BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Just Bible => Topic started by: BroRando on December 29, 2021, 11:53:20 PM
-
The truth about John 1:1 has been long hidden from the masses. Why is learning this scripture vital to your spiritual health? Because words matter! In Greek there are two different words for God. Also, using a definite article emphasizes the subject spoken about. First instance is ton theon which means the God and the second instance is theos which means a god.
{ snip }
-
So what are you saying, in a nutshell, is the significance of these two terms for God? JWs claim "a God" renders Jesus less than THE God, correct? And historically, this would be the Christian heresy called Arianism.
-
I thought I decreed by arbitrary fiat the end of JW talking points for 5 minutes, which I've just decided means until 2022?
Sigh. If you want to discuss this awful grammatical talking point then do so wholly here and without external links to your own brand of bad Greek exegesis.
-
JW talking points
Ooh, ooh, I have a question for the original poster! Why do you call yourselves "Jehovah's witnesses" when there's no "J" sound in Hebrew? Isn't that relying on an improper Greek translation of the original Hebrew text? I'll sit back down and wait for an answer.
-
I thought I decreed by arbitrary fiat the end of JW talking points for 5 minutes, which I've just decided means until 2022?
Sigh. If you want to discuss this awful grammatical talking point then do so wholly here and without external links to your own brand of bad Greek exegesis.
Yawn…
Fear Mr Administrator
Please find my brilliant refutation from the last time we did this and post it
Many thanks
The Lazy RabbiKnife
-
The truth about John 1:1 has been long hidden from the masses. Why is learning this scripture vital to your spiritual health? Because words matter! In Greek there are two different words for God. Also, using a definite article emphasizes the subject spoken about. First instance is ton theon which means the God and the second instance is theos which means a god.
{ snip }
The answer is quite simple, and is a basic Greek grammar answer that is often troublesome for English speakers.
The default presumption by English speakers is that other languages have the same grammatical structure as English. In this case, the issue would be definite versus indefinite articles for nouns. The English definite article designates “the, this, that” and particularizes a noun, while the English indefinite article designates “a, an” and generalizes a noun.
Greek utilizes an anarthrous construct for all nouns, to which can be added the definite article for specificity. The particularization of the Greek definite article being added is far more significant than the particularization of the English definite article. The latter tells only “which one” as “the, this, or that” while the former is a means of segmenting something that is otherwise completely unsegemented.
Anarthrous is an agglutinative like most Greek words, placing the prefix a- before the term arthrous to indicate the negation of “no / not”. Arthrous means segmented, so anarthrous means unsegmented. What this means in regards to Greek nouns is that every noun is completely unsegmented and the anarthrous construct is referring to every qualitative characteristic and functional activity of the noun. To particularize any facet of the semantic range of the word as a noun, the definite article is added to particularize the meaning by limiting the semantic range to a specific definition and usage within the range and scope of overarching meaning for the word.
For instance, when a table is thought and spoken of in Greek, the default understanding in the minds of those speaking that native first language is the entire scope of every type and kind and size and shape and application for all tables. The noun is presenting a very broad sense of “tableness” rather than merely one specific object that is a single table. The definite article serves the purpose of narrowing the entire tableness concept to a focus on some certain table. This is far more than just designating “this” table versus “that” table. Tableness in the Greek epistemic is a far more inclusive thought process, but isn’t overt and conscious or laborious as this might seem to imply. The Greek-based mind simply functions this way because the language is structured this way.
For the term Theos, the anarthrous noun refers to every quality, characteristic, and functionality or activity of divinity. When the definite article is added, it’s an emphasis on the Father personally and as the fountainhead of divinity. So in John 1:1, the initial reference is articular and is to the Father, while the secondary reference is devoid of the article and is to the Word (later specifically referred to as the Son). This means the Word is divinity by every qualitative characteristic and functional activity associated with divinity, but is not the Father.
The distinction being made is that the Son is divinity but is distinct from THE divinity which is the Father. This both designates the Son as divinity while designating that the Son is not “another” divinity by any qualitative or quantitative means or in any functional manner. Same divinity. Same essence as ontology (beingness) and economy (doing). From here, it then would plunge into even more minutiae of Greek grammar and lexicography to establish the sameness of divinity while also demonstrating the difference in substance versus essence. No need to reinvent Patristic doctrine in modernity when remedial understanding is not yet present, and challenges are being made based upon rudimentary linguistic information about articles in comparative languages.
Since there’s no indefinite article in Greek, it comes down to translational techniques whether to insert “a or an” in appropriate places. This is absolutely not an appropriate place for the insertion of the English indefinite article. The only reason to insert “a” in this passage would be to superimpose a false doctrine upon and into the inspired text when it doesn’t and can’t appropriately be present. This is a linguistic absolute and is not open for debate with those who are in error and adhere to historically heretical Christology.
-
I thought I decreed by arbitrary fiat the end of JW talking points for 5 minutes, which I've just decided means until 2022?
Sigh. If you want to discuss this awful grammatical talking point then do so wholly here and without external links to your own brand of bad Greek exegesis.
Yawn…
Fear Mr Administrator
Please find my brilliant refutation from the last time we did this and post it
Many thanks
The Lazy RabbiKnife
I think you can rest easy on this one. Anytime someone throws out the word 'economy' as CONSPICILLUM has, is a time when you can be sure the speaker knows their stuff.
-
So what are you saying, in a nutshell, is the significance of these two terms for God? JWs claim "a God" renders Jesus less than THE God, correct? And historically, this would be the Christian heresy called Arianism.
Are you claiming that Jesus engaged in Arianism when he stated. "the Father is Greater than I am" (John 14:28)
-
So what are you saying, in a nutshell, is the significance of these two terms for God? JWs claim "a God" renders Jesus less than THE God, correct? And historically, this would be the Christian heresy called Arianism.
Are you claiming that Jesus engaged in Arianism when he stated. "the Father is Greater than I am" (John 14:28)
No, I'm saying that the historic Church determined what was orthodox doctrine for them, and what was heresy in their view. That Church deemed Arianism a heresy, which was the belief that Jesus was less than God--a super-man for sure, but not actually THE God.
What you're arguing is what you think was in the mind of the author of this Scripture. Since John wrote this before Trinitarian doctrine was formulated, you have to decide what John believed--what the Church later believed he believed, or what you think he believed?
My own personal belief aligns with the Church Fathers, who believed John was Trinitarian in his beliefs, even though Trinitarian doctrine had not yet been formulated. From what I can tell in the Gospels, Jesus said he was God. Any sense of a "lesser god" is unknown as existing in the Scriptures by me. There is one God, with God appearing in a human form, a distinct person from the Father and yet true God in substance.
Some people consider me somewhat off base and semi-heretical when I partly agree with Origen (subordinationism), who saw the Son as sort of eternally condensing into a human image of God, existing perennially in a finite form without sacrificing his Deity. God created the body of the Son by revelation of His word.
Since revelation is transitory, God could become something without sacrificing His Person as the source of His revelation. In fact, it was well within His ability to create a revelation of His own Person!
The key is in understanding than an infinite God can appear in finite forms without sacrificing the unity between His infinite substance and lesser forms of that same substance.
This may take elaboration to explain it further. It's difficult material for me to say.
-
I thought I decreed by arbitrary fiat the end of JW talking points for 5 minutes, which I've just decided means until 2022?
Sigh. If you want to discuss this awful grammatical talking point then do so wholly here and without external links to your own brand of bad Greek exegesis.
Yawn…
Fear Mr Administrator
Please find my brilliant refutation from the last time we did this and post it
Many thanks
The Lazy RabbiKnife
I think you can rest easy on this one. Anytime someone throws out the word 'economy' as CONSPICILLUM has, is a time when you can be sure the speaker knows their stuff.
I was still working on “agglutinative.”
Saving that one for Scrabble.
-
The truth about John 1:1 has been long hidden from the masses. Why is learning this scripture vital to your spiritual health? Because words matter! In Greek there are two different words for God. Also, using a definite article emphasizes the subject spoken about. First instance is ton theon which means the God and the second instance is theos which means a god.
{ snip }
The answer is quite simple, and is a basic Greek grammar answer that is often troublesome for English speakers.
The default presumption by English speakers is that other languages have the same grammatical structure as English. In this case, the issue would be definite versus indefinite articles for nouns. The English definite article designates “the, this, that” and particularizes a noun, while the English indefinite article designates “a, an” and generalizes a noun.
Greek utilizes an anarthrous construct for all nouns, to which can be added the definite article for specificity. The particularization of the Greek definite article being added is far more significant than the particularization of the English definite article. The latter tells only “which one” as “the, this, or that” while the former is a means of segmenting something that is otherwise completely unsegemented.
Anarthrous is an agglutinative like most Greek words, placing the prefix a- before the term arthrous to indicate the negation of “no / not”. Arthrous means segmented, so anarthrous means unsegmented. What this means in regards to Greek nouns is that every noun is completely unsegmented and the anarthrous construct is referring to every qualitative characteristic and functional activity of the noun. To particularize any facet of the semantic range of the word as a noun, the definite article is added to particularize the meaning by limiting the semantic range to a specific definition and usage within the range and scope of overarching meaning for the word.
For instance, when a table is thought and spoken of in Greek, the default understanding in the minds of those speaking that native first language is the entire scope of every type and kind and size and shape and application for all tables. The noun is presenting a very broad sense of “tableness” rather than merely one specific object that is a single table. The definite article serves the purpose of narrowing the entire tableness concept to a focus on some certain table. This is far more than just designating “this” table versus “that” table. Tableness in the Greek epistemic is a far more inclusive thought process, but isn’t overt and conscious or laborious as this might seem to imply. The Greek-based mind simply functions this way because the language is structured this way.
For the term Theos, the anarthrous noun refers to every quality, characteristic, and functionality or activity of divinity. When the definite article is added, it’s an emphasis on the Father personally and as the fountainhead of divinity. So in John 1:1, the initial reference is articular and is to the Father, while the secondary reference is devoid of the article and is to the Word (later specifically referred to as the Son). This means the Word is divinity by every qualitative characteristic and functional activity associated with divinity, but is not the Father.
The distinction being made is that the Son is divinity but is distinct from THE divinity which is the Father. This both designates the Son as divinity while designating that the Son is not “another” divinity by any qualitative or quantitative means or in any functional manner. Same divinity. Same essence as ontology (beingness) and economy (doing). From here, it then would plunge into even more minutiae of Greek grammar and lexicography to establish the sameness of divinity while also demonstrating the difference in substance versus essence. No need to reinvent Patristic doctrine in modernity when remedial understanding is not yet present, and challenges are being made based upon rudimentary linguistic information about articles in comparative languages.
Since there’s no indefinite article in Greek, it comes down to translational techniques whether to insert “a or an” in appropriate places. This is absolutely not an appropriate place for the insertion of the English indefinite article. The only reason to insert “a” in this passage would be to superimpose a false doctrine upon and into the inspired text when it doesn’t and can’t appropriately be present. This is a linguistic absolute and is not open for debate with those who are in error and adhere to historically heretical Christology.
Very nice. Thanks
-
So what are you saying, in a nutshell, is the significance of these two terms for God? JWs claim "a God" renders Jesus less than THE God, correct? And historically, this would be the Christian heresy called Arianism.
Are you claiming that Jesus engaged in Arianism when he stated. "the Father is Greater than I am" (John 14:28)
No, I'm saying that the historic Church determined what was orthodox doctrine for them, and what was heresy in their view. That Church deemed Arianism a heresy, which was the belief that Jesus was less than God--a super-man for sure, but not actually THE God.
What you're arguing is what you think was in the mind of the author of this Scripture. Since John wrote this before Trinitarian doctrine was formulated, you have to decide what John believed--what the Church later believed he believed, or what you think he believed?
My own personal belief aligns with the Church Fathers, who believed John was Trinitarian in his beliefs, even though Trinitarian doctrine had not yet been formulated. From what I can tell in the Gospels, Jesus said he was God. Any sense of a "lesser god" is unknown as existing in the Scriptures by me. There is one God, with God appearing in a human form, a distinct person from the Father and yet true God in substance.
Some people consider me somewhat off base and semi-heretical when I partly agree with Origen (subordinationism), who saw the Son as sort of eternally condensing into a human image of God, existing perennially in a finite form without sacrificing his Deity. God created the body of the Son by revelation of His word.
Since revelation is transitory, God could become something without sacrificing His Person as the source of His revelation. In fact, it was well within His ability to create a revelation of His own Person!
The key is in understanding than an infinite God can appear in finite forms without sacrificing the unity between His infinite substance and lesser forms of that same substance.
This may take elaboration to explain it further. It's difficult material for me to say.
This is heterodox, and borders on material heresy. I’d urge you to reconsider your internal reasoning.
-
That Church deemed Arianism a heresy, which was the belief that Jesus was less than God--a super-man for sure, but not actually THE God.
Of a similar substance to God, so surely more than a mere super-man in the eyes of Arius -- who still held that Jesus is the creator of all (God creates Jesus, who creates everything else).
Some people consider me somewhat off base and semi-heretical when I partly agree with Origen (subordinationism), who saw the Son as sort of eternally condensing into a human image of God, existing perennially in a finite form without sacrificing his Deity. God created the body of the Son by revelation of His word.
Does that mean you also partly agree with Arius, who also held to subordinationism? Although, is what you're describing even subordinationism?
-
Are you claiming that Jesus engaged in Arianism when he stated. "the Father is Greater than I am" (John 14:28)
So, what are you actually trying to convey here?
You've so far offered the typical JW misreading of John 1:1 (which is so thoroughly refuted it's amazing anyone offers it, but I see you're going full bore with your e-book, Coptic manuscript and all), and now, a leading question that gets us nowhere.
What's the hidden treasure of John 1?
-
That Church deemed Arianism a heresy, which was the belief that Jesus was less than God--a super-man for sure, but not actually THE God.
Of a similar substance to God, so surely more than a mere super-man in the eyes of Arius -- who still held that Jesus is the creator of all (God creates Jesus, who creates everything else).
Some people consider me somewhat off base and semi-heretical when I partly agree with Origen (subordinationism), who saw the Son as sort of eternally condensing into a human image of God, existing perennially in a finite form without sacrificing his Deity. God created the body of the Son by revelation of His word.
Does that mean you also partly agree with Arius, who also held to subordinationism? Although, is what you're describing even subordinationism?
No, I don't agree with my detractors, who find the language I use a form of subordinationism. I think Tertullian saw the Son as an eternal radiation of ight from God who is the source of that light. And so the light source and the radiation of that light share the same substance. (I am arguing in favor of "same substance," the orthodox formula.)
Origen is accused of engaging in subordinationism because of his apparent focus on economic distinctions between the Father and the Son. But it is apparent that Jesus said, "the Father is greater than I," without denying that he was the human expression of the Father. God's word is on a lower level of expression than God's understanding of Himself, which is infinite. God is revealing Himself to finite creatures He has created, and thus is speaking *down* to them.
Jesus said, "The Father is in me." That expresses an essential unity of divine personality between the Father and His verbalized expressions to man, including the human expression of Deity.
So whether you focus on the unity of God or focus or on the subordinated position of Christ to the Father, you will still be orthodox in your theology, as long as you spell it out as an economic unity. It is not merely an alignment of wills, or some kind of syncretistic or functional unity, but rather, an essential unity of Persons, without sacrificing the subordinated position of the Son.
My own way of expressing this is dictated by my own need to understand this in words that satisfy my own intellectual needs. I need to hear it in terms of an infinite God and finite forms of God.
Every Person of the Trinity is infinite. And yet the roles they play are described in finite terms. "The Father" itself is a finite expression to us about God. The Son expresses God in a finite, human form. The Spirit also is the appearance of God in finite space. They all are disclosed to us in finite language, and appear in different finite expressions. And yet, all of them are infinite Deity.
Origen explained the difference between infinite Deity and His Wisdom as such:
For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist; but, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding. Nor, seeing He is called the Son of (His) love, will it appear absurd if in this way He be called the Son of (His) will. Nay, John also indicates that “God is Light,” and Paul also declares that the Son is the splendor of everlasting light. As light, accordingly, could never exist without splendor, so neither can the Son be understood to exist without the Father; for He is called the “express image of His person,” and the Word and Wisdom.
How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence. And although these qualities are said to be many in understanding, yet in their nature and essence they are one, and in them is the fulness of divinity. Now this expression which we employ—”that there never was a time when He did not exist”—is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words “when” or “never” have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages. This Son of God, then, in respect of the Word being God, which was in the beginning with God, no one will logically suppose to be contained in any place; nor yet in respect of His being “Wisdom,” or “Truth,” or the “Life,” or “Righteousness,” or “Sanctification,” or “Redemption:” for all these properties do not require space to be able to act or to operate, but each one of them is to be understood as meaning those individuals who participate in His virtue and working.
My saying the Persons of the Trinity are finite expressions of an infinite God can be misleading, suggesting to some that all of them are less than God, or the Son is less than full Deity.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. They are all infinite Deity expressing God in finite ways. After all, revelation is the transformation of an infinite God into finite expressions of Himself. These are really divine expressions of God in a form less than an expression of something infinite. It is the infinite being expressed in finite form so that we can understand it.
Once God expresses Himself in a form of revelation, it becomes finite communication that we can understand. Otherwise, nobody could understand anything about an infinite Being.
As I see it, Origen is correct. God is infinite, and although God's Word appears in finite form it remains the product of an infinite source, and therefore united in divine substance.
-
The truth about John 1:1 has been long hidden from the masses. Why is learning this scripture vital to your spiritual health? Because words matter! In Greek there are two different words for God. Also, using a definite article emphasizes the subject spoken about. First instance is ton theon which means the God and the second instance is theos which means a god.
{ snip }
The most important thing to know and remember, is why God became one man.
-
That Modalism, Patrick…
-
The truth about John 1:1 has been long hidden from the masses. Why is learning this scripture vital to your spiritual health? Because words matter! In Greek there are two different words for God. Also, using a definite article emphasizes the subject spoken about. First instance is ton theon which means the God and the second instance is theos which means a god.
{ snip }
The most important thing to know and remember, is why God became one man.
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)
"God is not a man." (Number 23:19)
-
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)
"God is not a man." (Number 23:19)
Well,
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Num.23:19
God isn't a man who is a liar, or in need of repentance. He did fulfill his word.
-
That Church deemed Arianism a heresy, which was the belief that Jesus was less than God--a super-man for sure, but not actually THE God.
Of a similar substance to God, so surely more than a mere super-man in the eyes of Arius -- who still held that Jesus is the creator of all (God creates Jesus, who creates everything else).
Some people consider me somewhat off base and semi-heretical when I partly agree with Origen (subordinationism), who saw the Son as sort of eternally condensing into a human image of God, existing perennially in a finite form without sacrificing his Deity. God created the body of the Son by revelation of His word.
Does that mean you also partly agree with Arius, who also held to subordinationism? Although, is what you're describing even subordinationism?
No, I don't agree with my detractors, who find the language I use a form of subordinationism. I think Tertullian saw the Son as an eternal radiation of ight from God who is the source of that light. And so the light source and the radiation of that light share the same substance. (I am arguing in favor of "same substance," the orthodox formula.)
Origen is accused of engaging in subordinationism because of his apparent focus on economic distinctions between the Father and the Son. But it is apparent that Jesus said, "the Father is greater than I," without denying that he was the human expression of the Father. God's word is on a lower level of expression than God's understanding of Himself, which is infinite. God is revealing Himself to finite creatures He has created, and thus is speaking *down* to them.
Jesus said, "The Father is in me." That expresses an essential unity of divine personality between the Father and His verbalized expressions to man, including the human expression of Deity.
So whether you focus on the unity of God or focus or on the subordinated position of Christ to the Father, you will still be orthodox in your theology, as long as you spell it out as an economic unity. It is not merely an alignment of wills, or some kind of syncretistic or functional unity, but rather, an essential unity of Persons, without sacrificing the subordinated position of the Son.
My own way of expressing this is dictated by my own need to understand this in words that satisfy my own intellectual needs. I need to hear it in terms of an infinite God and finite forms of God.
Every Person of the Trinity is infinite. And yet the roles they play are described in finite terms. "The Father" itself is a finite expression to us about God. The Son expresses God in a finite, human form. The Spirit also is the appearance of God in finite space. They all are disclosed to us in finite language, and appear in different finite expressions. And yet, all of them are infinite Deity.
Origen explained the difference between infinite Deity and His Wisdom as such:
For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist; but, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding. Nor, seeing He is called the Son of (His) love, will it appear absurd if in this way He be called the Son of (His) will. Nay, John also indicates that “God is Light,” and Paul also declares that the Son is the splendor of everlasting light. As light, accordingly, could never exist without splendor, so neither can the Son be understood to exist without the Father; for He is called the “express image of His person,” and the Word and Wisdom.
How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence. And although these qualities are said to be many in understanding, yet in their nature and essence they are one, and in them is the fulness of divinity. Now this expression which we employ—”that there never was a time when He did not exist”—is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words “when” or “never” have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages. This Son of God, then, in respect of the Word being God, which was in the beginning with God, no one will logically suppose to be contained in any place; nor yet in respect of His being “Wisdom,” or “Truth,” or the “Life,” or “Righteousness,” or “Sanctification,” or “Redemption:” for all these properties do not require space to be able to act or to operate, but each one of them is to be understood as meaning those individuals who participate in His virtue and working.
My saying the Persons of the Trinity are finite expressions of an infinite God can be misleading, suggesting to some that all of them are less than God, or the Son is less than full Deity.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. They are all infinite Deity expressing God in finite ways. After all, revelation is the transformation of an infinite God into finite expressions of Himself. These are really divine expressions of God in a form less than an expression of something infinite. It is the infinite being expressed in finite form so that we can understand it.
Once God expresses Himself in a form of revelation, it becomes finite communication that we can understand. Otherwise, nobody could understand anything about an infinite Being.
As I see it, Origen is correct. God is infinite, and although God's Word appears in finite form it remains the product of an infinite source, and therefore united in divine substance.
This is a really contrived manner of arriving at some form or degree of Sabellianism, or worse. Finite expressions would be the result of economies of action. This indicates either created divine or human entities. This is an odd and nebulous production of a tritheristic Unitarianism, like a Pneumatomachianism cousin heresy.
Why have you not instead devoted time to a rudimentary understanding of the Greek language and intense study of the Cappadocians and others for Theology Proper? You are not at all saying what Origen was saying, and sourcing Origen and Tertullian aren’t to be done casually without aligning their epistemics with one’s own to know what they meant rather than merely what they said.
I suspect this disposition is the culprit for your meanderings: “My own way of expressing this is dictated by my own need to understand this in words that satisfy my own intellectual needs. I need to hear it in terms of an infinite God and finite forms of God.”
Theology Proper isn’t driven by individual intellectual needs for hearing terms in a certain manner. This is alarming and saddening. Please reconsider all of this.
-
The truth about John 1:1 has been long hidden from the masses. Why is learning this scripture vital to your spiritual health? Because words matter! In Greek there are two different words for God. Also, using a definite article emphasizes the subject spoken about. First instance is ton theon which means the God and the second instance is theos which means a god.
{ snip }
The most important thing to know and remember, is why God became one man.
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)
"God is not a man." (Number 23:19)
You are quoting the very verses that would condemn your apparent position. To deny that God has come in the flesh is to be an antichrist. To deny Jesus has come in the flesh is to deny that God's word became flesh. That is, it is to say that God could not, by His word, express Himself in the form of human flesh, as a man.
The Scriptures were not saying that God could not appear in the form of man--there had been a number of theophanies, expressing God in the form of angelic men. So God clearly could express Himself in the form of men.
So God could also express Himself in more than a theophany, in the form of an actual human being in flesh and blood. And such was Christ.
So what was Balaam actually saying, since it obviously is not what you're implying? It was saying that God was not like human liars, and not even strictly consigned to humanity.
He was not a strictly created human, though he could reveal himself as a man. An eternal Being could reveal Himself in the form of created men. God could express Himself in the form of man without sacrificing His deity.
While appearing in the form of Christ he retained His deity. As such, He could never deny Himself and lie.
Much of what Scriptures state about mankind is that they are fallen and have had to be partitioned, to some degree, away from God. That is what the cherubim did in the garden.
So what the passage is saying is that God is unlike fallen men, and will not lie. God could, however, reveal Himself as an eternal Being in the form of finite Man. He is not, as such, the strictly created man, but more, God revealed in the flesh.
-
The truth about John 1:1 has been long hidden from the masses. Why is learning this scripture vital to your spiritual health? Because words matter! In Greek there are two different words for God. Also, using a definite article emphasizes the subject spoken about. First instance is ton theon which means the God and the second instance is theos which means a god.
{ snip }
The most important thing to know and remember, is why God became one man.
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)
"God is not a man." (Number 23:19)
You are quoting the very verses that would condemn your apparent position. To deny that God has come in the flesh is to be an antichrist. To deny Jesus has come in the flesh is to deny that God's word became flesh. That is, it is to say that God could not, by His word, express Himself in the form of human flesh, as a man.
The Scriptures were not saying that God could not appear in the form of man--there had been a number of theophanies, expressing God in the form of angelic men. So God clearly could express Himself in the form of men.
So God could also express Himself in more than a theophany, in the form of an actual human being in flesh and blood. And such was Christ.
So what was Balaam actually saying, since it obviously is not what you're implying? I was saying that God was not like human liars, and not even strictly consigned to humanity.
God could, however, express Himself in the form of man without sacrificing His deity. While appearing in the form of Christ he retained His deity. As such, He could never deny Himself and lie.
Much of what Scriptures state about mankind is that they are fallen and have had to be partitioned, to some degree, away from God. That is what the cherubim did in the garden. So what the passage is saying is that God is unlike fallen men, and will not lie.
Your usage of the English terms expression and form are not Trinitarian language. I’d strongly suggest you’re not the person to be engaging with Apologetics with Arians / JWs.
-
The truth about John 1:1 has been long hidden from the masses. Why is learning this scripture vital to your spiritual health? Because words matter! In Greek there are two different words for God. Also, using a definite article emphasizes the subject spoken about. First instance is ton theon which means the God and the second instance is theos which means a god.
{ snip }
The most important thing to know and remember, is why God became one man.
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)
"God is not a man." (Number 23:19)
You are quoting the very verses that would condemn your apparent position. To deny that God has come in the flesh is to be an antichrist. To deny Jesus has come in the flesh is to deny that God's word became flesh. That is, it is to say that God could not, by His word, express Himself in the form of human flesh, as a man.
The Scriptures were not saying that God could not appear in the form of man--there had been a number of theophanies, expressing God in the form of angelic men. So God clearly could express Himself in the form of men.
So God could also express Himself in more than a theophany, in the form of an actual human being in flesh and blood. And such was Christ.
So what was Balaam actually saying, since it obviously is not what you're implying? I was saying that God was not like human liars, and not even strictly consigned to humanity.
God could, however, express Himself in the form of man without sacrificing His deity. While appearing in the form of Christ he retained His deity. As such, He could never deny Himself and lie.
Much of what Scriptures state about mankind is that they are fallen and have had to be partitioned, to some degree, away from God. That is what the cherubim did in the garden. So what the passage is saying is that God is unlike fallen men, and will not lie.
Your usage of the English terms expression and form are not Trinitarian language. I’d strongly suggest you’re not the person to be engaging with Apologetics with Arians / JWs.
You get to have an opinion. Thanks.
I recognize the importance of using historic technical language, and admit I have deficiencies in this. My interest is in understanding things for myself. That's why I tend to put things in my own words.
If you don't want to acknowledge my personal understanding, and only address things in the more technical terms, you're welcome to give your bit.
I tend to write down my posts, and edit them over a period of a few minutes. So you might revisit what I say after a few minutes.
I will add that "3 persons in one substance" is an easily understood statement of orthodoxy. But individuals have different concerns which may be addressed in unique ways. I as an individual have had to approach this with my own concerns.
Indeed, when people just recite doctrines, as I did for the 1st 17 years of my life, they don't fully comprehend--they're just reciting traditional beliefs. That is, they understand the *language* of what they're saying, but they don't fully comprehend the full implications of the reality.
-
The truth about John 1:1 has been long hidden from the masses. Why is learning this scripture vital to your spiritual health? Because words matter! In Greek there are two different words for God. Also, using a definite article emphasizes the subject spoken about. First instance is ton theon which means the God and the second instance is theos which means a god.
{ snip }
The most important thing to know and remember, is why God became one man.
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)
"God is not a man." (Number 23:19)
You are quoting the very verses that would condemn your apparent position. To deny that God has come in the flesh is to be an antichrist. To deny Jesus has come in the flesh is to deny that God's word became flesh. That is, it is to say that God could not, by His word, express Himself in the form of human flesh, as a man.
The Scriptures were not saying that God could not appear in the form of man--there had been a number of theophanies, expressing God in the form of angelic men. So God clearly could express Himself in the form of men.
So God could also express Himself in more than a theophany, in the form of an actual human being in flesh and blood. And such was Christ.
So what was Balaam actually saying, since it obviously is not what you're implying? I was saying that God was not like human liars, and not even strictly consigned to humanity.
God could, however, express Himself in the form of man without sacrificing His deity. While appearing in the form of Christ he retained His deity. As such, He could never deny Himself and lie.
Much of what Scriptures state about mankind is that they are fallen and have had to be partitioned, to some degree, away from God. That is what the cherubim did in the garden. So what the passage is saying is that God is unlike fallen men, and will not lie.
Your usage of the English terms expression and form are not Trinitarian language. I’d strongly suggest you’re not the person to be engaging with Apologetics with Arians / JWs.
You get to have an opinion. Thanks.
I recognize the importance of using historic technical language, and admit I have deficiencies in this. My interest is in understanding things for myself. That's why I tend to put things in my own words.
If you don't want to acknowledge my personal understanding, and only address things in the more technical terms, you're welcome to give your bit.
I tend to write down my posts, and edit them over a period of a few minutes. So you might revisit what I say after a few minutes.
I will add that "3 persons in one substance" is an easily understood statement of orthodoxy. But individuals have different concerns which may be addressed in unique ways. I as an individual have had to approach this with my own concerns.
Indeed, when people just recite doctrines, as I did for the 1st 17 years of my life, they don't fully comprehend--they're just reciting traditional beliefs. That is, they understand the *language* of what they're saying, but they don't fully comprehend the full implications of the reality.
The Cappadocians (Saint Basil and the Saints Gregory) exhaustively dealt with any minuatiae you could possibly care to know. And if that isn’t sufficient, then Thomas Aquinas was certainly explicit enough (though Thomism should be approached very carefully). But the thoughts and expressions you’re providing aren’t in the range of orthodoxy at all. This isn’t my opinion, it’s absolute objective truth and fact.
Nobody needs modern innovation and reinterpretation or the reinvention of terms and doctrines (particulary for Paterology, Christology, and Pneumatology within Theology Proper). There’s enough of that drivel from the NAR groups and their many heresies.
I do agree that more should go to great lengths of prayerful study to understand more and more of the doctrines of the faith for themselves. But it should be from lexicography and grammar supported by Patristic writings and Confessional documents that affirm scripture. This endeavor of yours is just a rogue expedition of vanity. I doubt that’s what you intend, but that’s exactly what it is. And it’s not to your benefit. I can only make this appeal so that maybe God’s grace will not be frustrated when I say this.
You are progressing toward formal heresy. It’s grieving to read and watch.
-
The Cappadocians (Saint Basil and the Saints Gregory) exhaustively dealt with any minuatiae you could possibly care to know. And if that isn’t sufficient, then Thomas Aquinas was certainly explicit enough (though Thomism should be approached very carefully). But the thoughts and expressions you’re providing aren’t in the range of orthodoxy at all. This isn’t my opinion, it’s absolute objective truth and fact.
I have read the Cappadocians--certainly not enough. I have no idea why you think I don't speak "orthodox language?"
What's strange is that you don't even explain what or why what I say isn't orthodox language! Not everything is written in Greek. And not everything has to be a direct translation from the Greek or Latin.
If you can't even explain what is heterodox about the use of my language, I have to wonder why you're complaining? My choice to use words like "infinite" and "finite" I got by reading philosophy.
Nobody needs modern innovation and reinterpretation or the reinvention of terms and doctrines (particulary for Paterology, Christology, and Pneumatology within Theology Proper)....
Using language to explain "fossilized," repeated statements of orthodoxy is precisely what is needed. A church nearby started up with the idea of making religious language more understandable in today's vernacular.
Your pontification, as it relates to what I post, is no concern of mine. If you think I'm breaking some rule of this forum, please take it up with those in charge?
I do agree that more should go to great lengths of prayerful study to understand more and more of the doctrines of the faith for themselves. But it should be from lexicography and grammar supported by Patristic writings and Confessional documents that affirm scripture. This endeavor of yours is just a rogue expedition of vanity.
That is hardly "edifying," my friend! Why don't you let God judge whether my approach is okay or not? Hurling nasty condemning claims about the unworthiness of my posts is out of line, as far as I'm concerned.
I doubt that’s what you intend, but that’s exactly what it is. And it’s not to your benefit. I can only make this appeal so that maybe God’s grace will not be frustrated when I say this.
You are progressing toward formal heresy. It’s grieving to read and watch.
Funny, you claim heresy, and you seem unable to identify it? But if I were you, I wouldn't throw your lexical approach around the way you've been doing it? As I said elsewhere, it appears to be a prime example of the etymological root fallacy. Just sayin'.
-
" this would be the Christian heresy called Arianism"
Correction-
This would be a Churchoid heresy for a belief in One God, instead of Three!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Dude is banned, again -- I think it's 'again'. He's posting like the JW poster a few months ago, so who knows.
-
Oh, Patrick!!!
(Again, just because we all need it.)
-
The truth about John 1:1 has been long hidden from the masses. Why is learning this scripture vital to your spiritual health? Because words matter! In Greek there are two different words for God. Also, using a definite article emphasizes the subject spoken about. First instance is ton theon which means the God and the second instance is theos which means a god.
{ snip }
Yes there are only 2 instances where that occurs in the NT. Both scriptures must hold to the same translating rule.
At John 1:1--in the second line the true God called Ho Theos( ton theon) God, and the word called plain theos= a god. Its the whole reason of the difference. And at 2 Cor 4:4-Satan called plain Theos=god, and the true God called HoTheos. to show the difference of what one is being called.
Its a major translating error to fit false council teachings of God being a trinity by satans will to mislead all he can found in trinity translations.
Thesad thing is that the trinity scholars know its fact and will not teach truth on the matter. Why you ask. Because that single truth exposes 41,000 trinity religions(a house divided that will not stand) as false religion, Billions would be lost yearly, and probably 2 billion humans suing them for lying on top of it.
-
Goodbye, and ἄπαγε.
-
Oh, Patrick!
-
Oh, Patrick!
I recently discovered I can do a killer Irish accent.
-
What do members of this forum think about the translation of John’s prologue (John 1:1-5) in the Geneva Bible?
-
We think, why is this new person asking what we think? What does this new person think?
Going to give us all a Greek lesson on why "he/him" should be "it"?
-
Oh, Patrick… don’t you know about definite and indefinite article construction Ins koine Greek?
-
We think, why is this new person asking what we think?
That surprises and disappoints me.
What does this new person think?
I’m thinking I don’t belong here. Please close my account. Thank you.
Going to give us all a Greek lesson on why "he/him" should be "it"?
No.
-
We think, why is this new person asking what we think?
That surprises and disappoints me.
What does this new person think?
I’m thinking I don’t belong here. Please close my account. Thank you.
Going to give us all a Greek lesson on why "he/him" should be "it"?
No.
As you wish.
-
We think, why is this new person asking what we think?
That surprises and disappoints me.
What does this new person think?
I’m thinking I don’t belong here. Please close my account. Thank you.
Going to give us all a Greek lesson on why "he/him" should be "it"?
No.
As you wish.
I didn’t know that you were Wesleyan!!!
;D
-
We think, why is this new person asking what we think?
That surprises and disappoints me.
What does this new person think?
I’m thinking I don’t belong here. Please close my account. Thank you.
Going to give us all a Greek lesson on why "he/him" should be "it"?
No.
As you wish.
I didn’t know that you were Wesleyan!!!
;D
Ah, well, you know, I still have a few surprises. ;D Alongside my extraordinary prescience at the mere mention of the Geneva bible.