Defending the Trinity

Wormwood · Apr 9, 2014

[SIZE=medium]Reasons for viewing 2 Peter 1:1 as a deity of Christ passage[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]a. The grammatical structure of the phrasing indicates that kai is best understood here as joining together two phrases that refer to the same person[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]1) The Greek phrase: tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon Iesou Christou[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]2) Granville Sharp’s Rule: when a Greek kai connects two singular personal nouns (SPN) of the same case, if the article precedes the first noun and is not repeated before the second noun, the latter always refers to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]a) A personal noun is a noun that is descriptive of a person: for example, Professor Pressley[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] Personal nouns are to be distinguished from proper nouns, which are the proper names of persons: for example, Professor Pressley[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]c) Within the Trinity, the proper nouns are those names that distinctively belong to only one member of the Godhead: for example, Elohim, Jesus, the Holy Spirit[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]d) Within the Trinity, the personal nouns are those descriptive nouns that can be used for more than one member of the Godhead: for example, Lord, God, Savior[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]e) Sharp’s Rule only applies to personal nouns in the singular case[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]article + SPN + kai + SPN = both nouns refer to the same object[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]3) The 2 nouns connected by kai in this sentence are both personal nouns and in the genitive singular case[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]a) God: theou[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] Savior: soteros[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]4) The article tou precedes the first noun theou, but no article precedes the second noun soteros[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]5) According to Sharp’s Rule, theou and soteros should refer to the same person, Iesou Christou[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]b. As the opening phrase in 2 Peter 1:1 indicates, the subject of this verse is Jesus Christ (and not Jesus and God the Father)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]c. Since 2 Peter 1:2 clearly conveys in its grammatical structure the idea of two persons (God the Father and Jesus Christ), then it is apparent that Peter knew how to write verse 1 as “two persons” if that is what he intended to do[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]1) The Greek phrase of 2 Peter 1:2: tou theou kai Iesou tou kuriou hemon[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]2) Literal reading: the God and Jesus the Lord our”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]3) Since kai[/SIZE] connects theou with a word that is not a singular personal noun Iesou, Sharp’s Rule does not apply
[SIZE=medium]4) Also, the use of the article tou before and after kai means that Sharp’s Rule does not apply[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]-Johnny Pressley, PhD[/SIZE]

nothead · Apr 9, 2014

[SIZE=medium]Reasons for viewing 2 Peter 1:1 as a deity of Christ passage[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]a. The grammatical structure of the phrasing indicates that kai is best understood here as joining together two phrases that refer to the same person[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]1) The Greek phrase: tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon Iesou Christou[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]2) Granville Sharp’s Rule: when a Greek kai connects two singular personal nouns (SPN) of the same case, if the article precedes the first noun and is not repeated before the second noun, the latter always refers to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]a) A personal noun is a noun that is descriptive of a person: for example, Professor Pressley[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] Personal nouns are to be distinguished from proper nouns, which are the proper names of persons: for example, Professor Pressley[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]c) Within the Trinity, the proper nouns are those names that distinctively belong to only one member of the Godhead: for example, Elohim, Jesus, the Holy Spirit[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]d) Within the Trinity, the personal nouns are those descriptive nouns that can be used for more than one member of the Godhead: for example, Lord, God, Savior[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]e) Sharp’s Rule only applies to personal nouns in the singular case[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]article + SPN + kai + SPN = both nouns refer to the same object[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]3) The 2 nouns connected by kai in this sentence are both personal nouns and in the genitive singular case[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]a) God: theou[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] Savior: soteros[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]4) The article tou precedes the first noun theou, but no article precedes the second noun soteros[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]5) According to Sharp’s Rule, theou and soteros should refer to the same person, Iesou Christou[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]b. As the opening phrase in 2 Peter 1:1 indicates, the subject of this verse is Jesus Christ (and not Jesus and God the Father)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]c. Since 2 Peter 1:2 clearly conveys in its grammatical structure the idea of two persons (God the Father and Jesus Christ), then it is apparent that Peter knew how to write verse 1 as “two persons” if that is what he intended to do[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]1) The Greek phrase of 2 Peter 1:2: tou theou kai Iesou tou kuriou hemon[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]2) Literal reading: the God and Jesus the Lord our”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]3) Since kai[/SIZE] connects theou with a word that is not a singular personal noun Iesou, Sharp’s Rule does not apply
[SIZE=medium]4) Also, the use of the article tou before and after kai means that Sharp’s Rule does not apply[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]-Johnny Pressley, PhD[/SIZE]

Main reason why Peter is NOT SAYING CHRIST IS GOD.

1 peter the salutation at the beginning:

[SIZE=1.25em] [/SIZE]Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
[SIZE=.75em]2 [/SIZE]Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
[SIZE=.75em]3 [/SIZE]Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Wow, the passage looks to be completely monotheist in the old sense, eh Wormwood?

Look right after the upper room event and Peter stands up to speak...any intimation there Jesus is God? He just got blasted with Holy Spirit, sir.

Now look at 2 Peter:

[SIZE=1.25em]1 [/SIZE]Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
[SIZE=.75em]2 [/SIZE]Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

See how v. 2 would seem to CONTRADICT v. 1 as you know it?

For a trin, this is no problem, since LORD means GOD to them. But in fact Jesus is never called GOD only LORD when God and Jesus are in the same verse.

And 71 times this happens, some of these being formulaic liturgical sentences.

Hint: put a comma after God, and what do you get? True terp? So how do you know there WASN'T a comma meant after "God," Wormwood?

And does this mean you gave up on Jn 10. Purity was only SAYING you were defeated. Maybe you can still keep from drowning over on THAT one.
Try again? Or flounder and say 'uncle,' sir.

Wormwood · Apr 9, 2014

nothead,

Here you are at Greek again...haven't we discussed this?

They were debating over who his father was. Those close knew his father was Joseph. He was saying his Father was God. This erked them to no end, for the FATHER was not common terminology then for God and this is my newest theory. Neither was the SON OF GOD common terminology for the Messiah, so they were mostly erked by this TERMINOLOGY which Jesus used, calling his Father God.

And he even calls God THEIR potential Father if they were hearing Him, which they were not. So he didn't mean it in the EXCLUSIVE sense absolutely. In John 10 he says the same thing.

I told you why "I am" theology is not valid, from either Greek or Hebrew. Exodus 3 I WILL BE THAT WHICH I WILL BE is not "I am" at all but in the imperfect tense. And I WILL BE or the BEING ONE is the second clause not "I am."

And 'ego eimi' without a complement is still rendered "I am [he]" in the Greek. HE being the Messiah of course, most obvious to the Samaritan woman whom has NO IDEA the Messiah of the Samaritans would be God.

Your theories are like the book of Mormon...constantly changing when errors are pointed out.

1) you need to understand what ego eimi means. Eimi means "to exist, to be, am." Eimi is a first person pronoun so it means "I exist or I am." The ego before it is a first personal pronoun which emphasizes the "I." It's kinda the Greek way of putting something in bold print. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." So, when God's name means something like, "I am who I am" or "I am the existing one" or "I am who I will be," these phrases are very similar from the Greek to the Hebrew.

2) it is simply not true that ego eimi without a compliment should always mean "I am he."

“λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι.” (John 4:26, NA27)
“εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.” (John 8:58, NA27)
“ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐτοῖς· ἐγώ εἰμι· μὴ φοβεῖσθε.” (John 6:20, NA27)

“ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ· Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον. λέγει αὐτοῖς· ἐγώ εἰμι. εἱστήκει δὲ καὶ Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν μετʼ αὐτῶν. ὡς οὖν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ἐγώ εἰμι, ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω καὶ ἔπεσαν χαμαί.” (John 18:5–6, NA27)

First, in John 4:26, which you referenced, there is a compliment, the phrase "the one speaking to you." So "I am" refers to "the one speaking to you". Thus, I, the one speaking to you, am he.
In john 8:58, this construction makes no sense as there is no "he" to which Jesus is referring. This is clearly a reference to Exodus 3:14 as we will see below.
In John 6:20 we see a similar construction. This time it is translated, "I am" or "It is I, do not be afraid." Your suggestion that this must be translated "I am he" makes no sense here as well.
In John 18:5-6 we see a similar structure as in John 8:58. Here the guards are asking for Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus responds "I am" or "I am he." The "he" here makes sense because Jesus is responding to an address where they are calling his name (which is not the case in John 8). I think John (and consequently Jesus) is intentionally making a play on words here because John writes, "When Jesus said, "I am" (or "I am he"), they drew back and fell to the ground."

So I think it is incredibly obvious what John is doing here. He is using Jesus self proclaimation of "I am" in his book at a cue to his divine nature which, in one case, causes people to want to stone him, in another he is walking on water and saving his disciples from the storm (I think a clear reference to Psalm 107:21-30 (which uses YHWH by the way)), and the final one has his enemies falling down before him. To try to dismiss all of this is to miss the gravity of what John is clearly portraying in his depiction of Jesus.

3) let us compare Jesus statement in John 8:58 with the Septuagint (which John had access to and was able to read, by the way).

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (Exodus 3:14)
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.” (John 8:58, NA27)

So, as you can see the EXACT same words being used in the Septuagint in Exodus 3:14 and in John 8:58. (Side note, εἰμι and ὤν are the same verb in a different form)

Nothead, how can you read the evidence of why the Bible is actually calling Jesus our God and Savior and then say, "The Bible never says it"?

See how v. 2 would seem to CONTRADICT v. 1 as you know it?

For a trin, this is no problem, since LORD means GOD to them. But in fact Jesus is never called GOD only LORD when God and Jesus are in the same verse.

Yes, for a Trinitarian, these verses make perfect sense as you point out. For someone in your camp, well you have to break the rules of Greek grammar to make this say something other than what it actually says. Its much easier if you adopt a Trinitarian standpoint...the verses, as you put it, are "no problem." Why wrestle against Scripture?

When Purity has something of substance to add, rather than simply "nodhead proved you wrong, admit it" when I am showing grammatical, historical and scriptural evidence to the contrary, then perhaps I will respond. Although I am sure you love the cheering section, noddy.

Purity · Apr 9, 2014

When Purity has something of substance to add, rather than simply "nodhead proved you wrong, admit it" when I am showing grammatical, historical and scriptural evidence to the contrary, then perhaps I will respond. Although I am sure you love the cheering section, noddy.

Phil 2 did not reveal your Trinity - we "partially" agreed you lacked context. Shortly, I will be dealing with your third question which I am sure will also go unanswered and unacknowledged.

Lets see shall we.
Purity

nothead · Apr 9, 2014

nothead,

Here you are at Greek again...haven't we discussed this?

Your theories are like the book of Mormon...constantly changing when errors are pointed out.

Ad hom. Haven't we discussed this? You ad hom more than me. I am keeping score, sir.

1) you need to understand what ego eimi means. Eimi means "to exist, to be, am." Eimi is a first person pronoun so it means "I exist or I am." The ego before it is a first personal pronoun which emphasizes the "I." It's kinda the Greek way of putting something in bold print. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." So, when God's name means something like, "I am who I am" or "I am the existing one" or "I am who I will be," these phrases are very similar from the Greek to the Hebrew.

YOU need to understand Jews don't speak this way. GREEKS MIGHT but the sentence don't exist in Jews brains, sir. "I EXIST" is presupposed by every Jew on the planet, even the stupid ones, and probably even the retarded ones. I EXIST is not a valid kosher statement, sir.

No Jew will say it since all Jews already KNOW IT. Gotcha.

Well, I know that one blew right by you but think about it. When is the last time YOU said to someone "I exist?" Gotcha twice. Tell me honestly, sir.

Really you are a Greek expert? "I exist" is a common statement where? I heard it once in philosophy class. Forgot which one, and I thought it was stupid then too. I was right, me and you already exist. Thinking about it ain't gonna make us more existent, yeah?

2) it is simply not true that ego eimi without a compliment should always mean "I am he."

Yeah it do. Every time in John for instance. All seven times.

“λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι.” (John 4:26, NA27)

[SIZE=.75em]26 [/SIZE]Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. KJV

“ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐτοῖς· ἐγώ εἰμι· μὴ φοβεῖσθε.” (John 6:20, NA27)

[SIZE=.75em]20 [/SIZE]But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid.

NOT the meaning "I exist" rather more like "I am [here]." So then I will stand down on this one, halfway. That means I will squat with you on this one. "I exist," yeah man. He COULDN'T be saying this, sir.

“ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ· Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον. λέγει αὐτοῖς· ἐγώ εἰμι. εἱστήκει δὲ καὶ Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν μετʼ αὐτῶν. ὡς οὖν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ἐγώ εἰμι, ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω καὶ ἔπεσαν χαμαί.” (John 18:5–6, NA27)

[SIZE=.75em]5 [/SIZE]They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

So then what version are you using? NA means new authorized or somethin?'

First, in John 4:26, which you referenced, there is a compliment, the phrase "the one speaking to you." So "I am" refers to "the one speaking to you". Thus, I, the one speaking to you, am he.

Okaydokay but "I exist" isn't the meaning. We are tied on this one. BOTH wrong.

In john 8:58, this construction makes no sense as there is no "he" to which Jesus is referring. This is clearly a reference to Exodus 3:14 as we will see below.

eBull. "I am [he]" means he was deemed Messiah before Abraham was born, and Abraham SAW IT, being in the Spirit.

In John 6:20 we see a similar construction. This time it is translated, "I am" or "It is I, do not be afraid." Your suggestion that this must be translated "I am he" makes no sense here as well.

"It is I" is okay. Just a first person version of what I've been saying all along. "I exist" is not an option, sir. There IS an implied complement sir.

In John 18:5-6 we see a similar structure as in John 8:58. Here the guards are asking for Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus responds "I am" or "I am he." The "he" here makes sense because Jesus is responding to an address where they are calling his name (which is not the case in John 8). I think John (and consequently Jesus) is intentionally making a play on words here because John writes, "When Jesus said, "I am" (or "I am he"), they drew back and fell to the ground."

So then he says a dual meaning statement and the divine sense threw them down? Good exegesis, sir. 'Cept you can have ANYTHING said by Jesus throwing them down since he is God, sir in you own paradigm. Burp. Down they go. (It was a God-burp, after all).

So I think it is incredibly obvious what John is doing here. He is using Jesus self proclaimation of "I am" in his book at a cue to his divine nature which, in one case, causes people to want to stone him, in another he is walking on water and saving his disciples from the storm (I think a clear reference to Psalm 107:21-30 (which uses YHWH by the way)), and the final one has his enemies falling down before him. To try to dismiss all of this is to miss the gravity of what John is clearly portraying in his depiction of Jesus.

Ego eimi mostly has complements in Greek, and so too in Bible. You are making something out of nothing, bro. I forgive you in advance. There WAS no "I am," ever to BEGIN WITH since the Hebrew is not the same in Exodus 3. And James White knows this so he rather says the parallels are in Isaiah. But his examples HAVE a complement, so his too DON'T MATCH UP.

I am the Bread of Life.

I am the way, the Truth and the Life

I am the living water. See whata mean?

3) let us compare Jesus statement in John 8:58 with the Septuagint (which John had access to and was able to read, by the way).

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (Exodus 3:14)
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.” (John 8:58, NA27)

So, as you can see the EXACT same words being used in the Septuagint in Exodus 3:14 and in John 8:58. (Side note, εἰμι and ὤν are the same verb in a different form)

You are assuming the Torah was recited in Greek, sir. Ever since EZRA this was not true in the Holy Land. The commentaries may have been in Aramaic. The text was in Hebrew. Mishnaic Hebrew maybe. Some kind of Hebrew most likely.

Em, look at the Sept. version again, my expert Greek friend. IT has a complement, and guess what that complement is? HOW OWN, and I ain't speaking no how now Chinese, sir.

HOW OWN the Being sir. Tell them the Being One sent me to you. Touche.

14 And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.

So then you are saying the Sept version has I AM by itself, tell them I AM sent you? What's the difference between "I am" and "the Being" sir? Alot, or a little or not much at all, even?

25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

This Greek babe just body slammed you bro.

Purity · Apr 9, 2014

Wormwood quoted:

3. If Jesus is a created being, why is he worshipped? (Rev. 5:8-13; Heb. 1:6; 2 Pet. 3:18).

I have no problem in the people worshipping Yahweh and His anointed King (1 Chron 29:20)...it was done in the past and how much more the Christ, then, now and at his future coming?

The question you should ask is what precisely was it about Christ they were worshipping? Is it because he is a created being that they worship him? certainly not though this is true. Could it be the fullness of God in 2 Cor 5:19? What did he place in his Son as His reward for his sincere obedience unto death? Col 2:9

Has there ever been a man like this man? Paying homage to the fullness of all that is God in Christ, I would think is the least of our response - don't you?

In type you also have the example of Joseph brothers in Gen 43:26,27,28 (*Gen 37:7)...Joseph was not the sinless Christ though he represented him as a future anointed King who would one day received the honour due to his name and exalted position.

No doubt there are more examples, but the point is clearly made, your question while a good question, doesn't support the Trinity in any way.

*Note: tn The verb means “to bow down to the ground.” It is used to describe worship and obeisance to masters.

Next up:

4. If Jesus is a created being, why is he depicted as the Creator? (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:3)

Anther good question wormwood.

tbc..

lforrest · Apr 9, 2014

If we take the incorrect hypothetical position that Jesus is just a man, how are people and angels supposed to worship him without breaking the very commandment Jesus quoted when he was tempted by Satan?
Luke 4:8 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

We know the angels in heaven will not sin by worshiping anyone other than God, so Jesus must be God. Heb. 1:6

nothead · Apr 9, 2014

lforrest said:
If we take the incorrect hypothetical position that Jesus is just a man, how are people supposed to worship him without breaking the very commandment Jesus quoted when he was tempted by Satan?
Luke 4:8 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

We know the angels in heaven will not sin by worshiping anyone other than God, so Jesus must be God. Heb. 1:6

There is to me a difference between worship of a man, the worship of the One Glorified Man, and the Worship of God. This was the import of Shema at the beginning and the principle ever holds true. Men worshiped the king and God didn't want this but allowed it originally. But the one HE SENT is like the Parable of the Landowner. His Son is put among us in His stead.

TWO referents are upon the foreheads of the faithful. But ONE is God and ONE is the SENT ONE, who is Lord 71 times in verse juxtaposed with God.

YE SHALT HAVE NO ELOHIM TO MY FACE.

But Jesus sits at His right hand. So how is the First Command still true?

Ye shalt have no elohim to my face AS EQUAL TO OR OVER. Solved the quinsentential problemo. And I can't even SPELL it. Thank you, nothead.

Purity · Apr 10, 2014

4. If Jesus is a created being, why is he depicted as the Creator? (John 1:1-3

Are you aware of the punctuation problems with John 1:3? Hope so

4. If Jesus is a created being, why is he depicted as the Creator? (Col 1:16)

Col 1:16 context is Christ being a firstborn child and how all things politically and ecclesiastical fall under his control though not visibly in the earth today.

"The firstborn of all creation" is qualified in verse Col 1:18 to be "the firstborn from the dead".

4. If Jesus is a created being, why is he depicted as the Creator? (1 Cor 8:6)

1 Cor 8:6 is in the same vain as John 1:3 Grk “through whom [are] all things and we [are] through him.” anything spiritual has its existence as a result of the victory God had in him (new creation

.

Back to firstborn from the dead - he and everything else has life and existence because he died and was raised of the Father.

How glorious is this spiritual creation that manys sons will be raised to glory?

4. If Jesus is a created being, why is he depicted as the Creator? (Heb 1:3)

Heb 1:3 Context is God "who he (Yahweh) appointed (Christ) heir of all things, and through whom he (Yahweh)created the world (ages).

Although Christ was the "chief corner stone" (1 Peter 2:6) in the divine purpose, "foreordained before the foundation of the world" (1 Peter 1:20), he was not formed or manifest until "these last times". (2 Peter 1:20). He had no personal existence until he was born of the virgin Mary. (Luke 1:31-35).

The reference to "he made the worlds" is referring to the new creation, not the old creation. This is made clear in Hebrews 2:5 - "It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking." The writer to the Hebrews is referring to THE WORLD TO COME. Jesus is the creator of the this new world to come. The redeemed are described as a new creation, and Christ our creator. Christ will create "new heavens and a new earth", wherein dwells righteousness.

Mark 8:18 ?

Purity

Floyd · Apr 10, 2014

nothead and Purity speak against the Deity of Christ Jesus; they presumably also speak against the Holy Spirit?

[SIZE=14pt]The remarkable statement by Jesus is quoted in Matthew 12:31-32 (KJV), with similar in Luke 12.
“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this Age, neither in the Age to come.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Floyd.[/SIZE]

Purity · Apr 10, 2014

Floyd said:
nothead and Purity speak against the Deity of Christ Jesus; they presumably also speak against the Holy Spirit?

The remarkable statement by Jesus is quoted in Matthew 12:31-32 (KJV), with similar in Luke 12.
“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this Age, neither in the Age to come.”

Floyd.

This only confirms the fears I had for you in our former discussions.

To use Matt 12:31-32 in this way shows your immaturity in handling the Word of God.

Let me teach you something if that is possible Floyd.

The Jews blasphemed in many ways especially against Gods Power in their rejection of the Son of Man:

Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven. But whoever speaks (a word) against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Yes - “Against the son of man”, like you Floyd they also misunderstood Jesus' earthly ministry though many were forgiven their original rejection of the Master - Lk 22:65 cp Lk 23:34; Acts 2:22-23 cp 37-38; 3:14-16 it seems while the Pharisees wanted to debase him lower than that of a man some here want to elevate him beyond his earthly ministry - go figure!

But here is the kicker Floyd!

Their rejection of Christ was forgivable and was forgiven, but to blaspheme “Against the holy spirit” - notice how the word ‘Holy’ is included to highlight the enormity of likening the unmistakable power of God with the “Lord of dung heap” cp Mk 3:30 “He hath an unclean spirit”

To say the Spirit of God which dwelt in His Son was unclean - well Floyd I doubt any of us could imagine the Fathers reaction to such a word spoken? Certainly I have not heard such things in this forum?
Its one thing to reject Christ out of ignorance, like that which you are showing in your use of this passage (incorrectly)- its another to openly defame the anointing and sanctifying Spirit by likening him (it) to a fly sitting on a dung heap.

Notice Floyd how Christ doesn't restrict this judgement to his current Mosaic age but also the one to come? styled the “World to come” the coming age ( Lk 18:13 = our time will come as it will for Israel).

So there will again be an open manifestation in “binding Satan (adverse thinking)” Rev 20:1 - the same principle applies in the Kingdom age.

That lesson was free by the way - no copyright on the things of the Spirit.

Purity.

lforrest · Apr 10, 2014

Lets try to be clear, are you claiming that Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can not be forgiven because The Spirit is divine, and that Blasphemy against the Son can be forgiven because he isn't God?

Purity · Apr 10, 2014

lforrest said:
Lets try to be clear, are you claiming that Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can not be forgiven because The Spirit is divine, and that Blasphemy against the Son can be forgiven because he isn't God?

John 6:63.

lforrest · Apr 10, 2014

lforrest said:
Lets try to be clear, are you claiming that Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can not be forgiven because The Spirit is divine, and that Blasphemy against the Son can be forgiven because he isn't God?

Purity said:
John 6:63.

Are you saying the opposite of Jesus, that blasphemy against the Son can't be forgiven because the words he speaks are full of the Holy Spirit?

Purity · Apr 10, 2014

lforrest said:
Are you saying the opposite of Jesus, that blasphemy against the Son can't be forgiven because the words he speaks are full of the Holy Spirit?

Can you discern the difference between Matt 12:31,32 & Heb 10:29.

I appreciate you are seeking a straight answer but these things are not valued if we do not labour and seek after them in humility.

You have spoken the truth but you are yet to grasp it I feel.

Wormwood · Apr 10, 2014

Yeah it do. Every time in John for instance. All seven times.

Ego eimi is used far more than 7 times in John. What you are reading is probably in reference to the 7 "I am" declarations Jesus makes of himself in John's Gospel.
1) I am the bread of life
2) I am the light of the world
3) I am the gate
4) I am the Good Shepherd
5) I am the resurrection and the life
6) I am the way, truth and life
7) I am the vine

Clearly, these "I am" statements comprise of the core of John's Gospel, which even highlights more the "Before Abraham was, I am" statement and other statements where Jesus declares, "I am" in this Gospel (such as when people fall down or Jesus is walking and saving disciples on the water, as the Psalms declare YHWH does for his people).

I think you missed my point on the translations of ego eimi. The point was that there is not only one way to render this phrase. The context determines how we should read it and I think the John 8 context is beyond doubt a statement of divinity.

You are assuming the Torah was recited in Greek, sir. Ever since EZRA this was not true in the Holy Land. The commentaries may have been in Aramaic. The text was in Hebrew. Mishnaic Hebrew maybe. Some kind of Hebrew most likely.

Em, look at the Sept. version again, my expert Greek friend. IT has a complement, and guess what that complement is? HOW OWN, and I ain't speaking no how now Chinese, sir.

HOW OWN the Being sir. Tell them the Being One sent me to you. Touche.

The point is here that John, and likely most of the first century Jews, used the Septuagint as their Scriptures. Because John is writing in Greek, he is clearly familiar with the way things are worded in the Septuagint and the manner in which he is writing.

I see how you have changed your argument along with your language (Chinese eh? So fluent you are!). Before, it was that the ego eimi was a completely different concept and statement than God's name for himself and now that I have shown you the two words are identical, its, "ὁ ὤν" isn't there so it doenst count. Puh-leese. I've never seen anyone backpedal so quickly and with such confidence. Personally, I think you really do see the truth behind what Scripture teaches about Jesus and are just keeping this up for show and for tuition-free lessons in theology and Greek

.

So then what version are you using? NA means new authorized or somethin?'

Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition. The NA and UBS (United Bible Societies) are the two primary Greek NTs used by most people who work with the Greek text.

nothead · Apr 10, 2014

Floyd said:
nothead and Purity speak against the Deity of Christ Jesus; they presumably also speak against the Holy Spirit?

[SIZE=14pt]The remarkable statement by Jesus is quoted in Matthew 12:31-32 (KJV), with similar in Luke 12.
“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this Age, neither in the Age to come.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Floyd.[/SIZE]

I believe for believers, the referent behind the Spirit is Jesus, by name. God sent it in Jesus' name. What this means exhaustively is more than we know or can imagine.
But the Holy Spirit has no fixed referent. It came to John the Baptist as Elijah. Before Jesus it came possibly only in referent from God. LEGION on the ugly side has plural referents behind it. HOLY SPIRIT on the good side, biblically said to be SENT by God and in the name of His beloved Son, the Christ.

As to the ontology of the Holy Spirit, the abiding PRESENCE of Christ inherent, the PRESENCE of Christ INSTEAD OF God, these things I do not know. BOTH seem to characterize this entity which was historically in the MIKSHAN or tent as radiant SHEKINAH, then over the Tent of Meeting, inside the Holy of Holies, and finally indwelt of the Tabernacle of Body, the man who was among us.

This translates to the ADVOCATE (Paraclete) whom serves as testament to God's will. Jesus may be the speaker of this Will of God, as he was to Paul. Paul never MEETS the physical Christ, but he most definitely by scripture spoke to him. I believe the pattern was established at the blinding of Paul and by the direction of Ananias.

So then the event of Ananias and Saphirra is linked, although THIS Ananias was not the same one. Peter says they blasphemed the Holy Spirit and they keel over. I don't believe they made it to them pearly gates, although by the grace of God the CAVEAT may have occurred. Fear came among the believers, for the principle of faith will ever hold true.

The more given, the more required. This principle has ever held true since the Land of Milk and Honey was GIVEN, and the Shema, the Great and Impossible Command was also.

The reason why the Holy Spirit blasphemy is not forgiven is because the Holy Spirit relationship, spirit to Spirit is primal among believers, close to our hearts, souls and consciences. That with they KNEW within they lied against and Ananias and Saphirra paid the price and may still be paying the price.

But anyone who REDEFINES the Holy Spirit to be a third partner may actually face the same kind of problems. It has NO PERSON in and of itself other than the Father first and the person he sent it in the name of. There is NO THIRD PARTY sir. The partnership of God and man is YHWH Elohim and Yahoshua. Period.

Wormwood · Apr 10, 2014

Purity,

Col 1:16 context is Christ being a firstborn child and how all things politically and ecclesiastical fall under his control though not visibly in the earth today.

"The firstborn of all creation" is qualified in verse Col 1:18 to be "the firstborn from the dead".

Way to completely ignore the text itself that explicitly says, "For everything was created by Him...." It doesn't say, everything fall under his control, though not visibly. Gimme a break.

1 Cor 8:6 is in the same vain as John 1:3 Grk “through whom [are] all things and we [are] through him.” anything spiritual has its existence as a result of the victory God had in him (new creation .

Back to firstborn from the dead - he and everything else has life and existence because he died and was raised of the Father.

How glorious is this spiritual creation that manys sons will be raised to glory?

You have to be kidding me. The context has to do with eating and drinking food offered to idols. Paul is saying that idols aren't real gods, it was Jesus who made heaven and earth. Perhaps the worst display if interpretation I have ever seen...and I have seen some doosies.

Phil 2 did not reveal your Trinity - we "partially" agreed you lacked context.

Wow, you are taking me out of context almost as badly as you are taking Scripture out of context. I never said my interpretation lacked context. I said that I did not think Philippians 2 was referring to Adam, but even if it was the background of the hymn it emphasized the divine nature of Christ all the more and enhanced my point! Sheesh. Go back and read it again.

Are you aware of the punctuation problems with John 1:3? Hope so

Please enlighten me as to how thousands of PhD's who have spent their lives studying the Greek language are all in error and you with you (im guessing zero) years of Greek training will inform me as to how it should be written. You and nothead should combine your Greek expertise and translate your own NT. That would be quite a read im sure.

Col 1:16 context is Christ being a firstborn child and how all things politically and ecclesiastical fall under his control though not visibly in the earth today.

"The firstborn of all creation" is qualified in verse Col 1:18 to be "the firstborn from the dead".

No, firstborn of all creation and firstborn from the dead are separate concepts found independently in different areas of Scripture (which is why Paul separates them).
-Firstborn of all creation (Ps. 89:27; Rom. 8:29)
-Firstborn form the dead (Acts 26:23; 1 Cor. 15:20; Rev. 1:5)

The reference to "he made the worlds" is referring to the new creation, not the old creation. This is made clear in Hebrews 2:5 - "

Yeah, God made the world through/by Jesus. When Jesus said that the Father spoke through/by him he was not saying that Jesus himself was not speaking at all. He was saying that his words were communicating the Father's mind. So when it says that God made the world through/by Jesus, then Jesus is the creating agent on behalf of the purposes of God.

What does Hebrews 2:5 have to do with anything? When did I reference that verse?

Floyd · Apr 10, 2014

Floyd, on 10 Apr 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

Floyd said:
nothead and Purity speak against the Deity of Christ Jesus; they presumably also speak against the Holy Spirit?

[SIZE=14pt]The remarkable statement by Jesus is quoted in Matthew 12:31-32 (KJV), with similar in Luke 12.
“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this Age, neither in the Age to come.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Floyd.[/SIZE]

From nothead;

I believe for believers, the referent behind the Spirit is Jesus, by name. God sent it in Jesus' name. What this means exhaustively is more than we know or can imagine.
But the Holy Spirit has no fixed referent. It came to John the Baptist as Elijah. Before Jesus it came possibly only in referent from God. LEGION on the ugly side has plural referents behind it. HOLY SPIRIT on the good side, biblically said to be SENT by God and in the name of His beloved Son, the Christ.

As to the ontology of the Holy Spirit, the abiding PRESENCE of Christ inherent, the PRESENCE of Christ INSTEAD OF God, these things I do not know. BOTH seem to characterize this entity which was historically in the MIKSHAN or tent as radiant SHEKINAH, then over the Tent of Meeting, inside the Holy of Holies, and finally indwelt of the Tabernacle of Body, the man who was among us.

This translates to the ADVOCATE (Paraclete) whom serves as testament to God's will. Jesus may be the speaker of this Will of God, as he was to Paul. Paul never MEETS the physical Christ, but he most definitely by scripture spoke to him. I believe the pattern was established at the blinding of Paul and by the direction of Ananias.

So then the event of Ananias and Saphirra is linked, although THIS Ananias was not the same one. Peter says they blasphemed the Holy Spirit and they keel over. I don't believe they made it to them pearly gates, although by the grace of God the CAVEAT may have occurred. Fear came among the believers, for the principle of faith will ever hold true.

The more given, the more required. This principle has ever held true since the Land of Milk and Honey was GIVEN, and the Shema, the Great and Impossible Command was also.

The reason why the Holy Spirit blasphemy is not forgiven is because the Holy Spirit relationship, spirit to Spirit is primal among believers, close to our hearts, souls and consciences. That with they KNEW within they lied against and Ananias and Saphirra paid the price and may still be paying the price.

But anyone who REDEFINES the Holy Spirit to be a third partner may actually face the same kind of problems. It has NO PERSON in and of itself other than the Father first and the person he sent it in the name of. There is NO THIRD PARTY sir. The partnership of God and man is YHWH Elohim and Yahoshua. Period.

From Floyd:
nohead: your reply was not what was asked (although some of your comments are interesting and basic to my understanding, which I came to years ago; those that are common to the Truth.).
No; you and Purity seem incapable of giving understandable, common language answers!
As you must surely know; a good teacher can make his subject clear and understandable; but you both cloak you answers in questions and new layers, which would be ok, if they were authentic!
I asked the question: "do you speak against the Holy Spirit in the same mode as you do against Christ's Divinity"?
Floyd.

nothead · Apr 10, 2014

Ego eimi is used far more than 7 times in John. What you are reading is probably in reference to the 7 "I am" declarations Jesus makes of himself in John's Gospel.
1) I am the bread of life
2) I am the light of the world
3) I am the gate
4) I am the Good Shepherd
5) I am the resurrection and the life
6) I am the way, truth and life
7) I am the vine

I already said this, sir. Read up the tree. What is at stake is the 'ego eimi's' WITHOUT an explicit complement. Please stay on track.

Clearly, these "I am" statements comprise of the core of John's Gospel, which even highlights more the "Before Abraham was, I am" statement and other statements where Jesus declares, "I am" in this Gospel (such as when people fall down or Jesus is walking and saving disciples on the water, as the Psalms declare YHWH does for his people).

You are focusing upon the words themselves when the attackers fell down. They ask him if he is Jesus. He said he was. So this alone may serve enough for them to FALL DOWN no matter if he is God or man annointed. Whether the words were "I am HE," or the words were "I AM," do you really think it makes any difference, since I showed you THE BEING and I AM are not the same words OR meaning?

Listen up, sir. I've had ELDERS rebuke me, expecting me to fall down by their so-called Holy Spirit annointing. Among pentecostals what I say is not that crazy after all.

I think you missed my point on the translations of ego eimi. The point was that there is not only one way to render this phrase. The context determines how we should read it and I think the John 8 context is beyond doubt a statement of divinity.

I just GAVE you reason to doubt your construct since I AM HE serves perfectly well in saying Jesus was gonna have HIS DAY IN THE SUN as MESSIAH and Abraham actually saw it in vision.

The point is here that John, and likely most of the first century Jews, used the Septuagint as their Scriptures. Because John is writing in Greek, he is clearly familiar with the way things are worded in the Septuagint and the manner in which he is writing.

You still don't get it do you? The FIRST clause in Exodus 3 according to Septuagint has I AM THE BEING ONE. And the SECOND CLAUSE has in Exodus 3:14 THE BEING.

So how does I AM fit in? HO OWN aint't EGO EIMI sir. And your 'ego eimi' is without complement, making it to you ABSOLUTE and self-autonomously self-existent. The original PASSAGE however HAS a complement. This is obvious. So stand down here or I'm gonna have to tell you to bend over and take your licks.
Like in the old days. Grab your ankles, son. This will hurt me more than it's gonna hurt you.

By your analogy the blind man in Chpt 9 says he is God. Smooth move, exegete. You might say the CONTEXT will change the meaning, but the TEXT and GRAMMAR is the same. Of course your context has Jesus as God presupposed. MINE does not since I investigated the issue.

I see how you have changed your argument along with your language (Chinese eh? So fluent you are!). Before, it was that the ego eimi was a completely different
concept and statement than God's name for himself and now that I have shown you the two words are identical, its, "ὁ ὤν" isn't there so it doenst count. Puh-leese. I've never seen anyone backpedal so quickly and with such confidence. Personally, I think you really do see the truth behind what Scripture teaches about Jesus and are just keeping this up for show and for tuition-free lessons in theology and Greek .

How can you say this when I just obliterated your argument? The first clause in the Greek has four words not two. The second text is HO OWN not EGO EIMI.

You are wrong every which way but loose. And Clint here squinted you down until you are a blithering mass of Buttkiss. (He had a funny name is all, I don't know why I brought him up).

Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition. The NA and UBS (United Bible Societies) are the two primary Greek NTs used by most people who work with the Greek text.

Cool, you good for SOMETHING true data sometimes this way comes.

Floyd said:
Floyd, on 10 Apr 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:
From nothead;

I believe for believers, the referent behind the Spirit is Jesus, by name. God sent it in Jesus' name. What this means exhaustively is more than we know or can imagine.
But the Holy Spirit has no fixed referent. It came to John the Baptist as Elijah. Before Jesus it came possibly only in referent from God. LEGION on the ugly side has plural referents behind it. HOLY SPIRIT on the good side, biblically said to be SENT by God and in the name of His beloved Son, the Christ.

As to the ontology of the Holy Spirit, the abiding PRESENCE of Christ inherent, the PRESENCE of Christ INSTEAD OF God, these things I do not know. BOTH seem to characterize this entity which was historically in the MIKSHAN or tent as radiant SHEKINAH, then over the Tent of Meeting, inside the Holy of Holies, and finally indwelt of the Tabernacle of Body, the man who was among us.

This translates to the ADVOCATE (Paraclete) whom serves as testament to God's will. Jesus may be the speaker of this Will of God, as he was to Paul. Paul never MEETS the physical Christ, but he most definitely by scripture spoke to him. I believe the pattern was established at the blinding of Paul and by the direction of Ananias.

So then the event of Ananias and Saphirra is linked, although THIS Ananias was not the same one. Peter says they blasphemed the Holy Spirit and they keel over. I don't believe they made it to them pearly gates, although by the grace of God the CAVEAT may have occurred. Fear came among the believers, for the principle of faith will ever hold true.

The more given, the more required. This principle has ever held true since the Land of Milk and Honey was GIVEN, and the Shema, the Great and Impossible Command was also.

The reason why the Holy Spirit blasphemy is not forgiven is because the Holy Spirit relationship, spirit to Spirit is primal among believers, close to our hearts, souls and consciences. That with they KNEW within they lied against and Ananias and Saphirra paid the price and may still be paying the price.

But anyone who REDEFINES the Holy Spirit to be a third partner may actually face the same kind of problems. It has NO PERSON in and of itself other than the Father first and the person he sent it in the name of. There is NO THIRD PARTY sir. The partnership of God and man is YHWH Elohim and Yahoshua. Period.

From Floyd:
nohead: your reply was not what was asked (although some of your comments are interesting and basic to my understanding, which I came to years ago; those that are common to the Truth.).
No; you and Purity seem incapable of giving understandable, common language answers!
As you must surely know; a good teacher can make his subject clear and understandable; but you both cloak you answers in questions and new layers, which would be ok, if they were authentic!
I asked the question: "do you speak against the Holy Spirit in the same mode as you do against Christ's Divinity"?
Floyd.

And my answer is that a trinitarian has no idea what the Holy Spirit is, making 'him' a third partner of God. Therefore you have no intrinsic right to ask me ANY question regarding the Holy Spirit.

Did I mumble?

Defending the Trinity

Chaps

New Member

Chaps

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Chaps

New Member

Chaps

Active Member

New Member

Similar threads