Guestman, could you please reply with your thoughts on what I have spoken about in posts 51, 52 & 56?
Many thanks.
Super Sonic boom!
Guestman, could you please reply with your thoughts on what I have spoken about in posts 51, 52 & 56?
Many thanks.
Jesus Christ....who do you say He is?
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1
When translating predicate nominative nouns from Greek, it is very difficult to correctly identify how that noun is being used. Even experienced translators get it wrong, and many Bible translations contain many errors in this regard.Originally Posted by glad4mercy
A predicate nominative is a noun which is used to describe or identify the subject, and is connected to the subject using a copulative verb. In, 'Jane is a pianist', 'Jane' is the subject, 'is' is the copulative verb, and 'pianist' is the predicate nominative noun. In my explanation, 'Jane is the subject', 'subject' is the predicate nominative noun; and in, 'subject is the predicate nominative noun', 'predicate nominative noun' is the predicate nominative noun (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist).
Predicate nominatives can be used in one of three ways. In a definite sense to identify a particular person or thing. In an indefinite sense to refer to a class or group to which the subject belongs. Or, in a qualitative sense to say that the subject possesses qualities of that other object or person. In Greek, if the article is used with the predicate nominative, then that PN is definite. However, where the article (there is only the definite article in Greek) is not present, we must rely on word order and context.
In Greek, when a predicate nominative follows the verb and it lacks the article, then that PN is always indefinite. So, there's no doubt about John 10:33, 'ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν' means, 'you are making yourself a god'.
The next three examples that you gave, John 1:6, 12, and 13, all use θεοὺ, which is in the genetive case. The genetive is handled differently regarding the article and word order. Also, I don't think it is ever used as the PN. And it isn't in these three circumstances, so none of these are useful comparisons. The exception might be verse 12 in that τέκνα is a PN; however, it preceeds the verb, and is therefore more akin to John 1:1c which also has its PN before the verb.
The accusative θεὸν which opens John 1:18 is not a PN noun either, so it also does not make a good comparison.
Grand Master
A. Yet in John 1:1, the predicate nominative precedes the verb, so this rule does not apply to John 1:1.In Greek, when a predicate nominative follows the verb and it lacks the article, then that PN is always indefinite
John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
B. Now back to John 10:33...
Whether "theon" in John 10:33 is definite or indefinite, it does not support your assertion that Jesus is "a god" rather than God. This is true for two reasons.
1. John 10:33 is not a statement of doctrinal truth, ( as John 1:1 is) but a statement of accusation by the enemies of Jesus.
2. The Jewish audience did not believe in polytheism, and when they accused Jesus they were accusing Him of blasphemy. (see John 5:18). Whether Jesus was making Himself to be YHWH or merely making Himself to be another god, they would consider either statement to be blasphemy, for they rightly knew that there is only one God.
C. You seem to think that the fact that Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 means that He is a god only in the same sense as human magistrates were called gods. It is obvious that this is not what Jesus is saying when we look at the context of John 10:33. Read John 10:27-37 and consider.
Can human magistrates, religious leaders, political rulers or even angels give eternal life? Can they preserve and keep a person from being lost? Can a created being keep us from falling or hold us in such a way that no one can snatch us from their hand? Notice that Jesus' sheep are in His Hand, and also that they are in the Father's hand. Then Jesus follows them up by saying " I and the Father are one".
D. Satan is also called a god. ( 2 Corinthians 4:4). Yet He is not the true God, He is a false god. If you make the word god to mean angels, humans, demons, etc. in the same sense that Jesus is God, and then say there is only one Almighty God who created all the other gods to be gods, that is rank polytheism. Are you placing Jesus on the same level as mere men and satan? This is an unthinkable premise. Jesus is so far above every created being that to try to liken Him to anything in creation is ludicrous.
E. Satan sought to elevate himself to godhood. Men try to elevate themselves to be gods. Yet Jesus is God in very nature. He is not a created being who sought to elevate Himself to Deity, He is in form and nature God. Jesus did not try to acheive Deity though usurpation like men and demons do, He has always been God, yet He took upon Himself the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of man so that He could redeem us (Philippians 2:5-11)
E. You seem to think that when Jesus say " I and the Father are one" this means that Jesus and the Father were merely one in purpose. Ok, if that is true, is it not also true that Moses was one in purpose with God? How about Paul, or Peter, or John, or Barnabus? Were they one in purpose with God? We know that they were, yet we also know that Moses, Paul, Peter, John, Barnabus, et al did not have the ability to give eternal life, they did not have the sufficient power to keep one from falling, they could not infallibly prevent one of God's sheep from being lost. Yet Jesus is able to do all of these things. So if you interpret "one" to mean "one in purpose", I would say that your interpretation is too weak for the passage at hand.
Last edited by glad4mercy; Jan 22nd 2012 at 03:38 PM.
1 John 1:7- But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
2 Corinthians 7:1- Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
I'm not sure whom you're responding to. It seems like a mix, and a bit confused as well.
I wasn't discussing the translation of John 1:1. The only time I referred to it was when I pointed out that the PN in John 1:1c preceeds the verb: 'The exception might be verse 12 in that τέκνα is a PN; however, it preceeds the verb, and is therefore more akin to John 1:1c which also has its PN before the verb'. So, I'm not sure why you needed to point this out.
I never made this assertion. I was only discussing how John 10:33 should be translated. I asserted only that John 10:33 should make use of the indefinite for the word god.
Agree.
Guestman cited Psalm 82. This and the rest seems to be more from your conversation with him. *
No, you're just selectively wording things and twisting them to sound polytheistic. But your way of wording things is not an accurate reflection of our view.
In John 17:21-23 Jesus prayed, '21. in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth. 22. Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. 23. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, that the world may have the knowledge that you sent me forth and that you loved them just as you loved me.'
You are merely confusing unrelated facts to try and find a contradiction. Jesus has been elevated to a higher position of authority and responsibility. This has no bearing on unity.
Grand Master
Please let me know you think I'm confused about.I'm not sure whom you're responding to. It seems like a mix, and a bit confused as well.
I brought up John 1:1 because it was in the post that you responded to. It was the second of two verses I cited that the NWT translated "a god". I think you may have made a valid point regarding the predicate nominative in John 10:33, but it doesnt apply to John 1:1. John 1:1 was very much on the table in the post that you responded to. Just because you didnt address it doesnt mean it's not part of the discussion.I wasn't discussing the translation of John 1:1. The only time I referred to it was when I pointed out that the PN in John 1:1c preceeds the verb: 'The exception might be verse 12 in that τέκνα is a PN; however, it preceeds the verb, and is therefore more akin to John 1:1c which also has its PN before the verb'. So, I'm not sure why you needed to point this out.
Then if you are right, then perhaps John 10:33 does not add anything to the question at hand, except that Jesus' hearers considered Jesus' claims to be blasphemy and self-deification. Yet what Jesus said in the verses that surround John 10:33 are far more telling than what the audience said.I never made this assertion. I was only discussing how John 10:33 should be translated. I asserted only that John 10:33 should make use of the indefinite for the word god.
You are correct, it was Guestman that cited Psalm 82, I'm sorry for the oversight. So are you saying that you don't agree with Guestman?Guestman cited Psalm 82. This and the rest seems to be more from your conversation with him. *
I was actually willing to admit that your point on John 10:33 may be valid, which shows that I am being intellectually honest and not just here to argue with you. So why don't you show me some more valid criticisms, rather than vaguely accusing me of twisting things and selectively wording things.No, you're just selectively wording things and twisting them to sound polytheistic. But your way of wording things is not an accurate reflection of our view.
If I am selectively wording things and twisting words, please point out what I left out, and what I twisted. If you can demonstrate something that I have twisted, please let me know so I can be edified, as edification is the purpose of discussing the Bible. Please explain which of my statements were distortions of your view. At least that way I can somewhat know what you mean when you say I am twisting things and misrepesenting you. If you think everything I'm saying is wrong, fine, but at least point out one or two things that are twisted, selective reasoning, or misrepresentations.
True believers are in union with one another, with the Father, and with Christ, but we do not have the power to give eternal life, hold other believers in the palm of our hands, and prevent them from perishing. Only God can give eternal life, preserve a believer, hold a believer in His Hand, and keep a believer from perishing, and it was in the context of these actions that Jesus said that He was one with the Father. Look at the statement in the context of the passage it is in before you run off looking for proof texts in other places in the Bible.In John 17:21-23 Jesus prayed, '21. in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth. 22. Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. 23. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, that the world may have the knowledge that you sent me forth and that you loved them just as you loved me.'
Jesus did give believers the Glory that was given to Him, but He did not give believers the power to give eternal life, forgive sins, preserve other believers, keep other believers from falling, receive worship, know what is in another person's heart, cleanse a sinner from their sins, etc. We are conformed to the image of Christ, but we are not made co-equal with Him, as demonstrated by the fact that we do not possess the qualities listed above. Yet Christ does possess these qualities, making Him co-equal with the Father.
What contradiction do you think I am trying to find? The only thing I'm saying is that either Jesus is God or He is not a god at all. Do you disagree with this? If so, please present a scriptural argument that shows Jesus is a god, but not the true God.You are merely confusing unrelated facts to try and find a contradiction. Jesus has been elevated to a higher position of authority and responsibility. This has no bearing on unity.
1 John 1:7- But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
2 Corinthians 7:1- Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
You seemed to be blending what I had said right into what Guestman had said. I couldn't really tell whom you were responding to.
It was. And I'd like to get to it. But, from my study of the topic, it seems that word order is quite significant, so I decided to address John 10:33 separately.
I'm simply saying that he cited it. I don't know anything about it.*
The problem is that your view of things is different than ours. The things you say are to me non-sequitors. So, for you to try and express what I believe in terms that you can understand is impossible. You simply cannot do it, any more than I can say, 'Jesus is God'. This is a complete absurdity to my way of thinking. As a result, when you try to explain how our view results in polytheism, for example, you end up creating a contrived argument which is not an accurate reflection of how we understand things. Though, in point of fact, it may be an accurate reflection of how you view our view. So, that's fair, but, my reply would be, 'no, that's not it at all'.
I didn't mean to say that I thought you were deliberately try to twist things to be argumentative and contentious. Sorry, if it sounded like that. It's always difficult to disagree politely.
Ok, here's an example: 'If you make the word god to mean angels, humans, demons, etc. in the same sense that Jesus is God'. Here you transition from 'god' as an idea, a concept or an attribute, to 'God', a specific reference. First, I don't understand how you can make such a leap in your discussion. Second, what does 'God' mean, or, to whom to do you refer, as you use it here?
This seems to me to be a situation where you are creating a hybrid mix of trinitarian and non-trinitarian ideas which results in an absurdity. Obviously, if you mix two different modes of thought, the result will be absurd. But, this is not really an accurate description of our beliefs, so the conclusion drawn from it, is not really accurate either.
Well, I very strongly disagree.
Maybe contradiction wasn't the best word to use. I was thinking of, 'So if you interpret "one" to mean "one in purpose"'. Your stating that Christ's higher authority making him co-equal to the Father contradicts 'one', meaning 'one in purpose'. However, the facts you use to make your argument appear to me to be nothing more than the confusing of separate and unrelated items. The fact that Jesus has been granted higher authority even than all others, does not make him co-equal to the Father.
Yes, I think that I would disagree with this. Isaiah 9:6 says that Jesus will be called, 'Mighty God'. Yet, 1 Cor 11:3 says that, 'the head of the Christ is God'. So Jesus is given a position of being like a god to us but below Jehovah God.
Grand Master
OK, I understand your objections a little better now. You are correct that I can't demonstrate that Jesus is God from the text John 10:33 alone, ( although that doesnt necessarily mean that no one can), I can only demonstrate that Jesus' claims ammounted to blasphemy and self deification in the eyes of His audience. When you are ready to answer my questions on John 1:1, ( which was the second half of my statement that you responded to), let me know.
I would say that Christ's subjection to the Father is due to His role within the Godhead. Subjection does not mean inferiority.Yes, I think that I would disagree with this. Isaiah 9:6 says that Jesus will be called, 'Mighty God'. Yet, 1 Cor 11:3 says that, 'the head of the Christ is God'. So Jesus is given a position of being like a god to us but below Jehovah God.
1 John 1:7- But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
2 Corinthians 7:1- Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
I just finished it, actually. I don't know if this is exactly a response to any question of yours, but it is my continued attempt to explain, and to understand, the role of the anarthrous predicate nominative in relation to its copulative verb.
The following is a list, taken from the Gospel of John, of anarthrous predicate nouns which preceed the copulative verb. I cite the verse, and the Greek text that I am taking from the verse which contains only the directly relevant material, ie. the predicate, the verb, and the subject (if present). Following the text will be a breakdown identifying the grammatical context of each word using:
d=definite (ie. preceeded by the definite article)
S=Subject
P=Predicate
N=Nominative
G=Genitive
A=Accusative (There are a couple of examples whose subject or predicate are in the accusative, genetive or dative. However, this is because of how the phrase in question relates to the larger text, not how the subject and predicate are related to one another through the copulative verb. So, I don't think that it is relevant to understanding the relationship in question.)
D=Dative
CV=Copulative verb
Adj=Adjective
Prep=Preposition
Thus, dSN + PN + CV + dPG means, a Definite Subject noun in the Nominative form, the Predicate Nominative noun, the Copulative Verb, and a Definite Predicate Genetive noun.
And the last piece, my English translation of that fragment ignoring the actual context in which it occurs within the larger text. The goal being to elucidate the meaning of this pattern of Greek grammar, only.
John 6:70 'διάβολος ἐστιν' PN + CV 'he is a slanderer' John 8:44 'ψεύστης ἐστιν' PN + CV 'he is a liar' John 9:17 'προφήτης ἐστίν' PN + CV 'he is a prophet' John 9:25 'ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν' PN + CV 'he is a sinner' John 10:13 'μισθωτός ἐστιν' PN + CV 'he is a hireling' John 10:1 'ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστιν' SN + PN + CV 'that one is a thief' John 9:8 'προσαίτης ἦν' PN + CV 'he was a beggar' John 12:6 'κλέπτης ἦν' PN + CV 'he was a thief' John 8:44 'ἐκεῖνος ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν' SN + PN + CV 'that one was a murderer' John 7:12 'ἀγαθός ἐστιν' PN + CV 'he is good' John 10:8 'κλέπται εἰσιν' PN + CV 'they are thieves' John 10:34 'θεοί ἐστε' PN + CV 'you are gods' John 6:63 'πνεῦμα ἐστιν' PN + CV 'it is spirit' John 6:63 'ζωή ἐστιν' PN + CV 'it is life' John 3:6 'τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν' dSG + PN + CV 'of flesh is flesh' John 3:6 'τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμα ἐστιν' dSG + PN + CV 'of spirit is spirit' John 8:31 'μαθηταί μου ἐστε' PN + PG + CV 'you are my disciples' John 8:54 'θεὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν' PN + PG + CV 'he is your God' John 8:33 'σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ ἐσμεν' PN + PG + CV 'you are Abraham's seed' John 8:37 'σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ ἐστε' PN + PG + CV 'you are Abraham's seed' John 8:39 'τέκνα τοῦ Ἀβραάμ ἐστε' PN + dPG + CV 'you are Abraham's children', or 'you are sons of Abraham' John 10:36 'υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι' PN + dPG + CV 'I am God's son' John 19:21 'βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἰμί' PN + dPG + CV 'I am king of the Jews' John 9:5 'φῶς εἰμι τοῦ κόσμοῦ' PN + CV + dPG 'I am the world's light' John 8:34 'δοῦλος ἐστιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας' PN + CV + dPG 'he is a slave of sin', or 'he is sin's slave' John 9:28 'σὺ μαθητὴς εἶ ἐκείνου' SN + PN + CV + PG 'you are a disciple of that one', or 'you are that one's disciple' John 1:49 'σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ' SN + PN + CV + dPG 'you are king of Israel', or 'you are Israel's king' John 9:31 'θεοσεβὴς ᾖ' PN + CV 'be he godly', or 'be he a god fearing one' John 8:42 'ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν' dSN + PN + PG + CV 'were God your father' John 9:27 'αὐτοῦ μαθηταὶ γενέσθαι' PG + PN + CV 'to become his disciples' John 8:33 'ἐλεύθεροι γενήσεσθε' PN + CV 'you shall become those who are free' John 1:12 'τέκνα θεοὺ γενέσθαι' PN + PG + CV 'to become God's children', or 'to become sons of God' John 1:14 'ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο' dSN + PN + CV 'the Word became flesh' John 2:9 'τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον' dSA + PA + CV 'the water which had become wine', or more literally 'the water having become wine' John 12:36 'υἱοὶ φωτὸς γένησθε' PN + PG + CV 'you might become sons of light' John 3:4 'γέρων ὤν' PN + CV 'being an old man', or 'being old' John 4:9 'σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὢν' SN + PN + CV 'you being a Jew', or 'you being Jewish' John 10:33 'συ ἄνθρωπος ὢν' SN + PN + CV 'you being a man' John 18:26 'συγγενὴς ὢν' PN + CV 'being a relative', or 'being kin' John 11:49 'ἀρχιερεὺς ὢν' PN + CV 'being high priest' (the larger context, however, suggests definiteness; there being one chief priest that year.) John 11:51 'ἀρχιερεὺς ὢν' PN + CV 'being high priest' John 10:2 'ποιμήν ἐστιν' PN + CV 'he is a shepherd' (the larger context, however, suggests definiteness; there being one shepherd of the sheep.) John 3:29 'τὴν νύμφην νυμφίος ἐστιν' dSA + PN + CV 'the bride is a bridegroom' (while the meaning is qualitative, the context of a bride and groom suggest definiteness; thus, in the larger context, 'the bridegroom' would be more fitting.) John 5:27 'υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν' PN + PG + CV 'he is a son of man', or viewed as a title, 'he is the Son of Man' (if viewed as a title, context dictates definiteness, as this is a unique title.) John 8:39 'ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ ἐστιν' dSN + SG + PN + CV 'our father is Abraham' John 13:35 'ἐμοὶ μαθηταί ἐστε' SD + PN + CV 'you are my disciples' John 15:14 'ὑμεῖς φἰλοι μου ἐστε' SN + PN + PG + CV 'you are my friends' John 9:24 'οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν' SN + dSN + PN + CV 'this man is a sinner' John 8:44 'ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστε' SN + Prep + dPG + dPG + CV 'you are from [your] father the devil' John 12:50 'ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιος ἐστιν' dSN + SG + PN + Adj + CV 'his commandment is eternal life' John 17:17 'ὁ λόγος ὁ σὸς ἀλήθεια ἐστιν' dSN + dSN + PN + CV 'your word is truth', or 'thy word is truth' John 18:35 'ἐγὼ Ἰουδαῖος εἰμι' SN + PN + CV 'I am Jewish', or 'I am a Jew' John 18:37 'βασιλεύς εἰμι' PN + CV 'I am king', or 'I am a king' John 18:37 'βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ' PN + CV + SN 'you are king', or 'you are a king' John 4:19 'προφήτης εἶ σύ' PN + CV + SN 'you are a prophet' John 8:48 'Σαμαρίτης εἶ σὺ' PN + CV + SN 'you are Samaritan', or 'you are a Samaritan' John 1:1 'θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος' PN + CV + dSN 'the Word was a god', or 'the Word was god-like' (Expresses the quality of being like a god, or of being like God.)
Hopefully, one can see from a study of this table that this Greek construct is intended to convey, or emphasize, that it is the qualitative essence of the predicate which is being attributed to the subject, even when the context suggests either definiteness or indefiniteness.
Grand Master
So what do you contendJohn 1:1
'θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος'
PN + CV + dSN
'the Word was a god', or 'the Word was god-like' (Expresses the quality of being like a god, or of being like God.)
a. the Word a god
b. the Word was like god
c. or both?
1. If the word was only like god, then the NWT translation of "the Word was a god" is incorrect.
2. If the word was "a god" then you have polytheism.
Do you believe that the LOGOS is eternal? If not, when exactly was He created, seeing that Isaiah quoted God as saying " before me there was no God (El) formed , neither shall there be after me."? ( Isaiah 43:10), yet Isaiah 9:6 refers to Jesus as the mighty ( gibbowr) God ( EL).
1 John 1:7- But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
2 Corinthians 7:1- Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Well, any translation is merely an attempt to convey the meaning of the original. In this case, in particular, I think that any translation choice leaves something to be desired, in that each option limits the sense of the original. Also, any choice of translation, also leaves open the possibility of mis-interpretation based on the meaning, not of the original, but on the meaning of the translation.
Translating 1:1c as 'a god', does not result in polytheism, nor does translating it as 'like god' mean that another translation is wrong, nor does translating it as 'God' prove the trinity. The meaning of the Greek is not determined by how it is translated into English. The translation is just a tool for us to try to get to the original meaning.
All ways of translating 1:1c offer insight into the nature of the Word. There is only one true God, Jehovah (Deut 6:4), so therefore the context implies definiteness. The Word was God in that he is the exact representation of God (Heb 1:3); this, meaning that the Word was like God. If the Word was like God, then he was god-like or divine in nature. The problem, as I see it, is that there was never a problem with the translation. The problem exists in approaching the text with a pre-conceived view, and then establishing that view from the text. This is a false religious aspect (Zech 5:6). That is why Jesus said that we must worship in truth, not in 'what we do not know' (John 4:22-24).
This is exactly my point (sorry). This verse does not contradict, for example, 2 Corinthians 4:4 which says that Satan is a god. Satan is a god. Isaiah 43:10 is emphasizing that there are none who compare to Jehovah. He is our God and Creator, and there is none other. Hear, O Israel, Jehovah is one Jehovah. Satan is the god of this age only. And when that age is concluded, he will be abyssed, and the god of that next age, the glorified Jesus, will rule as king within the arrangement that Jehovah has established, ie. God's kingdom.
But none of that nulifies that before God there was no God formed, nor after. Because the truth is not the words themselves, but, rather, the words are used to convey the truth. And this should always be our objective, to try to understand the truth of God's word.
When was the Word created? The question is a non-sequitor, because time is a physical property of the creation. But, you have no choice but to word the question this way, because our language is limited to our experience within that physical creation. In the beginning, the Word was with God, and not one thing came into existence apart from him. So, when exactly was that, anyways?
Grand Master
1. How is the quality of godlikeness the same as being a god? Is a lifelike thing alive?
2. Yes time is a physical property of creation, and since Jesus existed before creation, it necessarily follows that He existed before time.
Jesus by His own words called Himself the First and the Last, a striking statement that clearly demonstrates that He is YHWH.
http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/311...and-the-Gospel
Thanks for the discussion, TalonKarrdeX.
Last edited by glad4mercy; Jan 23rd 2012 at 04:12 AM.
1 John 1:7- But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
2 Corinthians 7:1- Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
It was an awesome study project. Thanks for the motivation to get that done!
Grand Master
I did leave a few loose ends that I want to tie up in conclusion to my part of this discussion. I never responded to these from you.
Angels, humans, demons, etc. are not ideas, concepts, or attributes, they are beings. The point is, you use the argument that because satan is called a god then the statement that Jesus is another god, (distinct from YHWH) does not ammount to polytheism. Yet it is certainly understood that satan is a false god, even though Paul didnt use the word "false" in the text. I think you would also agree that Jesus is not a false god, therefore using the satan as god argument is not a valid.Ok, here's an example: 'If you make the word god to mean angels, humans, demons, etc. in the same sense that Jesus is God'. Here you transition from 'god' as an idea, a concept or an attribute, to 'God', a specific reference. accurate either.
Jesus is not in the same category as angels, demons, and humans because He created all these things. I do not feel that it is appropriate to use demons and humans as a comparison when discussing Christ's Divine Nature, as they are created things and He is their creator.
The answer is that I hold that there are two kinds of gods in the Bible, false gods and the ONE TRUE GOD. You add a third category of a lesser god(s). ( I don't know if Jesus is the only one who is a lesser god in your beliefs, or if there are other lesser gods. ) I take issue with The fact that you say that Jesus is not the True God, and then create an idea of a third kind of god, ( a lesser god) who is neither the True God nor a false god . If He is neither the True God nor a false god, then you have made Him another kind of god, which to me ammounts to polytheism.Second, what does 'God' mean, or, to whom to do you refer, as you use it here?
No, I am comparing the idea or teaching that Jesus is GOD with the idea or teaching that Jesus is "a god".This seems to me to be a situation where you are creating a hybrid mix of trinitarian and non-trinitarian ideas which results in an absurdity.
Actually, the absurdity arises when people confuse the Creator with the creation.Obviously, if you mix two different modes of thought, the result will be absurd. But, this is not really an accurate description of our beliefs, so the conclusion drawn from it, is not really accurate either.]
The problem exists in approaching the text with a pre-conceived view, and then establishing that view from the text.
The fact that there is only one God is not a preconceived view, it is a well established truth in the Scriptures.
This is a false religious aspect (Zech 5:6). That is why Jesus said that we must worship in truth, not in 'what we do not know' (John 4:22-24).
You are implying that I do not know God. Believe me, I know God and He knows me. I have a personal relationship with Him. He saved me from just about every sin known to man, and radically transformed my heart. I know that my sins are forgiven, and that Jesus lives in me, and it is all of Grace.
1 John 1:7- But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
2 Corinthians 7:1- Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
This wasn't directed at you, or at any one person in particular. I was thinking in more general terms.
Grand Master
OK, Talon.I apologize for misunderstanding your statement.
Jesus is all the world to me, my life, my joy, my all;
He is my strength from day to day, without Him I would fall.
When I am sad, to Him I go, no other one can cheer me so;
When I am sad, He makes me glad, He’s my friend.
Jesus is all the world to me, my friend in trials sore;
I go to Him for blessings, and He gives them over and o’er.
He sends the sunshine and the rain, He sends the harvest’s golden grain;
Sunshine and rain, harvest of grain, He’s my friend.
Jesus is all the world to me, and true to Him I’ll be;
O how could I this friend deny, when He’s so true to me?
Following Him I know I’m right, He watches o’er me day and night;
Following Him by day and night, He’s my friend.
Jesus is all the world to me, I want no better friend;
I trust Him now, I’ll trust Him when life’s fleeting days shall end.
Beautiful life with such a friend, beautiful life that has no end;
Eternal life, eternal joy, He’s my friend.
-Will L Thompson
1 John 1:7- But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
2 Corinthians 7:1- Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks