R
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The Spirit OF (of is a preposition) Christ in the Prophets (not on the agenda of education or preaching) made some pretty clear statements. I don't know why people are so anxious to refute Him since He said my WORDS are Spirit and Life.
Jer 10:10 But the Lord (Jehovah)
.....is the [1] true (Elohim) God, he is the
.....[2] living God (Elohim) , and an
.....[3] everlasting king (ascends the throne):
.....at his wrath the earth shall tremble,
.....and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.
Jeremiah 10:11Thus shall ye say unto them,
.....The gods (not true, Elah h426))
.....that have not made the heavens and the earth,
.....even they shall perish from the earth,
.....and from under these heavens.
Jeremiah 10:12 He hath made the earth by his
.....[1] power, he hath established the world by his
.....[2] wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his
.....[3] discretion. [intelligence, argument, reason, mentality]
Jer 10:10 But the Lord (Jehovah)
.....is the [1] true (Elohim) God, he is the
.....[2] living God (Elohim) , and an
.....[3] everlasting king (ascends the throne):
.....at his wrath the earth shall tremble,
.....and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.
Jeremiah 10:11Thus shall ye say unto them,
.....The gods (not true, Elah h426))
.....that have not made the heavens and the earth,
.....even they shall perish from the earth,
.....and from under these heavens.
Jeremiah 10:12 He hath made the earth by his
.....[1] power, he hath established the world by his
.....[2] wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his
.....[3] discretion. [intelligence, argument, reason, mentality]
You are really not getting any of this are you. You do not understand who the Word is.
D
Donkeyfish07
Guest
That's the exactly why I used that verse
, it highlights how important the Elohim issue is. It's not a trinity proof. Men have also been referred to as Elohim (Moses for example). Hebrews 1:9:
"Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
In English you could go into the whole "Does God have a God?" question. Or you can compare it with the Psalm it quotes and that question becomes completely unnecessary:
Psalm 45:7:
"Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
You can replace the word God here with the word Elohim....because that actually is the original word used. Cross reference with other Psalms, like Psalm 82:6 for example:
"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
"
The word gods there is Elohim. Then you have Jesus directly quoting that Psalm as well:
John 10:34-36:
"[SUP]34 [/SUP]Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
[SUP]35 [/SUP]If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
[SUP]36 [/SUP]Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"
Arguing against Hebrews 1:8-9 being a trinity proof is a very easy matter. That's why I said he made a good point by bringing Elohim up.
JOHN 10:10 HAS SOME CONTENT
John 10:30 I and my Father are one. [NOT IDENTICAL]
John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
John 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have
.....I shown you FROM my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying,
.....For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy,
.....and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
John 10:35 If he called them gods, to whom the WORD of God came,
.....and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified,
.....and sent into the world,
.....Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me no
The One God the father sanctified Jesus of Nazareth and BREATHED (spirit) His Word or Logos into Him. We are ONE with the Father when we SPEAK that which is written for our LEARNING.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one. [NOT IDENTICAL]
John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
John 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have
.....I shown you FROM my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying,
.....For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy,
.....and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
John 10:35 If he called them gods, to whom the WORD of God came,
.....and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified,
.....and sent into the world,
.....Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me no
The One God the father sanctified Jesus of Nazareth and BREATHED (spirit) His Word or Logos into Him. We are ONE with the Father when we SPEAK that which is written for our LEARNING.
That's the exactly why I used that verse
Hebrews 1:9:
"Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
No, verse is vocative of address. The Father is addressing the Son as God.
Verse 9 does NOT read "therefore God, even thy God." It reads διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε, ὁ Θεός, ὁ Θεός σου. "Because of this, anointed you God, your God..." This is the same construction at that of verse 8. In both verses, Θεός in in the nominative spelling yet with the force of the vocative.
Ok. It is clear you are not going to listen to anyone else so I am not going to waste anymore time with you on this.
D
Donkeyfish07
Guest
KSublett, please satisfy my curiosity, what sect do you belong to, that you think you need to go through Latin to find the truth of Jesus as God in the Greek?
First came Hebrew, the Old Testament.
Then came Alexander the Great and he hellenized the world.
Then the diaspora Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek, called the Septuagint, or the LXX. Jesus and the apostles quoted from both versions, meaning they are valid.
A little bit of Aramaic, found in some verses in Daniel, etc.
Then, into a Roman world that was completely Hellenzied, came Jesus Christ. Everyone spoke Greek, although some, like Paul spoke and wrote better than say John or James, who still were quite fluent in the language.
The New Testament was written in Greek. The Latin translation came from Jerome in the 4th century, who didn't actually know the original languages that well, but good to have a least one version in the dominant language of that century - Latin.
Ok? No back translating the Bible from Latin to Greek or Latin forward to English. Even Erasmus was tasked to translate from the Hebrew and Greek for the new Bible he wrote.
Oh, yes, please use Greek letters when you translate. That transliterated stuff is so hard to make sense of, because of no accents with emphasis on vowels, syllables, and differences in sounds. Thanks!
First came Hebrew, the Old Testament.
Then came Alexander the Great and he hellenized the world.
Then the diaspora Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek, called the Septuagint, or the LXX. Jesus and the apostles quoted from both versions, meaning they are valid.
A little bit of Aramaic, found in some verses in Daniel, etc.
Then, into a Roman world that was completely Hellenzied, came Jesus Christ. Everyone spoke Greek, although some, like Paul spoke and wrote better than say John or James, who still were quite fluent in the language.
The New Testament was written in Greek. The Latin translation came from Jerome in the 4th century, who didn't actually know the original languages that well, but good to have a least one version in the dominant language of that century - Latin.
Ok? No back translating the Bible from Latin to Greek or Latin forward to English. Even Erasmus was tasked to translate from the Hebrew and Greek for the new Bible he wrote.
Oh, yes, please use Greek letters when you translate. That transliterated stuff is so hard to make sense of, because of no accents with emphasis on vowels, syllables, and differences in sounds. Thanks!
B
biscuit
Guest
There are several verses in the Bible where God the Father called Jesus the Son God.
Hebrews 1 offers the inspired interpretation of that Psalm. The word Elohim is comparable to the word Theos. The Hebrew writer is quoting this passage to show that Jesus is the God of that passage. You are suggesting that because Elohim is sometimes used to speak of man that this means that it is not used to show that Jesus is God. Your argument is exactly the opposite as that of the Hebrew writer.
Last edited:
without getting into quoting a lot of posts and adding many more complications to what's already a pretty convoluted thread,
it seems to me that a lot of the confusion and disagreement here stems from thinking that God's ways and God's thoughts are as low as our own.
He is almighty, and He sent Christ with many signs and with perfect wisdom, so that we would believe on Him, and have life.
what more do you want??
it seems to me that a lot of the confusion and disagreement here stems from thinking that God's ways and God's thoughts are as low as our own.
He is almighty, and He sent Christ with many signs and with perfect wisdom, so that we would believe on Him, and have life.
what more do you want??
Philippians 2:6 (HCSB)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.
Philippians 2:6 (GW)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality.
Philippians 2:6 (YLT)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,
Philippians 2:6 (MontgomeryNT)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] who, though from the beginning he had the nature of God, did not reckon equality with God something to be forcibly retained,
Philippians 2:6 (ISV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] In God's own form existed he, And shared with God equality, Deemed nothing needed grasping.
Philippians 2:6-7 (NLT)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,
Hebrews 2:7-8 (NASB)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] "YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS; YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR, AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
[SUP]8 [/SUP] YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET." For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.
For that to be TRUE, HE AND THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE FATHER, HAVE TO BE THE SAME GOD.
Nominative and Accusative: Definite Article – Jesus is God
The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. Therefore, when the subject takes an equative verb like “is” then another noun also appears in the nominative case – the predicate nominative.
In the sentence “John is a man.” “John” is a subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English, the subject and the predicate nominative are distinguished by word order. (The subject comes first!)
Not so in Greek! Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish the subject from the predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article (in English, “the” in Greek, “ό”), it is the subject.
In Greek, word order is employed for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when the word is thrown to the front of the clause, it is done so for emphasis.
When the predicate nominative is thrown to the front of the verb, by virtue of word order, it takes on emphasis.
A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed, it reads:
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
“And God was the Word.”
We know that “the Word” is the subject, because it has the definite article, and we translate accordingly.
“And the Word was God.”
Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind:
1. Why was θεὸς (theos) thrown forward?
2. Why does it lack the article?
In brief, ** its emphatic position stresses its essence or 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 is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; the lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father.
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 in another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς.
“and the Word was the God.”
(ie. The Father, against Sabellianism)
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς
“and the Word was a God”
(Arianism, including the NWT or JW translation)
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God”
(Orthodoxy)
** See Wallace GGBB, pages 2266-269
From Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar by William D. Mounce
The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. Therefore, when the subject takes an equative verb like “is” then another noun also appears in the nominative case – the predicate nominative.
In the sentence “John is a man.” “John” is a subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English, the subject and the predicate nominative are distinguished by word order. (The subject comes first!)
Not so in Greek! Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish the subject from the predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article (in English, “the” in Greek, “ό”), it is the subject.
In Greek, word order is employed for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when the word is thrown to the front of the clause, it is done so for emphasis.
When the predicate nominative is thrown to the front of the verb, by virtue of word order, it takes on emphasis.
A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed, it reads:
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
“And God was the Word.”
We know that “the Word” is the subject, because it has the definite article, and we translate accordingly.
“And the Word was God.”
Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind:
1. Why was θεὸς (theos) thrown forward?
2. Why does it lack the article?
In brief, ** its emphatic position stresses its essence or 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 is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; the lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father.
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 in another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς.
“and the Word was the God.”
(ie. The Father, against Sabellianism)
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς
“and the Word was a God”
(Arianism, including the NWT or JW translation)
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God”
(Orthodoxy)
** See Wallace GGBB, pages 2266-269
From Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar by William D. Mounce
I think the construction of John 1:1 is remarkable and the omission of the definite where it would not be grammatically incorrect to use one lays stress the Word as the subject. When two nouns have the article then the first noun is the subject and the second is the predicate. If neither have the article, again the first is the subject and the second is the predicate. If only one has the article and the other does not then the one with the article is the subject and the one without the article is the predicate. This is the construction of John 1:1.
[h=3]1 Corinthians 8:5-6[/h]New International Version (NIV)
[SUP]5 [/SUP]For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), [SUP]6 [/SUP]yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Posthumourous quoted
Something about quoting quotes is that they can misrepresent: PostPost must be a PREACHER? TRY THIS:
I became a Disciple at about age 60 and that stopped me from using the Scripture for DOGMA etc.
Since I wasn't aware of any Elder as the only Pastor-Teacher who obeyed the command from the wilderness onward to PREACH the Word by READING the Word for comfort and doctine. Since as Paul warned about Corinth "your assemblies do more harm than good" I decided to stay at home and hit my finger with a hammer without having to pay the unlawful Ticket price of tithes and offerings.
Then, if you wish DICTO a hymn and "go out" as the approved example of Jesus.
Last edited:
John uses the LOGOS word to REFUTE the always-pagan theology that Hermes or Mercury was the mediator between the god and humanity. The modern KAIROS church planting scheme does not grasp that the TIME (Kairos) has come for Kairos the son of Zeus and grandson of Chronos has come. Kairos is the spirit or demon son of Zeus. The Devil knows that his time (Kairos) is short and that is why the brutal attack centered on the 6th day or c ad 2000 is visible and audible.
"At Alexandria, Hermes was identified with Thoth, the god of Hermopolis, known later as the great Hermes, "Hermes Trismegistus", and represented as the revealer of all letters and all religion. Simultaneously, the Logos theory conformed to the current Neoplatonistic dualism in Alexandria:
........... > the Logos is not conceived of as nature or immanent necessity,
........... > but as an intermediary agent by which the transcendent God governs the world
As the always ANTITHESIS God wants those with a need to know that HE is the LOGOS and He needs second god to breath and another god to speak. Jesus SPOKE the LOGOS. His words were the GOVERNING PRINCIPLE and is OPPOSITE of everything you will see, hear and feel this sunday.
The ONE mediator in song and sermon is the MAN JESUS CHRIST: Never let people deny that Messsiah came IN THE FLESH -- 100%
In the beginning was the WORD: The WORD as in wordS was how God communicates His creative power.
THESE USES OF LOGOS ARE NOT ADDITIONAL GOD PEOPLE
1. plea, pretext, ground, would have admitted of an explanation, 2. statement of a theory, argument, to be explained
c. in Logic, proposition, whether as premiss or conclusion
d. rule, principle, law, as embodying the result of logismos
4. thesis, hypothesis, provisional ground,
5. reason, ground
6. formula (wider than definition, but freq. equivalent thereto), term expressing reason,
7.reason, law exhibited in the world-process,
c. in Neo-Platonic Philos., of regulative and formative forces, derived from the intelligible
and operative in the sensible universe
IV. inward debate of the soul 1.thinking, reasoning, explanation,
Gods Regulative Principle or Governing principle was and is not ANOTHER GOD PERSON. When God's Word became flesh the Father BREATHED (spirit) and the Son ARTICULATED. The Words of Jesus were Spirit and Life (John 6:63). Jesus said that He spoke ONLY what He heard from the Father. The Spirit OF Christ speaks only what the human Christ taught.
If the preacher tries to slick you with wind up stories, personal experiences, jokes or prancing remind him that Christ from the wilderness onward commanded to PREACH the Logos by READING the Logos (the Sword) for Comfort and Doctrine. LOGOS shows up when the elders as the Christ (Spirit) ordained if APT elders "teach that which has been taught" and ejects those who do not "teach that which has been taught." Jesus solved the dilema for real Churches of Christ by having "paid it all" and not commanding tithes and offerings. Theologians studied New Testament Greek until recently: they didn't even know the Greek language which the translators used so just how they became first century grammarians is a mystery to me.
"At Alexandria, Hermes was identified with Thoth, the god of Hermopolis, known later as the great Hermes, "Hermes Trismegistus", and represented as the revealer of all letters and all religion. Simultaneously, the Logos theory conformed to the current Neoplatonistic dualism in Alexandria:
........... > the Logos is not conceived of as nature or immanent necessity,
........... > but as an intermediary agent by which the transcendent God governs the world
As the always ANTITHESIS God wants those with a need to know that HE is the LOGOS and He needs second god to breath and another god to speak. Jesus SPOKE the LOGOS. His words were the GOVERNING PRINCIPLE and is OPPOSITE of everything you will see, hear and feel this sunday.
The ONE mediator in song and sermon is the MAN JESUS CHRIST: Never let people deny that Messsiah came IN THE FLESH -- 100%
In the beginning was the WORD: The WORD as in wordS was how God communicates His creative power.
THESE USES OF LOGOS ARE NOT ADDITIONAL GOD PEOPLE
1. plea, pretext, ground, would have admitted of an explanation, 2. statement of a theory, argument, to be explained
c. in Logic, proposition, whether as premiss or conclusion
d. rule, principle, law, as embodying the result of logismos
4. thesis, hypothesis, provisional ground,
5. reason, ground
6. formula (wider than definition, but freq. equivalent thereto), term expressing reason,
7.reason, law exhibited in the world-process,
c. in Neo-Platonic Philos., of regulative and formative forces, derived from the intelligible
and operative in the sensible universe
IV. inward debate of the soul 1.thinking, reasoning, explanation,
Gods Regulative Principle or Governing principle was and is not ANOTHER GOD PERSON. When God's Word became flesh the Father BREATHED (spirit) and the Son ARTICULATED. The Words of Jesus were Spirit and Life (John 6:63). Jesus said that He spoke ONLY what He heard from the Father. The Spirit OF Christ speaks only what the human Christ taught.
If the preacher tries to slick you with wind up stories, personal experiences, jokes or prancing remind him that Christ from the wilderness onward commanded to PREACH the Logos by READING the Logos (the Sword) for Comfort and Doctrine. LOGOS shows up when the elders as the Christ (Spirit) ordained if APT elders "teach that which has been taught" and ejects those who do not "teach that which has been taught." Jesus solved the dilema for real Churches of Christ by having "paid it all" and not commanding tithes and offerings. Theologians studied New Testament Greek until recently: they didn't even know the Greek language which the translators used so just how they became first century grammarians is a mystery to me.