- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Aug 13
1 edit
All my questions about Jesus being God are ignored, and my explanation of John 1:1 is ignored, so we are at an impasse.
Sometimes, checkbaiter, when I have gone over a subject many times in the past six or so years, when it comes up again I may just sit back.
This looks like evasion or ignoring sometimes to the one who posted comments. But I have written on Christ being God incarnate with the resident Jehovah's Witnesses - Galveston and Robbie Corrobie - plenty of times.
Maybe I just limited my replies to some angle that has not been previously discussed as much by me.
BTW, I apologize for referring to you as a Trinitarian and not a brother who happens to believe in the Trinity.
That is ok.
I will try to be more respectful in the future.
The verse in 1 Corinth. I hoped you would respond to was in where in the end the son will be subject to the Father.
No matter, be well..
That is a good passage to discuss. Maybe I'll write on it sometime today.
But my initial comment would be that really at no time was Jesus not subject to the Father God. We certainly cannot say that suddenly after the millennial kingdom for the first time the Son is subject to the Father.
From His birth and throughout His whole life in earth, including the cross, including the resurrection, including the ascension and throughout the church age, He is subject to the Father. So it is hard to view verse 28 as somehow new -
"then the Son Himself also will be subject to Him who has subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all."
The Son Himself was never NOT subject to Him that God may be all in all. But this has something to do with the nations living on the earth during the millennial. You know, He will be shepherding the nations of those who survived through the great tribulation. He will shepherd them with a rod of iron, like strong power to put countries into line as the need arises - like breaking pots with a swift whack.
Death is the last enemy to be subdued. But really at no time has the Son NOT been subject to the Father that God may be all in all, I think.
He remains a glorified and resurrected MAN throughout eternity.
And other comment will have to wait until latter on 1 Cor. 15:24-28.
05 Aug 13
Originally posted by checkbaiteryes its absolutely crystal clear to those for whose faith has not been subverted with extra Biblical doctrines.
Too many mysteries for me RJ...In the meantime, I will continue to believe what the bible clearly says. Jesus is the Son of God not God.
Jesus sits at the Fathers right hand, meaning he is 2nd in charge.
I believe in the God and Father of Jesus Christ.
I do serve both, they are in agreement.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
05 Aug 13
Originally posted by galveston75I know it is a very personal and difficult subject, especially if it is what you have been taught all your life. It is hard to let go.
Just watching to see the usual responces given by the trinitairians and yep here they all come.
Your points are dead on but as good as they are, they can't see them. It's almost like they can't read english or whatever language they may speak in the world but this is what happens when they refuse to see.
Nothing at all in the Bible supports the trini ...[text shortened]... help until they want it.
But who knows maybe something you'll say will do some good....
Then there are the supposed "scholars" who defend this and have defended it for centuries.
It will take some deep introspection and prayer while doing some bible research to free up these strong holds of the mind.
Nevertheless, they are still brothers and sisters which I love in Christ.
We can agree to disagree on this point.
05 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Velnsit means 'my race is royal' and refers to the lineage of Clan MacGregor from the Scottish King, Kenneth Mac Alpin , i never knew self assurance was such a dirty word and i am reminded of Kurt Cobains song, smells like teen spirit, a song about the spinelessness of his generation.
You seem to be someone as self assured as the RJHinds poster.
What does "'S rioghal mo dhream" mean?
05 Aug 13
5 edits
Originally posted by checkbaiterHow can you say your questions about Jesus being God are ignored, and my explanation of John 1:1 is ignored? I immediately replied to your questions. However, i did not go into detail because, as sonship said, this has been debated extensively with the JWs before. They just get amnesia and bring up the same thing time and time again. It gets annoying to have to repeat everything over and over when they keep getting amnesia over and over.
All my questions about Jesus being God are ignored, and my explanation of John 1:1 is ignored, so we are at an impasse.
BTW, I apologize for referring to you as a Trinitarian and not a brother who happens to believe in the Trinity.
I will try to be more respectful in the future.
The verse in 1 Corinth. I hoped you would respond to was in where in the end the son will be subject to the Father.
No matter, be well..
I am sorry that we are taking our frustrations out on you, since you are relatively new to this forum and probably haven't bothered to read all the debates presented before you arrived on this site. However, to explain it all in detail requires a lot of information be presented on the Koine Greek language too. It has been done before and is tedious to explain in detail.
I think it would be better to take one thing at a time. Otherwise, I will have to write a book to respond to you. I will make some comments on the translation of John 1:1 and perhaps sonship will find time to add to it if he wishes.
Practically all biblical Greek scholars agree that John 1:1 should be translated ... the Word was God. This is also consistent with Thomas proclaiming to Jesus, "My Lord and my God." (John 2028)
You must be aware that here is no indefinte article in the Greek. The presence and absence of a definite article is often used to designate the subject (with the definte article) from the object (without the definite article) in the Greek compound sentence structure instead of the normal way that most people know. Also, the definite article in the Greek is not always used in a way to designate a particular noun from a general now as the JWs would have you believe.
The following is another example of a compound sentence in which the definte article is only placed before the first reference noun even though it is referring to that same particular noun in both cases.
For example Jesus said:
"He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living."
(Mark 12:27 NKJV)
There is no definite article before the second Theos in the Greek, yet "the" is added by the English translators because of English grammar and they know it is talking about the same Theos. This proves that to add the English indefinte artice "a" simply because of the absence of the Greek definite article is faulty reasoning.
In the NASB, the translators just drop the reference to the second Theos in the Greek text and translate it as follows:
"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
(Mark 12:27 NASB)
In the same way there is no reason to add the indefinte article "a" in the English translation because of the absence of the definite artlcle before Theos in the compound sentence in John 1:1. Notice that the standard way of designating the subject noun and the object noun with the different variations of the definite artcle with noun is used in the main sentence, but since this is a compound sentence there is an article before Logos, but not before Theos to distinguish the subject and object of that second phrase in the compound sentence. Otherwise, one might translate the second phrase as "God was the Word" instead of "the Word was God."
Also Luke espresses the same idea by quoting Jesus as saying:
"For He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to Him."
(Luke 20:38 NKJV)
Notice there is no definite article before Theos, because Theos is the object in this sentence.
Do you get this?
The Instructor
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
05 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI have been on this forum much longer than you. I admit I have left for a year or so at a time but I have seen your prior answers and they are the same weak answers I have seen countless times before.
How can you say your questions about Jesus being God are ignored, and my explanation of John 1:1 is ignored? I immediately replied to your questions. However, i did not go into detail because, as sonship said, this has been debated extensively with the JWs before. They just get amnesia and bring up the same thing time and time again. It gets annoying t ...[text shortened]... e Theos is the object in this sentence.
Do you get this?
The Instructor
06 Aug 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterOkay, then perhaps you can help me strengthen my answers by explaining where I am wrong with the above portion of this answer concerning the translation of John 1:1 and what I need to provide to strengthen it.
I have been on this forum much longer than you. I admit I have left for a year or so at a time but I have seen your prior answers and they are the same weak answers I have seen countless times before.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
06 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsIt 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....
Okay, then perhaps you can help me strengthen my answers by explaining where I am wrong with the above portion of this answer concerning the translation of John 1:1 and what I need to provide to strengthen it.
The Instructor
