Defending the Trinity

[nothead]

nothead,

You are so self-contradictory its almost humorous.

First, your very incorrect in your view on textual criticism. It is one thing to have someone quote a verse with a particular wording and another to find an actual NT book or series of books (on multiple occasions) that has it written a particular way.

Early Scriptures were all handwritten and copied in an extremely laborious and expensive process. Moreover, when they wrote the Scriptures they were very careful in their copying the previous text. The degree of accuracy from these texts is staggering. So, if we have a Scripture from 200AD that has monogenes Theos, it means very likely that it was carefully copied from an earlier text that had the same phrase. So essentially, this text is a contemporary of these early church fathers and apologists like Tertullian and Ireneaus and was likely copied from a single text that predated them. So, check you logic homeboy.

Purity gots you beat on logical thinking, sir. If disputed, then don't hang you theology on it. Too much dissonance, comprehendez? You can speak of probabilities, but for God to say He is One in the Beginning and now it turns out He is Three instead of one...improbable to the max, as my own son would say...if'n I had one.

Second, we have the same people from the same dates who quote your preferred phrase also quoting monogenes Theos which matches the actual Scriptures we have found from that date. So, nothing you have PREDATES, monogenes Theos. But the multiple actual scriptures we have predate it by hundreds of years and is also quoted many, many times by early Christians.

My model has Christianity compromised by the third generation. 120 A.D. or so, by some and by the fourth century most. So what you say does not compromise my model.


.

It seems clear you have realized this and are changing tactics. Previously, you were trying to refute ol' Jack by your early dates acquired from "Jack the (teddy) Bear." Now that I have shown you that these early dates don't hold a candle to the texts we have with monogenes Theos, you have changed your tune to say, "but to say this is definitive proof of textual accuracy is wrong..." Hahaha. You crack me up. One moment you are using dates to prove your point and when that attempt fails, you are running for the escape hatch of "these dates don't prove anything." Too funny

Ole Jack (da Bear) says the same as me. Common sense says even early dated material can be corrupted. Reconciliation with the body of scripture is really the best hermeneutic method when dealing with variants. And nowhere does Jesus say he is God, or his disciples in my opinion.

There is a reason that those who study textual variants for a living are "almost certain" that monogenes Theos represents the original. There is overwhelming e-v-I-d-e-n-c-e. Better jump on Google and see if you can find yet another bucket to bail water from your sinking theology.

So then most scholars of Christianity are Trin or JisG. What else is new? Bias? Bias is never new. It is as old as the mold on your beak, I mean porch, sir.

Thank you for your response again!

All Greek to me, however let's bring Koine 101 aboard: Article: Conceptionalizes, identifies, and specifies (points out - distinguishes) yet does not definitize as pervasively taught tioday (again, lower paygrade stuff), for example, identifies stressing identity of an individual or class. Anarthrous: Stresses mostly "the quality of being" of the identity of an individual or class, eg, stressing the quality of being 'dead,' and not so much regrding a 'dead' individual.

Jn.1:14, "(the) Only-begotten" Anarthrous ergo 'qualitative' Robertson p.794 - "Grammar of the N.T....." "State of Being" emphasized.

Jn.1:18, "God Only-begotten" Anarthrous again......."State of Being" emphasized.

And the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of
the Father,) full of grace and
1

You emphasize quite the wrong thing here, since the GLORY of God was the thing emphasized. The same GLORY or Shekinah radiance of God for the Jew was upon the countenance, actions and words of the Christ. Robertson notwithstanding. See pentecostals gots it going on. That means they are pay good grade scale en whole en la cabeza. Besides, para patros has no definite article? What noun are you speaking of?


No man hath seen God at
any time; the only begotten
Son, which is in the bosom of
the Father, he hath declared
[him].

Again, the GLORY was seen not the man or God. This makes Jesus MESSIAH and only begotten son. He just got done saying no man hath seen God. So then how could they see Jesus if he is God? And again, the definite article is not there for PATROS, but the TOU implies "of the" in my knowing. So where do I know not?

Simplez Simon met a pieman. And paid him upper pay scale wages.

Jn.1:18, God Only-begotten "who is in the bosom of the Father." We have to raise the bar to basic 101 2nd Semester stuff. Again the article o wn does only one thing: it attaches the participle to "God Only-begotten" afer the manner of a relative clause and describes this wonderful person for us. In no way does the article change or limit the timeless force of the participle. This would, indeed, be greatly changed if "God Only-begotten" dates only from the Virgin birth, for then any further modifier would be equally limited.

Anarthrous here would result in the participle, though it's separated from the main verb by ekeinos, "him," would tend to become adverbial, either temporal, "when he was in the bosom," or causal, "since he was in the bosom"; and thus instead of the timelessness we should have the more historical time indicated by the contative aorist eksegesato (Robertson p.829).

These are the assured grammatical facts contextually regarding o wn, which we should not yield when they are modified in the interest of a wrong view of the person who is truly "God Only-begotten."

You still aren't considering the possibility that monogenes theos is monogenes huios.

 

[shturt678]

nothead,

Purity gots you beat on logical thinking, sir. If disputed, then don't hang you theology on it. Too much dissonance, comprehendez? You can speak of probabilities, but for God to say He is One in the Beginning and now it turns out He is Three instead of one...improbable to the max, as my own son would say...if'n I had one.





My model has Christianity compromised by the third generation. 120 A.D. or so, by some and by the fourth century most. So what you say does not compromise my model.

.

Ole Jack (da Bear) says the same as me. Common sense says even early dated material can be corrupted. Reconciliation with the body of scripture is really the best hermeneutic method when dealing with variants. And nowhere does Jesus say he is God, or his disciples in my opinion.




So then most scholars of Christianity are Trin or JisG. What else is new? Bias? Bias is never new. It is as old as the mold on your beak, I mean porch, sir.



And the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of
the Father,) full of grace and
1

You emphasize quite the wrong thing here, since the GLORY of God was the thing emphasized. The same GLORY or Shekinah radiance of God for the Jew was upon the countenance, actions and words of the Christ. Robertson notwithstanding. See pentecostals gots it going on. That means they are pay good grade scale en whole en la cabeza. Besides, para patros has no definite article? What noun are you speaking of?


No man hath seen God at
any time; the only begotten
Son, which is in the bosom of
the Father, he hath declared
[him].

Again, the GLORY was seen not the man or God. This makes Jesus MESSIAH and only begotten son. He just got done saying no man hath seen God. So then how could they see Jesus if he is God? And again, the definite article is not there for PATROS, but the TOU implies "of the" in my knowing. So where do I know not?

Simplez Simon met a pieman. And paid him upper pay scale wages.







You still aren't considering the possibility that monogenes theos is monogenes huios.

Thank you again for your coherent and lucid reponse, ie, if I could get Christians in my community to care even a portion as much as you do we would be way ahead of 'running the race' with fear and trembling, ie, good job!

I usually encourage others to get a valid rendition before they begin scrutinizing, ie, obvious you are trying to do the same; however reference Jn.1:14, the rendering "as of an only-begotten from a father." in the R.V.'s margin is highly unfortunate to say the least. Let's raise the bar a notch with a valid rendition: "as of the Only-begotten from the Father,"

These translators certainly knew that the absence of the article with nouns like monogenes and pater does not render them indefinite: an only-begotten - a Father. Nouns designating persons or objects only one of which exists need no article; the English idiom requires the article. We simply must translate" the Only-begotten - the Father, ie, the ol' "quality of being" I mentioned before.

By omitting the article, we are asked to fix our attention emphatically on just what the noun conveys (still 2nd Semester basic stuff, ie, alll Greek to me). I did ask our Lord for a pay-grade upgrade due to all my work with you, and I reeived a demotion for some reason? Thinking twice about putting in for the upper level of hell due to the full blown apostasy I was born into?

The sense of the margin of the R.V. which too many follow is again unfortunate. It assumes that every only-begotten son has a special glory and then informs us that God's Only-begotten Son also has such a glory which is ludicrous, correct? This is our God and man united, ie, our precious Lord who raised Himself up from the tomb that is even observing this conversation.

"we beheld his glory" John refers to the glory of the Logos. This term doxa is constantly used either to designate all the attributes of the Godhead as they shine forth in one or in anther way before the eyes of men, or to indicate the manifestation of any one or of several of these attibutes. Thus "his glory" may desigate the radiance of the infinite agape (not the English "love" way of looking at it) that dwelt in Christ, breaking forth again and again in word and in deed; the heavenliness of his grace, or his mercy, or his compassion; the divine depth and comprehension of his wisdom and knowledge, against which also all human cunning failed; the absoluteness of his power in all mircales that spoke so plainly of his divinity.

Any one of more of these manifestations constitute "the glory" which John and the other witnesses beheld. Then John further describes this emphatic "glory" that I already addressed earliar.

Old Jack winging it off the top

 

[Wormwood]

Purity gots you beat on logical thinking, sir. If disputed, then don't hang you theology on it. Too much dissonance, comprehendez? You can speak of probabilities, but for God to say He is One in the Beginning and now it turns out He is Three instead of one...improbable to the max, as my own son would say...if'n I had one.

Well, fortunately for us Trinitarians, it doesn't matter one way or another which variant you go with. Clearly, monogenes Theos (which is most likely) devastates your views, but monogenes hueos does not impact ours as there is a wealth of texts that testify to Christ's divinity. Unfortunately for you, you will dispute everything that does not say what you want it to say....no matter how clear. Thus, you will never change your mind because you will always dispute the things you don't want to believe. Very convienient, but not very objective or logical.

Ole Jack (da Bear) says the same as me. Common sense says even early dated material can be corrupted. Reconciliation with the body of scripture is really the best hermeneutic method when dealing with variants. And nowhere does Jesus say he is God, or his disciples in my opinion.

Then you and Jack da Bear should quit pretending to care what scholars discover and the dates of textual variants. Clearly its all a show, and quite a waste of time. Discussing these matters with you and Purity is like playing with my kids. When they find they are going to lose or Im going to tag them, they quickly change the rules and declare that wherever they are standing is suddenly "base." smh

So then most scholars of Christianity are Trin or JisG. What else is new? Bias? Bias is never new. It is as old as the mold on your beak, I mean porch, sir.

Yes, more of your "logic" at work here. Has it ever occurred to you that most scholars are Trinitarian because that is what the Scriptures clearly teach? Heaven forbid! If anyone here is set in their view and will do anything in their power to justify what they already believe...its you...not the scholars. Most scholars would love nothing more than to make a name for themselves by proving something that is outside of the accepted norm.

 

[nothead]

Thank you again for your coherent and lucid reponse, ie, if I could get Christians in my community to care even a portion as much as you do we would be way ahead of 'running the race' with fear and trembling, ie, good job!

I usually encourage others to get a valid rendition before they begin scrutinizing, ie, obvious you are trying to do the same; however reference Jn.1:14, the rendering "as of an only-begotten from a father." in the R.V.'s margin is highly unfortunate to say the least. Let's raise the bar a notch with a valid rendition: "as of the Only-begotten from the Father,"

These translators certainly knew that the absence of the article with nouns like monogenes and pater does not render them indefinite: an only-begotten - a Father. Nouns designating persons or objects only one of which exists need no article; the English idiom requires the article. We simply must translate" the Only-begotten - the Father, ie, the ol' "quality of being" I mentioned before.

By omitting the article, we are asked to fix our attention emphatically on just what the noun conveys (still 2nd Semester basic stuff, ie, alll Greek to me). I did ask our Lord for a pay-grade upgrade due to all my work with you, and I reeived a demotion for some reason? Thinking twice about putting in for the upper level of hell due to the full blown apostasy I was born into?

I never designated you for hell, Jack...this would be a little presumptuous on my end...my thinking end that is. Odd you will see the God of us as a nature of being, when the lack of definite article in Jn 1:1c has exactly the same qualitative meaning...the Word Dabar of God is divine.

Qualitatively of the Father, this could just be the Glory of God being shared from metaphorical Father to Son...the GLORY being the actual reality not metaphorical at all, this being and I repeat the OT verbiage instead of your later constructs: the Light and Shekinah radiance, the presence of the Living God invisibly, i.e. the Holy Spirit.

See if you was pentecostal you would know this meaning more readily. Since you an old school hipster, maybe not.

Well, Moses had the divine supernatural manifestation of miracle, and no one not even his greatest fans thought he was God. This would be of course a highter Moseology.

I believe the INDWELLING or TABERNACLING Glory is of course the pentecostal flame of intimacy with God.

The sense of the margin of the R.V. which too many follow is again unfortunate. It assumes that every only-begotten son has a special glory and then informs us that God's Only-begotten Son also has such a glory which is ludicrous, correct? This is our God and man united, ie, our precious Lord who raised Himself up from the tomb that is even observing this conversation.

"we beheld his glory" John refers to the glory of the Logos. This term doxa is constantly used either to designate all the attributes of the Godhead as they shine forth in one or in anther way before the eyes of men, or to indicate the manifestation of any one or of several of these attibutes. Thus "his glory" may desigate the radiance of the infinite agape (not the English "love" way of looking at it) that dwelt in Christ, breaking forth again and again in word and in deed; the heavenliness of his grace, or his mercy, or his compassion; the divine depth and comprehension of his wisdom and knowledge, against which also all human cunning failed; the absoluteness of his power in all mircales that spoke so plainly of his divinity.

Glory again is the Shekinah in the tents of the Israelite nomads, then over the Tent of Meeting, then over the Ark in the Holy of Holies, then in the tabernacle of flesh in the Christ then in our bods. I mean bodIES of flesh.

To be FILLED is to have this in abundant measure. To be ANNOINTED is to have this in unprecedented measure. Thank you, nothead. Your welcome.

Any one of more of these manifestations constitute "the glory" which John and the other witnesses beheld. Then John further describes this emphatic "glory" that I already addressed earliar.

Old Jack winging it off the top

Glorah be Jock. If you got the flame afire you would know what this GLORAH is in true form, yassuh don't pay me, jus' bow down say Massah at the Gate.

 

[JoJoRoss]

[SIZE=medium]I had to chime in here and let you all know what I believe the Word of God says about God (haha kind of a funny way of saying it... )-[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The Trinity is false due to the fact God can’t DIE. Why? God does not changePsalm 90:2, Malachi 3:6)! There is no “hypostatic union” with God. The scriptures are simple really. Men have used their carnal minds (“theology”) to make them difficult. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]God is invisible, God is Spirit, in no way does scripture tell us He is man. Jesus was the Word of God (John1:1). The Word (the Logos or Spokesman of God) was the firstborn of all creation. He created everything:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Col 1:15-17[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Was Jesus called God? Yes! Just like we humans were called god. The English word "God" is translated from the Greek word Theos which means PLACER or DISPOSER. ANYONE to whom the Father gives such an office of "placer or disposer" is a God! Notice what God says in Psalm 82:6:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Jesus explains this verse for us: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]"Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your law, that ‘I say you are gods’? If He said those were gods, to whom the word of God came [and the scripture can not be annulled], are you saying to Him Whom the Father hallows and dispatches into the world that You are blaspheming,’ seeing that I said, ‘Son of God am I’? If I am not doing My Father’s works, do not believe Me. Yet if I am doing them, and if ever you are not believing Me, be believing the works, that you may be knowing and believing that in Me is the Father, and I am in the Father."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Okay then, let’s notice a few very important points. Jesus never came out and said "I AM GOD!" He always called Himself, "The Son OF God." Recall that Jesus did not consider it "pillaging" to be equal with God. That is, he didn’t need to steal, or take His office by FORCE, because His God, the Father, GAVE ALL THINGS TO HIM FREELY! Though Jesus is certainly "God," we must always remember that everything that made Him "God" (like His Father), WAS GIVEN TO HIM! Is there anyone who would suggest that someone GAVE God the Father all that He possesses? I think not. There is clearly a distinction--we have a "Father" and a "Son," NOT two equal Gods of a so-called trinity.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]God is spirit and invisible, He CREATED the Word (CHRIST) to create all things, become flesh and die for the sins of the world and resurrect on the third day. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of GOD (Eph 4:30)! And what is GOD? A spirit. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Jesus and God are one just like we are one when we become sons/daughters of God:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]"That they ALL may be ONE [Who?--ALL. How many?--ONE] as you Father are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be ONE in US... And the glory which You gave to Me I have given them, that they may be ONE, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE" (John 17:21-22).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]There you have it. ONE GOD and ONE MEDIATOR-JESUS CHRIST and ONE BODY-THE CHURCH (BODY OF CHRIST). It's a family people, not a trinity. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Let’s trust God breathed scriptures and not men! [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Gods Peace,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Jordan[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]

 

[nothead]

[SIZE=medium]I had to chime in here and let you all know what I believe the Word of God says about God (haha kind of funny way of saying it... )[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The Trinity is false due to the fact God can’t DIE. Why? God does not changePsalm 90:2, Malachi 3:6)! There is no “hypostatic union” with God. The scriptures are simple really. Men have used their carnal minds (“theology”) to make them difficult. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]God is invisible, God is Spirit, in no way does scripture tell us He is man. Jesus was the Word of God (John1:1). The Word (the Logos or Spokesman of God) was the firstborn of all creation. He created everything:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Col 1:15-17[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Was Jesus called God? Yes! Just like we humans were called god. The English word "God" is translated from the Greek word Theos which means PLACER or DISPOSER. ANYONE to whom the Father gives such an office of "placer or disposer" is a God! Notice what God says in Psalm 82:6:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
More to the point, although I agree, PLACER or DISPOSER is really the Hebrew term 'elohim,' which has 6 categories of being in the Bible, said to be so by none other than the PHD Dr. Michael Heiser "What is an elohim?" available free online.

And the Psalm 82 by the way has SONS of God, not children of God. Jesus only extrapolates from the plural "sons" to his own reference "Son of God." OR rather "Son of Elohim."




[SIZE=medium]Jesus explains this verse for us: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]"Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your law, that ‘I say you are gods’? If He said those were gods, to whom the word of God came [and the scripture can not be annulled], are you saying to Him Whom the Father hallows and dispatches into the world that You are blaspheming,’ seeing that I said, ‘Son of God am I’? If I am not doing My Father’s works, do not believe Me. Yet if I am doing them, and if ever you are not believing Me, be believing the works, that you may be knowing and believing that in Me is the Father, and I am in the Father."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]

Okay then, let’s notice a few very important points. Jesus never came out and said "I AM GOD!" He always called Himself, "The Son OF God." Recall that Jesus did not consider it "pillaging" to be equal with God. That is, he didn’t need to steal, or take His office by FORCE, because His God, the Father, GAVE ALL THINGS TO HIM FREELY! Though Jesus is certainly "God," we must always remember that everything that made Him "God" (like His Father), WAS GIVEN TO HIM! Is there anyone who would suggest that someone GAVE God the Father all that He possesses? I think not. There is clearly a distinction--we have a "Father" and a "Son," NOT two equal Gods of a so-called trinity.

[SIZE=medium] Si.[/SIZE]

God is spirit and invisible, He made the Word (CHRIST) create all things, became flesh and died for the sins of the world and was resurrected on the third day. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of GOD (Eph 4:30)! And what is GOD? A spirit.

[SIZE=medium] For many intents and purposes, yes God is Spirit. He is more than, but to us the Holy Spirit may be the only reference on earth.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]

Jesus and God are one just like we are one when we become sons/daughters of God:

[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
Yes, when we become resurrected 'elohim' as the Judges of Torah were in Psalm 82. UNDER Jesus of course.

[SIZE=medium]"That they ALL may be ONE [Who?--ALL. How many?--ONE] as you Father are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be ONE in US... And the glory which You gave to Me I have given them, that they may be ONE, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE" (John 17:21-22).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]

Yup. Same HEN of unity as Jn 10 "I and the Father are one."

[SIZE=medium]There you have it. ONE GOD and ONE MEDIATOR-JESUS CHRIST![/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Let’s trust God breathed scriptures and not men! [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]

Yessir. JW?
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]

 

[shturt678]

I never designated you for hell, Jack...this would be a little presumptuous on my end...my thinking end that is. Odd you will see the God of us as a nature of being, when the lack of definite article in Jn 1:1c has exactly the same qualitative meaning...the Word Dabar of God is divine.

Qualitatively of the Father, this could just be the Glory of God being shared from metaphorical Father to Son...the GLORY being the actual reality not metaphorical at all, this being and I repeat the OT verbiage instead of your later constructs: the Light and Shekinah radiance, the presence of the Living God invisibly, i.e. the Holy Spirit.

See if you was pentecostal you would know this meaning more readily. Since you an old school hipster, maybe not.

Well, Moses had the divine supernatural manifestation of miracle, and no one not even his greatest fans thought he was God. This would be of course a highter Moseology.

I believe the INDWELLING or TABERNACLING Glory is of course the pentecostal flame of intimacy with God.





Glory again is the Shekinah in the tents of the Israelite nomads, then over the Tent of Meeting, then over the Ark in the Holy of Holies, then in the tabernacle of flesh in the Christ then in our bods. I mean bodIES of flesh.

To be FILLED is to have this in abundant measure. To be ANNOINTED is to have this in unprecedented measure. Thank you, nothead. Your welcome.





Glorah be Jock. If you got the flame afire you would know what this GLORAH is in true form, yassuh don't pay me, jus' bow down say Massah at the Gate.

Thank you again for your response!

btw when one is born into a full blown apostasy of hypergrace, by default one enters hell upon one's passing. This is why I put in for the upper level of hell (Lk.12:45, etc.) long ago, ie, positions full - put in for the next level down.

Let's scrutinize Jn.1:1c together. "the Word was God." A basic 3rd Semester's "Colwells construction." In English we place the predicate last, while in the ancient Greek it's placed first in order to receive the fullest emphasis, ie, the ol' lower paygrade 'hyperbaton' and 'implicatude' sort of thing. Here Theos must omit the article thus making sure that we read it as the predicate and not as the subject, ie, the ol' article routine.

One cannot but help agape ol' M. Luther: "God is the Word, God himself, fully, completely, without diminution, in very essence."

Old Jackster

 

[nothead]

Thank you again for your response!

btw when one is born into a full blown apostasy of hypergrace, by default one enters hell upon one's passing. This is why I put in for the upper level of hell (Lk.12:45, etc.) long ago, ie, positions full - put in for the next level down.

Let's scrutinize Jn.1:1c together. "the Word was God." A basic 3rd Semester's "Colwells construction." In English we place the predicate last, while in the ancient Greek it's placed first in order to receive the fullest emphasis, ie, the ol' lower paygrade 'hyperbaton' and 'implicatude' sort of thing. Here Theos must omit the article thus making sure that we read it as the predicate and not as the subject, ie, the ol' article routine.

One cannot but help agape ol' M. Luther: "God is the Word, God himself, fully, completely, without diminution, in very essence."

Old Jackster

Colwell shmollwell, I hope he is well, well but he just a cog in the machinery...

Luther got the order right. God (qualitative is the Word). The Word of God is essentially qualitatively divine. This same DABAR made the World some thirteen reported thingybobbers, starting with "light." How many of yourn have decided the Word of Expression of God who is YHWH Elohim, BECAME Jesus the Godman, no one knows.

Maybe Justin Martyr, or Philo the Jew. Both bad guys, criminals of the worst kind.


You like to change rules to suit your fancy, eh Jack? Take off that suit and what is there? A mind that tries, gotta give you credit. For trying, anyway.

 

[Wormwood]

Jack,

I tried explaining Colwell's Rule in detail with this lot. Might as well spend your time picking burrs off a donkey's rear. Ha!

 

[Purity]

This is wormwoods answer to Trinitarian complexity:

You heard it first, yes wait for it...."Colwell’s rule". n. A dictum stating that definite predicate nominatives that precede the verb usually lack the article. The rule was published in 1933 by E. C. Colwell. A complement to this rule arose later (and has been erroneously thought to be the actual rule) that states an anarthrous predicate nominative that precedes the verb is usually definite.

This guy is so far from Bible truth he may as well be studying the readers digest. http://www.readersdigest.com.au/

Purity

 

[Floyd]

Purity:
What is your treatment of the predictive verse in Isa.7:14; and 8:8; and the event in Matt.1:23; of the word Emmanuel/Immanuel. The statement is made by the Holy Spirit: "God with us"; or "El with us"?
Floyd.

 

[nothead]

Jack,

I tried explaining Colwell's Rule in detail with this lot. Might as well spend your time picking burrs off a donkey's rear. Ha!

I never tried that. Course I'm on the right side of the fence. I drive a p/u as all men do in Texas.

Lettuce peruse the issue of Colwell's Rule in Regards to John 1:1... wiki is always a good general place to place your bets...pro or con, this or that

.

Whoops don't know how that got in there...

Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, wrote about the use of the definite article:

We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God.... The true God, then, is The God (ho theos)



Here we notice the first ever debatable Greek grammarian anciently OPPOSED to Colwell who hadn't even INVENTED his rule yet, hoo haw. A debate which never happened, but ONLY since they didn't live in close proximity...or time line.
Onward into the fog of grammarian history...

In relation to John 1:14 and 1:18 then, Jack...the anarthrous theos can be seen to be the divine aspect of GLORY which was upon the words, countenance and actions of the Christ...repeat. For your benefit since you didn't probably get it the first time.

A major point of contention, since the theos in question occurs without the definite article (the), within the grammatical debate is the proper application of Colwell's rule,[19] set out by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell, which states:

"The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun Kai theos en ho logos looks much more like “And the Word was God” than “And the Word was divine” when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas (John 20,28)."

At issue is whether Colwell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured. It has been pointed out that Colwell's rule does not help by determining definiteness.[20] Rodney J. Decker stated, "it has often been misused by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christ."[21]
Daniel B. Wallace argues that the use of the anarthrous theos (the lack of the definite article before the second theos) is due to its use as a qualitative noun, describing the nature or essence of the Word, not due to Colwell's rule.[22]

John 1:1 wiki.

So now then this lot which likes to pick burrs offa donkey's butts would also like to refute the best and most respected TRIN SCHOLAR and author of Greek Grammar Primary Texts?


I gotta give you two credit, though. We got to second tier debate right away. This don't happen much at Carm. Those guys are deteriorating. Some have died off.

 

[Purity]

Purity:
What is your treatment of the predictive verse in Isa.7:14; and 8:8; and the event in Matt.1:23; of the word Emmanuel/Immanuel. The statement is made by the Holy Spirit: "God with us"; or "El with us"?
Floyd.

No treatment is required.

Jesus was God with us. 2 Cor 5:19

Are you surprised the Father was not in His Son fully? Would you expect it any other way?

So what are the facts:

Christ is the son born of the virgin Isa 7:14
Christ is also the child born "unto us" in Isa 9:6
Christ is the "little child" in Isa 11:6, the "infant" ("sucking child": AV) and finally the "young child" ("weaned child": AV) in Isa 11:8.

So the beautiful vision of these verses is not impersonal. It is not just about ANY young child -- or even ALL young children; it is about Jesus Christ!

And all these things are on the basis of "shall be".

Isa 11:8 shows a future Christ as the "sucking child" and then the "weaned child" feeding first on the "milk" and then on the "meat" of the word, growing in spirit and wisdom and grace (Luk 2:40).

Jesus, is here under the nurture and admonition of his Heavenly Father, steadily grew in spiritual strength, and steadily faced one by one the trials of the "adversary" in his flesh.

No Trinitarian teaching here Floyd...like I said you cannot have a promised Son to be waited and hoped for if he already exists. Illogical theology!

Purity

 

[Floyd]

No treatment is required.

Jesus was God with us. 2 Cor 5:19

Are you surprised the Father was not in His Son fully? Would you expect it any other way?

So what are the facts:

Christ is the son born of the virgin Isa 7:14
Christ is also the child born "unto us" in Isa 9:6
Christ is the "little child" in Isa 11:6, the "infant" ("sucking child": AV) and finally the "young child" ("weaned child": AV) in Isa 11:8.

So the beautiful vision of these verses is not impersonal. It is not just about ANY young child -- or even ALL young children; it is about Jesus Christ!

And all these things are on the basis of "shall be".

Isa 11:8 shows a future Christ as the "sucking child" and then the "weaned child" feeding first on the "milk" and then on the "meat" of the word, growing in spirit and wisdom and grace (Luk 2:40).

Jesus, is here under the nurture and admonition of his Heavenly Father, steadily grew in spiritual strength, and steadily faced one by one the trials of the "adversary" in his flesh.

No Trinitarian teaching here Floyd...like I said you cannot have a promised Son to be waited and hoped for if he already exists. Illogical theology!

Purity

" you cannot have a promised Son to be waited and hoped for if he already exists. Illogical theology"!

Illogical, only for the human mind; logic is human; and we are warn not to rely on human use of it!

" you cannot have a promised Son to be waited and hoped for if he already exists. Illogical theology"!

Not for Almighty God!

Floyd.

 

[Wormwood]

nothead,

Colwell's rule is pretty irrefutable. The fact is that we have many variants that are written both ways. There are some variants that have the definite predicate nominative preceding the copulative and some with it following the copulative. When it follows the copulative, it has the definite article. The exact same verse in a variant form has the predicate nominative preceding the copulative does not have the definite article. This has been seen many, many times as textual variants have been accumulated. This is one of the evidences that caused Colwell to form his rule. You need to give up the conspiracy theory mantra. The more you shout it, the less people pay attention.

There is a reason why almost every translation has "the Word was God." Its because people who study the language for a living and invest their entire lives studying variants and the grammatical constructs of the Greek language are pretty much all in agreement. This is not limited to "Trinitarian" scholars. Secular scholars who study the Greek language in reference to ancient literature are pretty much all in agreement on how the Koine Greek grammar works. Take a class on the language and quit putting your foot in your mouth with your random Google searches.

 

[nothead]

nothead,

Colwell's rule is pretty irrefutable. The fact is that we have many variants that are written both ways. There are some variants that have the definite predicate nominative preceding the copulative and some with it following the copulative. When it follows the copulative, it has the definite article. The exact same verse in a variant form has the predicate nominative preceding the copulative does not have the definite article. This has been seen many, many times as textual variants have been accumulated. This is one of the evidences that caused Colwell to form his rule. You need to give up the conspiracy theory mantra. The more you shout it, the less people pay attention.

There is a reason why almost every translation has "the Word was God." Its because people who study the language for a living and invest their entire lives studying variants and the grammatical constructs of the Greek language are pretty much all in agreement. This is not limited to "Trinitarian" scholars. Secular scholars who study the Greek language in reference to ancient literature are pretty much all in agreement on how the Koine Greek grammar works. Take a class on the language and quit putting your foot in your mouth with your random Google searches.

I quoted Daniel B. Wallace. And he ain't World B. Free since only the middle name is the same. Whatever that may b.

You can refute this man, but I will remind you how staunch his rep, as we know on da street. Google it. His name, and his rep. I dare you. So then you whole post isn't exactly true, now is it?

 

[Wormwood]

First, let's deal with the quote you clearly do not understand...

At issue is whether Colwell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured. It has been pointed out that Colwell's rule does not help by determining definiteness.[20] Rodney J. Decker stated, "it has often been misused by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christ."[21]
Daniel B. Wallace argues that the use of the anarthrous theos (the lack of the definite article before the second theos) is due to its use as a qualitative noun, describing the nature or essence of the Word, not due to Colwell's rule.[22]

As I mentioned to you before, Colwell's Rule does not demand definiteness, but only allows for definiteness under the type of construction we see in John 1:1. This is contrary to many JW's who want to argue that the lack of the definite article demands it is indefinite.

For some scholars, they do not see Colwell's Rule being the overriding factor of determining Christ's divinity in John 1:1 and instead see the lack of definite article as a means of displaying the Word as a qualitative noun rather than a predicate nominative (not an adjective "godly" as you asserted before). I would disagree with this argument (as would a host of Greek scholars) but both sides still believe this is speaking of the Word's deity in different fashions. Wallace is not claiming the word was "a god" or the Word was godly. In any event, what Wallace is saying is NOT in support of your views, nor is he discounting Colwell's Rule as a whole. Your post is deceptive, perhaps purposefully, but more likely because you just dont have a clue what you are quoting and referring to.

Consider this quote from Daniel Wallance's own website:

Myth 5: The deity of Christ was invented by emperor Constantine.
This myth was heavily promoted in Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code. He, in turn, based his allegedly true statements (even though the book was a novel, he claimed that it was based on historical facts) on Holy Blood, Holy Grail (by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln). The evidence, in fact, that the deity of Christ is to be found in the original New Testament is overwhelming. A look at some of the early papyri shows this. In passage after passage, the deity of Christ shines through the pages of the New Testament—and in manuscripts that significantly predate Constantine. For example, P66, a papyrus from the late second century, says what every other manuscript in John 1.1 says—“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” It predates the Council of Nicea (AD 325), which these skeptics claim is the time when Constantine invented Christ’s divinity, by about 150 years! P46, a papyrus dated to c. AD 200, plainly speaks of Christ’s divinity in Hebrews 1.8. The list could go on and on. Altogether, we have more than fifty Greek New Testament manuscripts that are prior to Constantine’s reign. Not one of them denies the deity of Christ.

In conclusion:

1) Your post is a lie and misrepresentative of Wallace. He does not discount the validity of Colwell's Rule. He doesn't see it as applying in John 1:1, but still sees John 1:1 attesting to the divine nature of Christ.
2) Colwell's Rule is a valid rule that is very likely the cause of the structure we see in John 1:1. Most Greek scholars would make this argument.
3) Your Google searches for any hint of information that agrees with you most often do not agree with you. Not only is your manner of research pathetic, but it has caused you to misrepresent the sources you quote on multiple occasions. You need to stop quoting material you dont understand in order to prove a point. We have already seen that the facts really do not matter for you in this discussion. Why do you keep trying to search for facts that support your views when they all fall short and you end up claiming that it doesn't matter anyway? At some point you would think you would say, "Ya know, I really dont have a leg to stand on." But no. Not noddy. The backpedaling continues into oblivion...

My only hope is that my responses will prevent people who dont know about these issues from being deceived from your misquotations and faulty logic.

 

[shturt678]

Colwell shmollwell, I hope he is well, well but he just a cog in the machinery...

Luther got the order right. God (qualitative is the Word). The Word of God is essentially qualitatively divine. This same DABAR made the World some thirteen reported thingybobbers, starting with "light." How many of yourn have decided the Word of Expression of God who is YHWH Elohim, BECAME Jesus the Godman, no one knows.

Maybe Justin Martyr, or Philo the Jew. Both bad guys, criminals of the worst kind.


You like to change rules to suit your fancy, eh Jack? Take off that suit and what is there? A mind that tries, gotta give you credit. For trying, anyway.

Thank you again for your response and caring!

You're fortunate Wormwood didn't have to explain Grandville Sharp's construction, ie, Colwell's construction a walk in the park.

Old Jack,

btw pervert the Word of God, ie, even unknowingly is a crime even worse than unbelief due to the damage it does, ie, I'm pointing at myself on this one and pray I'm not doing this especially in the essentials - I have a deep fear of our Lord, the Godman Jesus Christ not even wanting to offend Him for a moment let alone provoke Him into action this moment.

The bottom line approximately half of the N.T. passages using English translated Bibles, one can validly state the "Trinity" is fallacious or state it;'s valid with the other half. Interpretating the passages in light of IIPet.1:20, 21 & ICor.12:10, one could only conclude the Trinity is valid in both Testaments, ie, interpret going from the ancient languages forward to the English and not backwards to the ancient languages.

Jack,

I tried explaining Colwell's Rule in detail with this lot. Might as well spend your time picking burrs off a donkey's rear. Ha!

Thank you for your response and caring!

Although the very difficult Colwell's construction, ie, a litotes of course, that came aboard in 1933 is valid, and presented a lot of controveries if I recall correctly due to Jn.1:1c construed with Jn.1:1b, grammarians back to Winer understood anarthrous Theos in Jn.1:1c places it in the emphatic predicate position for those that are of a higher paygrade than myself, ie, lower paygrades should have already realized this.

Excellent work explaining, ie, they have no excuse before our Lord. btw we have burros in Hawaii, ie, difficult to catch and would kick hard if trying to operate on their behind.

Thank you again, and don't give up expounding these simple greek constructions, ie, our Lord almost gave up on me as I was a real reject, full of myself and other things, however our Lord Godman Jesus gave me one more chance and that did it - i was literally crushed!

Old Jack

I never tried that. Course I'm on the right side of the fence. I drive a p/u as all men do in Texas.

Lettuce peruse the issue of Colwell's Rule in Regards to John 1:1... wiki is always a good general place to place your bets...pro or con, this or that

Whoops don't know how that got in there...

Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, wrote about the use of the definite article:

We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God.... The true God, then, is The God (ho theos)

Here we notice the first ever debatable Greek grammarian anciently OPPOSED to Colwell who hadn't even INVENTED his rule yet, hoo haw. A debate which never happened, but ONLY since they didn't live in close proximity...or time line.
Onward into the fog of grammarian history...

In relation to John 1:14 and 1:18 then, Jack...the anarthrous theos can be seen to be the divine aspect of GLORY which was upon the words, countenance and actions of the Christ...repeat. For your benefit since you didn't probably get it the first time.

A major point of contention, since the theos in question occurs without the definite article (the), within the grammatical debate is the proper application of Colwell's rule,[19] set out by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell, which states:

"The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun Kai theos en ho logos looks much more like “And the Word was God” than “And the Word was divine” when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas (John 20,28)."

At issue is whether Colwell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured. It has been pointed out that Colwell's rule does not help by determining definiteness.[20] Rodney J. Decker stated, "it has often been misused by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christ."[21]
Daniel B. Wallace argues that the use of the anarthrous theos (the lack of the definite article before the second theos) is due to its use as a qualitative noun, describing the nature or essence of the Word, not due to Colwell's rule.[22]

John 1:1 wiki.

So now then this lot which likes to pick burrs offa donkey's butts would also like to refute the best and most respected TRIN SCHOLAR and author of Greek Grammar Primary Texts?


I gotta give you two credit, though. We got to second tier debate right away. This don't happen much at Carm. Those guys are deteriorating. Some have died off.


THANK YOU for your response, caring and excellent work!!!

This is by far the best post and work that you've done since I've met you and proud to be your brother in Christ. Have to run, however Mr. Wallace, Mr. Robertson, and etc excellent works where we can all be in error and God's Word perfectly true. No sarcasm nor rhetoric intended only on this post.

Old Jack

btw am an old man and have erratic heart beats at times, and this post generated a few extra beats, however I handled, ie, good job without condescending.

 

[nothead]

First, let's deal with the quote you clearly do not understand...

As I mentioned to you before, Colwell's Rule does not demand definiteness, but only allows for definiteness under the type of construction we see in John 1:1. This is contrary to many JW's who want to argue that the lack of the definite article demands it is indefinite.

For some scholars, they do not see Colwell's Rule being the overriding factor of determining Christ's divinity in John 1:1 and instead see the lack of definite article as a means of displaying the Word as a qualitative noun rather than a predicate nominative (not an adjective "godly" as you asserted before). I would disagree with this argument (as would a host of Greek scholars) but both sides still believe this is speaking of the Word's deity in different fashions. Wallace is not claiming the word was "a god" or the Word was godly. In any event, what Wallace is saying is NOT in support of your views, nor is he discounting Colwell's Rule as a whole. Your post is deceptive, perhaps purposefully, but more likely because you just dont have a clue what you are quoting and referring to.

Consider this quote from Daniel Wallance's own website:


In conclusion:

1) Your post is a lie and misrepresentative of Wallace. He does not discount the validity of Colwell's Rule. He doesn't see it as applying in John 1:1, but still sees John 1:1 attesting to the divine nature of Christ.
2) Colwell's Rule is a valid rule that is very likely the cause of the structure we see in John 1:1. Most Greek scholars would make this argument.
3) Your Google searches for any hint of information that agrees with you most often do not agree with you. Not only is your manner of research pathetic, but it has caused you to misrepresent the sources you quote on multiple occasions. You need to stop quoting material you dont understand in order to prove a point. We have already seen that the facts really do not matter for you in this discussion. Why do you keep trying to search for facts that support your views when they all fall short and you end up claiming that it doesn't matter anyway? At some point you would think you would say, "Ya know, I really dont have a leg to stand on." But no. Not noddy. The backpedaling continues into oblivion...

My only hope is that my responses will prevent people who dont know about these issues from being deceived from your misquotations and faulty logic.

Colwell's rule makes the anarthrous predicate instead the subject. But Wallace says it is OTHER than, meaning my own construction God[ly] is the Word is good. Or GOOT as they say in Austria, I would guess...

Simple intuitive treatment of grammar rules can suffice here, and my intuition frequently has more bearing than touting someone else's abstract orders...what the definitve article does in general is specify and qualify the noun. THE theos would be God more'n likely, and 'god' without the article is less specified, FROM INTUITIVE order, the order of all language, sir. Since language has order, reasonable order at that...

A less specified "god" or "God" is the word meaning of "divine" sir, the main characteristic of the Word of God. John is quite here making this point, the very God-authority of the Word, which is His own expression among men, and expression if there was no men around at that. (Noah was the only reason why THIS wasn't the reality).

So then you can tout Wallace or Wormwood constructs as you will, but nothead has a handle on the very reason behind any rule, the order of language itself.

An anarthrous God is very likely meant to be the characteristics of God en whole. "Divine" is quite good for a metaphor in this case.

And I am not being dishonest if Wallace is trin or not. I never said Wallace goes by nothead rule. He probably don't even know nothead at all, much less personally. I said Wallace does NOT allow for Colwell's Rule to apply to Jn 1:1c. That's it, bud.

Calling nothead dishonest is like calling a cow female. Not if she is a transvestite. Gotcha, dude.

Thank you again for your response and caring!

You're fortunate Wormwood didn't have to explain Grandville Sharp's construction, ie, Colwell's construction a walk in the park.

Old Jack,

Granville Sharp had bias to instigate his rule from the git-go, in order to make scripture something it is not. He has to make "God" a common noun, rather than a proper noun or name, when we all know Theos or HO Theos means God, by name by proper noun and NOT by common noun.

The only way "God" can BE a common noun is if we make "God" his being, or nature or essence or substance. This is a crime and a theological felony at that.

Now IF "God" is a proper noun and/or a proper name, then it is excluded from Granville-Sharp's Rule just as he excludes all proper names from his Rule. Ta da. Nothead discounts the Granville Sharp Rule in 4 short sentences. Nothead Triumph of Note Number 389.

Since we know from common sense the metaphor "God" does in fact denote both proper name and proper noun.

btw pervert the Word of God, ie, even unknowingly is a crime even worse than unbelief due to the damage it does, ie, I'm pointing at myself on this one and pray I'm not doing this especially in the essentials - I have a deep fear of our Lord, the Godman Jesus Christ not even wanting to offend Him for a moment let alone provoke Him into action this moment.

I use the word Logos to mean exactly what John means the 30 plus times he uses it in his own gospel. To say otherwise is to test the Living God in my opinion. IF the use of John is radically different in his prologue, the incomprehensibility of it's use prohibits anyone from using it to prove anything. Selah.

However the Fear of the Lord is quite the beginning of wisdom. To do nothing will in fact invoke his wrath too. Said to all mainstream, lukewarm, self-satisfied Christians the world over.

The bottom line approximately half of the N.T. passages using English translated Bibles, one can validly state the "Trinity" is fallacious or state it;'s valid with the other half. Interpretating the passages in light of IIPet.1:20, 21 & ICor.12:10, one could only conclude the Trinity is valid in both Testaments, ie, interpret going from the ancient languages forward to the English and not backwards to the ancient languages

.
[SIZE=.75em]20 [/SIZE]Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

PROPHESY ain't the body of scripture, sir. PESHAT LAW is the beginning and main body of scripture. What God requires of you is PESHAT LAW. This means PLAIN, UNDERSTANDABLE and UNDERSTANDABLE to a common man, woman or child of responsible age.

Harken to the beginning, when God gave Israelites the Great Law, Shema:

10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
[SIZE=.75em]11 [/SIZE]For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
[SIZE=.75em]12 [/SIZE]It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
[SIZE=.75em]13 [/SIZE]Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
[SIZE=.75em]14 [/SIZE]But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

And this to children:

Deut 31

[SIZE=.75em]10 [/SIZE]And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,
[SIZE=.75em]11 [/SIZE]When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.
[SIZE=.75em]12 [/SIZE]Gather the people together, men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:
[SIZE=.75em]13 [/SIZE]And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear theLord your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.

Speaking of the Fear of the Lord, comes by Peshat Law first. And taught our children, that they not fear anything against them on this earth or in the ethers...

THANK YOU for your response, caring and excellent work!!!

This is by far the best post and work that you've done since I've met you and proud to be your brother in Christ. Have to run, however Mr. Wallace, Mr. Robertson, and etc excellent works where we can all be in error and God's Word perfectly true. No sarcasm nor rhetoric intended only on this post.

Old Jack

btw am an old man and have erratic heart beats at times, and this post generated a few extra beats, however I handled, ie, good job without condescending.

No one is young it seems online as the retired folks have time to post. Don't get excited too much, your race is over the long haul. Smart ones don't go all out at the beginning or end, at least until the end-end comes. It will still constitute your best effort at the finish line. God bless you, sir.

 

[Wormwood]

Well, nodhead keeps trying to plow his heifer, but it is of no use. I dont play da foo. When I discuss Colwell's Rule and claim it to be "irrefutable" and your response is essentially that such a statement is an attempt to "refute" Wallace, it sure seems like you are claiming Wallace does not believe Colwell's Rule to be irrefutable (that's just my intuition on how language works, ya see). Now a person doesn't have to be Sherlock Holmes to connect those dots.

Anywho, you just keep on a-rollin' with your Greek rules called "nothead's intuitive rules." Im looking forward to your Greek textbook that expounds on the profundity of these concepts. Until then, I'll just go with the PhD's and language experts who have no access to your secret intuition that flies in the face of everything written in the Greek textbooks we have today.

Again, way to piggy-back off of Wallace in order to take him way out of his context and use his concept to teach something completely opposite of he actually means. As my quote from him above shows, he clearly sees John 1:1 as a description of Christ's divinity. shazaam.