Spirituality
24 Aug 12
30 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71I know you've been show this and other info like it but if one does not want to see, you will not see.
John 1:1 as you already know. The word(The Logos) was with God and was God
then about 1:13 it says this Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt among us. So the Logos became flesh.
Manny
One example of a Bible verse that is often misused is John 1:1. In the King James Version, that verse reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [Greek, ton the·on], and the Word was God [the·os].” This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun the·os (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word the·on; refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the·os; has no definite article.
Was the article mistakenly left out?
The Gospel of John was written in Koine, or common Greek, which has specific rules regarding the use of the definite article. Bible scholar A. T. Robertson recognizes that if both subject and predicate have articles, “both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable.” Robertson considers as an example Matthew 13:38, which reads: “The field [Greek, ho a·gros] is the world [Greek, ho kosmos].” The grammar enables us to understand that the world is also the field.
What, though, if the subject has a definite article but the predicate does not, as in John 1:1? Citing that verse as an example, scholar James Allen Hewett emphasizes: “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”
To illustrate, Hewett uses 1 John 1:5, which says: “God is light.” In Greek, “God” is ho the·os and therefore has a definite article. But phos for “light” is not preceded by any article. Hewett points out: “One can always . . . say of God He is characterized by light; one cannot always say of light that it is God.” Similar examples are found at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit,” and at 1 John 4:16, “God is love.” In both of these verses, the subjects have definite articles but the predicates, “Spirit” and “love,” do not. So the subjects and predicates are not interchangeable. These verses cannot mean that “Spirit is God” or “love is God.”
Identity of “the Word”?
Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”
Watchtower1/4/09
Originally posted by galveston75Okay give it another name if you will. The main things that writings in the Holy Bible points out is as follows:
Absolutly nothing here you've quoted says anything of a trinity. It's all in your mind and if your happy with that, so be it.
The Holy Spirit was there in the beginning at creation.
God spoke to God in the creation account of Genesis.
God called the Word, who later put on flesh, was with God in the beginning.
God, who was manifested in the flesh, was given the name Jesus.
Jesus was called the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus said the Son should be honored like the Father.
Jesus said we should pray to the Father and ask what we wish to be done in the name of Jesus.
God the Father commanded all His holy angels to worship the Son of God.
The living creatures in Heaven worshipped and praised God with holy, holy, holy. (Why "holy" 3 times?)
The person of the Father is God.
The person of the Son is God.
The person of the Holy Spirit is God.
God is One
Conclusion: Three persons in one God.
What word do you think best fits all of the above ideas?
HalleluYah !!!
30 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHinds"What word do you think best fits all of the above "ideas?"
Okay give it another name if you will. The main things that writings in the Holy Bible points out is as follows:
The Holy Spirit was there in the beginning at creation.
God spoke to God in the creation account of Genesis.
God called the Word, who later put on flesh, was with God in the beginning.
God, who was manifested in the flesh, was given the n ...[text shortened]... sons in one God.
What word do you think best fits all of the above ideas?
HalleluYah !!!
That's exactly what it is "ideas". It was ideas of men that wanted for obvious reasons, meld pagan beliefs into the christian church as we have pasted to you and the other trinitarians. It had to be done because it was commanded to be done in the 4th century in order to bring those people together under one roof of religion. You know that to be a fact and this is where the trinity became a teaching into the church plain and simple.
Twist the words of the Bible as you please................
30 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsOf course the holy spirit was there. It's God's own active force or power that he uses to create. It's his muscle so to speak, his might. But that active force or spirit force has never been called a god anywhere in the Bible.
Okay give it another name if you will. The main things that writings in the Holy Bible points out is as follows:
The Holy Spirit was there in the beginning at creation.
God spoke to God in the creation account of Genesis.
God called the Word, who later put on flesh, was with God in the beginning.
God, who was manifested in the flesh, was given the n ...[text shortened]... sons in one God.
What word do you think best fits all of the above ideas?
HalleluYah !!!
Of course God spoke to his SON then and has and always talk to his SON. My father talks to me but I am not my father. We are two seperate humans. I will never be the same human as my father and Jesus will never be the same being as his Father. That's why he is called the SON and a statement you keep using but have no idea what it means.
And yes he is God's spokesman. He is a seperate being that speaks for his Father. If they were the same being, why can't the part that gives his son Jesus these messages to share, not just speak for himself or themselves or his other self or just speak as one? See how silly all that sounds?
Yes Jesus became flesh and we saw him. But your bible clearly says "NO ONE may see God and live". Soooooooo no one has ever seen Almighty God. Two seperate beings.
So was The Word/Jesus with God in the beginning as you just said or was he God? How could I be with my father here on earth but yet be him? Still a silly thought, right? Right.
Anyway the point is the wording thru the entire Bible never in the slightest way ever says that Jesus, the holy spirit and Almight God are the same being. Period.......
A son is a son and a father is a father. One is older always in any level of creation and life. If that were not true in this case, why is that wording used over and over and over in the Bible?
Originally posted by VoidSpiritBiblical scholars with a mastery of the Koine Greek would agree in part with the author of the linked article. However, the majority of those scholars would disagree with the final conclusion of the author and that is why we have more translations that continue to translate it according to the orginal English translations.
http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm
As was pointed out by the example of the absence of the Greek definite article for the phrase "in beginning" it does not always sound right to say it literally word for word. The Greek definte article is also missing in the Septuagint Greek translation of Genesis in the Hebrew scriptures. We would translate it either as "in the beginning" or "in a begining" which would be acceptable in English in the context of John chapter one. However, in the context of Genesis chapter one, we would translate it "In the beginning" because it refers to a definite beginning, which is the beginning of the creation of the physical universe.
Also as was pointed out, it is not always necessary to add a definite article to sound right and present the correct meaning. Therefore, the English translation of John 1:1 needs no article added.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
It agrees John 1:14,18
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
It also agrees with the rest of scripture such as the following:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
(1 Timothy 3:16 KJV)
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
(Titus 2:11-14 NKJV)
If we insert the indefinite article "a" before God, we have just changed the meaning. Now instead of having One Definte God, we have created another god, because that is what "a" means. The Holy Bible teaches there is only One True God so by adding to the scriptures the indefinte article "a" we have declared "the Word" a false god or else we are declaring that there are two True Gods, which is forbidden.
30 Aug 12
Originally posted by galveston75The Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, also known as Constantine I or Saint Constantine commanded the Church leaders to come to an agreement in doctrinal beliefs in order to dispense with all the heresies in the early church, such as the one the Watchtower has resurrected after all these years. That heresy is known as Arianism. Constantine was a Christian and was put in power by God for such a time as that. See Heresies of the early church.
"What word do you think best fits all of the above "ideas?"
That's exactly what it is "ideas". It was ideas of men that wanted for obvious reasons, meld pagan beliefs into the christian church as we have pasted to you and the other trinitarians. It had to be done because it was commanded to be done in the 4th century in order to bring those people to ...[text shortened]... the church plain and simple.
Twist the words of the Bible as you please................
http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/arius.html
It is the watchtower that is adding to and twisting the words of the Holy Bible.
I am presenting the truth, as best as I can.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by galveston75God was manifested in the flesh so we could see God. Do you forget what Jesus said?
Of course the holy spirit was there. It's God's own active force or power that he uses to create. It's his muscle so to speak, his might. But that active force or spirit force has never been called a god anywhere in the Bible.
Of course God spoke to his SON then and has and always talk to his SON. My father talks to me but I am not my father. We are ere not true in this case, why is that wording used over and over and over in the Bible?
“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
(John 14:7-11 NKJV)
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsconstantine was not a christian. he was a "christian" who worshiped the roman solar deity. the christians pretty much followed in his footsteps.
The Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, also known as Constantine I or Saint Constantine commanded the Church leaders to come to an agreement in doctrinal beliefs in order to dispense with all the heresies in the early church, such as the one the Watchtower has resurrected after all these years. That heresy is known as Arianism. Constantine was a Christia ...[text shortened]... am presenting the truth, as best as I can.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsthose you speak of are trinitarian apologists who know the original greek was intentionally mistranslated to convey support for the trinity doctrine.
Biblical scholars with a mastery of the Koine Greek would agree in part with the author of the linked article. However, the majority of those scholars would disagree with the final conclusion of the author and that is why we have more translations that continue to translate it according to the orginal English translations.
the honest scholars (yes, there are even trinitarians here) would agree that the translation is not accurate.
As was pointed out by the example of the absence of the Greek definite article for the phrase "in beginning" it does not always sound right to say it literally word for word.
correct, but translating it as a definite article is dishonest and inaccurate. it completely changes the original intent of the author. this is what the trinitarians have done; completely altered the original authors intent.
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYou usually don't answer these questions but if they are the same and as the trinity expresses they are all equal, all knowing, all powerful... then why does one not speak as you quote but only says what the other tells him to speak?
God was manifested in the flesh so we could see God. Do you forget what Jesus said?
[b]“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not k ...[text shortened]... he Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
(John 14:7-11 NKJV)[/b]
Is the one speaking only what is told him to speak by the other one, weaker, not as knowlegable or as important?
Do they ever argue or one wants to go one way and the other wants to go the opposite?
Do you get the point? Why cannot one speak but only what he is told by the other? Why did Jesus say to only pray to the Father? Why not just pray to them all and let them work it out?
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritExactly. Just that minor change is all it takes to start the ball rolling to support the trinity. Without it the whole picture changes...
those you speak of are trinitarian apologists who know the original greek was intentionally mistranslated to convey support for the trinity doctrine.
the honest scholars (yes, there are even trinitarians here) would agree that the translation is not accurate.
[quote]
As was pointed out by the example of the absence of the Greek definite article f ...[text shortened]... hor. this is what the trinitarians have done; completely altered the original authors intent.
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritWhich "in beginning" are you referring to?
those you speak of are trinitarian apologists who know the original greek was intentionally mistranslated to convey support for the trinity doctrine.
the honest scholars (yes, there are even trinitarians here) would agree that the translation is not accurate.
[quote]
As was pointed out by the example of the absence of the Greek definite article f ...[text shortened]... hor. this is what the trinitarians have done; completely altered the original authors intent.
I do not see anything dishonest about the original English text. There is nothing dishonest or incorrect about translating a definite article as a definte article. It is adding an indefinite article to the English translation where there was not one in the original Greek that I would call dishonest and incorrect. That is what changes the author's meaning and makes it conflict with the rest of what he said and other parts of scripture.