1Cr 15:28

JB · Young Wolf Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 514

Tbax,
I sense that you didn't read the post closely.

In the beginning.( En arch,)
It means Like being at home or in town.

Westcott makes it clear that the Greek rendering in this text carries the idea that this wasn't a point in time by an existence that predated time. Since time wasn't conceived prior to creation then Jesus existed in eternity. There is only one who existed in eternity.

Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect form eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence

In verse 14 we see and the Word became flesh. Became (egeneto). The flesh or sarx became suggesting existence in time which means that The embodiment of flesh, was exposed to time.

"became flesh" (sarx egeneto, verse 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.

To be a god means that there is no eternal existence in the sense of no beginning or end. Hence your idea of Jesus being a god is seriously broken.

JB

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

Yeah, time is a false construct too. Events proceed in sequence, so men call it time, and think of time as a real measure, and a real part of nature. It is not. In the beginning really refers to the beginning of creation, as opposed to the beginning of time. In fact all creation, including the present moment, takes place in eternity.

The human mind perceives things according to the principle of discernment, which is a binary system - hence the phrase, divide the truth. False teachings always try to divide what cannot be divided, and this issue of dividing the word from the speaker is just one instance of this. I have tried explaining this principle to TBax already, by pointing out that when you read this post you will say, "Vibrate says this and that," and not "Vibrate's post says this and that". But he acted like I was speaking a foreign language. Obviously I have also explained that the eternity perspective is different from the finite perspective, which also got the same reception.

JB, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. I can't see how someone who doesn't take the time to read simple logic is going to take the time to research the Greek. After all, the organization provides the "correct" interpretation of Greek, so you're not going to be able to cut into their circle of logic that way.

So you might be wondering, "how can I cut into the circle of logic?" In my opinion it is not possible in this case to break into the organization program with mere words and reasoning. But it is possible to do it by the Holy Spirit, through charisma. My suggestion is that those who really know about the natural Way of life, from the heart and soul, we need to build ourselves into an authority by talking together about the truth. To continue chasing behind those who have no interest or capacity for impartial analysis is not our Way.
These people are blinded by material things; remember that the doctrine approach to life is a material thing. It seems exciting and romantic to them, like a shiny bead to a child. So they hold onto it. You can't reason them out of that. The best way to get them out of that trap is to demonstrate by example that the true Kingdom of God, the Way of life, is a far brighter jewel. When we talk together and build up our own glory practically (philosophies, doctrines, prophecies, interpretations, music, art, literature, poetry, organizations, systems, polities, commerce, trade); when we build ourselves up by working together, we will become a jewel so bright that they won't even be able to see their fake jewel's glow any more. Then they will repent of their decision to hold onto the dream.
Think about it and you'll see the truth of this statement - if someone is trapped by doctrine, you cannot free him using reasoning. You must offer hard evidence, which will overpower the illusion that binds him. Whenever you meet these doctrine believers do not tackle their doctrine head on with words that try to convince them of their error. Dazzle them with the glory of the truth instead.

luvnlife · Lion King Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 1132 Location: US

Paul2 · Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject:

JB,

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

Well said Luvnlife. I would just like to mention, though, that there is a real, true church, and it is perfect. But as far as men's organizations, there is no true church.
Believers are the "glory of God in Christ". The power of the indwelling Holy Spirit means that a believer is one with God, and this is the true Church.
When you think about things from the real perspective, you will realize that believers do not have any false beliefs, because all they believe in is the Way, the Gospel. When you give your life to God, you become part of Him, and there can be no error in you.
This is a controversial issue that many would try to debate, but think about it, how can the "glory of God in Christ" be caught up in false beliefs? Doesn't sound very glorious to me.
Of course, there are many other places in the bible that refer to this principle of perfection in God's sight. But many will deny it, and they can quote many verses that talk about weakness of the flesh in believers. Let me just answer all that preemptively: It's true that the flesh can be weak, but you are not your flesh. You are a living soul, which has been born again according to the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Meditate on what this means, and do not be confused by doctrines that identify you based on the flesh perspective.

luvnlife · Lion King Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 1132 Location: US

Thank you for your response, Vibrate.

I will pray and meditate on this.

Luv Smile

Paul2 · Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject:

Vibrate,

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1939

JB,

I appreciate your clarifing the point of your last post. Some of your conclusion don't seem to be foregone conclusions but suppositions. Embarassed

i.e.

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

Paul, all my beliefs are true.
In fact I have only one belief, although it operates on many levels, which is why I have used the word "beliefs". My belief is the Gospel, and I know it's true because it is proven by several witnesses. There is no room for doubt.

JB · Young Wolf Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 514

The pronounced Greek word (ego) defined as A primary pronoun of the first person.
The pronounced Greek word (eimi) defined as First person singular present indicative.

If you were to compare compare the Greek scriptures (New Testament) with the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX) you would see:

Or better yet; Comparing the New World Translation rendering,with the book of John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 (LXX) you would see a contradiction in your theology.

Exodus 3:14 (ego eimi) rendered "I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE."

John 8:58 (ego eimi) rendered "... I have been"

Therefore, your organization has violated a basic fundamental practice of interpretation by bending the scriptures to support your unfounded theology.

(Again I repeat) Three times in this sentence John 1 the writer uses this imperfect form eimi to be, which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence.

eimi defined as the first person singular indicative means that there is no contingency.

en arch means:
Jesus was there at the beginning, before time existed. before angels existed. Before any thing existed.

Since time didn't exist, Jesus is eternal. You just can't escape that truth. To deny it is to deny God.

JB

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1939

luvnlife,

You seem to be very confused here.

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1939

JB,

Nice attempt, but again your conclusion is based on false information. Embarassed

JB · Young Wolf Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 514

TBax,
Your credence to the NWT rather than the original text makes you vulnerable to the teaching of man.

Here is your response to solid Greek parsing:

Nice attempt, but again your conclusion is based on false information

I doubt that you even researched this claim. Oh seeker of truth.

That is sad. You deny undeniable truth to follow a lie.
How great the veil that covers the eyes of the unbeliever.

If I thought I could help you I would present more facts on proper scriptural exegesis, but you have with conviction chosen not to believe the Scriptures but to believe the teachings of Charles Russel.

It just doesn't get any better than this.
I am not a trinitarian by the way.

JB

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1939

JB,

You appearently do not understand how your cliam is based on false information. Let me help you. Your claim was that the NWT was inconsistant in it's translating of "ego eimi".
You used Ex 3:14 as opposed to John 8:58. Listen closely:The NWT didn't translate Ex 3:14 from the greek language. But from the original Hebrew language.

Your conclusion:

JB · Young Wolf Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 514

TBax,

Tbax said:
The NWT didn't translate Ex 3:14 from the greek language. But from the original Hebrew language.

I think that is you that doesn't understand. I would like for you to tell me what Hebrew text that might be. Please be specific so that I can research it closely.

The Oldest Hebrew text I believe is the masoretic text,It was written by Jerome around 300 AD. Do you suppose that this text is better that the LXX which was written much earlier and regarded as the most accurate ancient text available?

I think you are putting trust in a man who I believe was a part of the early Catholic Church. How about that? I am sure that you as a JW have strong tiers to the Catholic Tradition.

JB