Christ as the firstborn

[Insight]

I know I said tomorrow, but a question is in order before I retire.

Insight and Vengle,

Does "theos" only refer to Yahweh when it is preceded by the direct article?

Nomad

Your many unlearned questions are tiresome. Let’s not call it a day, but cease altogether. To be honest Nomad I would prefer to speak to my 5 year old son, come to think of it he may understand you’re Greek.

The picture is placed here to show you what manner of man you are.

Reeds blowing in the wind

When I come to read your posts I behold this picture; I endure your many philosophical questions only to find your ask another and another...2 Tim 3:7

You are your own worst enemy; a man in derision.

Insight

 

[Vengle]

I know I said tomorrow, but a question is in order before I retire.

Insight and Vengle,

Does "theos" only refer to Yahweh when it is preceded by the direct article?

As you are the one that worships the learned of men, listen to them:

DON'T OUTGREEK THE GREEK

By Harold J. Berry​

Excepts from "Take Heart" in Your Study; PROKOPE, Vol. VIII, No. 3, page 6;
Copyright © 1991 by The Good News Broadcasting Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
They say that a little bit of Greek is dangerous. Well, maybe being able to swim five yards is not too helpful, but I'd rather know how to swim five yards than not at all.
What I usually find is that by the time my students have gone through my Greek classes, they're not acting too authoritative about Greek. They realize that there are enough technicalities and exceptions to require some balance and caution as they study a Greek text.
All words take on a special significance when viewed in light of their context. Always be suspicious if a commentary you're using packs or loads a word with theological meaning and then traces it through the Bible and forces the context to fit that meaning. That's not the way any language works. There are certain basic meanings the word has, but it takes on additional shades of meaning in its context. The same kind of care should be used regarding tenses and conditional sentences. End Quote.


It is not as though I do not no where you are coming from. I choose to disagree with garbage. The Word of God ranks number one with me and how a word is used throughout the context does trump these scholarly prideful men. To imagine that God needed the scholars to spread His word goes against the very teachings of the Bible.

And as long as you place their opinions first you are heading toward the wrath of God.

 

[Vengle]

I know I said tomorrow, but a question is in order before I retire.

Insight and Vengle,

Does "theos" only refer to Yahweh when it is preceded by the direct article?

And before you point it out, yes, I know that the paragraph following that which I highlighted is what you said. That is not meant to be a black and white rule (unless that man is a total idiot). For there is much about the scriptures that will remain hid forever to you if you applied that as a black and white rule.

You would not understand. But no where are we told that we need scholars to be able to understand.

We are told that we need God's Holy Spirit.

 

[Nomad]

I don't see an answer from either one of you. It's a valid question because it comes up constantly in discussions between Unitarians and Trinitarians. I'll ask again. There are 3 possible valid answers. Yes, no, and I don't know. There's no trickery here. I just want to know if you guys are going to take the standard JW/Unitarian position on this. Remember, it's yes, no, or I don't know. There's no shame in admitting that you don't know.

Does "theos" only refer to Yahweh when it is preceded by the definite article?

 

[Vengle]

I don't see an answer from either one of you. It's a valid question because it comes up constantly in discussions between Unitarians and Trinitarians. I'll ask again. There are 3 possible valid answers. Yes, no, and I don't know. There's no trickery here. I just want to know if you guys are going to take the standard JW/Unitarian position on this. Remember, it's yes, no, or I don't know. There's no shame in admitting that you don't know.

Does "theos" only refer to Yahweh when it is preceded by the definite article?

Are you trying to say that we are Jehovah's Witnesses? What is your point when you have been told 10,000 times we are fine with how the KJV translates it?

There can only be one point and that is to pick to find fault with which to attack us.

No, I am not a Jehovah's Witness. My understanding is not derived from Jehovah's Witnesses. I in fact came to hate the fleshly formalities of religion which gather around agreeing on specific doctrines. For those fleshly formalities impede the freedom in the spirit as the spirit shapes and grows our understanding.

 

[Nomad]

Are you trying to say that we are Jehovah's Witnesses? What is your point when you have been told 10,000 times we are fine with how the KJV translates it?

There can only be one point and that is to pick to find fault with which to attack us.

No, I am not a Jehovah's Witness. My understanding is not derived from Jehovah's Witnesses. I in fact came to hate the fleshly formalities of religion which gather around agreeing on specific doctrines. For that impedes the freedom in the spirit as the spirit shapes and grows our understanding.

That's quite a red herring you have there. I didn't say you were a JW. I asked if you were going to take the standard JW/Unitarian position on the word "theos." How about a straight answer now?

 

[Vengle]

That's quite a red herring you have there. I didn't say you were a JW. I asked if you were going to take the standard JW/Unitarian position on the word "theos." How about a straight answer now?

You are the red herring :lol: there is definitely something fishy about you and your approach.

 

[Nomad]

You are the red herring :lol: there is definitely something fishy about you and your approach.

I'll take that as "I don't know."

 

[Vengle]

I'll take that as "I don't know."

Theos always refers to God in direct reference to what makes up His person, His divinity.

But as you do not understand divinity you cannot understand that we are all but reflections of God if we have fed on His Word as our daily bread and therefore anyone one looking at us should see God.

This is the most basic theme of how we can bear God's light in this world.

Matthew 4:4 "... Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Not the words of men such as the celebrated scholars; but the words of God.

 

[Nomad]

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you Vengle.

Does "theos" only refer to Yahweh when it is preceded by the definite article?

 

[Vengle]

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you Vengle.

Does "theos" only refer to Yahweh when it is preceded by the definite article?

What purpose does the definite article serve?

It serves to enforce definiteness. So the best we can say is that with the presence of the definite article we can be certain it refers to the actual person of Yahweh.

However this game you are playing assumes that I do not know that sometimes the definite article can be left off from the second or successive occurrence of the word that it was originally used to make definite.

You seriously need to grow up and stop playing games that assume ignorance in others.

You might be right sometimes in that outrageous assumption but little do I care how you judge me. You are nobody. I am nobody. So get off it.

 

[BibleScribe]

...
Your many unlearned questions are tiresome. Let’s not call it a day, but cease altogether. To be honest Nomad I would prefer to speak to my 5 year old son, come to think of it he may understand you’re Greek.
...

Pardon me for interjecting, but I believe the proper text for the sentence above, (highlighted in bold brown), should be "your".


I share this, because of this individual's self professed proficiency (read: blather) in parsing Scripture.

BibleScribe

 

[Vengle]

The computers in my network were changed over to a new operating system recently and so I do not have everything set up at this time. I am therefore posting this as a test for now.

1:1 en
en
G1722
Prep
IN

arch
archE
G746
n_ Dat Sg f
ORIGINal
beginning

hn
En
G2258
vi Impf vxx 3 Sg
WAS

o
ho
G3588
t_ Nom Sg m
THE

logos
logos
G3056
n_ Nom Sg m
saying
word

kai
kai
G2532
Conj
AND

o
ho
G3588
t_ Nom Sg m
THE

logos
logos
G3056
n_ Nom Sg m
saying
word

hn
En
G2258
vi Impf vxx 3 Sg
WAS

pros
pros
G4314
Prep
TOWARD

ton
ton (Note the last letter of the definite article here)
G3588
t_ Acc Sg m
THE

qeon (Note the last letter of the noun that definite article enforces)
theon
G2316
n_ Acc Sg m
God

kai
kai
G2532
Conj
AND

qeos (Note the last letter of the successive occurrence of that previous noun)
theos
G2316
n_ Nom Sg m
God

hn
En
G2258
vi Impf vxx 3 Sg
WAS

o
ho
G3588
t_ Nom Sg m
THE

logos
logos
G3056
n_ Nom Sg m
saying
word

1:2 outos
houtos
G3778
pd Nom Sg m
this

hn
En
G2258
vi Impf vxx 3 Sg
WAS

en
en
G1722
Prep
IN

arch
archE
G746
n_ Dat Sg f
ORIGINal
beginning

pros
pros
G4314
Prep
TOWARD

ton
ton (Note that here the definite article is the same last letter as the first)
G3588
t_ Acc Sg m
THE

qeon
theon (And note that the noun it gives definiteness to also ends in the same letter as the first.)
G2316
n_ Acc Sg m
God


And now stand before God and all creation to testify that "theos" can be properly connected to "ton" in this text.

For the rule to apply correctly you cannot claim that it rests on the definite article for the previous or successive logos in the sense that it makes it definite Yahweh. You must attach it to the original definite article which did the enforcing of the first occurrence of that same noun. And that last letter dictates whether that can be done. If it is not the same last letter (and it is not) then you are speculating.

 

[Nomad]

Vengle,

I think the problem here is that you really don't understand what I'm asking. I'll put it another way. Can an anarthrous occurrence of theos refer to Yaweh? This all pertains to John 1:1, which I am putting aside for now. I want to deal with what you said below.

So the best we can say is that with the presence of the definite article we can be certain it refers to the actual person of Yahweh.

Good. Then you should have no problem accepting that Jesus is Yahweh.

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Joh 20:28 ἀπεκρίθη θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.

The literal rendering of the last part of that verse reads, "The Lord of me and the God of me." Notice the definite articles preceding both "Lord" and "God."

 

[Vengle]

Vengle,

I think the problem here is that you really don't understand what I'm asking. I'll put it another way. Can an anarthrous occurrence of theos refer to Yaweh? This all pertains to John 1:1, which I am putting aside for now. I want to deal with what you said below.



Good. Then you should have no problem accepting that Jesus is Yahweh.

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Joh 20:28 ἀπεκρίθη θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.

The literal rendering of the last part of that verse reads, "The Lord of me and the God of me." Notice the definite articles preceding both "Lord" and "God."

There you go again sleeper. You ignore everything ever told you.

I have explained that one to you previously. I may not have cited it by verse but I mentioned Thomas saying that and explained why.

You must have been the kind of child that tempted your parents to beat you. :lol:

Thomas definitely meant Yahweh there because Thomas had finally been cleansed of all doubt that Jesus was mankind's medium to see the Father. 1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Jesus standing there resurrected erased all doubt and no doubt Thomas remembered Jesus saying the following:

Matthew 11:27 "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."

You do not accept that very plain language. You immediately dismiss it by saying to yourself that Jesus only meant that he had to prove to people that he was God. But that would be a dishonest appraisal of what Jesus said. You first have to be honest with yourself about what Jesus says before you can put together correctly the picture his words create.

Instead you will harp that in your opinion I do not do that on a few verses. But unless you are a fool you know that a few verses alone do not paint the picture. You must look at all of Jesus' words and be honest about them all before you can even begin to know if I am appraising the few correctly. And so far you have refused to do that.

Can you be honest with yourself about what this one says? Hebrews 1:1 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 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;

Can you be honest enough to admit that Jesus is contrasted to the prophets of old in those verses?

Can you be honest with yourself that God already owns everything and cannot inherit what is already His?

Can you be honest enough to admit that Jesus did not sit down and return to being God but sat down at God's right hand?

Can you be honest enough to admit that the one that Jesus sat down next to is the majesty?

And can you be honest enough to admit that sitting at someone's right hand means you are there to serve them?

If i had to go over every little detail in every verse with you to this extent due to your unwillingness to do your own honest reasoning, why, I would die of old age before I got near done. :lol:

Oh but hey, I am using you to write little quick reply answers that will help me when dealing with others. So by all means keep it up. I may not be able to benefit you but all the quick notes your stubbornness is helping me create will make it easier as I go. I know that is what you want to do. help me like that i mean.

 

[Nomad]

So when Thomas says to Jesus, "My Lord and my God" he is really meant, "My Lord and my God's mediator?" Well, I'm really glad we have you here to decipher all of this code masquerading as plain language. That Scripture twisting moment is just so unbelievable we'll just move on.

Here we go.

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Before I get to my main point regarding this text, here is an interesting tidbit. Take notice how a distinction is made between the Lord, King of Israel and his redeemer, the Lord of hosts. The "Lord" in both instances is a translation of the Hebrew word "Yahweh." This verse speaks of two Yahwehs and each claim that "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god." Who could the other Yahweh be? Maybe Revelation can help.

Rev 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Here Jesus refers to himself as the first and the last just like Yahweh, king of Israel and his redeemer, Yahweh of hosts. Jesus is Yahweh's redeemer, Yahweh of hosts. There's our answer. It doesn't get any more clear than this.

 

[Insight]

Vengle

The straw man is at it again.

He is fully aware the exact meaning of "theos" (Gk "God") and how it varies according to context, and he also knows (though would not admit due to his pride) that its not sufficient to simply find a text which refers to Jesus as God "theos." As this does not of itself prove Trinitarian doctrine? Nomad knows this and shakes his head

though he's stiffnecked, it must be broken downwards, but like Israel you are not alone!

Vengle is trying to help you see this truth.

Let’s assume for a moment the stawman could prove his case; would this be their only evidence?

The question Vengle is whether Nomad accepts this evidence in isolation – would this be the only textual support to prove Jesus is actual Very God?

However, we cannot assume that having "theos" used in relation to Jesus is the only evidence we would expect to find if Jesus was actually God.

Even the most humble of Trinitarian believers who are slow of speech could request for simpler evidence without breaking down a language as Nomad endeavors to do.

Nomad is asking you to believe that Yahweh has hidden within a revealed and understood mystery (Eph 1) another, unknown, unintelligible mystery that no one, even the straw man himself can comprehend, eventually he is cornered into defining how Jesus can exist in both corupting flesh and possessing divine nature simultaneously?

Take John 20:28 as an example – Nomad and Vengle could agree that Jesus is called God in a literal sense and not qualify this verse at all.

The issue the Trinitarian believer must accept is their varying interpretations, both textual and contextual and we know Nomad could proficiently reveal all the grammatical issues, which only harms his complex beliefs system and not support it.

Regardless of how Nomad works his apologist angles – he will seek to argue verses from the simplest of texts to the more complex, he must infer a complex system of doctrines which ultimately can neither be understood nor defined.

Forget Nomad for the moment and appeal more broadly to TB's. Who is able to show the Apostle Paul behaved or treated God’s Word in such manner as Nomad's example here? Do we have in Paul’s various arguments disputes over Hebrew and Greek text?

Where do we find Paul arguing with the first century believers endeavoring to convince the Hebrew people to put away their monotheistic beliefs for a multiplicity of gods?

Would not a shift in theology require whole chapters if not books to bring them into Christ?

I can hear a silence fall over the Christianity Board as they grapple to show such Scriptures.

However what do find from Paul in his epistles?

Not pre-existence or deity but Jesus Christ in the flesh?

If I were a Trinitarian Believer I would certainly ask why.

I know this deflates your John 20:28 discussions, but the reality stands firm.

Jesus is not God…but the Son of God who represented Him perfectly.

But Vengle...you already know this!

Insight

 

[Insight]

Rev 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Here Jesus refers to himself as the first and the last just like Yahweh, king of Israel and his redeemer, Yahweh of hosts. Jesus is Yahweh's redeemer, Yahweh of hosts. There's our answer. It doesn't get any more clear than this.

Vengle,

If Jesus is the first and the last (and we like him) or better understood beginning and end, who made him so?

Who has NO beginning and NO end?

If I had one dollar for every TB who misquoted Rev 1 & 22 I would be a wealthy man.

Thankfully I am numbered among the poor.

 

[Vengle]

So when Thomas says to Jesus, "My Lord and my God" he is really meant, "My Lord and my God's mediator?" Well, I'm really glad we have you here to decipher all of this code masquerading as plain language. That Scripture twisting moment is just so unbelievable we'll just move on.

Here we go.

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Before I get to my main point regarding this text, here is an interesting tidbit. Take notice how a distinction is made between the Lord, King of Israel and his redeemer, the Lord of hosts. The "Lord" in both instances is a translation of the Hebrew word "Yahweh." This verse speaks of two Yahwehs and each claim that "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god." Who could the other Yahweh be? Maybe Revelation can help.

Rev 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Here Jesus refers to himself as the first and the last just like Yahweh, king of Israel and his redeemer, Yahweh of hosts. Jesus is Yahweh's redeemer, Yahweh of hosts. There's our answer. It doesn't get any more clear than this.

I retract this statement as Insight I believe just enlightened me.

See Nomad, I am just human as you are. No harm in admitting it. The harm is not admitting it.

Wow Insight !!! I feel like a kid in a candy store I'm so exhilarated reading your statement about rev 22:13.

It is like how did I not see that !!! I have applied that elsewhere but failed to do it here.

I will tell you how I viewed it. i saw each of the main players taking a turn speaking.

Revelation 22:8 And I John ... and then God and then 16 I Jesus.

But now that I read what you wrote I see clearly: Revelation 22:9 "Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God." And I realize that is the same one saying: Revelation 22:13 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

Wow !!! I am going to feel good all night !!! :lol:

well now wait a minute. what about verse 16? that kind of adds some confusion?

and verse 8 because John clearly says that is an angel?

You know what? It appears that it is the Archangel John is talking to and that the Archangel is Jesus, which is why he could send his angel to the churches..

but that is what JW's teach !!!

I mean if it is true, i am still delighted to know it. I don't care as long as it is God's truth. But I have derided them on that one pretty heftily.

They always said that Jesus using the voice of the Archangel at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 showed that.

Wow, this has made me tired. i have to get off here and sleep for a while.

 

[Nomad]

Vengle,

If Jesus is the first and the last (and we like him) or better understood beginning and end, who made him so?

Who has NO beginning and NO end?

Nice try Insight, but no cigar. Christ said that he is the beginning and the end. He did not say that he has a beginning and an end. There's a big difference. Go learn what the former means. It's not difficult.