verse or may be a chapter or multiple chapters which contiguously teach a particular doctrine in context. For example Romans chapters 3-6 for the doctrine of Salvation by Jesus' sacrifice being by grace.

Secondly, your example is not considered essential for Christians unless you take a much narrower view that the owner of this list, DeeDee, who I believe is preterist.

Even amongst evangelicals like the Baptists there are both pre and post Tribulation beliefs. How can it thus be considered essential amongst Christians if all Baptists do not believe the same on this. Do you think Baptists are Christian?

I hope I have clarified the challenge sufficently.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 24th 2003, 03:30 PM

Today @ 12:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131613#post131613)
Bill the Cat:

But to believe in One God is absolutely essential. From there, accepting the Divinity of Christ is too. Harmonizing the two is the trinity.

Dear Bill,
The bible teaches that the Father is the one God of Christian monotheism (1Co 8:6). Jesus is never called the one God which is where the word monotheism originates.

Therefore you are "harmonizing" something in a way that no bible writer ever did.

In addition, harmonizing the Father and the Son into a single God is not a Trinity. It is a binity.

See how far away from the direct and contextual teachings of the apostles in the GNT you have drifted with respect to your doctrine of the Trinity?

Regards,
Cal

Bill the Cat

June 24th 2003, 04:17 PM

Today @ 03:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131633#post131633)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Bill,
The bible teaches that the Father is the one God of Christian monotheism (1Co 8:6). Jesus is never called the one God which is where the word monotheism originates.

:btc:
Must I really quote the verses for the divinity of Christ? Or those where Christ is said to do something that Jehovah in the OT is said to do? Really?

Therefore you are "harmonizing" something in a way that no bible writer ever did.

The writers understood Jesus to be the very God of the OT because they understood the Scriptures.

In addition, harmonizing the Father and the Son into a single God is not a Trinity. It is a binity.

Yes, but this is where the most problems occur.

See how far away from the direct and contextual teachings of the apostles in the GNT you have drifted with respect to your doctrine of the Trinity?

Nope, sure don't. I'll be glad to go quote mining, or proof texting for you if you'd like.

Cal_Minian

June 24th 2003, 05:28 PM

Today @ 01:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131711#post131711)
Bill the Cat:

Cal:
Dear Bill,
The bible teaches that the Father is the one God of Christian monotheism (1Co 8:6). Jesus is never called the one God which is where the word monotheism originates.

Bill:
Must I really quote the verses for the divinity of Christ? Or those where Christ is said to do something that Jehovah in the OT is said to do? Really?

Cal:
I believe Jesus is divine. He is called qeos a few times in the NT. That does not mean he is the Almighty God or part of a Trinity. No bible writer teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, in context. No bible writer teaches that three persons are one God, in context. The Trinity stands alone.

Bill:
The writers understood Jesus to be the very God of the OT because they understood the Scriptures.

Cal:
You are making arguments from silence? They understood it but never taught that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are equal in substance, power and eternity as the one God of Christian monotheism?

Paul taught that the Father was the one God of Christian monotheism. Why is Jesus not also called the one God?

I had said:
“ In addition, harmonizing the Father and the Son into a single God is not a Trinity. It is a binity. ”

Bill:
Yes, but this is where the most problems occur.

Cal:
And yet you do nothing to salvage your unscriptural doctrine. You merely admit that it is a “problem”?

I had said:
“ See how far away from the direct and contextual teachings of the apostles in the GNT you have drifted with respect to your doctrine of the Trinity? ”

Bill:
Nope, sure don't. I'll be glad to go quote mining, or proof texting for you if you'd like.

Cal:
That is not what I would like. You responded to my post which devastates the doctrine of the Trinity. No bible writer teaches the doctrine in context yet they do teach in context all essential Christian doctrines.

Why does the Trinity stand alone? You have not tried to answer that. It seems you are in denial.

Kind Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd

June 24th 2003, 11:38 PM

Today @ 04:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131577#post131577)
Cal_Minian:

There have been no substantive refutations to my arguments from this thread. One Trinitarian attempted to prove that the doctrine of Salvation through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus by grace was not taught as a primary doctrine. I quoted two passages from different books, which contained the primary elements. (See the thread for details)

Sticking your head in the sand and saying "no substantive refutations" does not make it so.

Another poster attempted to say that the Trinity was not a doctrine at all even though a google search brings up hundreds of papers by Trinitarians who disagree.

A lie, that is not what he said! And since when is Google the authority on church doctrine?

Then there is the appeal to the Church Fathers and tradition, which supposedly takes precedence over the bible.

Another lie. Reference to the ECF as a guide to scripture interpretation when some posters on this board imply they are qualified to interpret scripture but refuse to list their qualifications. And note that those who are so quick to denounce the ECF are the very ones who misquote the ECF to prop up their arguments.

Another attempt was made to compare the doctrine of the Trinity to mere concepts of “theocracy” or “one organization” which would apply if the argument was that the word “Trinity” is not found in the bible.

If a "witness" denies that the "society", i.e. the WBTS is "God's only [Theocratic] organization on the earth." will he not be "disfellowshipped", another non-Biblical word? That makes it a doctrine which must be believed. Does any N.T. writer teach this doctrine in context?

Cal_Minian

June 25th 2003, 12:04 AM

Today @ 08:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132042#post132042)
OldShepherd:

If a "witness" denies that the "society", i.e. the WBTS is "God's only [Theocratic] organization on the earth." will he not be "disfellowshipped", another non-Biblical word? That makes it a doctrine which must be believed. Does any N.T. writer teach this doctrine in context?

Dear Carlos,
Paul teaches about the 'one body' in Ephesians 4 made up of a variety of different persons who have different gifts (v11) and that he illustrates it in verse 16. I don't expect you to agree with me as to the identity of the body but it is taught in Scripture.

Kind Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd

June 26th 2003, 03:26 AM

Yesterday @ 02:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132058#post132058)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Carlos,
Paul teaches about the 'one body' in Ephesians 4 made up of a variety of different persons who have different gifts (v11) and that he illustrates it in verse 16. I don't expect you to agree with me as to the identity of the body but it is taught in Scripture.

Kind Regards,
Cal

In Paul's example the hand cannot say to the foot I have no need of you. Here is my question again,
If a "witness" denies that the "society", i.e. the WBTS is "God's only [Theocratic] organization on the earth." will he not be "disfellowshipped", another non-Biblical word? That makes it a doctrine which must be believed. Does any N.T. writer teach this doctrine in context?
Where in scripture is it taught that God has a single "Theocratic" (word not in the Bible) organization, which would not come in to existence until about 1880, would be headquartered in Brooklyn N.Y., which must be explicitly obeyed in all matters, which is governed by "superintendents' (word not in the Bible). Members of this "organization" must totally agree with and obey the organization and its "superintendents" and if they do not they will be "disfellowshipped" (word not in the Bible) and current members may not contact members who have been "disfellowshipped," even if they are members of one's own family or they themselves wil be "disfellowshipped."

Where are all points of this doctrine taught "in context" in the scriptures?

Just for fun I thought I would throw this in here. I already know the knee jerk arguments that will be posted. Erasmus, 14th century, the challenge, etc., etc. and a partridge in a pear tree. Bintheredunthatgotthetshirtdontfit. The verse that teaches the Trinity in context.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Dee Dee Warren

June 26th 2003, 05:24 AM

Today @ 03:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132926#post132926)
OldShepherd:

In Paul's example the hand cannot say to the foot I have no need of you. Here is my question again,
If a "witness" denies that the "society", i.e. the WBTS is "God's only [Theocratic] organization on the earth." will he not be "disfellowshipped", another non-Biblical word? That makes it a doctrine which must be believed. Does any N.T. writer teach this doctrine in context?
Where in scripture is it taught that God has a single "Theocratic" (word not in the Bible) organization, which would not come in to existence until about 1880, would be headquartered in Brooklyn N.Y., which must be explicitly obeyed in all matters, which is governed by "superintendents' (word not in the Bible). Members of this "organization" must totally agree with and obey the organization and its "superintendents" and if they do not they will be "disfellowshipped" (word not in the Bible) and current members may not contact members who have been "disfellowshipped," even if they are members of one's own family or they themselves wil be "disfellowshipped."

Where are all points of this doctrine taught "in context" in the scriptures?

I cannot tell you that, but I can tell you where God talks about how he feels about false prophets, and that would include organizatoins that claim to be God's only mouthpiece and have a sorry track record of prophecy, and for special itnerest to me, of the long-distorted "Armegeddon."

Dee Dee Warren

June 26th 2003, 05:41 AM

There was even a moderator on this site that said that believing in the deity of Christ was sufficient for Salvation and that believing the Trinity was not necessary for Salvation.

And all that proves is that there is a reluctance to declare that Modalists are not saved (something I do not do), though they are certainly outside the historic Christian faith. However, and though this offends you (the truth is offensive) one cannot actively and knowingly deny the deity of Christ and be saved. It is a rejection of who Christ is. Although it is not a requirement that all of our moderators take that strong of a stand (though I am pretty sure all or most of them do), it is required that all of our moderators affirm the Trinity. But I can tell you, that as co-owner of this site, that is my firm and absolute stand and such a truth will never be censored here. There are things that one cannot actively and knowingly deny and be a Christian and the deity of Chist is one of them.

But of course your whole comment was a deflection anyways. Our moderators are not here to be the source and be all of doctrine, nor to settle doctrinal issues, but to administrate this board.

Then you proceed to misuse the words of Bill the Cat:

Secondly, your example is not considered essential for Christians unless you take a much narrower view that the owner of this list, DeeDee, who I believe is preterist.

Even amongst evangelicals like the Baptists there are both pre and post Tribulation beliefs. How can it thus be considered essential amongst Christians if all Baptists do not believe the same on this. Do you think Baptists are Christian?

Bill never made that argument that it is essential, but nice diversion. Eschatology is a secondary issue (of course it isn't when you have to tow the party line of an organization that has been abysmally wrong on such issues).

Cal_Minian

June 26th 2003, 11:38 AM

Today @ 12:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132926#post132926)
OldShepherd:

In Paul's example the hand cannot say to the foot I have no need of you. Here is my question again,
If a "witness" denies that the "society", i.e. the WBTS is "God's only [Theocratic] organization on the earth." will he not be "disfellowshipped", another non-Biblical word? That makes it a doctrine which must be believed. Does any N.T. writer teach this doctrine in context?
Where in scripture is it taught that God has a single "Theocratic" (word not in the Bible) organization, which would not come in to existence until about 1880, would be headquartered in Brooklyn N.Y., which must be explicitly obeyed in all matters, which is governed by "superintendents' (word not in the Bible). Members of this "organization" must totally agree with and obey the organization and its "superintendents" and if they do not they will be "disfellowshipped" (word not in the Bible) and current members may not contact members who have been "disfellowshipped," even if they are members of one's own family or they themselves wil be "disfellowshipped."

Where are all points of this doctrine taught "in context" in the scriptures?

Dear OldShepherd,
You are combining two doctrines. That the 'one body' of Christ is taught in the bible in multiple places is undeniable. We merely disagree on the details.

As I wrote in the first post of this thread, Baptism is something Christians consider an essential teaching even though we disagree on the details.

Disfellowshipping or shunning is also taught in context by bible writers. It is also not limited to Jehovah's Witnesses.

As for doctrine, each denomination has the right to define their own essential doctrines. Even this forum has defined their own doctrines. If you want to know what the essential doctrines are for Jehovah's Witnessess, I suggest you read the short brochure, "What does God Require"?

Just for fun I thought I would throw this in here. I already know the knee jerk arguments that will be posted. Erasmus, 14th century, the challenge, etc., etc. and a partridge in a pear tree. Bintheredunthatgotthetshirtdontfit. The verse that teaches the Trinity in context.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

My challenge is for a bible writer to teach the Trinity in context. Erasmus was not a bible writer. This illustrates another problem with the Trinity. All the proof-texts are either 1) spurious 2) ambiguous or 3) have textual problems.

However, even if I grant you this spurious verse as a hypothetical, it does not teach the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals are KJV-only, and they don't believe it teaches the Trinity.

The text says the three are hEN, or "one" not hEIS as in one God or MIA as in one OUSIA.

I can see why Trinitarians added this to the bible though. It was because they saw the need for the three of their Trinity to be mentioned together in unity.

This corruption is proof that they could not find it legitimately.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Tsmith

June 26th 2003, 01:51 PM

Today @ 10:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132975#post132975)
Dee Dee Warren:

I cannot tell you that, but I can tell you where God talks about how he feels about false prophets, and that would include organizatoins that claim to be God's only mouthpiece and have a sorry track record of prophecy, and for special itnerest to me, of the long-distorted "Armegeddon."

Of course since the WT has never made an actual prophecy, we have nothing to worry about. Be VERY careful what you say in reply to this, because this is an area where you'll very easily be able to put your foot in your mouth.

-Tony

Dee Dee Warren

June 26th 2003, 01:55 PM

I will indeed make mention of this when I have time to play.... which I don't right now. To see your redefinitions and reworking of history will be very interesting. But don't let me stop you, we have a forum here calld Comparative Religion (since going further on this would really not be Christology) - I am sure if you make your claim there that the WTBS never made a false prophecy (sigh), there would be someone interested. Maybe not.

Bill the Cat

June 26th 2003, 02:28 PM

06-24-2003 @ 05:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131760#post131760)
Cal_Minian:

Cal:
Dear Bill,
The bible teaches that the Father is the one God of Christian monotheism (1Co 8:6). Jesus is never called the one God which is where the word monotheism originates.

Bill:
Must I really quote the verses for the divinity of Christ? Or those where Christ is said to do something that Jehovah in the OT is said to do? Really?

Cal:
I believe Jesus is divine. He is called qeos a few times in the NT. That does not mean he is the Almighty God or part of a Trinity. No bible writer teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, in context. No bible writer teaches that three persons are one God, in context. The Trinity stands alone.

So what would you call Jesus, the two God? This isn't basketball. :rofl: You admit that Jesus is called God, and you admit there is only one God. How do you reconcile these statements?

Bill:
The writers understood Jesus to be the very God of the OT because they understood the Scriptures.

Cal:
You are making arguments from silence? They understood it but never taught that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are equal in substance, power and eternity as the one God of Christian monotheism?

For the Jewish philosopher Philo, as for many philosophers of the time, God's Word or Logos bridged the gap between God and creation. In fact, Philo describes the Word as "neither created nor uncreated." This may sound like gibberish to us today, but for Philo, and probably for many others in his time, it made sense in terms of their worldview. The Word was part of God, since it existed within him before it came forth, and yet it was distinct from God and could come into contact with the material world. The Word bridged the gap between the transcendent God and the creation.

Paul taught that the Father was the one God of Christian monotheism. Why is Jesus not also called the one God?

With these things in mind, we may now turn to St. John's Gospel, to compare it with the writings of some of his Jewish contemporaries. The best place to begin is usually at the beginning, and so in turning to John we may look first of all at the prologue, the hymn-like passage found in John 1:1-18. The opening line, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," is obviously of crucial importance for answering the question which we are examining, namely the question: was the author of St. John's Gospel a monotheist, and is his portrait of Christ monotheistic? What is immediately striking, when we read the prologue of the Gospel of John, is the paradox which John asserts: he says both that the Word was with God and that the Word was God. This paradox is comparable to what Philo asserts concerning the Word: "neither created nor uncreated". This understanding of the Word is crucial to the role which the Word fulfils, as the one through whom the creation of all things takes place. God's transcendence was so emphasized in Hellenistic thought that it was felt to be inappropriate to suggest that God created directly, or came directly into contact with the material world. The idea of the Word thus made it possible both to regard God as creator, and at the same time to maintain his transcendence.
Are Christians Monotheists? The Answer of St. John's Gospel
James F. McGrath

I had said:
“ In addition, harmonizing the Father and the Son into a single God is not a Trinity. It is a binity. ”

Bill:
Yes, but this is where the most problems occur.

Cal:
And yet you do nothing to salvage your unscriptural doctrine. You merely admit that it is a “problem”?

No I assert that this is the POINT that most cults hang on. Have you ever seen a group affirm a binity, but deny the Holy Spirit as co-equal?

I had said:
“ See how far away from the direct and contextual teachings of the apostles in the GNT you have drifted with respect to your doctrine of the Trinity? ”

Bill:
Nope, sure don't. I'll be glad to go quote mining, or proof texting for you if you'd like.

Cal:
That is not what I would like. You responded to my post which devastates the doctrine of the Trinity. No bible writer teaches the doctrine in context yet they do teach in context all essential Christian doctrines.

And I disagree. I believe they teach it in context, just not one specific verse.

A second passage of key importance for understanding the Fourth Gospel's portrait of Jesus, and the way St. John understood the relationship between Jesus and God, is chapter 5 of the Gospel. There Jesus is depicted as healing a paralyzed man on the Sabbath. The Jewish authorities object to this, and Jesus is presented as justifying his action by saying: "My Father is always at work even until this very day, and I too am working" (John 5:17). To understand this response, we need to know that Jewish tradition claimed that God continued to work even on the Sabbath, since it was clear that even on Saturdays someone was busy upholding the universe. This was explained in various ways by Philo and by the later rabbis, but it is clear that already in the first century it was thought that God worked on the Sabbath, and that this was a prerogative of God alone. For Jesus to claim to do what God alone does was for this reason understood as a claim to be 'equal to God.'
Are Christians Monotheists? The Answer of St. John's Gospel

Why does the Trinity stand alone? You have not tried to answer that. It seems you are in denial.

Kind Regards,
Cal

I have never denied anything. I have given my thoughts in toto on the subject. I don't think it's absolutely essential to fully comprehend the trin to be saved.

Tsmith

June 26th 2003, 03:19 PM

Today @ 06:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133290#post133290)
Dee Dee Warren:

I will indeed make mention of this when I have time to play.... which I don't right now. To see your redefinitions and reworking of history will be very interesting. But don't let me stop you, we have a forum here calld Comparative Religion (since going further on this would really not be Christology) - I am sure if you make your claim there that the WTBS never made a false prophecy (sigh), there would be someone interested. Maybe not.

See, the great thing is I don't have to rework history. Having access to the old publications, I simply show what they actually say rather than rip little snippets out of context to try and show a date was prophecied rather than arrive at through chonology, as it really was.

-Tony

Dee Dee Warren

June 26th 2003, 04:16 PM

I have access to a great deal of the old publications as well, such access is not difficult to obtain.

OldShepherd

June 26th 2003, 07:37 PM

Today @ 01:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133194#post133194)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
You are combining two doctrines. That the 'one body' of Christ is taught in the bible in multiple places is undeniable. We merely disagree on the details.

As I wrote in the first post of this thread, Baptism is something Christians consider an essential teaching even though we disagree on the details.

Disfellowshipping or shunning is also taught in context by bible writers. It is also not limited to Jehovah's Witnesses.

As for doctrine, each denomination has the right to define their own essential doctrines. Even this forum has defined their own doctrines. If you want to know what the essential doctrines are for Jehovah's Witnessess, I suggest you read the short brochure, "What does God Require"?

My challenge is for a bible writer to teach the Trinity in context. Erasmus was not a bible writer. This illustrates another problem with the Trinity. All the proof-texts are either 1) spurious 2) ambiguous or 3) have textual problems.

However, even if I grant you this spurious verse as a hypothetical, it does not teach the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals are KJV-only, and they don't believe it teaches the Trinity.

The text says the three are hEN, or "one" not hEIS as in one God or MIA as in one OUSIA.

I can see why Trinitarians added this to the bible though. It was because they saw the need for the three of their Trinity to be mentioned together in unity.

This corruption is proof that they could not find it legitimately.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Well for starters what we have here is a humonguous begging of the question, "spurious, added to the Bible, corruption, ambiguous, textual problems" and a partridge in a pear tree.

Trinitarians HAD a verse where Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned together in unison, with equal authority, so there was no need to add anything.

My reference to Erasmus was not that he wrote anything but that a common myth about Erasmus and the Johannine comma is resurrected, by anti-trinitarians, virtually every time 1 John 5:7 is mentioned. The myth has also been applied to Tyndale.

Oneness Pentecostals are also outside the pale of traditional evangelical Christianity. And OBTW I am NOT KJV only. I just happen to think that King Jimmy got some things right.

"Disfellowshipping or shunning is also taught in context by bible writers." Where?

"That the 'one body' of Christ is taught in the bible in multiple places is undeniable. We merely disagree on the details." Much more than a few details. Your one allusion merely refers to different talents, within the body, AND says nothing about the authority.

OldShepherd

June 26th 2003, 07:43 PM

Today @ 05:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133376#post133376)
Tsmith:

See, the great thing is I don't have to rework history. Having access to the old publications, I simply show what they actually say rather than rip little snippets out of context to try and show a date was prophecied rather than arrive at through chonology, as it really was.

-Tony

"try and show a date was prophecied rather than arrive at through chonology, as it really was." Talking around and around in circles. A date was arrived at though chronology and before that date events were enumerated which would supposedly occur on that date, yet in the future, but whatever we do we must never, ever refer to that process as prophecy!

Dee Dee Warren

June 26th 2003, 08:06 PM

Orwell would be proud.

Cal_Minian

June 26th 2003, 09:07 PM

Today @ 04:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133558#post133558)
OldShepherd:

Well for starters what we have here is a humonguous begging of the question, "spurious, added to the Bible, corruption, ambiguous, textual problems" and a partridge in a pear tree.

Trinitarians HAD a verse where Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned together in unison, with equal authority, so there was no need to add anything.

My reference to Erasmus was not that he wrote anything but that a common myth about Erasmus and the Johannine comma is resurrected, by anti-trinitarians, virtually every time 1 John 5:7 is mentioned. The myth has also been applied to Tyndale.

Oneness Pentecostals are also outside the pale of traditional evangelical Christianity. And OBTW I am NOT KJV only. I just happen to think that King Jimmy got some things right.

"Disfellowshipping or shunning is also taught in context by bible writers." Where?

"That the 'one body' of Christ is taught in the bible in multiple places is undeniable. We merely disagree on the details." Much more than a few details. Your one allusion merely refers to different talents, within the body, AND says nothing about the authority.

Dear OldShepherd,
As I said before. Each denomination has the right to define and declare their own essential doctrines. Here is a link to "What does God Require of us"? http://www.watchtower.org/library/rq/index.htm

There are plenty of scriptures.

Kind Regards,
Cal

OldShepherd

June 26th 2003, 09:17 PM

Today @ 11:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133627#post133627)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
As I said before. Each denomination has the right to define and declare their own essential doctrines. Here is a link to

There are plenty of scriptures.

Kind Regards,
Cal

"As I said before. Each denomination has the right to define and declare their own essential doctrines." (In my best Elvis voice), "Thank ya, thank ya ver' much." Now you having said that, heed your own counsel and do NOT come to a Evangelical Trinitatrian site with your anti-Trinitarian nonsense (dare I say the scriptural "dog puke" here?) Each denomination has the right to define and declare their own essential doctrines. Or does that only apply to certain "misunderstood" denominations?

Next topic, please.

Cal_Minian

June 26th 2003, 09:37 PM

Today @ 06:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133636#post133636)
OldShepherd:

"As I said before. Each denomination has the right to define and declare their own essential doctrines." (In my best Elvis voice), "Thank ya, thank ya ver' much." Now you having said that, heed your own counsel and do NOT come to a Evangelical Trinitatrian site with your anti-Trinitarian nonsense (dare I say the scriptural "dog puke" here?) Each denomination has the right to define and declare their own essential doctrines. Or does that only apply to certain "misunderstood" denominations?

Next topic, please.

OldShepherd,
O, but the doctrine of the Trinity is not only called a doctrine by evangelicals but it is also held to be the most important essential doctrine they have!

If you want to challenge an essential doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses, you need to find something that we call a doctrine, first!

As for new topics, I have posted a bit on Jason BeDuhn's book TRUTH IN TRANSLATION.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Ron Macy

June 26th 2003, 10:07 PM

OldShepherd,

You are running aimlessly and beating the air. (1 Corinthians 9:26) It is apparent you are making up excuses instead of thinking through your words. I can understand your desire to substantiate your beliefs. It is what God wants you to do, but you need to give more consideration to your words.

You said,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Paul was telling the Philippians who were all equal in God's sight to "esteem other better than themselves.." If they were not equal then this makes no sense. If Jesus was NOT equal with God this makes no sense. Jesus humbled Himself from something to something. What are those somethings listed in Philippians 2:1-11?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I don’t believe the equality of the Philippian believers is the foundation of this text. In fact there are a couple problems with your presentation.

1. A quick search of the scripture turned up a number of references which tell us to humble ourselves before God (1 Peter 5:6; Exodus 10:3; 2 Chronicles 33:12; and Ezra 8:21 to name a few). Your logic tells us humbling ourselves before God would be meaningless unless we were equal to God. I think you can see the problem in this case.

2. To require Jesus to be equal to God before His humility also requires Jesus to be a being distinct from God. In your presentation one believer being equal to another believer is the foundation for your argument. For one to be equal to another, there must be two. Had Paul written, “not regard equality with the Father a thing to be grasped,” you might have a foundation for argument from a trinitarian standpoint. Paul didn’t say that. Paul clearly wrote of a distinction between Jesus and God based on this equality logic.

You may want to say God in this passage must be limited to the Father because of what Paul has written. If so, you are attempting to use this passage to prove the pre-existence of Jesus and in conjunction with that, the trinity, therefore you can’t assume trinity in interpreting the passage. It is similar to the old English teacher saying one can’t define a word with the word. i.e. biographical means biographical.

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Where does any Biblical writer interpret Adam's sin as trying to be equal with God?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I think you are, again, boxing the wind with this question. What sin is not associated, ultimately, with the sinner usurping the authority of God; trying to be equal with God?

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Do you think that for God the creator of the heaven and earth to temporarily lay aside His omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc, and become a helpless baby was NOT humility?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I think “for God the creator of heaven and earth to temporarily lay aside His omipotence,…” is entirely impossible. God can’t become something which is contrary to His nature. If God, even temporarily, laid aside these characteristics, He would cease to be God. I believe the whole idea is patently absurd.

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Even if you substitute "divine being" or "a god" for God, as some heretical groups do, was it or was it not a complete act of humility for Jesus to lay aside the glory that He had, with the father, before the world began (John 17:5) and become a wet and dirty diapered helpless infant dependent on others for His every need?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

For your information, I don’t substitute “divine being” or “a god” for God in John 1:1c. I do substitute “plan” for “word” in those first 14 verses. I see no reason to assume “word” is or has personality until verse 14, therefore to call an inanimate concept a “divine being” or “a god” is not appropriate. I believe theos, as used in 1c, is descriptive and not intended to identify “word” as God.

As for the glory Jesus had “before the world began,” I picture it as the gleam in your father’s eye before your conception. Many fathers dream big dreams for their children. They see the “SoAndSo and Sons” sign over their businesses. They envision the glory of their activities even before the children are born. I believe that is the glory Jesus had with God before the beginning of the world. Now, I anticipate a certain amount of scoffing at this thought. Frankly, I find it much more acceptable than God laying aside who and what He is in order to to become a baby. It doesn’t require as much of a stretch of the imagination.

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Then you have NOT read the New Testament. Of course we must also ignore everything that was written by the church in its first three hundred years of existence.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Help me to understand why my reaching a different conclusion as to the meaning of the scriptures is an indication of having not read the scriptures. You can’t be so egotistical as to believe your position is the only possible understanding of the scripture.

As for all the writers for the first three hundred years of the church, you should be aware there is no consistency among those writers about the nature of Christ nor of the Holy Spirit. Origen pointed to the lack of the article in John 1:1c as proof Jesus was subordinate to God. He saw Jesus and God as distinct, separate, beings. Gregory of Nazianzus (329-374) observed the lack of consistency among his contemporaries about what the Holy Spirit was. He recognized some believed the Holy Spirit was a person and others believed it was an Activity and all were true believers. Therefore, for you to contend the trinity was the accepted teaching of the church in those first three hundred years is simply not accurate.

You need to be careful how hard you box the wind. You might end up breaking it.

Ron

OldShepherd

June 26th 2003, 10:26 PM

Today @ 12:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133667#post133667)
Ron Macy:

As for the glory Jesus had “before the world began,” I picture it as the gleam in your father’s eye before your conception. Many fathers dream big dreams for their children. They see the “SoAndSo and Sons” sign over their businesses. They envision the glory of their activities even before the children are born. I believe that is the glory Jesus had with God before the beginning of the world. Now, I anticipate a certain amount of scoffing at this thought. Frankly, I find it much more acceptable than God laying aside who and what He is in order to to become a baby. It doesn’t require as much of a stretch of the imagination.

"I picture it as the gleam in your father’s eye before your conception." Now who is passing wind? What you "picture" is NOT stated in scripture! Was Jesus asking to be returned to his prior status as the gleam in His father's eye or was He asking for a return to something He was fully aware of?
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Tsmith

June 26th 2003, 11:34 PM

Today @ 12:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133562#post133562)
OldShepherd:

"try and show a date was prophecied rather than arrive at through chonology, as it really was." Talking around and around in circles. A date was arrived at though chronology and before that date events were enumerated which would supposedly occur on that date, yet in the future, but whatever we do we must never, ever refer to that process as prophecy!

It is hard to be a modern day prophecy when the date is arrived at from chronology based on scripture and the expected events are arrived at from a scriptural prophecy.

-Tony

The Thadman

June 27th 2003, 03:05 AM

06-23-2003 @ 02:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130525#post130525)
OldShepherd:

Something else interesting about Jesus saying these words. In English this Psalm continues, "why are you so far from helping me." The Hebrew word translated "helping me" is ישועה/Yeshuah which is pronounced exactly like ישוע/Yeshua', Jesus' name in Aramaic/Hebrew. The disciples and everyone present would have made the connection, "My God, My God, why are you so far from Yeshua."

Hey Shep! Nice to see you over here :-)

The thing is that the word used in the Psalm -comes- from the root Yasha`, but is actually: ×ž×™×©×•×¢×ª×™ ("meyshoo`tee").

It doesn't sound very much like Yeshua`.

Shlomo,
(Peace!)

Steve Caruso
(a.k.a. "The Thadman")

Webmaster & Author, AramaicNT.org
(http://www.AramaicNT.org)

Lead Programmer, eBethArke
(http://www.BethMardutho.org/eBethArke/)

Assistant to the Livingston College Dean of First Year Students
Rutgers University, NJ
(http://livingston.Rutgers.edu)

Dee Dee Warren

June 27th 2003, 06:57 AM

Yesterday @ 11:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133712#post133712)
Tsmith:

It is hard to be a modern day prophecy when the date is arrived at from chronology based on scripture and the expected events are arrived at from a scriptural prophecy.

-Tony

Dance Tony Dance!!! :rofl:

Come on! Again I invite you to take this up in the appropriate area of the forum, I am sure you will get a taker.

Dee Dee Warren

June 27th 2003, 07:00 AM

Yesterday @ 09:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133652#post133652)
Cal_Minian:

OldShepherd,
O, but the doctrine of the Trinity is not only called a doctrine by evangelicals but it is also held to be the most important essential doctrine they have!

If you want to challenge an essential doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses, you need to find something that we call a doctrine, first!

As for new topics, I have posted a bit on Jason BeDuhn's book TRUTH IN TRANSLATION.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Oh goody, another semantical quibble. A doctrine is a doctrine. You can call it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for all I care. When is Armegeddon again?
:dunce:

Bill the Cat

June 27th 2003, 07:19 AM

Cal, I'd love a response to my post if you have time:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=133323#post133323

Tsmith

June 27th 2003, 08:08 AM

Today @ 11:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133911#post133911)
Dee Dee Warren:

Dance Tony Dance!!! :rofl:

Come on! Again I invite you to take this up in the appropriate area of the forum, I am sure you will get a taker.

Somebody is scared of the facts Dee Dee. It is you.

But why should I post it Dee Dee? It is not like you'd be able to reply. You never reply to my posts that are in response to challanges made to me.

-Tony

Dee Dee Warren

June 27th 2003, 08:12 AM

You could post it because others may be interested in responding. I make no pretense that I can respond to every argument. If it makes you feel better to think it is because I am "scared of the facts" instead of the fact that I have a very active forum to run in which I have to invest at least four hours a day in addition to having a family and full-time job, well who am I to ruin your delusions? Since you are so reluctant to post it where it will not be buried (i.e. in Christology which has a much smaller viewership than the other areas), then I think we can all draw a reasonable conclusion from that.

OldShepherd

June 27th 2003, 08:52 AM

Today @ 05:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133818#post133818)
The Thadman:

Hey Shep! Nice to see you over here :-)

The thing is that the word used in the Psalm -comes- from the root Yasha`, but is actually: ×ž×™×©×•×¢×ª×™ ("meyshoo`tee").

It doesn't sound very much like Yeshua`.

Shlomo,
(Peace!)

Steve Caruso
(a.k.a. "The Thadman")

Hi, glad to see you. I'll have to spend less time here now that there is back up. I assume that you included some Hebrew there but I evidently do not have the proper software, all I see are the upper characters from the top row of keys.

Click the name of the language for how to do them in most forums without downloading special fonts. Greek (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=22627#post22627) and Hebrew (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=28160#post28160)

In my pointed text I show מישועתי, sorry can't do the points, with holem under mem, qamets under ayin, holem under tau. My pronunciation would be meeyshooahti. And since Yeshua was quoting the very obvious messianic psalm, I'm sure that those present would have made some kind of connection.

Cal_Minian

June 27th 2003, 05:26 PM

Today @ 04:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133913#post133913)
Dee Dee Warren:

Oh goody, another semantical quibble. A doctrine is a doctrine. You can call it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for all I care. When is Armegeddon again?
:dunce:

Dear DeeDee,
Did you not say on Paltalk that you were preterist? Can you tell me when Armageddon happened?

My answer to your question is that no man knows the day or the hour.

Regards,
Cal

Cal_Minian

June 27th 2003, 05:31 PM

Today @ 04:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133927#post133927)
Bill the Cat:

Cal, I'd love a response to my post if you have time:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=133323#post133323

Dear Bill,
You used a derogatory word to describe those who do not agree with your beliefs in that post. If you apologize and remove it from your post I may go back and consider responding to part of it. If you do not, I am afraid that I will not be reading or responding to any of your posts.

Kind Regards,
Cal

The Thadman

June 27th 2003, 10:01 PM

Today @ 08:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133975#post133975)
OldShepherd:

(1) Hi, glad to see you. I'll have to spend less time here now that there is back up. I assume that you included some Hebrew there but I evidently do not have the proper software, all I see are the upper characters from the top row of keys.

Click the name of the language for how to do them in most forums without downloading special fonts. Greek (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=22627#post22627) and Hebrew (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=28160#post28160)

(2) In my pointed text I show &#1502;&#1497;&#1513;&#1493;&#1506;&#1514;&#1497;, sorry can't do the points, with holem under mem, qamets under ayin, holem under tau. My pronunciation would be meeyshooahti. And since Yeshua was quoting the very obvious messianic psalm, I'm sure that those present would have made some kind of connection.

(1) All you need to do is set the page encoding to Unicode, and it should be fine (I didn't use the HTML escape characters &#XXXX; just raw Unicode). :-)

(2) Well, the roots are the same. It's an interesting link, but I'm not 100% sure about it. Jesus was a poet, and the verb that he used: Ü«Ü’Ü© (shvaq : allow, forgive, let, leave behind) has such a large and wide range of meanings, but is not a direct cognate of the Hebrew verb ×¢×–×‘ (`azab : forsake, leave, abandon). This would make an interesting study :-)

Shlomo',

--
Steve Caruso
(a.k.a. "The Thadman")

Webmaster & Author, AramaicNT.org
(http://www.AramaicNT.org)

Lead Programmer, eBethArke
(http://www.BethMardutho.org/eBethArke/)

Assistant to the Livingston College Dean of First Year Students
Rutgers University, NJ
(http://livingston.Rutgers.edu)

OldShepherd

June 27th 2003, 11:28 PM

Today @ 12:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134720#post134720)
The Thadman:

(1) All you need to do is set the page encoding to Unicode, and it should be fine (I didn't use the HTML escape characters &amp;#XXXX; just raw Unicode). :-)

(2) Well, the roots are the same. It's an interesting link, but I'm not 100% sure about it. Jesus was a poet, and the verb that he used: Ü«Ü’Ü© (shvaq : allow, forgive, let, leave behind) has such a large and wide range of meanings, but is not a direct cognate of the Hebrew verb ×¢×–×‘ (`azab : forsake, leave, abandon). This would make an interesting study :-)

Shlomo',

--
Steve Caruso
(a.k.a. "The Thadman")

Had to dust off my Yates-Owens Hebrew Grammar. Whether is it is the name ישוע or the word "salvation", ישועה when the preposition "from", מן is prefixed the initial yod loses its consonantal force and both would be pronounced "meeshooah", "from yeshua(h)"

Ron Macy

June 27th 2003, 11:38 PM

OldShepherd,

You must be old. You said,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Now who is passing wind?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I got a good laugh out of that. I have to wonder how many missed my comment to you entirely. I am proud of you for catching it. Good response!

You also wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
What you "picture" is NOT stated in scripture! Was Jesus asking to be returned to his prior status as the gleam in His father's eye or was He asking for a return to something He was fully aware of?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

That is a matter of interpretation. How do you know Jesus wasn’t refering to the gleam in His Father’s eye when He made that statement? You don’t. Still, it is an argument from silence. It is a possible interpretation and as I said earlier it takes far less imagination to accept that concept than it does to believe God could lay aside the qualities that make Him God to be born a baby.

You have no where in nature where multiple personality beings exist, yet you insist that is real.

You have no where in scripture where multiple personality beings are described, yet you insist that is real.

You have no where in scripture where God is described as a being with multiple personalities, yet you insist that is real.

You have no place from which you can accuse others of believing something which is not in the Bible.

I noticed you made no mention of your argument of the equality for Jesus and God in Philippians 2. Does your silence mean you admit your argument was invalid?

Does your silence about the early church writers indicate you admit you were wrong in your contention they presented a united front when it comes to the trinity?

Ron

OldShepherd

June 28th 2003, 12:24 AM

Today @ 01:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134779#post134779)
Ron Macy:

That is a matter of interpretation. How do you know Jesus wasn’t refering to the gleam in His Father’s eye when He made that statement? You don’t. Still, it is an argument from silence. It is a possible interpretation and as I said earlier it takes far less imagination to accept that concept than it does to believe God could lay aside the qualities that make Him God to be born a baby.

You danced around my question. Was Jesus who had not been born yet, who, according to you, was only a gleam in the Father's eye, aware of the glory, NOT gleam in an eye, He had with God? How can a gleam in God's eye be aware of anything? Were you aware of being a gleam in your father's eye before you were born?

"it takes far less imagination to accept that concept than it does to believe God could lay aside the qualities that make Him God to be born a baby." I infer from this statement that your god is NOT capable of doing something, is that correct? Is your god NOT omnipotent?

You have no where in nature where multiple personality beings exist, yet you insist that is real.

Very common disorder, MPD, often called split personality. Separate functioning personalities in one person. What can happen by chance in humans, can be a reality within God. Isa 55:12, "My thoughts are higher than your thoughts, my ways are higher than your ways."

You have no where in scripture where multiple personality beings are described, yet you insist that is real.

Ongoing discussions on this forum, Find one and join in. Lots of hypocricy here. You reject things I have written about because you claim they are not in the Bible, then you use that for an excuse to make up your own interpretation which is NOT even hinted at in the Bible. At least I can cite scripture which speaks of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit as being one, and one which assigns the same authority to Father, Son,and Holy Spirit.

You have no where in scripture where God is described as a being with multiple personalities, yet you insist that is real.

See previous response.

You have no place from which you can accuse others of believing something which is not in the Bible.

Pot-kettle, kettle-pot.

I noticed you made no mention of your argument of the equality for Jesus and God in Philippians 2. Does your silence mean you admit your argument was invalid?

Find the thread that discusses Philippians 2, join in, and address specific point in the appropriate thread. And OBTW I have stated, for the record, that in some sense Jesus and the Father were equal.

Does your silence about the early church writers indicate you admit you were wrong in your contention they presented a united front when it comes to the trinity?

My silence proves only silence. If you want to address the writings of specific ECF and PROVE your arguments please feel free to do the research and post it. I have done considerable research and posted my findings, with links, to the writings of the ECF, on the appropriate threads. Would you care to address any of those?

Mainly my silence indicates that I do not have the time or the inclination to collate everything I have ever posted on these matters and repost them on this thread, which would also be a violation of the rules. Want to discuss something with me, find the appropriate thread and discuss, one issue at a time.

wdwwilder

June 28th 2003, 04:23 AM

The Bible is not a book of systematic theology. it presents the truth of God in a history of God's dealings with Mankind. The word trinity is not in the bible but the Bible presents God as a superpersonal being which can be related to in the person of Jesus (the WORD), His father and the Holy Ghost, God's spirit(breath). Jesus is worshiped openly in scripture and yet no one but God is to be worshiped. the father is worshiped, the Holy spirit is called God's spirit and the mind of Christ and his spirit and is refered to in personal terms. Even the Great jewish declaration that" God is one" says Elohim (plural God) are one. I think the bible teachs this truth clearly but the word trinity and theo mumbo jumbo stands in the way

Ron Macy

June 28th 2003, 08:40 AM

OldShepherd,

You wrote,
Very common disorder, MPD, often called split personality. Separate functioning personalities in one person. What can happen by chance in humans, can be a reality within God. Isa 55:12, "My thoughts are higher than your thoughts, my ways are higher than your ways."

I don't believe you are thinking through this very well, again.

By you own words, this situation is called a "disorder." Which means it is not normal nor natural for humans to have multiple personalities. For beings created in the image of God and believing God is multi-personal, I would have to believe such occurances would be the norm and not the "disorder."

You wrote,
You danced around my question. Was Jesus who had not been born yet, who, according to you, was only a gleam in the Father's eye, aware of the glory, NOT gleam in an eye, He had with God? How can a gleam in God's eye be aware of anything? Were you aware of being a gleam in your father's eye before you were born?

My answer is, when Jesus spoke in John 17:5 He was aware of the glory He had in His Father's eyes before the world began. It doesn't prove Jesus existed as a person before the world began.

You wrote,
"it takes far less imagination to accept that concept than it does to believe God could lay aside the qualities that make Him God to be born a baby." I infer from this statement that your god is NOT capable of doing something, is that correct? Is your god NOT omnipotent?

Yes, my God is not capable of creating a rock so big He can't lift it.

Nor is He capable of laying aside parts of His nature. The very act of laying aside parts of His nature would cause Him to change. The scripture does say that God does not change.

You wrote,
You reject things I have written about because you claim they are not in the Bible, then you use that for an excuse to make up your own interpretation which is NOT even hinted at in the Bible.

When I gave you my opinion of what I thought the Bible taught, I very carefully told you it was my opinion and not a doctrine which must be believed in order to receive eternal life from God. As an opinion, it does not require you to accept it or believe it. You have given your opinion and demand its acceptance by all those who do not want to be labelled, cults.

You do not have direct descriptions of God existing in three persons in the scripture or the doctrine would not have taken 400 years to be solidified. You have only passages which, if considered a certain way, may suggest a trinity. Those very same passages considered from a different perspective can lead to a very different understanding of the nature of God.

Without a single scriptural statement that multi-personal beings exist, how can anyone conclude the Bible teaches their existence? I submit it is impossible.

Ron

Bill the Cat

June 29th 2003, 07:31 PM

06-27-2003 @ 05:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134574#post134574)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Bill,
You used a derogatory word to describe those who do not agree with your beliefs in that post. If you apologize and remove it from your post I may go back and consider responding to part of it. If you do not, I am afraid that I will not be reading or responding to any of your posts.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Not sure what derogatory term you are referring to, perhaps the word cult (which I did not mean to apply to you as I have no idea what group you affiliate yourself with) If that word offended you, then I beg humblest forgiveness. I was actually referring this term to those like the Aryans of the 4th Century (?) and the Montanists of the 2nd and 3rd. These heretical groups and those like David Koresh and Sun Moon Kim (I think his name is) are the ones I was referring to.

JCA

June 30th 2003, 12:55 PM

I have been trying to put down my own thoughts on how the Bible represents the Trinity, IMHO. It isn't quite orthodox, although to me, it ends up very similar, but with different connotations.

Also note that it is not a complete description, as this is a 'work in progress' site..

The Holy Trinity (http://www.inloveandpeace.com/trinity.htm)
(I don't think I'm breaking any rules posting that, am I? If I am, I can just post the whole page here, as it is my own stuff)

AS I said, it isn't quite orthodox, but it makes the most sense to me, and is what I garner from the Bible.

May God forgive me if I'm wrong :smile:

In Love and Peace

JCA

o2bwise

July 1st 2003, 09:16 AM

No biggie, but the multiple personality disorder observation is extremely weak, in my opinion. First, it is a disorder. Second, no more than one personality is conscious at any one time. Third (and related to the first), the individual personalities are considered fragments of ONE personality where healing involves an INTEGRATION of all personalities.

o2bwise

July 1st 2003, 04:15 PM

Hello Old Shepherd,

Psalm 48:7
As when you break the ships of Tarshish with an east wind. ”

The east wind was the strong wind, the one most feared, and ancient ships were very small, storms at sea easily destroyed them.

Psalm 48:1-7
1 A Song. A Psalm of the sons of Korah. Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised In the city of our God, In His holy mountain. 2 Beautiful in elevation, The joy of the whole earth, Is Mount Zion on the sides of the north, The city of the great King. 3 God is in her palaces; He is known as her refuge. 4 For behold, the kings assembled, They passed by together. 5 They saw it, and so they marveled; They were troubled, they hastened away. 6 Fear took hold of them there, And pain, as of a woman in birth pangs, 7 As when You break the ships of Tarshish With an east wind.

The psalm is referring to the faithful after they have had the experience typified by Mount Zion, which is holiness.

Others, called "the kings," see this picture and are troubled. It hurts to see holiness. As an example:

Romans 12:20
20 Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."

The presence of Christ IN His believers is painful for the kings to behold. Now, why is this as the ships of Tarshish? Because Tarshish is where Jonah ran to WHEN he tried to run FROM God. As Christ comes from the east to the west, the east wind represents that revelation of holiness.

It "breaks" their attempt to flee from such a presence of holiness. They can't escape (flee to Tarshish) that revelation.

That's what it means. No Greek. No Hebrew. Just comparing spiritual with spiritual.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

AVmetro

July 1st 2003, 05:46 PM

My answer is, when Jesus spoke in John 17:5 He was aware of the glory He had in His Father's eyes before the world began. It doesn't prove Jesus existed as a person before the world began.

Are you a Unitarian in the vein of 'christadelphianism'? That is, do you believe that Christ did not preexistence prior to His birth in Bethlehem? I had it in mind that you were a JW. The above seems to go against that but I may be wrong. Thanks.

God bless

AVmetro

July 1st 2003, 05:49 PM

The Holy Trinity
(I don't think I'm breaking any rules posting that, am I? If I am, I can just post the whole page here, as it is my own stuff)

No. You're simply linking to the information to provide further insight into your view. Had you been arguing by link in order to cheat your way out of the 24K limit, then it would have been against the rules :smile:.

God bless

OldShepherd

July 1st 2003, 09:16 PM

Today @ 06:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136950#post136950)
o2bwise:

Hello Old Shepherd,

Psalm 48:7
As when you break the ships of Tarshish with an east wind. ”

Psalm 48:1-7
1 A Song. A Psalm of the sons of Korah. Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised In the city of our God, In His holy mountain. 2 Beautiful in elevation, The joy of the whole earth, Is Mount Zion on the sides of the north, The city of the great King. 3 God is in her palaces; He is known as her refuge. 4 For behold, the kings assembled, They passed by together. 5 They saw it, and so they marveled; They were troubled, they hastened away. 6 Fear took hold of them there, And pain, as of a woman in birth pangs, 7 As when You break the ships of Tarshish With an east wind.

You asked me what the one verse meant, I told you. You did not ask for an exegesis of the entire Psalm.

Virtually everything that follows is eisegesis, reading into the scripture what you "think" it means.

The psalm is referring to the faithful after they have had the experience typified by Mount Zion, which is holiness.

No, this Psalm was directed to the Jews of David's own day. While all scripture is profitable, the immediate context must be seriously considered, not ignored as you have.

Note, the specific identification, "midst of the temple", "mount Zion", "daughters of Judah," and "towers of Zion." Does this Psalm have some guidance for modern day Christians, without a doubt. Are the circumstances of Christians and sinners similar to the events in Psalm 48, you bet. But this Psalm was directed to the people of David's day.
Psalm 48:9 We have thought of thy lovingkindness, O God, in the midst of thy temple.
10 According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness.
11 Let mount Zion rejoice, let the daughters of Judah be glad, because of thy judgments.
12 Walk about Zion, and go round about her: tell the towers thereof.

Others, called "the kings," see this picture and are troubled. It hurts to see holiness. As an example:

Romans 12:20
20 Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."

David was speaking of real kings, however the experiences of sinners may be very similar.

The presence of Christ IN His believers is painful for the kings to behold. Now, why is this as the ships of Tarshish? Because Tarshish is where Jonah ran to WHEN he tried to run FROM God. As Christ comes from the east to the west, the east wind represents that revelation of holiness.

It "breaks" their attempt to flee from such a presence of holiness. They can't escape (flee to Tarshish) that revelation.

See Gill for the interpretation of the ancient Jews.
J. Gills, Exposition of the Whole Bible, Psalm 48
Verse 7. Thou breakest the ships of Tarshish with east wind. This is either another simile, expressing the greatness of the dread and fear that shall now seize the kings of the earth; which will be, as Kimchi [Talmud] observes, as if they were smitten with a strong east wind, which breaks the ships of Tarshish; and to the same purpose is the note of Aben Ezra; [Talmud] who says, the psalmist compares the pain that shall take hold upon them to an east wind in the sea, which breaks the ships; for by Tarshish is meant, not Tartessus in Spain, nor Tarsus in Cilicia, or the port to which the Prophet Jonah went and took shipping; but the sea in general: or else this phrase denotes the manner in which the antichristian kings, and antichristian states, wilt be destroyed; just as ships upon the ocean are dashed to pieces with a strong east wind: or it may design the loss of all their riches and substance brought to them in ships; hence the lamentations of merchants, and sailors, and ship masters,

That's what it means. No Greek. No Hebrew. Just comparing spiritual with spiritual.

No that is NOT what it means! That is the interpretation you have read into it. David was speaking to his own generation, about events happening then or very shortly after.

You're right this particular passage did not require exegeting the original languages but that does NOT mean reviewing the original languages will never aid our understanding. Knowing the exact meaning of a Hebrew or Greek word is also comparing spiritual to spiritual, unless you believe that God did NOT inspire the very words of the scripture.

OldShepherd

July 1st 2003, 09:37 PM

Yesterday @ 11:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136651#post136651)
o2bwise:

No biggie, but the multiple personality disorder observation is extremely weak, in my opinion. First, it is a disorder. Second, no more than one personality is conscious at any one time. Third (and related to the first), the individual personalities are considered fragments of ONE personality where healing involves an INTEGRATION of all personalities.

In some cases one or more personalities are aware of the others. And you neglected to read my comment. I was replying to a comment that it NEVER occurs in nature. I proved that false. If such can occur by chance in humans, can it occur by design in God who said, "My thoughts are higher than your thoughts, and my ways are higher than your ways.?" Any time we say God cannot be, do etc. we have just contradicted God.

And please spare me the inane clap trap about, "Can God create a rock so big that He can't move it." God's nature can be whatever God decides it can be. There are many articles online which prove that the rock argument is a logical fallacy, God's nature being what God wants it to be is not. For example,

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/rock.html

http://www.geocities.com/freedomwarrior5000/rockcreate.htm

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read/r00157.html

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/logos/neweuth.html

http://answers.org/apologetics/omnipotence.html

Note, I use bold to more easily read my own posts. I am not shouting. I also use all CAPS to emphasize certain words.

Ron Macy

July 1st 2003, 10:39 PM

IronMetro,

You asked,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Are you a Unitarian in the vein of 'christadelphianism'? That is, do you believe that Christ did not preexistence prior to His birth in Bethlehem? I had it in mind that you were a JW. The above seems to go against that but I may be wrong. Thanks.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I would be more closely aligned with Christadelphians in the nature of Christ than I would be with Jehovah’s Witnesses. There are other aspects of Christadelphian teaching with which I would not agree.

Ron

Ron Macy

July 1st 2003, 10:42 PM

OldShepherd,

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
And please spare me the inane clap trap about, "Can God create a rock so big that He can't move it." God's nature can be whatever God decides it can be. There are many articles online which prove that the rock argument is a logical fallacy, God's nature being what God wants it to be is not. For example,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

While I probably wouldn’t have used the phrase “clap trap” to describe your statement of my God not being omnipotent, I guess it pretty much describes my reaction to your question. It ranked right up there with the logical fallacy of the rock argument.

I think your statement, “God’s nature being what God wants it to be” seems to lack coherence. I don’t think God’s nature has any thing to do with what God wants it to be. His nature is what it is. For God to give up any part of that nature in some fictional act of humility still leaves God less than God. God can’t be anything less than omnipotent or He would cease to be God. I believe your whole presentation in this area is a logical fallacy.

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
In some cases one or more personalities are aware of the others. And you neglected to read my comment. I was replying to a comment that it NEVER occurs in nature. I proved that false. If such can occur by chance in humans, can it occur by design in God who said, "My thoughts are higher than your thoughts, and my ways are higher than your ways.?" Any time we say God cannot be, do etc. we have just contradicted God.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I stand by my comments that such occurances of MPD in people is the “disorder” and not the “normal” one would expect if God is multi-personal and we are made in His image. I would also expect you to appeal to the demon possessed man who had multiple personalities in him as proof of your position. Frankly, I would be more inclined to see those with MPD as demon possessed than having by accident what you claim God has by nature.

As for your “My thoughts…your thoughts” comment, it appears you are assuming to know God’s thoughts. That argument can be used just as well from my perspective to substantiate my position about Jesus receiving glory only in the mind of God before the world began without existing personally. Since God’s thoughts are beyond man’s thoughts, for either of us to presume we can understand them is more than a little presumptious.

Ron

OldShepherd

July 1st 2003, 10:52 PM

Notice in this brief quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia, in the Targums, the Aramaic translations of the Bible during the Babylonian captivity, the Aramaic word, “memra”, i.e. “Word” was substituted for YHWH. This quote has over 100 citations where that was done. Before and during the time of John, Jews believed that The "Memra", i.e. "The Word", was God. John wasn’t saying anything new.
-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it."; "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God", but "the Memra", is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra" instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul", "My Memra" shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God" is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand", but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Mediatorship.

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). "My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen"; "the Memra will roar to gather the exiled" (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra the redemption will be found" (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). "The holy Word" was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&amp;letter=M

Where did the concept of a Trinity originate? Answer, ancient pre-Christian Judaism. Let us refer to the Jewish Encyclopedia (JE) again.

But the scoffers scoff, “The Jews reject the Trinity!” Not a good argument, at all, they also reject Jesus and say that the issue, i.e. the child, of a gentile, is as that of a beast, and an ass, in the same JE.
In the Zohar.

The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity, since by its [Note, the Zohar. OS] speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism. Such terms as &quot;ma?ronita,&quot; &quot;body,&quot; &quot;spirit,&quot; occur frequently (e.q., &quot;Tazria',&quot; ed. Polna, iii. 43b); so that Christians and converts like Knorr von Rosenroth, Reuchlin, and Rittangel found in the Zohar a confirmation of Christianity and especially of the dogma of the Trinity (Jellinek, &quot;Die Kabbala,&quot; p. 250, Leipsic, 1844 [trans]. of Franck's &quot;La Kabbale,&quot; Paris, 1843]). Reuchlin sought on the basis of the Cabala the words &quot;Father, Son, and Holy Ghost&quot; in the second word of the Pentateuch, as well as in Ps. cxviii. 22 (ib. p. 10), while Johann Kemper, a convert, left in manuscript a work entitled &quot;Ma??eh Mosheh,&quot; which treats in its third section of the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity (Zettersteen, &quot;Verzeichniss der Hebraischen und Aramaischen Handschriften zu Upsala,&quot; p. 16, Lund, 1900). The study of the Cabala led the Frankists to adopt Christianity; but the Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheism. See Christianity in Its Relation to Judaism; Polemics.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=338&amp;letter=T

Note, I use bold to more easily read my own posts. I am not shouting. I also use all CAPS to emphasize certain words.

OldShepherd

July 1st 2003, 11:27 PM

Today @ 12:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137233#post137233)
Ron Macy:

While I probably wouldn’t have used the phrase “clap trap” to describe your statement of my God not being omnipotent, I guess it pretty much describes my reaction to your question. It ranked right up there with the logical fallacy of the rock argument.

I think that post was in response to O2, but if the shoe fits. . .

I think your statement, “God’s nature being what God wants it to be” seems to lack coherence. I don’t think God’s nature has any thing to do with what God wants it to be. His nature is what it is. For God to give up any part of that nature in some fictional act of humility still leaves God less than God. God can’t be anything less than omnipotent or He would cease to be God. I believe your whole presentation in this area is a logical fallacy.

I have highlighted some words in your response. "I think", "seems to", "I don't think", and "I believe." I would prefer "evidence", "substantiation", "documentation", etc., rather than your guesses, suppositions, and inferences.

"For God to give up any part of that nature in some fictional act of humility still leaves God less than God." Again rather than your suppositions, assumptions, etc. You assume that the humility is fictional. I would rather rely on the words of the early church, many of whom were taught by the apostles, e.g. Polycarp and Ignatius, disciples of John, and Ireanaeus, a student of Polycarp. As opposed to a false belief that has only been around for about 100 years or so.

I stand by my comments that such occurances of MPD in people is the “disorder” and not the “normal” one would expect if God is multi-personal and we are made in His image. I would also expect you to appeal to the demon possessed man who had multiple personalities in him as proof of your position. Frankly, I would be more inclined to see those with MPD as demon possessed than having by accident what you claim God has by nature.

It is normal for God to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., it is not normal for ordinary human beings. But I have observed on occasion for a normal person to "know" something before it happened. What was normal for God, but not for humans, happened by chance in a person.

As for your “My thoughts…your thoughts” comment, it appears you are assuming to know God’s thoughts. That argument can be used just as well from my perspective to substantiate my position about Jesus receiving glory only in the mind of God before the world began without existing personally. Since God’s thoughts are beyond man’s thoughts, for either of us to presume we can understand them is more than a little presumptious.

False accusation! I assumed no such thing, but you did. You had a "thought" about what God can and cannot do, something which is not a logical fallacy, and you stated, point blank, based on your human reason, that God could not do it.

Once upon a time I went to an Officer's training school. I had been a sergeant upon entering. One of my class mates had been a warrant officer, a helicopter pilot. We both had to lay aside our previous ranks and we were both equal, simply candidates, about two steps lower than dirt. At any point, we chose, we could have quit and resumed our previous status. See any similarities?

Note, I use bold to more easily read my own posts. I am not shouting. I also use all CAPS to emphasize certain words.

o2bwise

July 2nd 2003, 08:54 AM

OS,

And please spare me the inane clap trap about, "Can God create a rock so big that He can't move it."

Why do you "talk" like this?

o2bwise

July 2nd 2003, 09:06 AM

Hi Cal Minion and Tony S,

I have a couple of questions for you two and here I am assuming your positions are very similar.

1) Regarding Christ emptied of "form."
What does this mean to you? Does the meaning include the idea of emptied of divine attributes? As an example, do you see it that the only-begotten, by virtue of inheritance, was once omniscient and via this emptying, no longer had the attribute of omniscience?

My own "sense" is that a lot of time was spent in the Greek, but maybe more could have been spent expounding on what exactly this means. My belief is that the Son of God emptied Himself of all divine attributes and took human attributes, becoming the son of man.

2) If You Are JW's
First off, I thought I read that you guys are JW's (and if so, no offense meant by this).

But, if you are, are you not believers in a position highly contrary to their position? Do not JW's believe Christ was created as some super-being, but not one who was literally born of God and who acquired the very same attributes as God?

Have JW's ever preached that the Son acquired the very same attributes as His Father?

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

o2bwise

July 2nd 2003, 09:08 AM

I think that post was in response to O2, but if the shoe fits. . .

Am I therefore correct in assuming that since you responded to me, the shoe fits me?

OldShepherd

July 2nd 2003, 07:45 PM

Yesterday @ 10:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137430#post137430)
o2bwise:

OS,

And please spare me the inane clap trap about,"Can God create a rock so big that He can't move it."

Why do you "talk" like this?

OK I apologize, let me try this, I have heard the "logical fallacy" arguments before, such as, "Can God create a rock so big that He can't move it." A discussion of God's nature is NOT a logical fallacy, therefore any such argument is irrelevant. And OBTW since you have taken it upon yourself to police this forum perhaps you could say something about posts like this, or is it just my posts you take exception to? That last comment means to "break wind", "pass gas", "cut the cheese", etc.

06-27-2003 @ 12:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133667#post133667)

Ron Macy:
You are running aimlessly and beating the air. . . making up excuses . . . boxing the wind with this question. . . You need to be careful how hard you box the wind. You might end up breaking it.

OldShepherd

July 2nd 2003, 07:52 PM

Yesterday @ 11:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137440#post137440)
o2bwise:

I think that post was in response to O2, but if the shoe fits. . .

Am I therefore correct in assuming that since you responded to me, the shoe fits me?

Well gee, that seems to be in the form of a question, see the word, "IF," and the comment was about making references to irrelevant "logical fallacy" arguments, which I asked that you not do, see the word "Please" in my response. See previous post.

o2bwise

July 3rd 2003, 08:47 AM

Old Shepherd,

No, I am not taking it upon myself to police this forum and I am taking Dee Dee's advice.

But, I will take exception and explain. First off, I do not have the time to read often. I miss many posts (such as Ron Macy's and a set of posts Dee Dee referred me to that are in a topic I have never bothered to read).

I will say this. From a purely statistical standpoint, never in my life have I seen such frequent and singular concentration of sarcasm and just plain ill-spirit in a full breadth of posts like I have seen in yours. NEVER! Not in years of forums, including a couple that are entirely secular.

You stand alone. You tower above all others. That is my perception.

Tony (o2)

OldShepherd

July 3rd 2003, 09:01 AM

Today @ 10:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138540#post138540)
o2bwise:

Old Shepherd,

No, I am not taking it upon myself to police this forum and I am taking Dee Dee's advice.

But, I will take exception and explain. First off, I do not have the time to read often. I miss many posts (such as Ron Macy's and a set of posts Dee Dee referred me to that are in a topic I have never bothered to read).

I will say this. From a purely statistical standpoint, never in my life have I seen such frequent and singular concentration of sarcasm and just plain ill-spirit in a full breadth of posts like I have seen in yours. NEVER! Not in years of forums, including a couple that are entirely secular.

You stand alone. You tower above all others. That is my perception.

Tony (o2)

Then why don't you stay out of my way and I will stay out of yours, since you seem to have this problem with only me and you never seem to see it by anyone else. There is one person who has posted here, a certain mail carrier from Down Under who has me beat sideways and three ways from Sunday, But that's OK you probably missed all of his posts too.

o2bwise

July 3rd 2003, 10:18 AM

Old Shepherd,

You asked a question:

And OBTW since you have taken it upon yourself to police this forum perhaps you could say something about posts like this, or is it just my posts you take exception to?

And I answered.

I interjected the term statistical. When I went through this topic, virtually every reply seemed to be laced with sarcasm. It's like you can't help it, it oozes right out of you. Even in the above, you would have factually conveyed the same thing WITHOUT the "Oh by the way." Heck, you even chastized me for not posting the Job verse where it reads that Satan enticed God to destroy Job. I was at work and was busy and meant no ill anything at all, but, whatever.

I wouldn't bother complaining about a single "transgression" (for want of a better word). But, when the flavor is epidemic, than yeah, I am inclined to "police," as you put it.

As for staying out of each other's way, I am fine. I am taking Dee Dee's advice. If I am intrigued by a conversation, I will likely reply, even if miffed by your sarcastic ways.

By the way, I observed that your reply to my post addressed to Cal Minion and Tony S (about Christ not being created) had virtually no sarcasm, or any other expressed ill-will, that I could see.

And I very much appreciated that.

Tony (o2)

AVmetro

July 3rd 2003, 05:13 PM

I haven't participated on this thread any time recently so I'll pick up on what I can.

I would be more closely aligned with Christadelphians in the nature of Christ than I would be with Jehovah’s Witnesses. There are other aspects of Christadelphian teaching with which I would not agree.

Thanks. As I stated before, I had it mind that you were a JW until the Jn17:5 argument took me by surprise. ;-)

I don’t believe the equality of the Philippian believers is the foundation of this text. In fact there are a couple problems with your presentation.

1. A quick search of the scripture turned up a number of references which tell us to humble ourselves before God (1 Peter 5:6; Exodus 10:3; 2 Chronicles 33:12; and Ezra 8:21 to name a few). Your logic tells us humbling ourselves before God would be meaningless unless we were equal to God. I think you can see the problem in this case.

I don't disagree in regards to 1Pe5:6 et al. However, you've missed OS's point. Again, read the context:

Phi 2:3-6 "..doing nothing according to party spirit or self-glory, but in humility , esteeming one another as surpassing themselves; each not looking at the things of themselves, but each also the things of others. For think this within
you, which mind was also in Christ Jesus, who subsisting in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped.."

The parallel to be made is not ''creature'' to ''God" but rather 'Phillipian' to 'Phillipian' i.e. 'equal' to 'equal'. To draw any other would be to ignore Paul's point. He is asking that each man consider his fellow (i.e. his equal) to be superior to himself. He then directly proceeds to give the example of such between Christ and God.

2. To require Jesus to be equal to God before His humility also requires Jesus to be a being distinct from God. In your presentation one believer being equal to another believer is the
foundation for your argument. For one to be equal to another, there must be two. Had Paul written, “not regard equality with the Father a thing to be grasped,” you might have a foundation
for argument from a trinitarian standpoint. Paul didn’t say that. Paul clearly wrote of a distinction between Jesus and God based on this equality logic.

Why? It doesn't require Him to be a "distinct being" but rather a "distinct person".

The problem you propose would truly only be relevant to 'modalists' i.e. those who hold to the 'Oneness' theology. Trinitarianism teaches multiple 'persons' in one 'being'. The argument is therefore sound.

That is a matter of interpretation. How do you know Jesus wasn’t refering to the gleam in His Father’s eye when He made that statement? You don’t. Still, it is an argument from silence. It is a possible interpretation and as I said earlier it takes far less imagination to accept that concept than it does to believe God could lay aside the qualities that make Him God to be born a baby.

On the simple basis that Christ is asking for something back as opposed to something merely "foreordained". As OS pointed out, Jn17:5 harmonizes perfectly with Phil2:6.

By you own words, this situation is called a "disorder." Which means it is not normal nor natural for humans to have multiple personalities. For beings created in the image of God and believing God is multi-personal, I would have to believe such occurances would be the norm and not the "disorder."

Depends entirely how you define "image of God". This especially poses a problem for those who believe God to be "invisible".

I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out as of yet but as for it being necessary to find such "in nature" for it to be true of YHWH, the fallacy here would be that we also do not find a being that is 'omnipresent' either. God states "..who is like {God}?" In fact, that is what the name "Michael" means. The answer, of course, being "no one".

Nor is He capable of laying aside parts of His nature. The very act of laying aside parts of His nature would cause Him to change. The scripture does say that God does not change.

I do not hold to this interpretation. Rather, that Christ laid aside certain divine perogatives in addition to His divine insignia. In other words, He didn't take advantage of what He had.

Without a single scriptural statement that multi-personal beings exist, how can anyone conclude the Bible teaches their existence? I submit it is impossible.

In regards to the multi-personal nature of God, we come to this conclusion through scriptural harmonization. You can contend this but at least we possess a basis other than our own imagination.

For your information, I don’t substitute “divine being” or “a god” for God in John 1:1c. I do substitute “plan” for “word” in those first 14 verses. I see no reason to assume “word” is or has personality until verse 14, therefore to call an inanimate concept a “divine being” or “a god” is not appropriate. I believe theos, as used in 1c, is descriptive and not intended to identify “word” as God.

So you interpret the 'Word' in John1 as being the "plan of God" rather than the "literal word" of Genesis1 etc.?

God bless

OldShepherd

July 3rd 2003, 09:32 PM

Today @ 12:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138582#post138582)
o2bwise:

I interjected the term statistical. When I went through this topic, virtually every reply seemed to be laced with sarcasm. It's like you can't help it, it oozes right out of you.

Please explain how you went through the topic and missed the "breaking wind" post I referenced?

Even in the above, you would have factually conveyed the same thing WITHOUT the "Oh by the way."

Now THAT is really nitpicking. Do you consider that sarcasm "oozing" out of my post?

Heck, you even chastized me for not posting the Job verse where it reads that Satan enticed God to destroy Job. I was at work and was busy and meant no ill anything at all, but, whatever.

You lost me there. I know it wasn't this thread. Must have been 2-3 weeks ago. But something like that could speak about perception. Someone goes looking for sarcasm, betcha they can find it.

By the way, I observed that your reply to my post addressed to Cal Minion and Tony S (about Christ not being created) had virtually no sarcasm, or any other expressed ill-will, that I could see.

And I very much appreciated that.

Maybe you weren't looking for any?

o2bwise

July 3rd 2003, 10:23 PM

No, Old Shepherd, I didn't see the sarcasm "oozing" out of that OBTW post.

I'm done with this discussion.

May our kind heavenly Father, through His precious Son Jesus Christ abundantly pour blessings upon you, Old Shepherd.

God Bless You and Yours,

Tony

OldShepherd

July 4th 2003, 03:45 AM

Today @ 12:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139112#post139112)
o2bwise:

No, Old Shepherd, I didn't see the sarcasm "oozing" out of that OBTW post.

I'm done with this discussion.

May our kind heavenly Father, through His precious Son Jesus Christ abundantly pour blessings upon you, Old Shepherd.

God Bless You and Yours,

Tony

I am so sorry to hear that you are done with this discussion. If only that were true, But we know you will be back.

May I suggest, in order to save time and not have to be bothered with the context of any of my posts, go to my profile, click on "Search for all posts by this member" and then you can go directly to my posts without being distracted by any of that other irrelevant stuff, you can just concentrate on finding sarcasm in my posts.

Cal_Minian

July 4th 2003, 06:16 PM

OldShepherd

July 5th 2003, 03:54 AM

06-26-2003 @ 05:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132926#post132926)
OldShepherd:

Here is my question again,
If a "witness" denies that the "society", i.e. the WBTS is "God's only [Theocratic] organization on the earth." will he not be "disfellowshipped", another non-Biblical word? That makes it a doctrine which must be believed. Does any N.T. writer teach this doctrine in context?
Where in scripture is it taught that God has a single "Theocratic" (word not in the Bible) organization, which would not come in to existence until about 1880, would be headquartered in Brooklyn N.Y., which must be explicitly obeyed in all matters, which is governed by "superintendents' (word not in the Bible). Members of this "organization" must totally agree with and obey the organization and its "superintendents" and if they do not they will be "disfellowshipped" (word not in the Bible) and current members may not contact members who have been "disfellowshipped," even if they are members of one's own family or they themselves wil be "disfellowshipped."

Where are all points of this doctrine taught "in context" in the scriptures?

zap_30jeanluc

July 5th 2003, 04:37 AM

this got sidetracked into the whole "eternal punishment" thingy, albeit briefly.
Is there a thread where we can see this discussed? I wonder at this..can punishment simply be the grrave as once mentioned...eternal seperation from God thru death? Is that possible? does the whole Gehenna thingy really relate to a garbage dump where bodies were burnt? was that the "lake of fire"?
I would love to see the opinions and thoughts of those more educated than myself.

As far as trinity. Jesus never mentioned it as a necessity for salvation. For something that was potentially as important as many wish to state it is......Jesus was rather lax in his attention to the matter.

I hope you folks enjoyed your July 4rth
:cheers:
Zap

Ron Macy

July 5th 2003, 10:55 AM

OldShepherd,

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I would rather rely on the words of the early church, many of whom were taught by the apostles, e.g. Polycarp and Ignatius, disciples of John, and Ireanaeus, a student of Polycarp. As opposed to a false belief that has only been around for about 100 years or so.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I beg your pardon. The teaching of God existing as only one person pre-dates the trinity by several thousand years. Whom are you trying to kid by saying it is only about 100 years old?

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Where did the concept of a Trinity originate? Answer, ancient pre-Christian Judaism. Let us refer to the Jewish Encyclopedia (JE) again.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

and quoted Zohar and the Cabala.

According the article addressed below, Zohar and his version of the Kabbala, was written some time in the 13th century. Very much more recent than even the trinity. It is not “pre-Christian.”

Part of the article at
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08590a.htm
had this to say.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Of course, the Book of Creation does not go back to Abraham, as has been claimed by many Kabbalists. Its ascription by others to Rabbi Akiba (d. A.D. 120) is also a matter of controversy. With regard to the Zohar, its compilation is justly referred to a Spanish Jew, Moses of Leon (d. 1305), while some of its elements seem to be of a much greater antiquity. Several of its doctrines recall to mind those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, the neo-Platonists of Alexandria, the Oriental or Egyptian Pantheists, and the Gnostics of the earliest Christian ages. Its speculations concerning God's nature and relation to the universe differ materially from the teachings of Revelation.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Are you also joining the teaching of the trinity with the teachings of “Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, the neo-Platonists of Alexandria, the Oriental or Egyptian Pantheists, and the Gnostics of the earliest Christian ages.”

This article also puts the time of the Cabala in the 12th or 13th century.
"Kabbala." Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica.
<http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=394113>.

This article doesn’t present a very credible picture of the Cabala. I don’t believe it provides the kind of “pre-Christian” evidence for trinity you claim for the Cabala.
http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm

The Apostle John warned of false teachers already abounding in the church. I am sure some of those false teachers were people John taught himself, but who went beyond his teaching into falsehood. Simply being taught by John does not assure those students maintain the doctrines taught in the scripture.

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I have highlighted some words in your response. "I think", "seems to", "I don't think", and "I believe." I would prefer "evidence", "substantiation", "documentation", etc., rather than your guesses, suppositions, and inferences.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Let’s be realistic. You have “evidence” for your doctrinal position; I have “evidence” for mine. You have “authorities” who support your position; I have “authorities” who support mine. You claim the ECF supports your position; I claim the ECF were inconsistent and can be used to support either position. Your demand for “evidence,” “substantiation,” and “documentation” is superfluous. It all boils down do what you believe versus what I believe; your opinion versus my opinion. I am honest enough with myself to recognize this and use language which reflects the situation.

Ron

Ron Macy

July 5th 2003, 11:05 AM

IronMetro

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I don't disagree in regards to 1Pe5:6 et al. However, you've missed OS's point. Again, read the context:
…
The parallel to be made is not ''creature'' to ''God" but rather 'Phillipian' to 'Phillipian' i.e. 'equal' to 'equal'. To draw any other would be to ignore Paul's point. He is asking that each man consider his fellow (i.e. his equal) to be superior to himself. He then directly proceeds to give the example of such between Christ and God.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Paul is talking about the need for unity among the believers. Verse 2 makes this very clear. “…make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.” You may see their equality as a fundamental part of this picture, but it is not necessary at all. The key word in this is not equality, it is humility. I have never seen any definition of humility which requires the necessity of equality to be meaningful. Do you have a dictionary which you could provide as a reference which requires equaltiy for humility to be meaningful?

It is the humility of Jesus before God which is being used as an example of the humility the Philippians are encouraged to have with each other. You see this as the humility of one equal beside another equal. From the scriptures I provided earlier, you can see such equality is not at all necessary.

I repeat, I don’t believe the equality of the Philippian believers is the foundation of this text.

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Why? It doesn't require Him to be a "distinct being" but rather a "distinct person".

The problem you propose would truly only be relevant to 'modalists' i.e. those who hold to the 'Oneness' theology. Trinitarianism teaches multiple 'persons' in one 'being'. The argument is therefore sound.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exactly which scripture do you have in mind which explains the distinction between being and person? Unless you can provide explicit scriptural teaching of this distinction, you have no foundation for making such a claim.

According to this passage, what you are describing for trinitarianism is a personality for Jesus and an personality for God. Jesus is a person; God is a person. But you also have the Father as a person and the Holy Spirit as a person. That makes four persons in God, not three. Your argument is, therefore, not sound or you don’t believe in enough persons in the Godhead.

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On the simple basis that Christ is asking for something back as opposed to something merely "foreordained". As OS pointed out, Jn17:5 harmonizes perfectly with Phil2:6.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

John 17:5 says,
“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”

What words in this verse do you propose have the meaning of “give me back?”

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out as of yet but as for it being necessary to find such "in nature" for it to be true of YHWH, the fallacy here would be that we also do not find a being that is 'omnipresent' either.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Your presupposition is false. You are saying one has to find a being in nature which is omnipresent in order to prove God is omnipresent from nature. That is not true, but nature can lead one to understand the omnipresence of God. Has anyone ever pointed out the truth of Romans 1:18-20.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

This passage proves God’s omnipresence can be learned from “what has been made” (nature). This passage proves God’s omniscience and omnipotence can also be learned from nature. This passage teaches all of God’s invisible attributes can be learned from nature. What is there in nature which teaches God as a multi-personal being? What is there in nature which teaches God is a trinity?

I wrote,
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Nor is He capable of laying aside parts of His nature. The very act of laying aside parts of His nature would cause Him to change. The scripture does say that God does not change.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

To which you responded,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I do not hold to this interpretation. Rather, that Christ laid aside certain divine perogatives in addition to His divine insignia. In other words, He didn't take advantage of what He had.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I made two statements above to which your statement, “I do not hold to this interpretation.” could be applied. 1. “Nor is He (God) capable of laying aside parts of His nature.” and 2. “The scripture does say that God does not change.” To which of these statements were you referring?

I can guess what you might mean about divine perogatives. I have never heard the phrase, “divine insignia.” Could you clarify both ideas for me? Is your definition supported by specific scriptures? If so, could you provide them? Is your definition the conclusion of your applied logic? If so, what are the alternatives to your logic?

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
In regards to the multi-personal nature of God, we come to this conclusion through scriptural harmonization. You can contend this but at least we possess a basis other than our own imagination.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I most certainly do contend this conclusion.
Since the scriptures do not explicitly describes the multi-personal nature of God and creation does not teach multi-personal beings, how can you suggest this is an appropriate harmonization of the scriptures? Shouldn’t you first have proof multi-personal beings can exist before attempting to harmonize scripture in such a way as to prove their existence?

You wrote,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
So you interpret the 'Word' in John1 as being the "plan of God" rather than the "literal word" of Genesis1 etc.?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

This seems an odd question to me.

If by the “‘literal word’ of Genesis 1” you mean the spoken word which God used to create the world, I would be inclined to say, they are the same. God’s spoken word is an extension of His mind, His plan.

Your question seems to imply you believe the words spoken by God in Genesis 1 correspond to the Word in John 1. This confuses me because spoken words are never considered as persons and, as a trinitarian, you would consider the Word in John 1 as a person.

What am I missing in your question?

Ron

Dee Dee Warren

July 5th 2003, 11:07 AM

Zap you can find quite afew threads on that subject in the Christianity section.

wdwwilder

July 7th 2003, 12:11 AM

KJV John 1:1-17
John 1

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. The same was in the beginning with God.
3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Col.1
12. Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20. And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Phil 2
6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.[B]

OldShepherd

July 7th 2003, 07:14 AM

Yesterday @ 12:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140000#post140000)
Ron Macy:

I beg your pardon. The teaching of God existing as only one person pre-dates the trinity by several thousand years. Whom are you trying to kid by saying it is only about 100 years old?

Are you an orthodox Jew? If not then your argument is invalid. Also if not then you belong to a sect created by a man, in the mid to late 19th century. More than likely C.T. Russell.

and quoted Zohar and the Cabala.

According the article addressed below, Zohar and his version of the Kabbala, was written some time in the 13th century. Very much more recent than even the trinity. It is not “pre-Christian.”

No I did NOT quote the Zohar and the Cabala, I quoted the Jewish Encyclopedia (JE), which referenced the Zohar. The Encyclopedia Britannica is ONE (1) view which OBTW was not supported by any evidence that I could see. However if you will link to the JE, the Trinity and Zohar articles you will see references to Jewish studies which attest to the antiquity of the Zohar.

Are you also joining the teaching of the trinity with the teachings of “Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, the neo-Platonists of Alexandria, the Oriental or Egyptian Pantheists, and the Gnostics of the earliest Christian ages.”

Why would you ask an asinine question like that? You posted nothing which proves that to be the case. Here is the appropriate reference from your own quote. Recall to mind, indeed! That two writings may have some similarities does not prove anything.
“Several of its doctrines recall to mind those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, the neo-Platonists of Alexandria, the Oriental or Egyptian Pantheists, and the Gnostics of the earliest Christian ages.”

This article doesn’t present a very credible picture of the Cabala. I don’t believe it provides the kind of “pre-Christian” evidence for trinity you claim for the Cabala.

http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm

I saw nothing in that link which made any reference one way or the other. If you did perhaps you could quote it for me, instead of sending me on a wild goose chase.

The Apostle John warned of false teachers already abounding in the church. I am sure some of those false teachers were people John taught himself, but who went beyond his teaching into falsehood. Simply being taught by John does not assure those students maintain the doctrines taught in the scripture.

How can you be sure of what happened 2000 years ago without any historical references, which you have already blown off without even reading them? Maybe you have a crystal ball or a souped up DeLorean? Unless you can “prove” that the disciples of John clearly contradict the Bible you are just blowing smoke, as you have been all along. Hey everybody lets throw out the entire history of the early church because we have another JW here who is sure that they were wrong but his society 2000 years later is right. And their light keeps getting brighter and brighter, what they teach today may be rejected tomorrow.

Let’s be realistic. You have “evidence” for your doctrinal position; I have “evidence” for mine. You have “authorities” who support your position; I have “authorities” who support mine. You claim the ECF supports your position; I claim the ECF were inconsistent and can be used to support either position. Your demand for “evidence,” “substantiation,” and “documentation” is superfluous. It all boils down do what you believe versus what I believe; your opinion versus my opinion. I am honest enough with myself to recognize this and use language which reflects the situation.

You claim the ECF were inconsistent but have produced doodly squat to back it up. You claim you have “authorities” which support your position. You have not produced doodly squat. You claim to have “evidence.” I haven’t seen any.

And no it does not boil down to my opinion and your opinion. It boils down to you believing what you are told to believe, and if you don’t believe exactly what you are told to, being completely cut off from all your friends and family, by an organization that is approximately 120-130 years old, over against 2000 years of church history, including the written in blood testimony of early Christians who were tortured and killed rather than betray their faith in Jesus Christ, and bow down and worship Caesar and call him master and Lord. You have evidence that proves they were wrong? Put it on the table, until then you haven’t said anything worth listening to.

And if you want to talk about languages interpret my signature.

Cal_Minian

July 7th 2003, 05:33 PM

OldShepherd

July 7th 2003, 09:10 PM

07-05-2003 @ 06:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139908#post139908)
zap_30jeanluc:

As far as trinity. Jesus never mentioned it as a necessity for salvation. For something that was potentially as important as many wish to state it is......Jesus was rather lax in his attention to the matter.

I hope you folks enjoyed your July 4rth
:cheers:
Zap
John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

Equal belief.
Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Baptism required in the equal name, i.e. authority, of "the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Ron Macy

July 11th 2003, 07:31 PM

IronMetro,

Did you miss my last reply?

Ron

JCA

July 11th 2003, 08:07 PM

07-07-2003 @ 09:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142675#post142675)
OldShepherd:

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

Equal belief.
Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Baptism required in the equal name, i.e. authority, of "the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

I'm not quite sure what your posting of those two passages are supposed to mean.. just because the allude to a sharing of authority, they do not allude to the three being one entity..

The very fact that this can be argued through 20 pages, and you can find countless discussions about it, not only here, but all over the web, should lead some people to see that they are obvioulsy the same types of arguments that went on far in the past at it's conception. They haven't ever stopped... it was just that the leading Christian party at the time, had the ear of the local authorities, and was able to push their agenda better than the others.

I have my own understanding of the Trinity that I got from the Bible.. I have studied other mens ideas about it, but still see no compelling reason to believe that the Orthodox Trinity exists as it is explained.. I just can't find the total Biblical support for it that people claim.. in fact, the further I delve, the more I discover that points away from it.

My own view on it can be found here: The Holy Trinity (http://www.inloveandpeace.com/trinity.htm)
Another place I found to have a good look at the scriptures to make their belief is here: http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer08.htm

This is NOT a Salvation stopper.. there is nothing in the Bible that says you will be punished, or damned for not understanding the Trinity as it is professed.. nor is there anything that says you will be punished if you do not fully understand Christs Divinity..

I think taking a look at the 100 NT verses that describe Christ and God the Father as being seperate, even to the point of things that people say are unchanging..

The biggest misunderstanding, IMHO, is based upon Christ.. There is something about Christ that makes it impossible for Him to BE God.. but allows Him divinity as the Son of God.. and that is described on my page that I linked to.. Christs ability to CHOOSE..

Christ was given a free will.. after all, He was Fully man.. and He wa sent here to show us, be an example for us.. well, a Dog cannot give us an accurate example of a cat.. and by the same token, you cannot be fully man unless you are capable of Sin.. Christ had to be capable of sinning (otherwise there is a lot of wasted text in the Bible - such as Satans temptations of Christ.. after all, Satan KNOWS GOD can't be tempted).. and God is not capable of sinning..

Right there you have a very good reason why Christ had to be begotten FROM and OF God.. but NOT God. Christ had to be able to go against His own morality, just as Man can, to be fully Human.. HOWEVER, Christ also had to show us that as Man, we CAN overcome sin, through Christ and hard work (not works, but hard work, on ourselves etc.).. the choices Christ made, His morality, even though He was capable of commiting sin, showed us that it was possible.. if he wasn't capable, the lesson was wasted..

If you see what I mean..

Also, please note that I do not pretend to know that this is the objective truth.. to be honest, I dont think any of us will know for sure until we face God.. but it is what I have gathered from the Bible, and years of reading such long arguments as this one.

In Love and Peace

JCA