1Cr 15:28

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1768

luvnlife,

Vibrate · Little Hamster Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 77

You guys seem to just like arguing. Oh well, to each his own.
No-one gave a thought to my statement that this might just be all semantics. Am I the only one who can see that?

Paul2 · Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject:

Vibrate · Little Hamster Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 77

This is what dictionary.com has as the third definition for semantics:

luvnlife · Lion Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 933 Location: US

luvnlife · Lion Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 933 Location: US

Paul said: For my part, I'm here wanting to discuss/argue/debate the meaning of the Bible text using real logic and I don't hold to the "doctrine of the Trinity".

Luvnlife responded: I don't believe in the Trinity the way it is described/presented by many churches either.

For starters, they cannot even agree how to present this supposedly bible-supported idea.

Also, there are different schools of thought on the Trinity:

1) God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all separate entities and all are Gods.

2) God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all three Gods but members of one Godhead.

3) God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all pieces of the same 'God' entity. Therefore, there is ONE God but three parts of this ONE God.

4) Different translations paint completely different pictures of God's relationship to Our Lord, Jesus. Compare any bible you want to the NWT or the Greek/Hebrew Interlinear versons on the verses that supposedly prove that Jesus is God.

I agree that the Holy Spirit is Gods spirit. I even agree that Jesus is part of God (as for one, he is the Son of God and secondly he was begotten of Holy Spirit or in other words, Gods spirit).

As human beings, we are, in part, a derivative (or a part of) our parents.

It is the same with Jesus. But he is Gods son, his own creation, made with His own hands and begotten of His spirit.

Some bible translations say that God and Jesus are one. Others state that they are of one accord or that they are IN AGREEMENT with one another.

No matter what point of view you subscribe to, you cannot argue with what is obvious and what is correct. The truth lies somewhere in the middle of the two sets of beliefs.

Part of the argument, therefore, as pointed out by Vibrate, is strictly semantics.

Luv

Vibrate · Little Hamster Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 77

Luvnlife said:

Paul2 · Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 4:07 am Post subject:

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1768

luvnlife,

Vibrate · Little Hamster Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 77

I told you it's impossible to mix oil and water like that. There is no way that someone who thinks in terms of doctrine can accept even a hint of thinking about things from the heart of the matter.
These two perspectives are totally, diametrically opposed. When I talk about the heart of the matter, it's like a foreign language to someone who thinks in doctrinal terms, and vice-versa. It's really quite interesting to me, because I haven't understood this difference before. I also used to try talking and explaining.
Whenever you try to tell TBax that he's arguing semantics, he will believe that you're trying to water down the truth of correct doctrine. This is because from the perspective he adopts, this is what you're doing. He cannot understand the heart of the matter, because he has never thought about God, and the bible, and doctrine from that perspective. Instead of thinking about doctrine from the perspective of the heart of the matter, he thinks about God and the bible from the perspective of doctrine.
This is actually a syndrome, which is not a JW thing, but is something that we all suffer from to some extent, some more deeply than others. It's all part of the Babylon system of things. We have learned to fear God, and nature, and to put our hope in illusions. It's just all backwards.
The practice of putting hope in doctrine, and ignoring the perspective from the heart of the matter, is a particularly destructive and insidious element of the Babylon system of things. It steals our power of words, and clear thought away from us.
Our enemy has been revealed. It is the anti-Christ, the way of the lost. This is truly amazing, and I'm so excited to finally understand it so clearly. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about? I really hope we can discuss it; let me explain myself if it rings a bell a little but we need to clarify...

JB · Pit Bull Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 366

TBax,

John 1:1
In the beginning (en arch). Arch is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Genesis 1:1.

Westcott notes that here John carries the thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Genesis 8:58 "before Abraham came (genesqai) I am" (eimi, timeless existence). The Word (o logos). Logos is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logos, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logos is applied to Christ only in John 1:1,14; Revelation 19:13; 1 John 1:1 "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in Hebrews 4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:17) and in Hebrews 1:2 and in John 17:5. This term suits John's purpose better than sopia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (sarx egeneto, verse John 14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. With God (pros ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of pros: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (paraklhton ecomen pros ton patera). See proswpon pros proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnwston ths pros allhlous sunhqeias, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of proß here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom. And the Word was God (kai qeos hn o logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o qeos hn o logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logos) and the predicate without it (qeos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o qeos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 o qeos agaph estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar_, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 o Logos sarx egeneto,

Tbax, How can you deny the equality of Christ with God? The Greek text makes it dramatically clear. I would recommend that you stay away from those strange doctrines.

JB

luvnlife · Lion Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 933 Location: US

Paul2 · Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 12:10 am Post subject:

Jn 10:35 If He said those were gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture can not be annulled)...
Jn 17:3 ...that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Him Whom Thou dost commission, Jesus Christ.

The Hebrew word Elohim = GOD/GODS

Plainly, Jesus spoke the truth in both these verses and the two do not contradict each other. The Father is the only one Who is Elohim in an absolute sense. All called elohim are subject to the only true Elohim. The Father (the only true Elohim) is subject to no one and is therefore absolutely God. Since the Father is the only true God, all others are excluded from being GOD in an absolute sense.

Jn 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, that 'I say you are gods'?".
Ps 82:6 I Myself have said: you are elohim, And sons of the Supreme are all of you.
(There are those called ELOHIM who are sons of the Supreme ELOHIM.)

Judaism's version:
Ps 82:6 I said, "You are angelic creatures, and all of you are angels of the Most High."

Judaism's mistranslation accords with their view that there are no living beings termed ELOHIM apart from YHVH. If Judaism were correct in their translation, it would mean that Jesus should have said:

Is it not written in your law, that 'I say you are angelic creatures'?
If He said those were angelic creatures, 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, 'angel of God am I'?

Unlike some Christians, Judaism recognises that if Jesus' version of this verse is correct, they must acknowledge that a plurality of beings are termed ELOHIM.

1C 8:5 For even if so be that there are those being termed gods, whether in heaven or on earth, even as there are many gods and many lords,

1C 8:6 nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him.

Paul

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1768

JB,

What point were you addressing???
Your cut and paste made no sense to the discussion at hand. It is a bunch of confused ideas wraped in one giant sentence.

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1768

luvnlife,

Do you know what context means?
In Isaiah, God was comparing Himself to the gods the nations worshiped. There is indeed only one true God that we are to worship.

However, as sown, the scriptures show there are some properly termed as gods by God Himself.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?

So if these imperfect men can be called gods, certainly the second most powerful person in the universe can be a god. The scriptures cannot be nullified!

Do you believe the Bible, luvnlife? Do you accept it as God's word?