 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steven wrote: | | ...no amount of grammatical probing is going to shed as much light on John1:1-3 as comparison with the Logos and Arche in Luke 1:2 etc. |
Please explain your perspective on these verses.
_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steven3
Lion King
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi A | apocatastasis wrote: | | Steven wrote: | | ...no amount of grammatical probing is going to shed as much light on John1:1-3 as comparison with the Logos and Arche in Luke 1:2 etc. |
Please explain your perspective on these verses. |
Oh nothing special, I think any commentary will see "eyewitnesses of the Logos from the Arche" as meaning a different Logos and Arche than that of Psalms and Genesis.
We also get too caught up in thinking of Logos and Arche as John's inventions, when the Gospel of Luke (aka of Paul) predates John's Gospel.
S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Oh nothing special, I think any commentary will see "eyewitnesses of the Logos from the Arche" as meaning a different Logos and Arche than that of Psalms and Genesis. |
I agree. I still don't see why you brought this up, however.
_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven3
Lion King
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| apocatastasis wrote: | | Quote: | | Oh nothing special, I think any commentary will see "eyewitnesses of the Logos from the Arche" as meaning a different Logos and Arche than that of Psalms and Genesis. |
I agree. I still don't see why you brought this up, however. |
Neither do I, it has nothing whatsoever to do with El Gibor which is the OP of MoJo's thread. 
S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MoJo
Moderator
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 3380
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steven wrote: | | Have you looked at the first verse of Is.7 for me. What do you think now? |
Yes, many times. Have you read 7:13 and who the following verses are spoken to?
Isa 7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
Have you read Nahum? and I would suggest Micah also as these all deal with the same time period of these prophecies?
I believe you said somewhere about forerunners and shadow types, which the literal historical events of the OT are, but these are mixed in with prophesies. The Assyria of Is 8 is not historical Assyria and neither is Is9:6 speaking of Hezekiah. Maybe you should try connecting dots.
_________________
matt 6: 34 "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven3
Lion King
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi MoJo | MoJo wrote: | | steven wrote: | | Have you looked at the first verse of Is.7 for me. What do you think now? |
Yes, many times. |
Okay thanks, then having read 7:1, and 7:15, many times then you'd agree or disagree that Emmanu-el is someone in the days of Ahaz? | Quote: | | Have you read 7:13 and who the following verses are spoken to? |
Yes, it appears to be spoken to Ahaz:
Isaiah 7:10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13 And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”
I'd still appreciate a taker on this: who is the boy in verse 16?. It must be someone.
God bless
Steven
Last edited by Steven3 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:31 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven3
Lion King
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven3 wrote: | who is the boy in verse 16?
God bless
Steven |
Just a footnote - it strikes me that maybe some have a difficulty joining 7:14 to 7:15 and 7:16 because of the the word "virgin". Two solutions below:
1. Hezekiah's mother Abijah would have been a virgin (almah) when she was betrothed to Ahaz, when the prophecy was made.
2. Isaiah : Heb. almah = Gk. neanis* = maiden
Matthew : Heb. betulah = Gk. parthenos = virgin
* later Jewish versions of the LXX "corrected" parthenos, which appeared in Matthew's OT text, back to neanis. Though the difference is minimal as any almah/neanis would have been a betulah/parthenos to be bethrothed to a king of Judah in any case. There isn't a problem if one believes that NT inspiration gives NT authors license to upgrade types and shadows. And understands that the OT types such as Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Zerubbabel were only poor foreshadows of the the NT substance - Christ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2126
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apoc,
Hi,
| Apoc wrote: | | Why not? It shouldn't take you long at all, if that's what you are concerned about. I think it is absolutely essential for the discussion that we address the Johaninne usage of theos without the definite article. And why the roll-eyes? |
Why should I? I don't have a problem with what you wrote. It doesn't alter what I am saying either. Remember:
| TBax wrote: | Nice research. Good point Apoc.  ...The point is if it is with the definite article, and "god" was not the subject of the sentence, then there would be no descrepency. "The God" was used to describe who the Word was with, but the definite article is missing in describing what the Word was.
At John 1:1 the Word is the subject of the sentence. And theos was describing what the Word was. Theos by itself can be rendered a god, and in this instance it fits.
The literal word for word is :"In beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God and god was the Word"
If the Word was indeed the supreme Divinity then the definite article should have been used in the second instance, and there would be no issue here. I realize many translations say "the Word was God" as well. Which rendering is more accurate and fits in harmony with the rest of the Bible? |
And:
| TBax wrote: | I will admit theos alone can be translated God when it fits, like in those instances. Theos alone can also be translated "a god" when it fits as well, like at John 1:1 or John 10:30-36(see below).
The fact is "a god" is a proper rendering at John 1:1 and fits in harmony with the rest of the Bible.
"The Word was God" is a possible proper rendering but doesn't fit in harmony with the rest of the Bible. |
The rolling eyes are because I don't have a problem with what you wrote and it doesn't alter the point I am making. You are focusing on something that doesn't matter and avoiding answering my posts. I think you are stalling.
Here it is again. Please respond to the questions.
If you will notice this is addressing the Johaninne usage as John 10 was written by John.
You are missing the point. There is a descrepency as to how this can be translated. Are you saying every time theos is used without the definite article it is refering to God Almighty?
John 10:33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 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?
Here, in Green, "theos" is used without the definite article.
The Blue "theos" is used with the definite article.
Are you saying all these instances should be saying "God", as in God Almighty.
Jesus' point in that scripture is that since these imperfect men can be called gods then certainly God's own Son can be a god.
Did Jesus think he was God?
John 17:3 In prayer to his Father "3 This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. "
Did the apostles think Jesus was God?
This is what the apostles believed 1 Cor 8:6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.
Apoc, if you are going to harp on your understanding of greek you are going to miss the point. The scriptures make it clear.
| Apoc wrote: | | Indeed, no man has seen God in His essence, Spirit. But then the Spirit became flesh for us all to behold. I've already give you a verse in John where we are told that we see God in the Son, but you have ignored it. |
I didn't ignor it. I posted this in an edit. Maybe you missed it. Here it is again.
| TBax wrote: | | Apoc wrote: | No man has seen God as Spirit, for Spirit is intangible. God has, however, been seen in the flesh!
| Quote: | | (John 6:46) Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is from God; this one has seen the Father |
|
First of all John 1:18 doesn't make that qualification. Second, the scripture you used shows Jesus isn't God, but was sent from God.
| Apoc wrote: | Yes, and we see the Father in the Son:
If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. - John 14:7 |
Yes, Jesus was perfectly taught by God and reflected His qualities perfectly. But the scripture hold true that :
John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.
Hence Jesus is not God, but explained Him to us.
Take care. |
And this was written after Jesus was here.  Actually, all the NT was, but here you go.
(1 John 4:12) At no time has anyone beheld God.
Take care.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | | I think you are stalling. |
]
Not at all. I'm jsut trying to make sure we're on the same communicative page.
| Quote: | | You are missing the point. |
I'm listening.
| Quote: | | There is a descrepency as to how this can be translated. |
Explain in detail what this alleged discrepancy is, please.
So, TBax, can you quote any Greek scholars who support your reading? Just curious.
_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MoJo
Moderator
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 3380
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Steven, the answer is really so simple, even if we don't totally understand how it fits.
Mat 1:22 **Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled** which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
If you can show me where any other prophet but Isaiah speaks of Emmanuel, I'm willing to discuss it, but there is no other scripture. Therefore, like it or not; understand it or not; the scripture speaks for itself. Is 7:14 was fulfilled in the conception and birth of Jesus. To say otherwise denies the scripture. If the context of Is does not readily seem to fit, then our approach to understanding it has to change.
"the assyrian" being referred to begins with King Nebu and babylon, which also types Babylon the great. He is the hired razor. In as much as it refers to Bablyon the great, consider this scripture;
Psa 52:2 Thy tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully.
_________________
matt 6: 34 "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven3
Lion King
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi MoJo | MoJo wrote: | | Steven, the answer is really so simple, even if we don't totally understand how it fits. |
Okay, but if it is so simple then where is the simple answer to who is the boy in 7:16?
| Quote: | Mat 1:22 **Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled** which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
If you can show me where any other prophet but Isaiah speaks of Emmanuel, I'm willing to discuss it, but there is no other scripture. Therefore, like it or not; understand it or not; the scripture speaks for itself. Is 7:14 was fulfilled in the conception and birth of Jesus. To say otherwise denies the scripture. If the context of Is does not readily seem to fit, then our approach to understanding it has to change.
"the assyrian" being referred to begins with King Nebu and babylon, which also types Babylon the great. He is the hired razor. In as much as it refers to Bablyon the great, consider this scripture;
Psa 52:2 Thy tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully.
|
All well and good. But you still haven't answered the only question I've asked. Who is the boy in 7:16?
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”
Am I imagining it or are you avoiding the question?
God bless
Steven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
knuckle
Young Wolf
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 501
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Steven--------
Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures,
what do you think this means?
I think that Christ explained that all scripture is a picture of Him.Moses,David,and yes Hezekiah are pictures of Christ and that all prophesy has the same is was and will be nature.Isaiah wrote about both Hezekiah and Christ with the same words one being the "is "(Hezekiah in the immediate to Ahaz) and the "will be"(to the House of David in the future) about Christ.Physical and spiritual prophecy and that which is "earthy" comes first.
much love--------knuckle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven3
Lion King
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not such a knuckle after all eh?  | knuckle wrote: | Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures,
what do you think this means?
I think that Christ explained that all scripture is a picture of Him. Moses, David, and yes Hezekiah are pictures of Christ and that all prophesy has the same is was and will be nature. Isaiah wrote about both Hezekiah and Christ with the same words one being the "is "(Hezekiah in the immediate to Ahaz) and the "will be"(to the House of David in the future) about Christ. Physical and spiritual prophecy and that which is "earthy" comes first. |
Spot on. That is a very cogent reading of Luk.24:45, and 44 "everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” It would support the related idea that every single one of Matthew's prophecy interpretations (not just "Immanuel") are not merely Matthew, which would already be inspired enough, but heard first hand from the Teacher himself during those 40 days. (How I wish we had MP3s of those 40 days of Bible classes...“Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” )
God bless
S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2126
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apoc,
Hi,
| Apoc wrote: | | I'm listening. |
Sorry, but you are not listening at all. I didn't have a problem with your research, but you are harping on it. I made a point, but you don't know what it is. I have explained the descrepency, but you don't know of this "alleged discrepancy". Here is the discrepency: Some Bibles say "the Word was God" and some Bibles say "the Word was a god" or something similar.
Here it is in a nutshell.
At John 1:1--"The Word was a god."
1. Greek translative rules allow this.
2. Logic dictates this. ( How can you be with someone and at the same time be that one)
3. The scriptures verify this.
If you do not understand these points, or see where I have explained them, I am sorry I cannot help you until you help yourself and open your eyes. I can answer all your questions by reposting what I already posted. But I won't do that. If you truly want to know you can go back and read them.
Take care.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MoJo
Moderator
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 3380
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven wrote: | | Okay, but if it is so simple then where is the simple answer to who is the boy in 7:16? |
Okay, let's do the exercise; I'm always willing to learn.
A few basics first.
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
1. give me a general range of how old this child might be. IOW, what age would be classified as a child who wasn't old enough to choose between good and evil.
2. Who is the land that "thou abhorrest"
3. who are both her kings?
_________________
matt 6: 34 "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
