Originally posted by checkbaiterSo you only have problems with the definition of Logos and not actually with my explanation of the grammar that results in the overwhelming majority of Greek scholars translating it as "the Logos was God." Instead of "the Word was God", you think "the plan was God" is more accurate, is that what you are saying?
It is in the Micah thread ...Logos referred to is God's plan became flesh. The plan he had since Genesis 3:15...And if you want to talk context, it fits perfectly. It fits even better than having to explain why Jesus prayed to himself in the garden of Gethsemane....
The Instructor
Originally posted by checkbaiterIt seems that you are attempting to deny the divinity of Christ by claiming the heavenly Father was referring to His only begotten Son as a god (Hebrews 1:8), because Jesus was just a man, who had been given all authority in heaven and on earth(Matthew 28:18); and not referring to the Son as God (Hebrews 1:8), because the Son had the same spirit essence as the Father.
The English language makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god.” Thus, in English Bibles, the heavenly Father is called “God,” while lesser divinities, people with God’s authority on earth and important people such as kings, are also called “god” (2 Cor. 4:4; John 10:34 and 35; Acts 12:22). The Hebrew and Aramaic languages cannot make the distin ...[text shortened]... of gladness above them; inasmuch as their thrones are temporary, but his shall be everlasting.”
I think that understanding does not fit with the rest of scripture. Hopefully, I am misunderstanding your intentions here, for I believe the fullness of the Godhead did indeed dwell in him bodily and God was manifest in the flesh as scripture says in Colossians 2:9 and 1 Timothy 3:16.
The Instructor
Tertullians paradox.....and the truth of the trinity.
"Tertullian viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. However, in his attempt to counteract modalism, he went “beyond the things that are written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6) As Tertullian erroneously sought to prove the divinity of Jesus by means of another theory, he coined the formula “one substance in three persons.”
Using this concept, he attempted to show that God, his Son, and the holy spirit were three distinct persons existing in one divine substance. Tertullian thus became the first to apply the Latin form of the word “trinity” to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit.
Beware of Worldly Philosophy:
How was Tertullian able to devise the theory of “one substance in three persons”? The answer lies in yet another paradox about the man—his view of philosophy. Tertullian called philosophy “‘the doctrines’ of men and ‘of demons.’” He openly criticized the practice of using philosophy to support Christian truths. “Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition,” he stated. Yet, Tertullian himself made liberal use of secular philosophy when it harmonized with his own ideas.—Colossians 2:8.
One reference work states: “Trinitarian theology required the aid of Hellenistic concepts and categories for its development and expression.” And the book The Theology of Tertullian notes: “[It was] a curious blend of juristic and philosophic ideas and terms, which enabled Tertullian to set out the trinitarian doctrine in a form which, despite its limitations and imperfections, supplied the framework for the later presentation of the doctrine at the Council of Nicaea.” Hence, Tertullian’s formula—three persons in one divine substance—played a major role in the spreading of religious error throughout all of Christendom.
Tertullian accused others of destroying the truth while they were trying to defend it. Ironically, however, by mixing divinely inspired Bible truth and human philosophy, he fell into the same trap. Let us therefore take to heart the Scriptural warning against “paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons.”—1 Timothy 4:1.
So thanks to Tertullian, the non biblical trinity was born.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou seem to be quite an abrassive person, I'm sorry if I made you behave that way on this occasion.
blood is sinful? i doubt you know what the term sinful means and your assertion that we think its sinful is quite ludicrous, in fact, we hold that its rather sacred.
Originally posted by galveston75Paul used pagan gods and many things from the Roman world so what ? Used these things as springboards to the truth
Tertullians paradox.....and the truth of the trinity.
"Tertullian viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. However, in his attempt to counteract modalism, he went “beyond the things that are written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6) As Tertullian erroneously sought to prove the divinity of Jesus by means of another theory, he coined the formula “one substanc ...[text shortened]... ings of demons.”—1 Timothy 4:1.
So thanks to Tertullian, the non biblical trinity was born.
Manny
Originally posted by VelnsHe knows it is sinful for him and his JW buddies to refuse to give blood or blood transfusions to save lives, but their god, the Watchtow Society, prohibits them from doing so. I think that is why he is abrasive when someone brings up that topic.
You seem to be quite an abrassive person, I'm sorry if I made you behave that way on this occasion.
The Instructor
Originally posted by Velnsyou have nothing to be sorry for, but if you are going to make assertions about others beliefs, you must accept that you will be required to be accurate otherwise they will point out the inaccuracy and surely you will not need to apologise every time it happens.
You seem to be quite an abrassive person, I'm sorry if I made you behave that way on this occasion.
Originally posted by RJHindssaving lives, you were a soldier in the army trained to kill other people and here you are talking about saving lives, bwahahaha, how many people have Jehovahs witnesses killed in war? how many has the US military of which you were a part? 10 million, 20 million? 30 million? Hypocrisy much Jesus?
He knows it is sinful for him and his JW buddies to refuse to give blood or blood transfusions to save lives, but their god, the Watchtow Society, prohibits them from doing so. I think that is why he is abrasive when someone brings up that topic.
The Instructor
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSomeone has to be willing to defend the nation and the freedom of the people. In such a sinful world, sometimes there is no other way to save lives. Besides, if any of us had been wounded trying to defend your life and freedom to be a JW, you wouldn't have given a drop of blood to save any of us, would you?
saving lives, you were a soldier in the army trained to kill other people and here you are talking about saving lives, bwahahaha, how many people have Jehovahs witnesses killed in war? how many has the US military of which you were a part? 10 million, 20 million? 30 million? Hypocrisy much Jesus?
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsyou repeat the same old lie,
Someone has to be willing to defend the nation and the freedom of the people. In such a sinful world, sometimes there is no other way to save lives. Besides, if any of us had been wounded trying to defend your life and freedom to be a JW, you wouldn't have given a drop of blood to save any of us, would you?
The Instructor
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori
I dont want or need you to defend my life, I am perfectly willing to die for principles that I hold dear as did many witnesses who were beheaded, beaten, starved to death in Nazi concentration camps as well as brutally treated in the Russian Gulags, but we are not prepared to kill.
You justify your killing to Jesus, we want no part of it. Just out of interest, how many other Christians has the US military and its supporters killed over the years?
Originally posted by sonshipperhaps peter thought jesus was a god, compared to himself?I believe in the God and Father of Jesus Christ.
Here is a similar sentence construction -
[b]" ... our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ..." ( 2 Peter 1:11)
Do you believe Jesus is our Lord and Savior ?
Do you believe that Jesus is both our Lord and our Savior ?
What about this similar expression ?
"our Go ...[text shortened]... that Jesus is [b]"our Lord and Savior" but is not "our God and Savior" ?[/b]
i believe jesus is the son of god. a divine being that let god almighty help him to become the greatest man that ever lived. which shouldn't be hard since jesus is so powerful, haha 🙂
Originally posted by RJHindsHere it is again...Why do you always revert to this subject when you get backed into a corner trying to defend the trinity? One has nothing to do with the other as the thread is about Jesus and who he is AND this thread was not even started by a JW.
He knows it is sinful for him and his JW buddies to refuse to give blood or blood transfusions to save lives, but their god, the Watchtow Society, prohibits them from doing so. I think that is why he is abrasive when someone brings up that topic.
The Instructor
This is a clear tactic you and Manny always pull out of some orifice you own and it is very childlike to be honest.
Stick to the thread and answer like an adult about the subject. If you can't defend the trinity then admit it or maybe just don't answer.