1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

3 As 1

Discussion in 'Bible Study Forum' started by MUSTAFAA, Mar 8, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. epouraniois

    epouraniois Guest

    jaareshiah,attempt no. 2. I lost all my words, this will not be as eloquent.Grammar. If I am writing some paragraphs, having one sentence that reads, "I need a glass of water", well, it may be rather difficult to discern what our subject is. Finding the subject may mean including the surrounding context. In Scripture it is important to find both our subject and our object, and then follow them through to completion. It wasn't until Scripture found me that I began to look into GRAMMAR.Now, if I instead write, "I need the glass of water with strawberries on it", now we can see that our subject is the glass. Why? It is because of what is known as our grammatical 'article'. This grammatical article will normally show us what our subject is. Our grammatical article is signified by our three letter English word "THE".IN John 1:1, we are given three successive clauses, each showing us the way by use of a signifying grammatical 'article', our word 'THE'. In each case it is 'THE WORD'. Many try to see 'God' as our subject in these clauses, but this is not the case. THE WORD is our subject. Additional words we are also given, but our subject is not those other descriptors, predicates, &c.And we can have a serious misunderstanding when a translator adds a grammatical article where there is none. For example, in Genesis 1:1, Our English reads, "In THE beginning", but this is not how the manuscripts read. In the manuscripts it is written "IN BEGINNING". What is the big deal you might ask, and it is this ~ In the beginning indicates that something happened and it happened in time, time being the subject. But since there is no grammatical article, it reads 'In Beginning', which speaks of a movement. In Beginning God preforms a movement, and that is then described to us. So this grammatical article is very very important. Rules of grammar are very very important, just as the breaking of the rules of grammar also are broken in very specific ways, giving us Figures of Speech. Figures of Speech, with but one exception, always mean more than the words are declaring. If I say that Mike speaks from both sides of his mouth, I am saying more than the words themselves mean. Next I will try to address your concern that there might be contradictions in the NT as regards to the deity of the Christ. Many may say, that only if Christ would have told us that He was God, then I could believe it. But the Bible tells us the opposite would be the case. Let's look at some Greek idiom (An accepted phrase or expression having a meaning different from the literal meaning) ~This falls within a conversation. This is not without an object ~Luk 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. (And that was the Greek idiom for Yes, I am).Now let's look at the conversation and the threefold accusation/title/confession ("THE Messiah", "THE Son of man", & "THE Son of God") ~First they ask if He is the Messiah; (and the Greek dictates that it is assumed that He is the Messiah here) ~Luk 22:67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe (Greek double negative used here = the strongest possible expression = they will in no way believe Him but there is also no denial here): Next He immediately affirms what He just said about them and their beliefs ~Luk 22:68 And if I also ask, ye will not answer me, nor let go. Then He makes the claim He is the Son of man ~Luk 22:69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. And here it is, The Christ yes the English equivalent of, "Yes, I am" ~Luk 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And we see their reaction ~ Luk 22:71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. But this is not the only place Christ makes this direct assertion either. The Lord answers to their direct question most straightforwardly, “I am” in Mar. 14:62; while in Matt. 26:64 responding again in the Greek affirmative reply, saying, "Thou hast said".I would say too, imo, don't beat me up too much for my opinion please, but imo, at least for me, I have yet to fully plumb even one verse of Scripture, believing that I can only hold so much truth, and that only the Lord knows how much, He can only reveal as much as I am ready to acknowledge.Studying helps, holding fast the form of sound words is instructional, keeping to sound doctrine is more, prayer is required, while mainly it is acknowledgment which sets our mind in a place where the Lord begins to reveal.MUSTAFAA, if memory serves, made a fantastic point in bringing Deu 6:4 to bear upon this great subject.EDIT IN;I felt it a loss not to have included what that movement of Genesis 1:1 is, and it is the beginning movement of the purpose of the ages, or age times, which can be summed up in the word 'Redemption'. As a footnote, it could be argued that Christ framed the age times. Perhaps if we might step back and look at the whole picture, the details will fill themselves in, and we won't have to force any of the pieces to fit our ideas of what God is revealing of Himself, of His plan and purpose.
     
  2. epouraniois

    epouraniois Guest

    Perhaps this may be of some assistance, I realize this is a difficult subject. In the Bible we read ~The heavens are the work of God's hands (Ps 102:25The heavens are the work of Jesus hand (Heb 1:10)God laid the foundations of the earth (Is 48:13)Jesus laid the foundations of the earth (Heb 1:10)God is our judge (Ps 50:6, Eccl 12:14)Jesus is our judge ( 2 Tim 4:1, Rev 20:12)God is the temple of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:22)Jesus (the Lamb) is the temple of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:22)God is the alpha & omega (Rev 1:8)Jesus is the alpha & omega (Rev 22:13)God is the first and last (Is 44:6, 48:12)Jesus is the first and last (Rev 22:13)God is the beginning and the end (Rev 21:6)Jesus is the beginning and the end (Rev 22:13)Only God can forgive sins (Lk 5:21)Jesus forgives sins (Lk 5:20)God is our hope (Ps 71:5)Jesus is our hope (1 Tim 1:11)God is eternal (Deut 33:27)Jesus is eternal (Is 9:6, Heb 1:10,11)God will come with all the holy ones (Zech 14:5)Jesus will come with all the holy ones (1 Thess 3:13)Only God is our savior (Is 43:11)Jesus is our savior (Tit 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1)God is the creator of the universe (Is 44:24, Jer 27:5)Jesus is the creator of the universe (Jn 1:3)To God, every knee will bow and every tongue confess (Is 45:22,23)To Jesus, every knee will bow and every tongue confess (Phil 2:10,11)God is the same and his years will have no end (Ps 102:27)Jesus is the same and his years will have no end (Heb 1:12)God is immutable (Mal 3:6)Jesus is immutable (Heb 13:8)God is over all (Ps 97:9)Jesus is over all (Jn 3:31)The spirit of God dwells in us (Rom 8:9)The spirit of Jesus dwells in us (Gal 4:6)God is a stone of offense and a stumbling block (Is 8:14)Jesus is a stone of offence and a stumbling block (1 Pet 2:8)God was valued at 30 pieces of silver (Zech 11:12,13)Jesus was valued at 30 pieces of silver (Mt 26:14-16)God is our shepherd (Ps 23:1)Jesus is our shepherd (Jn 10:11, 1 Pet 5:4, Heb 13:20)God is Mighty God (Is 10:21)Jesus is Mighty God (Is 9:6)God is Lord of Lords (Deut 10:17, Ps 136:3)Jesus is Lord of Lords (Rev 17:14)God is our only Rock (Is 44:8, Ps 18:2, 94:22)Jesus is our rock (1 Cor 10:4)God is our owner (Is 54:5)Jesus is our only owner (Jude 4)No one can snatch us out of God's hand (Deut 32:39)No one can snatch us out of Jesus hand (Jn 10:28)God is the horn of salvation (2 Sam 22:3)Jesus is the horn of salvation (Lk 1:68,69)God renders according to our works (Ps 62:12)Jesus renders according to our works (Mt 16:27, Rev 22:12)God loves and corrects (Prov 3:12)Jesus loves and corrects (Rev 3:19)God's words will stand forever (Is 40:8)Jesus words will stand forever (Mt 24:35)God is the eternal light (Is 60:19)Jesus is the eternal light (Jn 8:12, Rev 21:3)God seeks to save the lost (Ez 34:16)Jesus seeks to save the lost (Lk 19:10)Paul is a slave of God (Tit 1:1)Paul is a slave of Jesus (Rom 1:1)God raised Jesus from the dead (Gal 1:1)Jesus raised himself from the dead (Jn 2:19-21)God is our guide (Ps 48:14)Jesus is our guide (Lk 1:79)God is our deliverer (Ps 70:5, 2 Sam 22:2)Jesus is our deliverer (Rom 11:26)God is called God (Is 44:8)Jesus is called God (Is 9:6, Jn 20:28)God is the King of Israel (Is 44:6)Jesus is the King of Israel (Mt 27:42, Jn 1:19)How can all these things be true if Christ Jesus is not God? Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus ChristAct 20:28 Take heed therefore...the church of God, which He (God) hath purchased with His own blood
     
  3. epouraniois

    epouraniois Guest

    Yet at Revelation 19:13, Jesus is called the "Word of God".jaareshiah,
    I just wanted to point out something here, briefly, if you can believe that, lol.Actually, the rendering is questionable - 'the Word of God' here. If we look ho Logos tou theou, where tou was translated 'of', we see that this is really the definite article here. If you look at the Greek, the word 'of' in this case, may not be the best representative for our grammatical article.A possible translation then, might be, "The Word The God". In the appendix 104 of the Companion Bible, Dr. Bullinger has given us a nice section on prepositions. It may help.So let me ask now, why are there not two thrones in Revelation, we have the Lamb and we have God mentioned in several of the same verses, yet, there are not two thrones. Why not? (hint, our answer is found in the grammar)
     
  4. jaareshiah

    jaareshiah New Member

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hi epouraniois, Psalms 102:25 is indeed speaking of God as having "laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are the work of your hands." However, the apostle Paul in quoting from this Psalm at Hebrews 1:10, did not apply it to Jesus but rather to God himself, for Paul was contrasting the "Son's" permanence with that of the physical creation, which God, if he so designed, could 'wrap up just as a cloak' and set aside. Too, at Hebrews 1:9, Paul quotes from Psalms 45:7, in which Paul applies to Jesus, saying: "You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. That is why God, your God, anointed you rather than your companions with the oil of gladness."(International Standard Version) If Jesus were God, then why is he spoken here as being anointed by "your God" ? Too, the writer of Psalms 45 was originally addressing a human king. Would Paul have then made this Psalm now apply to God ? Hardly, especially since God never anoints himself nor is he spoken of as having companions. However, Jesus is spoken of as having "companions" or "partners", for Paul says that "he was obliged to become like his “brothers” in all respects, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, in order to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people."(Heb 2:17) Does God have "brothers" on this earth or does he become a "merciful...high priest in things pertaining to God" ? No, but Jesus does.(Matt 25:34-40)Thus, what God said at Isaiah 48:13 does not apply to Jesus, which reads: "Moreover, my own hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my own right hand extended out the heavens. I am calling to them, that they may keep standing together." Proverbs 8:22,23, in personifying wisdom, said that "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth." Could this be God's wisdom ? No. Why ? Because God has always possessed wisdom. Yet the "wisdom" here was "produced" or was "possessed" by God himself and had a beginning. The Hebrew word there for "produced" is qa·na´ni, or in Koine Greek as e´kti·sen´ me, which can literally be translated as "created me". Thus, Jesus had a beginning, was "produced", whereas his Father did not, for his Father, God, is indeed from "everlasting to everlasting".(Psalms 90:2 King James Bible) Jesus is rightly calls himself God's "only-begotten Son" at John 3:16. The word "begotten" comes from the word beget, meaning "to cause, bring about, produce".(Encarta Dictionary) Thus, Jesus was "produced" or was ' brought about ' by being created by the Father, God. In addition, at Proverbs 8:30, he is spoken of as God's "master worker". Some translations say "master workman"(American Standard Version),"workman"(Young's Bible), "nursling"(Darby's Bible). There the Hebrew word is ’a·mohn´, meaning literally a fosterling or a child who is nurtured, one who is provided with care and upbringing. Thus Jesus, as the personification of God's wisdom, was brought up as God's "only-begotten Son", even as a foster child is provided with "care and upbringing". He therefore is not equal to God, for no "fosterling" is equal to his parents. This proverb further says that "I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;"(King James Bible) That it is not just wisdom personified spoken of there, is the fact that God has for all eternity has had wisdom and was not "produced". Hence, Jesus, who is called the "Word", is indeed God's Spokesman, speaking God's wisdom. He told his Jewish listeners: "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality."(John 7:16,17) Thus, Jesus was God's "master worker", working with God to create "all things".(Col 1:15)Naturally God "is our judge", by reason of his being our Creator, for he has the right to judge any of his creation. That is why Isaiah wrote: "For Jehovah is our judge, Jehovah is our lawgiver, Jehovah is our king; he will save us."(Isaiah 33:22 American Standard Version) However, the apostle Paul wrote: "God has overlooked the times of such ignorance, yet now he is telling mankind that they should all everywhere repent. Because he has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and he has furnished a guarantee to all men in that he has resurrected him from the dead.”(Acts 17:30,31) Thus, the "man", Jesus, was resurrected and then later "appointed" by God to "judge the inhabited earth". Does God have to appoint himself to be "judge"? No. Thus, Jesus is "destined to judge the living and the dead".(2 Tim 4:1) Furthermore, Jesus said that "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son."(John 5:22)At Revelation 1:8, God is called the "Alpha and the Omega". And again at Revelation 21:6 and at 22:13. However, this title never applies to Jesus Christ, For verses 12-15 is where God is speaking, but in verse 16 Jesus is personally speaking. There is a change in speakers between verse 15 and 16. At Isaiah 44:6, God is identifying himself as the one and only almighty God. In the original Hebrew at Isaiah 44:6, there is no definite article with the words “first” and “last,” whereas in Jesus’ description of himself in the original Greek at Revelation 1:17, the definite article is found. So, grammatically, Revelation 1:17 indicates a title, whereas Isaiah 44:6 describes God’s Godship.God is not the only one that can forgive sins, for he has granted this "authority" to Jesus. For example, at Mark 2, before Jesus had healed the paralytic, in having in mind the scribes, he then says: "Why are you reasoning these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and pick up your cot and walk’? But in order for you men to know that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins upon the earth, I say to you, Get up, pick up your cot, and go to your home.”(Mark 2:9-11, "has authority", Young's Bible, Weymouth's New Testament, International Standard Version, William's New Testament, Montgomery New Testament, New World Translation) In further understanding that Jesus can be "granted" power or authority, Jesus again says that " For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man."(John 5:26,27 King James Bible) A modern English translation reads here: "For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is."(New World Translation) If Jesus were God, then why was it neccessary to 'grant' "the Son", Jesus, to "have life in himself ", or literally "in himself the gift of life" ? At Isaiah 9:6, the account does not say that Jesus has been without beginning, being eternal, but rather that he is given a title of "Eternal Father" and "Mighty God"(’El Gib·bohr´, not ’El Shad·dai´ meaning Almighty God). These titles give us a description of his future work and power, since he has been given the authority to resurrect people from the dead, being "given authority to do judging". At Isaiah 10:21, the prophet Isaiah spoke of God as “the Mighty God.” Some try to use this similarity of wording to prove that Jesus is God. But we need to be careful about reading too much into these verses. The Hebrew expression rendered “Mighty God” is not limited to God as is the expression “God Almighty.” (Genesis 17:1) Admittedly, there is a difference between being mighty and being almighty, with no superior.At Acts 20:28, not all Bibles render it as: "to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."(King James Bible) There is vast difference between "his own blood" (King James Bible) and the "blood of his own". Yet, this is what the Emphatic Diaglott, in it's interlinear reading, which says:"through the blood of the own" This is also true of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, The New Testament in the Original Greek (originally published in 1881). A footnote in the Emphatic Diaglott says of Acts 20:28: "Greisbach, and nearly all modern editors, read "Church of the Lord". The phrase ecclesia tou Kurious nowhere occurs in the New Testament, while ecclesia tou theou occurs about ten times in Paul's epistles. There are no less than six different readings of this phrase in the MSS.,(manuscripts) which have probably arisen from a presumed difficulty in understanding it in connection with the latter part of the sentence---"purchased with his own blood." But read as it stands in the original, and it still makes good sense, without rejecting the reading of the most ancient MS.,(manuscript) and some of the oldest Peshito Syriac copies. The reader can supply the elliptical word after "own", whether it be "Son", or "Lamb", or "Sacrifice", thus, "feed the CHURCH of God, which he acquired by the BLOOD of his OWN [Son]." The Greek words (tou i·di´ou) follow the phrase “with the blood.” The entire expression could be translated “with the blood of his own.” A noun in the singular number would be understood after “his own,” most likely God’s closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: “Before leaving [i´di·os] something should be said about the use of [ho i´di·os] without a noun expressed. This occurs in John 1:11, 13:1, Acts 4:23, 24:23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277, I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20:28 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’” Alternately, in The New Testament in the Original Greek, by scholars Westcott and Hort, Vol., 2, London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: “it is by no means impossible that [hui·ou´, “of the Son”] dropped out after [tou i·di´ou, “of his own”] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind.” As an example of this, Acts 4:23 says "And being let go, they went to their own company." Yet, there is no word there for "company", but rather this is understood as following the Greek tou i·di´ou in this Scripture. Some place "friends" after tou i·di´ou.(Weymouth New Testament, Young's Bible, interlinear reading - Emphatic Diaglott) Thus, at Acts 20:28, the word "Son" is appropriate there or the "blood of his own (Son)." Thus, some translations of the Bible render Acts 20:28 as "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son]."(New World Translation, The Holy Bible in Modern English,1903, Today's English Version,1966,-"through the death of his own Son" ) Hence, the rendering of the King James Bible is by no means authoritative.Which rendering(s) agree with 1 John 1:7, which says: “The blood of Jesus his [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin”? Furthermore, Revelation 1:5 says: "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood." As stated in John 3:16, did God send his only-begotten Son, or did he himself come as a man, so that we might have life? It was the blood, not of God, but of his Son that was poured out. How can Jesus be "the faithful witness" and be God ? To whom would he be a witness if he were God ?Titus 2:13 does not identify God with Jesus Christ, but rather, these are separated by the word "and". Some argue that Titus 2:13 indicates that Christ is both God and Savior. Interestingly, Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, Today's English Version, and Jerusalem Bible render Titus 2:13 in a way that might be construed as allowing for that view, but they do not follow the same rule in their translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:12, where "the" was placed following the Greek word kai,(and) but does not at Titus 2:13, though the word "the" is not in the sentence at 1 Thessalonains 1:12. (The latter part of Titus 2:13 would then read "of the great God and the Savior of us, Jesus Christ" , in Greek - "tou megalou Theou kai (ho)Soteros hemon IesouChristou", with "the" distinguishing between God and Jesus). Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.” (Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421. Hence, several Bibles render Titus 2:13 as "of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus”(The Riverside New Testament, Boston and New York, 1934), "of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus"(A New Translation of the Bible, James Moffatt, New York and London, 1935), "of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus"(New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn, 1950), "of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ”( La Sainte Bible, by Louis Segond, Paris, 1957), "of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus"(The New American Bible, New York and London, 1970), "of the great God and of Christ Jesus our saviour"(The New Testament in Modern English, by J. B. Phillips, New York, 1972)Regarding 1 Thessalonians 1:12, Theologian Vincent Taylor says: “It is manifest that Paul is speaking first of God and secondly of Christ.” The Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner puts 2 Peter 1:1 in the same category with 2 Thessalonians 1:12, explaining that in the Greek, theos (God) “here is clearly separated from ‘Christ.’”This post is longer than I would have liked it, but provides solid evidence that Jesus is not God, but, as Peter said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God".(Matt 16:16)
     
    truthquest likes this.
  5. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,111
    Likes Received:
    233
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Colossians 2:8-9Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. The Greek is even more conclusive, but I'll let you do your homework on that one. John 14:9-11Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. It was clearly stated a number of times in the previous passage for a reason. If you want to play with Scripture then go right ahead, but the warning is stiff and you will have to answer for it one day. When you start picking and choosing the verses, it quickly becomes your Word and not God's. I John 5:7-8For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. Again, the Word bares the record and Jesus is the Word made flesh. In the beginning, the Word was with God and the Word was God!
     
  6. epouraniois

    epouraniois Guest

    Although I felt there a ruse within the q's directed to me, I made the attempt to answer Biblically, retaining the context of the vv. involved, just in case a desire to look into these matters might be proffered. I have yet to find that a closed mind is open to further revelation, but that is an individual matter of which I have no portion. My portion is but to continue (Eph. 3:9, 4:3, 4:13), knowing that in me (of myself) there dwells no good thing, for there is none righteous, no, not one. There is only one Lord who is one Savior.Act 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.Now that is either a contradiction to the OT, or a clarifying of it. According to the doctrine which holds that Christ is not God, they fail to realize they preach that Satan actually has won. They deny all the apostles teachings about the Lord and Savior. Then they attempt to use the same apostles words (who they don't even believe) to validate their own concepts. This, in Scripture, is called 'double minded'. Is that how we are to handle the Scriptures? Whom will He teach knowledge?Obviously, the Jews at the time of Christ believed, and they were called a remnant. There are some though, it is written, that even if one rose from the dead, they would not believe.Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.There is not one place in Scripture that states that Christ Jesus is not Lord and God. No. Not one. On the other hand though...much more...
     
  7. epouraniois

    epouraniois Guest

    it's real simple really. I am a son myself. I will always be my parents son. I also am a boss. To the employee, I am not the son, I am the boss. Also, I am a father. To my kids, I am a father. Not one of my offices subvert the truth of the other offices. Christ's office while in the flesh was that of a servant, therefore, a little lower than the angels for a time, but given a name above every name that is named. Why? Because ~Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devilAnd in 1 Cor. 15, we have the final verses of Scripture, where we learn that Christ will return to His invisible self, that God, not the Father and not the Son, but that God may be all in all. While God is manifest, He is not all in all. But there will be a time when there will be no need for God to manifest, and at that time, as the Scripture says, it will be excepted that His manifestation of Himself did put all things under His feet, and His own manifestation will return to His invisible self, then God shall be all in all.butyou are lacking some very basic understanding. they (the Jews) had a counsel, called the Sanhedrin, whose job it was to recognize and receive the promised child, called 'the everlasting Father,&c. They were to know Him by His works. You know, signs, wonders, and miracles. That was their job.Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! When would Christ have done that? Obviously, before Jehovah God took on the form of a man. But you didn't look up the meaning of the word morphe did you? No, you don't know what it means.Anyway,They refused to do their job. They did not know the time of their visitation. They could have receive Him, but they had been infiltrated by a false seed who did not believe. They were of their father, small 'f', and they did not know His Father, capitol 'F'. This harkens all the way back to Gen. 3:15 and the two seed lines.They knew the Scriptures, they could look them up, they knew where to look them up. But when the Lord stood up to read the first time, and sat down in mid sentence, they did not understand the Scriptures. He did not come here so He could recognize Himself. He came here as a servant of man, that He might be recognized and be shown His rightful position. In Acts 5 we learn that the Holy Spirit is God, he lied to the HS, He lied to God. The HS is called the Comforter, paraklētos. Christ is called the Comforter. They knew where to find the Scriptures, they could go right to the correct roll and find where He was reading from, but they did not know what they meant.It is no different today. People simply do not believe. But some did believe, and the laying of the palm branches is the same as today, laying out the red carpet. It was the leaders of the Jews, the Sanhedrin who denied their Messiah.From the start, John the Baptist came, saying prepare the way for Jehovah. They asked John if He was the Lord. Instead of me going through all this with a non believer, why don't you explain how the Lord Jesus Christ holds every OT title of Jehovah? How is that Christ saves, when only Jehovah saves? How is it that there is only one Lord, and Christ is the one Lord? I could go on and on and on, but people who do not believe, well, they do not believe. You can try to use the Scriptures to prove your point. I don't have a point though. I only wish to know the truth. I cannot wrench the Scriptures to prove my point since I don't have one. You have a point. Your point is to use Scripture to prove that Scripture cannot possibly mean what it says. That is the sign of a double minded person. If you don't believe the Scriptures when they say one thing, then you cannot believe in them when they say another thing and still have the same mind. No, this comes only from a double mindedness. You cannot believe in Scriptures that you do not believe in, so you can't use them for argument against God to me, not affectively anyways.I can't change anyones mind. All I can do is show where the Scriptures are. It is the Lord who reveals. Will He reveal Himself to someone who does not believe in Him? That is between you who do not believe and Him. It is not between people who do not believe and believers.Thomas finally saw the truth, and he said, My Lord and my God. Even in Pauls day, some 35 years later, Paul looked around and could see that there were many still standing there who had seen the risen Christ. Christ said to Thomas, blessed are those who have not seen, and believe. Sorry to see that you do not believe.
     
  8. MUSTAFAA

    MUSTAFAA New Member

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello to all... Well I don’t remember ever asking anyone to make me a believer… but what would be the difference if I say I believe in God and that’s it, since you say that Jesus is God? Why must I worship him as Jesus only? I would have to say that you only hold different titles… if not then I would like to see you as the father go to work, while you as the son take your son to the park to play, then you as the son take your father out to dinner while you as the father meet with your wife for dinner? Do all these things at the same time and I’ll concede that it is not just a title but truly you are 3 people. On that note, I debate because it teaches me new scriptures and gives me knew incite. I guess you would be right in saying that only God makes believers and it’s up to him not us.
     
  9. epouraniois

    epouraniois Guest

    Do all these things at the same time and I’ll concede that it is not just a title but truly you are 3 people.
    That was my point. I am not three people, I am only seen that way by the various viewpoints. God is one.The Scriptures tell us that we cannot on our own discern that which is spiritual. It is not something the carnal can do. In this sense, we are all ignorant. To be ignorant only means that one does not know. Ignorance is different than stupidity. Stupidity prevents learning, whereas ignorance can be overcome by the facts. Until spiritual knowledge is imparted to us, we are all unable to discern that which is spiritual.The problem is, unless we place ourselves in a position to have that spiritual knowledge imparted to us, God cannot impart it to us and still permit us to exercise the free will which He has instilled into us.God could have built some robots, but He wants us to know Him because we want to. And it is a certainty, in resurrection everyone will want to, for all will be seen as they truly are. the shame will cause the many to try to run and hide, but there will be nowhere to run and hide.In the Garden of God, it was not that the man adam would never discern both good and evil, it was just that he was not mature enough for that knowledge. The first thing the man adam was in need of, was the acknowledgment of the first thing he was instructed in. Without the first obedience, he could not be given the 2nd instruction. He did not trust in the Lord.Your point of arguing for study is questionable to me. People from time immemorial have searched, but without the ability to acknowledge, there is really nothing there to work with. So they remained ignorant. On the other hand, many came to dig, and having an open mind, became believers. So part of it is on us, and part of it is on God. And now I am essentially forced to do this other study I have been putting off. It is relevant, it is about what Almighty means, our relationship and what God expects out of us.God, throughout the Scriptures, said He would go with them, but they had to be willing to first go. He said He would not do their work for them, but by His going with them, they would overcome.Overcome what? 2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not...Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
     
  10. MUSTAFAA

    MUSTAFAA New Member

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Your point of arguing for study is questionable to me. People from time immemorial have searched, but without the ability to acknowledge, there is really nothing there to work with. So they remained ignorant. On the other hand, many came to dig, and having an open mind, became believers." end quote 1. Quick question, what is it that you want me to acknowledge? 2. What is it that you would like me to open my mind to? 3. what is it that you think I don’t believe? Be honest I can take it… were just talking
     
  11. epouraniois

    epouraniois Guest

    1. Quick question, what is it that you want me to acknowledge?Setting the presumption aside, I will say that I am here to study Scripture. It is really beyond me whether or not sharing what little I have studied can assist anyone or not, but if anything might help someone, then I am here that they can take advantage of my efforts and combine them with their own. It is my belief that the Scripture is given to us for acknowledgment, but this I have already stated.2. What is it that you would like me to open my mind to?see answer # 1.3. what is it that you think I don’t believe?Only what you said you don't believe.Be honest I can take it… were just talkingI acknowledge that. Trust me, I am not a sensitive guy. And why should I be, Biblically? The Lord never permitted anyone to sit on the fence. He made sure they stood in the place of their choosing. He went on to teach that there is only one place we might chose to stand wherein lies a sure foundation. All other places is likened to building on sand.When I study these things, at least for me, I see that many did not know the position they had taken until the conversation developed. Christ was good at that, being that He knew what they were thinking and all. I am not good at it. I am not even good at studying the Scriptures, but I try. Moreover, I believe they are true. Believing this, I believe that God has chosen to reveal something of Himself therein. Therefore, if I am to know something of what He is revealing of Himself, I must study His Word, for only in His Word can I get to know Him, and to have something of His understanding.If I am only looking for my interpretation, then I needn't pick up this Book at all. But if I want to know His interpretation, then I need to do more than just pick up the Book. I need to lay aside whatever my thoughts might be, and receive His interpretation. The last thing we should want, is to introduce our interpretation into the place of His. He is the one revealing Himself. My opinion should not enter into the equation, lest I miss what is being revealed.Without God, nothing in this world makes sense to me. Without God, there really is not reason not to go out into the world and take as much as I can. With God though, I had to stop doing that, and reach for something a bit higher, namely the knowledge of Him. The Bible tells us that we are either energized by the prince of the power of the air (Satan), or we are renewed day by day by the truth that is in Jesus Christ, and that there is no truth in any other. You don't have to guess which walk I think is the worthy one.But this Book is not about you or me, it is the revealing of the creator, and how He stooped down to our level to make truth known, similarly as we do with our children. We do not speak to them with advanced mathematics, foreign languages, quantum mechanics. No, we speak to them in baby talk. And that is what we find in the Bible, the Lord stooping down because we cannot climb up. The response from humanity is, No you didn't. So what is the net result? Only the few find Him, the many believe that God should have done things their way, but His ways are not the ways of man.What can one do?
     
  12. jaareshiah

    jaareshiah New Member

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hi Swampfox, You point to Colossians 2:9 as a Scripture that supports the trinity. But, Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the Greek word used there, the·o´tes, in basically the same way it does thei·o´tes as at Romans 1:20, as meaning “divinity, divine nature.” (P. 792) The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate (both of the 5th century C.E.) render this word as “divinity.” Even at Acts 17:29, where the Greek phrase to thei´on, (form of thei´os) is used, it is rendered as "that which is divine" (Darby's Bible), "His nature" (Weymouth's New Testament), "Divine Being" (New World Translation). According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the expression to thei´on “is derived from the adjective theíos, meaning ‘pertaining to God,’ ‘divine.’” (Edited by G. Bromiley, 1979, Vol. 1, p. 913) Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon gives as the meaning “the Divinity.” (pp. 787, 788) So the phrase to thei´on can be understood to refer to a person or to a quality. Obviously, then, the context must guide the translator in his choice of words. At Acts 17:29, the context clearly shows that the person of God is being described and can rightly be rendered as "Divine Being". You quoted 1 John 5:7,8 as your authority for Jesus to be God. Yet, if one does their "homework", it is now known that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJ) found in older translations at 1 John 5:7 are actually spurious additions to the original text. A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are “not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself.” In the fourth century C.E., in a Latin treatise, an overzealous advocate of Trinitarianism evidently included these words as if these were a quotation from 1 John 5:7. Later that passage was put right into the text of a Latin Bible manuscript. Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”-A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654. Thus, this "Scripture" cannot rightfully be used to support the trinity. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716-718), traces in detail the history of the spurious passage. It states that the passage is first found in a treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, of the fourth century, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century. Modern translations as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include them in the main body of the text, because of recognizing their spurious nature.(Revised Standard Version, The New English Bible,The New American Bible, (1970), Catholic Biblical Association of America)For example, when the 16th-century scholar Erasmus translated his Greek “New Testament,” he appealed to the authority of the Vatican Codex (Codex Vaticanus 1209 of the fourth century) to omit the spurious words from 1 John chapter 5, verses 7 and 8 that had been made as additions to later copies of the Latin Vulgate. Yet the Catholic Church held to it's rendering as found in their editions of the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus though was right, yet as late as 1897 Pope Leo XIII upheld the corrupted Latin text of the Vulgate. Only with the publication of modern Roman Catholic translations has this textual error been acknowledged.You also quote from John 14:9-11 and say that because it reads that "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ", that this Scripture shows Jesus to be God. However, in this same Scripture, Jesus says that "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." How could Jesus be God and speak "words...not of myself " or "not speak of my own originality" ? Does God need someone to put words in his mouth ? A modern English translation reads at John 14:9-11: "Jesus said to him (Philip): “Have I been with you men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father [also]. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to you men I do not speak of my own originality; but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works. Believe me that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me; otherwise, believe on account of the works themselves."(New World Translation) Thus, Jesus was "in union with the Father", wanting to see his Father's will take place, not his own.(Matt 6:9,10) If Jesus were God, then why did he pray on the night before he died: "O my Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Yet not what I want but what you want" ?(Matt 26:39 International Standard Version) How could there be two "wills" here, if both are God ? Too, why is the Father's "will" more important than the "Son's" if both are God ?Too, at Hebrews 1:3, the apostle Paul wrote of Jesus: "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."(King James Bible) Hence, Paul speaks of Jesus as being the "express image of his person (God)". Jesus imitated his Father perfectly, as one Bible says that "he is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being."(New World Translation) Therefore, Jesus is not God, but reflects his personality with perfection, showing the same kind of love (a·ga´pe) that his Father displays. Another logical question is: How could Jesus be God and yet he "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" ? If the trinity doctrine, upon which most of the religions of Christendom place as a foundation for their beliefs, is true, then why did it take some 300 years following the death of the last apostle, John in about 100 C.E., for it to become established as part of the "Christian" doctrine ? It was not until 381 C.E. for it to start coming into focus, at the Council of Constantinople. Yet, even after this Council, the Trinity Doctrine did not become widely accepted. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: “The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.”In addition, at Isaiah 28:16, it says that "therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone of sure foundation: he that believeth shall not be in haste."(American Standard Version) How can Jesus be God, referring to himself as "the chief cornerstone" at Matthew 21:42, and then say that "from Jehovah this has come to be, and it is marvelous in our eyes", in quoting from Psalms 118:22,23 ? Jesus is "the chief cornerstone" of God's "spiritual house", not God himself. How can this "spiritual house" originate with Jehovah God and not Jesus, if Jesus is God ? Thus, that is why Jesus could say that "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."(Rev 3:12 King James Bible) If Jesus were God, how is it that the "temple" is not his nor "new Jerusalem", but rather he called it "the city of my God" ?
     
  13. epouraniois

    epouraniois Guest

    jaareshiah,While some may have heard of the Peshitta, and some may have actually looked it up to see what language it reads, others still may have in fact studied in it. Have you? (don't answer)Swampfox may have banned my from the git, if it weren't for, imo, Swampfox's searching to see if a thing is so. That is a fact. Perhaps I will still be...I have some harsh things to say about your posts, about the possible reason for your assumed integrity, about the not so hidden bating proffered, and especially about your referencing Books you may or may not know very much about, coupling with the additional assumption that partial quotes out of context might change any thing that is written even a little bit, so here goes nutt'n ~First and Again, if you don't believe in the Scriptures for truth, then you also cannot believe in them enough to use them in any way which could prove they don't mean what they say. (you cannot use truth to prove that truth is not truth) And since you believe them a lie, you certainly cannot use a lie to prove truth. As Jim Morrison said, "WAKE UP".Jas 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. But of course, this is your transparency, that maybe someone else might believe in the Scriptures enough to use them against themselves. You looking for some weak Christians? Working for the ACLU? M...ad? ISI? &c. &c.? No need to guess the cause form my point of view, but, and who cares who your work is for. It is obvious, your work is for the weak. Your work is for yourself. Everyone is not weak though, so we see the big effort on your part, not to study to show yourself approved, but to cause discord. tisk tisk that Christian Bible students see it every day. Are you not aware that your disharmony only strengthens what is written? that we are full warned about those who come in some other name? Of course you know these things! Of course of course!Jas 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. You are prayed for by believing Christians irregardless of the wanton and even disharmonic abuses. What you say in your partial quotes, and your inadequate synopsis, it only speaks volumes about where you are coming from, much more than what the Scriptures you use to denounce the Scriptures could ever hope to be able to show forth. And where do you come from then, if it is not a place of fear. don't be afraid, Christians aren't out to get you, even if the new pamphlets say that they are, that we are. The Scriptures! Studying the Scriptures, Yeah! but studying is not what you are here for is it? You don't need to answer such a useless question ~Knowing that that above post is not addressed to me, I will still say, that after some time of study in the Peshitta, I hold dear, the surety and respect by which it speaks, but none of that matters. When you find yourself rambling off about a partial verse here or a partial verse there - really, submitting to none of the actual context, foregoing the subject and the object, then turning the cover story as to instigate people you will never know just oh so blows your cover, but even that was an afterthought for you, being that your non belief is already exaggerated in what I read in your every postings. Of course, there is the possibility that I give you way too much credit. It may be as simple as you going through a checklist that landed on your desk.Lastly,Even the attempt to use Scripture to prove that Scripture does not mean what it says -- is -- is juvenile at best. So what is a juvenile doing referencing the Peshitta anyways ? (-- not that you actually did) Personally, I love the Syriac and think we should be worse off without it. So -- Trying to convince believers not to believe? By using the words they believe in? Come on, make a stronger effort than half verses and half concepts. Maybe you don't really have soo much time on your hands -- maybe it's just a desk job. Trying to track down those horrible ol Christians? Why not just state your cause jaareshiah, your true calling?Please don't mistake these words of mine for angst, for rebuttal, for attack for defense, and especially not for judgment, as it doesn't take a genius to know if it is day or night. And if you can reprove that you don't mean what you say, then I will apologize from an abundance, but I won't hold my breath...You got a verse for your calling jaareshiah? zthat on your cheklist? What is the hope of your calling?signed, just winning friends and enflu...(sic)
     
  14. MUSTAFAA

    MUSTAFAA New Member

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your point of arguing for study is questionable to me. People from time immemorial have searched, but without the ability to acknowledge, there is really nothing there to work with. So they remained ignorant. On the other hand, many came to dig, and having an open mind, became believers.” End quote. [/COLOR] "The problem is, unless we place ourselves in a position to have that spiritual knowledge imparted to us, God cannot impart it to us and still permit us to exercise the free will which He has instilled into us." End quote.Let me show you how I study through “debate” my word, not “arguing” your word… part of your post reminds me of Paul when he was on the road going to persecute more Christians was he doing anything to place himself in position for god’s grace… was he going to god or away from him? I have to seek this out and now I’m questioning you about it for further study… faith or works... you seem to think that we can do something or we have to be open to god’s word in order to receive it I don’t agree with that and it’s not me arguing with you its just my point of view. What about a child who dies in the womb how does he work for his salvation, or what about the child born with a learning block like you might say that I have how does he work for his salvation? would you say that Paul's mind was open to God... and he really wanted to know, or had he made up his mind about the subject.
     
  15. MUSTAFAA

    MUSTAFAA New Member

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    To: EpouranioisLet me tell you a little about myself since you seem to really want to get to know me better… the last religion I gave my allegiance to was Islam, which would make me Muslim. But right now I find myself between religions, or beliefs I think would be a better word. The reason I just don’t come right out and tell people that is they assume that all Muslim or fanatics… and that they need to be saved. But that being said, many early christens died and were willing to kill for their beliefs so I see fanatics in both religions. I think people should be able to discuss their religious views on the grounds of logic and understanding no mater what faith they say they hold to be true. As Muslim I was thought that Jesus was a great prophet, but not God. And for me that was not just something I believed because of who he was and what he stood for. Its because I believe that no man can be a God, God does not reduce himself or limit his being for any man, I don’t care how close you think you might be to him. For me to say that God has some how impregnated one of his creations and father a son is beyond my understanding to put it politely. Even in the old Testament we see God anger at angles coming down and sleeping with women… and now we have God doing the same thing? This was my belief before I became Muslim… I just can’t grasp and all mighty God allowing him self to become a man then be dragged through the streets beaten and nailed to a cross to die! All through out the old Testament I see God punishing and putting people to death just for breaking his commandments and not following the things he says to do. Moses was denied the promise land for something much less then a blow to the face of God, what a great degree from God… it just shows me the level of his anger for disobeying him. Now we see God coming down and allowing him self to be treated in the most despicable ways by the same humans. Maybe I’m taking what you say to “Literally” “God became a man”… but to me this is exactly what you seem to be saying! I will never give up my defense of God in such a subject. It amuses me when people say well… “If you would only read the original language then you will know what it means”. But I don’t have that all I have is what you have given me as your proof the Bible… and I just for the life of me can’t see what your saying. What should the orginal langue have to do with it, if you say you have translated if for me to read and study? And that it has no error or no false statements it… if has been given to me as you stay they I should be able to pick it up in my langue and get the full understanding of what it is that your trying to show me. If you say scripture can only be confirmed by scripture then what else should I use to make a point but scripture. Someone should not be condemned for quoting scripture if you give him that scripture and say… “you tell me what about it you don’t believe”. I think I have given scriptural quotes to express my point of view and I stand behind what I say.The only thing that gives me comfort is that no matter what doctrine anyone was trying to get me to believe, if God wanted me to see it that way then he would make it clear to me. So I really don’t care what people tell me I should believe and not believe I leave it up to God to make the last decision concerning my belief in him! And If I go to hell for not believing that Jesus was God then I accept that, but I will not say that he is God if I truly don’t have that understanding of him or just to be liked or fit into someone’s mold of how I should be. I challenge God in every way I know how… if this is what you have said is true then show it to me plainly, take the veil from my face and let me see it. To me God is greater then the words we have in the Bible the first one or the last one, the original or the current one. Someone who has never picked up a Bible in his life may hear God… if God called him! He would have to come; it’s just that simple for me. So until he calls me I’ll go on in my ignorant ways, all I can say is I tried with what was given to me, my understand and my faith in what I’ve seen and read on the subject. But since my life is not over… maybe he will take up my challenge.
     
  16. MUSTAFAA

    MUSTAFAA New Member

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Comma Johanneum is a comma, or short clause, present in most translations of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_John]First Epistle of John[/url] published from [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1522]1522[/url] until the latter part of the nineteenth century, owing to the widespread use of the third edition of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus]Textus Receptus[/url] (TR) as the sole source for translation. In readings containing the clause, such as this one from the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version_of_the_Bible]King James Bible[/url], 1 John 5:7–8 reads as follows, the Comma itself here rendered with emphasis:5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The resulting passage is an explicit reference to the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity]Trinity[/url] (the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine]doctrine[/url] that the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father]Father[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus]Son[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit]Holy Spirit[/url] are [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism]one God[/url]), and for this reason some [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian]Christians[/url] are resistant to the elimination of the Comma from modern [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical]Biblical[/url] translations. Nonetheless, nearly all recent translations have removed this clause, as it does not appear in older copies of the Epistle and it is not present in the passage as quoted by any of the early [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers]Church Fathers[/url], who would have had plenty of reason to quote it in their Trinitarian debates (for example, with the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism]Arians[/url]), had it existed then. Most Churches now agree that the theology contained in the Comma is true, but that the Comma is not an original part of the Epistle of John.
     
  17. MUSTAFAA

    MUSTAFAA New Member

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    OriginsSeveral early sources which one might expect to include the Comma Johanneum in fact omit it. For example, although Clement of Alexandria's writings around the year 200 place a strong emphasis on the Trinity, his quotation of 1 John 5:8 does not include the Comma.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum#_note-trinitarian][1][/url][2]One account of its origins suggests that the Comma originated in a Latin homily elaborating on this passage in the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate]Vulgate[/url]. The third-century Church father [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprian]St. Cyprian[/url] quoted John 10:30 and added, "Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est—Et hi tres unum sunt" (De Unitate Ecclesiæ, "On the Unity of the Church", vi).[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum#_note-CE][3][/url] Translated, Cyprian's remark reads, "And again it is written of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit—and these three are one." If Cyprian had been aware of the Comma, he would likely have quoted it directly, rather than glossing a verse in a different [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works]Johannine book[/url] with a sentence which resembles the Comma. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian]Tertullian[/url], in his Against Praxeas (circa 210), also supports a Trinitarian view by quoting John 10:30, even though the Comma would have provided stronger support.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum#_note-trinitarian][1][/url] Likewise, St. Jerome's writings of the fourth century give no evidence that he was aware of the Comma's existence.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum#_note-CE][3][/url] (The Codex Fuldensis, a copy of the Vulgate made around 546, contains a copy of Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Gospels which seems to reference the Comma. However, the Codex's version of 1 John omits the Comma, which has led many to believe that the Prologue's reference is spurious.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum#_note-trinitarian][1][/url][4]) In the sixth century, St. Fulgentius referred to Cyprian's remark (in "Responsio contra Arianos", "Reply against the Arians"). Many figures in the African Church of the period quoted the Comma, but they did so inconsistently; the most notable and prolific writer of the African Church, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo]St. Augustine[/url], is completely silent on the matter.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum#_note-CE][3][/url]The first work to use the Comma Johanneum as an actual part of the Epistle's text appears to be the fourth-century Latin book Liber Apologeticus, probably written by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscillian]Priscillianof[/url] Ávila (died 385), or his close follower Bishop Instantius.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum#_note-0][5][/url] (A Spanish theologian who advocated the strictly ascetic lifestyle, Priscillian was the first person in the history of Christianity to be executed for [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy]heresy[/url].) [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown]Raymond E. Brown[/url]'s Epistle of John specifies the Liber Apologeticus as the Comma's source.This part of the homily, possibly originating from Cyprian, then became worked into copies of the Vulgate, roughly around the year 800; the passage in the Vulgate was then back-translated into the Greek. Out of the thousands of manuscripts currently extant which contain the New Testament in Greek, the Comma only appears in eight. The oldest known occurrence appears to be a later addition to a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_century]10th century[/url] manuscript now in the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodleian_Library]Bodleian Library[/url], the exact date of the addition not known; in this manuscript, the Comma is a variant reading offered as an alternative to the main text. The other seven sources date to the sixteenth century or later, and four of the seven are hand-written in the manuscript margins. In one manuscript, back-translated into Greek from the Vulgate, the phrase "and these three are one" is not present.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum#_note-mann][6][/url]No [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Christianity]Syriac[/url] manuscripts include the Comma, and its presence in some printed Syriac Bibles is due to back-translation from the Latin Vulgate. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Christianity]Coptic[/url] manuscripts and those from Ethiopian churches also do not include it. Of the surviving "Itala" or "[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina]Old Latin[/url]" translations, only two support the Textus Receptus reading, namely the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Codex_Monacensis&action=edit]Codex Monacensis[/url] ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_century]sixth[/url] or seventh century) and the Speculum, an eighth- or ninth-century collection of New Testament quotations.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum#_note-CE][3][/url]
     
  18. jaareshiah

    jaareshiah New Member

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hi epouraniois, I am a serious Bible student, even as you. I responded to MUSTAFAA's initial post on his questioning the trinity, with him wondering how this can truly be a Biblical doctrine. When he read the Bible, he could not come to believe that Jesus is God, finding no support for it. He was not willing to look at the Scriptures with a stretched imagination, but realistically. Why do those who believe so firmly in the trinity become upset when their viewpoint is challenged Scripturally ? What I did was to provide Scriptural evidence that Jesus was created (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14), that he did nothing of his own initiative, for Jesus said that "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me."(John 7:16), that he was taught (John 7:28), that he was God's representative (John 7:29), that he was unaware of the "day and hour" as to when the great tribulation would begin (Matt 24:36), that he is limited in knowledge, for he said to his apostles after his resurrection: "It does not belong to you to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction".(Acts 1:7), that he called his Father "abba", which means basically daddy or papa, denoting himself as his Son (Mark 14:36), that he died (Isaiah 53:12), of which God cannot, for Habakkuk 1:12 says that "Are you not from long ago, O Jehovah, O my God, my Holy One, you do not die", that Jesus was "exalted to a superior position" after his resurrection (Phil 2:9), that Jesus told Mary that he was "ascending to my God and your God" (John 20:17), that Jesus prayed to the "only true God" (John 17:3), that after his resurrection, he was seated at God's "right hand" (Col 3:1), that he was to be given the reins of the "kingdom" by his Father, God (Dan 7:9-14; Luke 1:32), that he will turn these reins of the "kingdom" back over to God (1 Cor 15:24), that he is the mediator of the new covenant between God and man (1 Tim 2:5), that after his resurrection, he took his life-blood and presented it to the "person of God" (Heb 9:24), that he did not do his own "will", but God's (Matt 26:39). You have a choice to believe as you wish, as everyone does, an informed choice. MUSTAFAA asked some very sound and thought-provoking questions, and gave some very good Scriptures regarding Jesus submissive role. I gave him Scriptural support for his understanding of Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God".(Matt 16:16) Biblical objectivity is neccessary to examine the Bible accurately, putting aside theological interests, which many of the early church "fathers" did not do, but rather was influenced by Greek philosophy, such as Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 C.E.). This trend came to fruition in the writings of Origen (c. 185-254 C.E.), a Greek author from Alexandria. Origen’s treatise On First Principles was the first systematic effort to explain the main doctrines of “Christian” theology in terms of Greek philosophy. The Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), with its attempt to explain and establish the “divinity” of Christ, was the milestone that gave new impetus to interpretation of “Christian” dogma. That council marked the beginning of an era during which general church councils sought to define dogma ever more precisely, such as the trinity. In his book The Church of the First Three Centuries, Dr. Alvan Lamson states that the doctrine of the Trinity “had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.” Who were these “Platonizing Fathers”? They were apostate clerics who were infatuated with the teachings of pagan Greek philosopher Plato.There were many prior to us who also sought out an informed choice regarding the trinity. Michael Servetus was one who looked into the Bible and could not accept the trinity. Born in 1511 in the village of Villanueva de Sijena, Spain, and living at a time when Bible reading was forbidden, Servetus did so in secret as a teenager, vowing after his first reading to read it "thousand times more." He studied using the Complutensian Polyglot (1514-17), a multilanguage Bible in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, along with some portions in Aramaic. At the age of 20, he published his book De Trinitas erroribus (On the Errors of the Trinity), a work that made the principle target of the Spanish Inquisition. He wrote in this that he "will not make use of the word Trinity, which is not to be found in Scripture, and only seems to perpetuate philosophical error". Also in his work, A Statement Regarding Jesus Christ, Servetus described the doctrine of the Trinity as perplexing and confusing and noted that the Scriptures contained "not even one syllable" in it's support. For his outspokenness, he was eventually arrested, tried and burned at the stake by John Calvin (1509-1564), who was the leader of the Reformation, on October 27, 1553. Thus, there are those who oppose those who speak out against the trinity.Can I turn my back on the all the Scriptures that clearly show Jesus to be God's "only-begotten Son" and therefore not God ? No, for this would be a denial of the truth. Please understand that I wish to present the Bible as it stands, not watering it down as so many have done. That is why the apostle Peter said to "form a longing for the unadulterated milk belonging to the word."(1 Peter 2:2)
     
  19. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,111
    Likes Received:
    233
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    You point to Colossians 2:9 as a Scripture that supports the trinity. But, Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the Greek word used there, the·o´tes, in basically the same way it does thei·o´tes as at Romans 1:20, as meaning “divinity, divine nature.” (P. 792) The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate (both of the 5th century C.E.) render this word as “divinity.” Even at Acts 17:29, where the Greek phrase to thei´on, (form of thei´os) is used, it is rendered as "that which is divine" (Darby's Bible), "His nature" (Weymouth's New Testament), "Divine Being" (New World Translation). According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the expression to thei´on “is derived from the adjective theíos, meaning ‘pertaining to God,’ ‘divine.’” (Edited by G. Bromiley, 1979, Vol. 1, p. 913) Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon gives as the meaning “the Divinity.” (pp. 787, 788) So the phrase to thei´on can be understood to refer to a person or to a quality. Obviously, then, the context must guide the translator in his choice of words. At Acts 17:29, the context clearly shows that the person of God is being described and can rightly be rendered as "Divine Being".
    Thanks for the lecture, but you make some conclusions that bolsters exactly what Epo said - you're quoting things that you don't have the slightest clue about. I'm not here to make a judgment on you, but I am here to do my best to help everyone find the Word - in all senses of the Word. The specific word used in Acts 17:29 is Theios. Even the smallest bit of research - and I have a very negative opinion about some of the cited works - yields that this word was used in the plural sense. It was used in ancient Greek to describe the gods and denotes here the plural sense of the Godhead because three make up the one. One God, three forms or offices if you will. In Colossians 2:9 the Greek is Theotes and this is the one time it's used. The meaning of the passage is quite clear, even substituting in the Word Divinity which you argued for because the subject remains the same. Insert the subject in the context of the verse: In Jesus dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Divinity] bodily. Fulness is pretty explicit. The Greek is filled. When you are full, you are satiated because you have all of it. "All the fulness" of God does not lie. If Jesus were merely the Son of God and not God in the flesh, he would not have all of the fulness.
    Yet, if one does their "homework", it is now known that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJ) found in older translations at 1 John 5:7 are actually spurious additions to the original text.
    Mularky and hogwash. That's your mind taking out what you don't want to believe. I'm sure you're familiar with these verses? Revelation 22:18-19For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. This wasn't the only time something to this effect was said. Don't play around with the Word of God. If you do, you're going to get burned when the time comes. Those aren't my words, look them up, they are right there in front of you. This topic is closed to prevent further perversion of God's Bible.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...