Search results

Thanks for the quotes. Now, how about answering my question? Please be specific in telling me what God-fearing Christians have to fear from their God.

To answer accurately, please permit me to replace your formulation "God was able to have" with "God had." With that modification of your question: Not quite. I am confident that the theological message in Scripture is trustworthy, but I think human authors could and did adorn that message...

I'm not understanding you. What does John's knowledge of the Hebrew language have to do with what and why he wrote?

What exactly does a God-fearing Christian have to fear from Him? Surely not retribution!

Good point, @MatthewG . Reminds me of 1 Cor. 15:41-42's levels of post-resurrection glory.

Look at my post #9 in your Dinosaur OP: Why did god put dinosaurs on earth and what was the point of that era of earth?

Not at all. There is a procedure for appropriating the benefits of Jesus's sacrifice, and it entails a faith and a belief that, if honestly held, will definitely dissuade you from murdering someone,

Thanks for sharing. I read John 17:5 quite differently than Wendt does. Greek grammar aside, to me John's recounting of Jesus's comment "Before Abraham was, I am" suggests John's confirmation of pre-existence (although not in the flesh) of the Son. Wendt's explanation of this comment, at p...

I don't read Heb. 1:5 that way. Saying "I have begotten you" is different from saying "I have given you flesh and sent you into the world" and I think Heb. 1:5 is concerned with the former.

It seems to me that we should be distinguishing pre-existence and eternal pre-existence. Read literally, Heb. 1:5 may support the former, but I think it denies the latter -- because "this day" or "today" suggests a point in time. Even Arius could embrace Heb. 1:5.

I would appreciate the repost, as I haven't seen it. But my concern right now is Greek grammar.

Wouldn't John have used the imperfect subjunctive rather than the imperfect indicative in John 17:5 if the glory Jesus referenced were prospective only.

By "in prospect" do you mean anticipatory and not then extant?

If I may butt in, I think the answer can be found here: Sweeping the Polytheism of Ancient Israel Under the Rug And I would not say "Him having used pronouns." I would say "the author of Genesis having used pronouns."

As @Johann said, there are explicit texts on both sides. But anyway, you are misconstruing my statement. Explicit superceding ambiguous is not the rule. Explicit superceding general is the rule. Here is what I said: "When testimony or evidence offered to prove a question of fact is...

But as @Johann has pointed out (see posts 148 and 357), explicit and unambiguous verses are available on both sides of this. That's why we need to look deeper.

The early-Second Century Second Epistle of Clement opens with the interesting admonition "Brethren, it is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God." Question: if everyone in his audience ALREADY thought that way, why mention "thinking" this way at all; and if many in his...

My entire post was designed to expand on precisely that. My understanding is that the Leviticus-described sacrifice is a communal one for a host of sins, both incidental and national. I do agree that Paul is describing a better way.

Aunty, you know I respect your view. But I continue to believe that John 1:1 is translatable either way. We could look at all of the instances in the NT where theos has and doesn’t have the article to see how often your rule holds up. Of course, that would take all day – but fortunately On the...

Yes. More than one GOD. That is the meaning of Elohim. And the Torah is chock full of such references, because at the time that is what the ancient Israelites thought.