For those why deny the Deity of Jesus Christ.

[posthuman]

"I think the 'loss of communion' view has almost the same issue by implication that Clarke points out about the 'loss of divinity' view."

I don't agree Bones, if Christ only suffered physical death rather than both physical and spiritual death (separation from His Father) then we have something wrong in our understanding of the atonement.

We need to ask what did the atonement accomplish? If it was only to suffer physical death for every man "he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" Heb 2:9 then why do we as Christians die if the penalty for sin is only physical death?

There are only two answers really - the atonement was not sufficient to prevent the physical death of a Christian, or no Christian ever had enough faith for the atonement to be effective for each and every one of them

But if the atonement was to correct spiritual death (separation from God) then Christ also tasted that spiritual "death for every man".

thank you for giving me much to think about : )

i have been thinking about some things which i think we have to also consider:
that in places like Romans 8:3-4, 1 Peter 3:18-20 and elsewhere where His death is spoken of it is only in terms of death of the body, thus condemning sin in the flesh. one may bring up Hebrews 2:17-18 and say, He is made like us in every way and knows our suffering in every way, so that He can succor us - but also in Hebrews 4:14-15 this basis He has of empathy ((beyond sympathy)) is spoken of because though He was tempted as we are, yet without sin. Paul tells us in Romans that we have life because we have it in Him, sharing in His death and also His life through the Spirit. that the life of the spirit over comes the death of the flesh - if we through His spirit share in His life, can that spirit be dead? where the scripture speaks of us being spiritually dead, it says that we were dead in trespasses and sin, before He through His Spirit quickened us: what we know share with Him is life in the spirit and death in the flesh, even His crucifixion. if He died in the spirit, is it something we share with Him? or is our spiritual death strictly that time before we came to know and believe?

and of the life in Him:

For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. ​

(Hebrews 7:14-16) ​

He appeared, a priest like Melchizedek, on the basis of an indestructible life.
is He priest before He hung on the cross? i think, of course. now and always. He said no one takes His life from Him, but He lays it down and picks it up - and He said, destroy the temple of His body, and He Himself will raise it up again.
is it ever at any time and for any interval of time possible for an indestructible life to die? how can it be possible that He lays down His own life and that He is the one who raises Himself? indestructible life, which persists despite physical death. is that life spiritual life, or something greater that persists beyond spiritual death? is it a spirit that cannot die - and is there anyone who can possess such a spirit, in which there is no death and cannot be, but God Himself? we know, He is good, and no one is good but God alone. and we also know, "He cannot deny Himself" ((2 Tim. 2:13))

i know, these things don't quite address your point about atonement - i hope to meditate on it all more and continue on later. but just to post a waypoint, where i am at the moment.

 

[Zmouth]

James 2:25 King James Version (KJV) 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith (of God) without works (of God) is dead?

Let's start we your interpretation, But don't you know O vain man, that faith (the reason for one's hope) without works (truth) is dead? Hence, faith is the substance (reason) for that which is hoped for (believed). Thus it is written in 1 Peter 3:15

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

So if you are saved by faith then what is the reason for your hope? If faith comes by hearing and and hearing by the word of God then if you point to the scriptures as your reason you have faith because you see it is written that by grace ye are saved through faith. Then if faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God then have you not heard that faith comes by hearing the Son of God ? Since hope that is seen is not hope then why does a man hope for that which he sees?

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Rom 8:24-25

Was not Abraham our father justified by (Christ's) works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

So is Abraham your heavenly Father?

Seest thou how faith(Christ's) wrought with his (Christ's)works, and by works was (Christ's)faith made perfect?And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, (the result of Christ working in him) and it (the result of Christ working in him) was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

So you believe that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son?

So if faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God then did you not read in Genesis 22:16, "And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice."

Yet did you not read in Genesis 22:15-16, And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 15 And said, ................."

 

[jaybird88]

You are TOTALLY MISTAKEN. Read, study, and believe 2 Peter 3:15,16.

im reading where those berean Jews tested Pauls teachings against scripture. is this an error or were they actually, according to you, testing scripture against scripture which Jesus Himself said cant be done.

 

[bluto]

Yes ma’am, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and what most of the world would define as a Christian. I have felt very impressed lately that I need to listen and understand others points of view. That is why I joined Christian Chat. I love talking of Jesus Christ and learning of Him. I love the Bible. I also love what the Book of Mormon adds to the Bible. I love prayer and singing praises to God. I love feeling the spirit of God teach me and others in conversations of understanding.

Hi lovingothers, and welcome to the Christian chat forums. If it's ok with you I would rather address you as Lo as opposed to typing your name out. I'm also glad your willing to listen and understand other points of view which leads me to ask you a question or two. Let me also tell you I am not LDS but I know about what your Church teaches.

According to Joseph Smith's own testimony he was 15 years old when he had his first vision. Note? I'm not going to type all that he said but just the main points. He said he went out to pray early in the spring of 1820. He saw two personages whose brightness and glory defy all description standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other, "This is my beloved Son, hear Him." (Btw, this is a quote from the Bible at Mark 9:7).

Smith then said there appeared to him the Father and the Son in bodily form. Smith said "My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know "which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; they teach for doctrines the commandments of man, having the form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

I would like you to address two points about all of this. First of all, the Bible is clear that God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bone. In fact, Jesus Christ Himself stated at John 5:37, And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His vlice at any time, NOR SEEN HIS FORM." And at John 6:46, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, except he who is from God, he hath seen the Father." Then there is also 1 Timothy 6:16 which I suggest you can read for yourself.

Here's the second issue I would like you to consider and address. When Joseph Smith ask the question of which sect he should join or which one was right is really a "foolish" question? In other words, salvation is not based on which church one joins. Salvation is based on having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ when He comes into your heart. Ephesians 2:8,9, "For by grace you have (past tense) been saved through faith; NOT by works that any man should boast. Water baptism, doing good works, following ordinances does not save you. I'll stop here and wait for you to address these two issues I raised. PS: Like I said, please address the two issues I raised and do not go into addressing James 2:24. I'll be glad to answer that later and in much more detail. Thanks!

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[garee]

So if you are saved by faith then what is the reason for your hope? If faith comes by hearing and and hearing by the word of God then if you point to the scriptures as your reason you have faith because you see it is written that by grace ye are saved through faith. Then if faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God then have you not heard that faith comes by hearing the Son of God ? Since hope that is seen is not hope then why does a man hope for that which he sees?

The hearing of His faith is that which works in us to both will and do His good pleasure is our free gift. previously having "no faith" not little one. It provides a living hope in us. We begin with it giving us the confidence he will finish it till the end as those who do endure to the end.

Galatians 3 helps us to understand our imputed righteousness in respect to the faith of Christ called a work of faith.

Galatians 3:1-5 King James Version (KJV)O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?(Christ's of God) Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Others including one self can plant the spiritual seed as it is written (by reading) what is called the "letter of the law".It kills by showing us we are guilty . But the Holy Spirit must do the work not seen if there is going to be any growth as the "law of faith"

 

[Locutus]

thank you for giving me much to think about : )

i have been thinking about some things which i think we have to also consider:
that in places like Romans 8:3-4, 1 Peter 3:18-20 and elsewhere where His death is spoken of it is only in terms of death of the body, thus condemning sin in the flesh. one may bring up Hebrews 2:17-18 and say, He is made like us in every way and knows our suffering in every way, so that He can succor us - but also in Hebrews 4:14-15 this basis He has of empathy ((beyond sympathy)) is spoken of because though He was tempted as we are, yet without sin. Paul tells us in Romans that we have life because we have it in Him, sharing in His death and also His life through the Spirit. that the life of the spirit over comes the death of the flesh - if we through His spirit share in His life, can that spirit be dead? where the scripture speaks of us being spiritually dead, it says that we were dead in trespasses and sin, before He through His Spirit quickened us: what we know share with Him is life in the spirit and death in the flesh, even His crucifixion. if He died in the spirit, is it something we share with Him? or is our spiritual death strictly that time before we came to know and believe?

and of the life in Him:

For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. ​

(Hebrews 7:14-16) ​

He appeared, a priest like Melchizedek, on the basis of an indestructible life.
is He priest before He hung on the cross? i think, of course. now and always. He said no one takes His life from Him, but He lays it down and picks it up - and He said, destroy the temple of His body, and He Himself will raise it up again.
is it ever at any time and for any interval of time possible for an indestructible life to die? how can it be possible that He lays down His own life and that He is the one who raises Himself? indestructible life, which persists despite physical death. is that life spiritual life, or something greater that persists beyond spiritual death? is it a spirit that cannot die - and is there anyone who can possess such a spirit, in which there is no death and cannot be, but God Himself? we know, He is good, and no one is good but God alone. and we also know, "He cannot deny Himself" ((2 Tim. 2:13))

i know, these things don't quite address your point about atonement - i hope to meditate on it all more and continue on later. but just to post a waypoint, where i am at the moment.

There are a number of issues that need to be raised Bones - It seems you are confusing spiritual death i.e. a dead spirit with being spiritually dead to God i.e. out of fellowship - they aren't the same.

As James said:

James 2: 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Obviously those alienated from God yet still physically alive have an alive spirit.

That said, we need to understand what being alive to God means:

Eph 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins.

They were not dead physically but "spiritually" dead and alienated from God:

Col 1:21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,.

Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.

We weren't physically dead to God, but spiritually "dead".

The thing that was restored in Christ's atonement was the spiritual relationship with God, this is the same relationship that was broken when Adam died in the day that he ate of the fruit, his body continued for 930 years.

What was "made you alive" was our spiritual relationship with God through the cleansing of the word and the atonement

 

[garee]

Let's start we your interpretation, But don't you know O vain man, that faith (the reason for one's hope) without works (truth) is dead? Hence, faith is the substance (reason) for that which is hoped for (believed). Thus it is written in 1 Peter 3:15

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

So if you are saved by faith then what is the reason for your hope? If faith comes by hearing and and hearing by the word of God then if you point to the scriptures as your reason you have faith because you see it is written that by grace ye are saved through faith. Then if faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God then have you not heard that faith comes by hearing the Son of God ? Since hope that is seen is not hope then why does a man hope for that which he sees?

Yes hearing the Son of God the Spirit of Christ a word which means the "anointing teacher comforter and guide" who brings to our mind the things he has taught us. not by hearing the Son of man Jesus(seen)

The Son of man seen rejected being called good Master( teacher). In Mathew 23 he informs us to call no man on earth Master (teacher) for one is in heaven in the same way call no man on earth father for one is our father in heaven.

Mark 10:16-18 King James Version (KJV)And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
this helps us understand what it means to walk by faith (the unseen).

On another occasion to emphasize the fact that God is not a man as us and neither is there a fleshly mediator as that seen that stands as a infallible umpire between God not seen and man seen called a daysman in Job 9:32-33.

Christ said if he does not leave, disappearing out of sight, then the comforter teacher and guide will not come. Again to emphasize we walk by faith (the unseen eternal ) and not by sight as that seen( the temporal).

A 20/20 interpretation prescription found in 2 Corinthians 4:18 needed to rightly divide it as it is written. The word it in the phrase as it is written represents the faith of God not seen... that does work in the believers

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Rom 8:24-25

Yes again his faith that we have in these earthen vessel of death 2 Corinthians 4:7 provide us a living, continuous hope that surpasses all human understanding.All die without receiving the end of our new faith the promise of our new incorruptible bodies

So is Abraham your heavenly Father?

Abrahams name is used as a metaphor to represent our Father in heaven... meaning the father of a multitude of nations .All the nations of the world . Its where we get the phrase the bosom of Abraham as the invisible presence of God

So you believe that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son?

So if faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God then did you not read in Genesis 22:16, "And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice."

Yet did you not read in Genesis 22:15-16, And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 15 And said,

Yes I did read it . "because thou hast obeyed my voice."The voice that worked in Abraham and Rehab as in all believers to both will and perform that which was appointed to Abraham and us.It made Abraham's heart soft as those who do hear it and mix faith (believe God not seen ) according to Hebrews 4, it is how we receive his Sabbath, resting from any work that could be attributed to us.

 

[Dino246]

This is a great scripture you quoted.
2 Tim 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

In my own studies of history, I have sought for truth. I am not interested much in opinion. If you would like to give me some good references from your own study of the subject, I enjoy questioning things and looking for answers. It has been a wonderful way to be taught by those who know much more than I.

Hello Lovingothers...
You have made it sufficiently clear that you believe the Bible is not a closed canon, and that the works of Joseph Smith are legitimate additions to the Bible.

I must encourage you then to consider the fundamental contradictions. In the Bible, in Isaiah 45:5, God states, "I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God." In Isaiah 44:6, God states, "I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me."

Joseph Smith taught that "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be".

They cannot both be correct. Smith's message is fundamentally inconsistent with the Bible. Therefore it cannot be an additional revelation from the same God Who "breathed" the Bible (2 Tim 3:16). In fact, it amounts to rank blasphemy. A man who teaches blasphemy on one hand cannot be a true prophet of God on the other.

 

[Locutus]

Bones, the parable of the prodigal son explains it well:

Luke 15:32 It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.’ 

 

[garee]

There are a number of issues that need to be raised Bones - It seems you are confusing spiritual death i.e. a dead spirit with being spiritually dead to God i.e. out of fellowship - they aren't the same.

As James said:

James 2: 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Obviously those alienated from God yet still physically alive have an alive spirit.

That said, we need to understand what being alive to God means:

Eph 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins.

They were not dead physically but "spiritually" dead and alienated from God:

Col 1:21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,.

Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.

We weren't physically dead to God, but spiritually "dead".

The thing that was restored in Christ's atonement was the spiritual relationship with God, this is the same relationship that was broken when Adam died in the day that he ate of the fruit, his body continued for 930 years.

What was "made you alive" was our spiritual relationship with God through the cleansing of the word and the atonement

Yes spiritually dead having a corrupted temporal spirit that will return to the father who gave it temporally. the body of death will return to the lifeless spiritless dust it was taken from . To go above that is to promote necromancy, seeking after the dead .A Catholic foundation as a oral tradition of their fathers based on "workers with familiar spirits" that they must call patron saints.

The phrase “you shall surely die” can be literally translated from the Hebrew biblical text as “dying you shall die.” It was not intended to be in the twinkling of the eye.

By the time David came on the scene it was reduced to 80 years.

Psalm 90:10The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

 

[garee]

Just so I understand, when mormans have divine revelation it's wrong, but when St Paul does the exact same thing,it's ok?
So who decides which revelations are ok?

I would offer.

Revelations as interpretation are after no man seen. As always its first things of God, first. Not by the will of mankind. But men moved the Spirit of Christ that dwells in them. And therefore not of them (2 Corinthians 4:7)rather of God.

2 Peter 1:19-21 King James Version (KJV) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any "private interpretation".For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Those who go above that which is wriiten like the leader of the Morons end up with the same kind of new revelation as privet interpretation called private revelations. Just exchange the word mother would be happy, for Joesef Smith.

Private revelations as private intrpretations by Pope Urban .

POPE URBAN VIII: "In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother (or Joself Smith or the false prophet Mohomid) asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, "you will receive all blessings as if it had been "true", because you believed it to be true." (Pope Urban VIII)

We are made aware of the wiles of the father of lies, the god of this world trying to keep the air waves open to violate the warning not to add or subtract from the perfect or whole word of God.

 

[Angela53510]

Getting back to the deity of Christ, here is something I got from the text book from my Greek professor wrote. I had some head honchos from the JWs on my door step about 6 months ago, because the little old ladies who came the time before couldn't handle me. So, I got this out, my Greek lexicon and a few other tools, and spoke to them. I showed them that Greek clearly shows that John 1:1 says Jesus is God. I invited them to come back for a Bible study, and they never returned. I guess I got a "do not call sticker" on my door! Anyway here it is.

In English, the order of the sentence generally determines the use of the noun. The subject usually comes first. However, in Greek, the word order is flexible, and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical functions. For example, if there are two nouns and one has the definite article, it is the subject.

Word order is also employed for the sake of emphasis. Generally, if a word is thrown to the front of a clause or sentence, it is done so for emphasis. When the predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis.

A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. English versions usually say, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order is reversed.

This is the direct translation, and it is wrong!
Καί θεός ήν ό λόγος or (Kai theos en ho logos)
And God was the Word

Why is the above wrong? We know that “the Word” is the subject, because it has the definite article and is in the nominative case and we translate it accordingly “and the Word was God.”

Two questions, both of theological importance, come to mind:

1. Why was θεός (theos or god) thrown forward?
2. Why does it lack the article?

The emphatic position of θεός (theos) or God, stresses its essence of quality” “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the Person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father).

That means that the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has: lack of the article tells us the Jesus Christ is not the Father. (Apollonius' Canon!)

John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism

To state this another way, let’s look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:

1. καί ό λόγος ήν ό θεός
“and the Word was the God” Sabellianism*

2. καί ό λόγος ήν θεός
“and the Word was a god” Arianism+

3. καί θεός ήν ό ΄λόγος
“and the Word was God” orthodoxy

Mounce William D., Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar


*Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modesor aspectsof one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead.

The term Sabellianism comes from Sabellius, a theologian and priest from the 3rd century. Modalism differs from Unitarianism by accepting the Christian doctrine that Jesus is fully God.

+ Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca.AD 250–336), a Christian presbyterin Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of God to the Son of God (Jesus of Nazareth). Arius asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father.

Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius which are in opposition to mainstream Trinitarian Christological doctrine, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councilsand currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, all Reformation-founded Protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, and Anglican), and a large majority of groups founded after the Reformation and calling themselves Protestant (such as Methodist, Baptist, most Pentecostals), with the exception of such groups as Oneness Pentecostals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo and Branhamism

 

[garee]

Getting back to the deity of Christ, here is something I got from the text book from my Greek professor wrote. I had some head honchos from the JWs on my door step about 6 months ago, because the little old ladies who came the time before couldn't handle me. So, I got this out, my Greek lexicon and a few other tools, and spoke to them. I showed them that Greek clearly shows that John 1:1 says Jesus is God. I invited them to come back for a Bible study, and they never returned. I guess I got a "do not call sticker" on my door! Anyway here it is.

In English, the order of the sentence generally determines the use of the noun. The subject usually comes first. However, in Greek, the word order is flexible, and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical functions. For example, if there are two nouns and one has the definite article, it is the subject.

Word order is also employed for the sake of emphasis. Generally, if a word is thrown to the front of a clause or sentence, it is done so for emphasis. When the predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis.

A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. English versions usually say, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order is reversed.

This is the direct translation, and it is wrong!
Καί θεός ήν ό λόγος or (Kai theos en ho logos)
And God was the Word

Why is the above wrong? We know that “the Word” is the subject, because it has the definite article and is in the nominative case and we translate it accordingly “and the Word was God.”

Two questions, both of theological importance, come to mind:

1. Why was θεός (theos or god) thrown forward?
2. Why does it lack the article?

The emphatic position of θεός (theos) or God, stresses its essence of quality” “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the Person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father).

That means that the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has: lack of the article tells us the Jesus Christ is not the Father. (Apollonius' Canon!)

John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism

To state this another way, let’s look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:

1. καί ό λόγος ήν ό θεός
“and the Word was the God” Sabellianism*

2. καί ό λόγος ήν θεός
“and the Word was a god” Arianism+

3. καί θεός ήν ό ΄λόγος
“and the Word was God” orthodoxy

Mounce William D., Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar


*Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modesor aspectsof one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead.

The term Sabellianism comes from Sabellius, a theologian and priest from the 3rd century. Modalism differs from Unitarianism by accepting the Christian doctrine that Jesus is fully God.

+ Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca.AD 250–336), a Christian presbyterin Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of God to the Son of God (Jesus of Nazareth). Arius asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father.

Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius which are in opposition to mainstream Trinitarian Christological doctrine, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councilsand currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, all Reformation-founded Protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, and Anglican), and a large majority of groups founded after the Reformation and calling themselves Protestant (such as Methodist, Baptist, most Pentecostals), with the exception of such groups as Oneness Pentecostals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo and Branhamism

I would suggest.. "the word was with God" or Emmanuel God, with us as fleshy beings . Not God is us or the word pertaining to the flesh as that seen, was God.

God is not a man as us and neither is there a infallible fleshly umpire as a mediator between God, not seen, and man seen .(Job 9:32-33)

John 6 informs us as we are taught of God, not seen, represented by the father. Therefore everyone that has learned of the father came to the Son of man seen when he was still here. When he was here he resisted being called master (daysman) as a infallible teacher .He said only God, not seen, represented by the father is the good teaching master .We are to call no man on earth master teacher in that way, one is our teaching master in heaven, just as one is our father in heaven.

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

 

[jaybird88]

Those who go above that which is wriiten like the leader of the Morons

and dont forget Paul, he did this exact same thing just like the Mormans, he had revelation and those revelations would later become scripture.
funny how we dont have a problem with Paul doing this, but when someone else comes along and does the exact same thing, its the DEVIL!

 

[Embankment]

and dont forget Paul, he did this exact same thing just like the Mormans, he had revelation and those revelations would later become scripture.
funny how we dont have a problem with Paul doing this, but when someone else comes along and does the exact same thing, its the DEVIL!

Doesn’t the Bible worn use about that very thing? Those would be called false profits

 

[jaybird88]

Doesn’t the Bible worn use about that very thing? Those would be called false profits

yes, Jesus taught to judge them by their fruits, let ones actions define who they are. this teaching is mostly ignored in todays Christianity, we would much rather judge someone on theology.
it was also ignored in the days of Jesus, the pharisees had very good teachings, but they didnt live by what they taught.

 

[Chuckyz2]

More like seen as someone who isn't that familiar with the bible. John 20:28
Lots more verses where that one came from.

My Lord "and" my God. He was a man that was born of the Spirit.
That is why He is the only begotten Son. Yet he is a man.
And because He existed before He was born a man, does
not make Him God. But God was with Him always. So when
He was there, God was there.
Why does thou call me Good. There is only one that is good. The Father.
I only say as I have learned from the Father.
I did not come to do my will, but the will of the Father who sent me.

There are many more verses like this but only one is enough
to show He is not the Father. As he testified with His own mouth.

Father, why has thou forsaken me?
Why confuse a simple matter.
Jesus is not the Father.
He sits on the right.
He has been given all power.
And He is to be worshipped.
And I do. But He is not the Father. Lol
silly people. You crack me up.
Preach the truth. If you don't know it...
go study until you do, then preach.

 

[PennEd]

This is a great scripture you quoted.
2 Tim 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

In my own studies of history, I have sought for truth. I am not interested much in opinion. If you would like to give me some good references from your own study of the subject, I enjoy questioning things and looking for answers. It has been a wonderful way to be taught by those who know much more than I.
Thank you for expressing your feeling though. I went and did a mini study on the topic which was interesting. It appears that there are some who agree with you about Revelations being completed in 96 AD. However, it appears from most sources a range from 90AD to 96AD which suggest it isn’t exactly known. However, that really isn’t the point. The point is that Revelations was most likely not the last book written, nor was the Bible all compiled by 96AD. The references I just look through on Wikipedia list the gospel of John, the epistles of John, Acts, the Timothy’s, and second Peter as being written as late at 110 AD.
When, I looked through the references on Wikipedia, I went to a couple from Cambridge university. What I read appeared to Christians who appreciate the Bible who are studying its history to understand it better. Instead of opinion, they seem to be seeking understanding which I greatly value.

I am all for people coming here to learn about Christ and His Gospel. Are you willing to renounce Mormonism? Like Atheists who come here and say things like "I'm an atheist! Ask me anything" we DO NOT care to learn more about Mormonism. Mature Christians are already fully aware of the heresies of that cult, and baby Christians do not need to become confused by those satanic heresies.

It appears to me that you want to "educate" us on why Mormons should be considered Christians. That is why I ask if you are willing to renounce that cult.

 

[Magenta]

with respect, that makes no sense at all.
the teachings of Paul were not scripture at the time of Paul, they became part of the bible many years later. who decided that?

2 Peter 3:14-16 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our LORD's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Peter considered Paul's letters to be Scripture.

 

[Hevosmies]

and dont forget Paul, he did this exact same thing just like the Mormans, he had revelation and those revelations would later become scripture.
funny how we dont have a problem with Paul doing this, but when someone else comes along and does the exact same thing, its the DEVIL!

Are you accusing Paul of being a false apostle? I suggest you throw your bible out the window. Better yet: REPENT from this error of yours.

If you throw out Paul as an apostle, here is a list of books you must disqualify from your Bible:
-Book of Acts, mentions Paul, written by Luke, Paul's companion in his travels. Paul attended the Jerusalem church council and was accepted by James AND Peter
-Gospel of Luke, written by Luke, Paul's companion in his travels.
-Peter's epistles, mentions Paul, calls him "dear brother Paul" and groups Paul's letters with "other Scriptures"
-Obviously all the epistles of Paul, which are the majority of the New Testament.

You are on thin ice. Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles. Take heed of Peter's warning and ask God to give you wisdom, so you are not one of those ignorant and unstable people who distort Paul's writings, and misunderstand them and therefore reject them.