02 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillsorry i am still waiting to here what you have to say about the coptic text, until you do so Jaywill, your references are futile, for you will have failed to address a key issue, that being that the early Christians did not accept that Christ was God, but that according to the text he was a god or in other words a divine being and that the doctrine did not appear until 200 or so years later.
[b]================================
Taken at face value, to me the Bible shows Jesus as both divine [Godly] and the Son of God.
I mean, come on... how is it that, according to the Bible, Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God, but, they are one and the same?
==================================
Jesus is said to be at the right hand o stions related to Christ being the "life giving Spirit" indwelling the believers.[/b]
02 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie===========================
sorry i am still waiting to here what you have to say about the coptic text, until you do so Jaywill, your references are futile, for you will have failed to address a key issue, that being that the early Christians did not accept that Christ was God, but that according to the text he was a god or in other words a divine being and that the doctrine did not appear until 200 or so years later.
sorry i am still waiting to here what you have to say about the coptic text, until you do so Jaywill, your references are futile,
=================================
Robbie, I saw your discussion on the Coptic Text. And as I understand it this is your strongest argument, because you called it your nuke.
So, I will take my time to look into you strongest argument. That does not make my other posts futile. Don't even try to make that case with me.
That Jesus and God Almighty are both discribed as "Alpha and Omega" in Revelation is not "futile".
It may be wasted on your kind of unbelief. But it is not futile.
==============================
for you will have failed to address a key issue, that being that the early Christians did not accept that Christ was God, but that according to the text he was a god or in other words a divine being and that the doctrine did not appear until 200 or so years later.
======================================
And this is your nuke, your strongest argument to deny that God is incarnated in the Son of Man, the Son of God. No hurry. If you have a case with this "nuke" then I want to take the time to study it.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDr Layton of Yale university (you may have heard of it) actually disagrees with your beloved translation he says that 'noute' with the indefinite article in this verse can also predicate quality. it is impossible to avoid bringing theology into this discussion. The grammar, alone, cannot prove that the Word was "a god," "a God," or "had the quality of God" . Shoddy translation work is shoddy translation work. For these and other reasons the coptic gospels, while important in helping us authenticate the true canon, are not dependable.
sorry i am still waiting to here what you have to say about the coptic text, until you do so Jaywill, your references are futile, for you will have failed to address a key issue, that being that the early Christians did not accept that Christ was God, but that according to the text he was a god or in other words a divine being and that the doctrine did not appear until 200 or so years later.
now answer my questions please, or be forever labeled a fraud and follower of false prophets.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by jaywillactually jaywill, i said it tongue in cheek, and also with regard to the length of your posts, it was also said tongue in cheek i thought you may have sensed it, so no offense was intended, hopefully none was taken.
[b]===========================
sorry i am still waiting to here what you have to say about the coptic text, until you do so Jaywill, your references are futile,
=================================
Robbie, I saw your discussion on the Coptic Text. And as I understand it this is your strongest argument, because you called it your nuke.
So, I ...[text shortened]... No hurry. If you have a case with this "nuke" then I want to take the time to study it.[/b]
02 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by dueceryeah yeah anyone can look up the internet and post a few ill conceived pieces of counter argument, the real trick is to try and understand it for yourself, and from what i have read over the years, it makes perfect and complete sense to me, for the context itself shows quite clearly that the word was not God, otherwise it would have been rendered as such, but it was deliberately rendered a god, for a distinction had to be made, can you explain why that is the case, and you have still not answered where moffat or russell or anyone else for that matter changed the text on this basis, thus your slanderous accusations remain self incriminatory. why don't you write them a letter i am sure they will reply, if they were alive, as for me, i got better things to do than try to substantiate your prejudices.
Dr Layton of Yale university (you may have heard of it) actually disagrees with your beloved translation he says that 'noute' with the indefinite article in this verse can also predicate quality. it is impossible to avoid bringing theology into this discussion. The grammar, alone, cannot prove that the Word was "a god," "a God," or "had the quality of God" . ...[text shortened]... nswer my questions please, or be forever labeled a fraud and follower of false prophets.
02 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999================================
I thought you had unlimited intellect.
If the disciples and apostles at the time of Christ did not preach this Trinity doctrine, then its people you and Jaywill that are guilty of adding to Gods word.
I know you are impressed by the sheer number of Christians that believe in this ... 1,000,000,000 ? ... but the important question is whether or not th ...[text shortened]... NO... It was fabricated a couple hundred years after. ITS MADE UP. ITS AN ADDITION ... Get it ?
know you are impressed by the sheer number of Christians that believe in this ... 1,000,000,000 ? ... but the important question is whether or not the early church in the time of Paul taught this doctrine and the answer is NO. NO... It was fabricated a couple hundred years after. ITS MADE UP. ITS AN ADDITION ... Get it ?
===========================================
The ancient brothers did not invent something. They looked at their experience and they looked at the word of God. And they rightly decided that the attack against the Person of Christ had to be refuted.
Isaiah 9:6 was not added to the Bible 300 o 400 years into the Christian era.
There the "child ... born" is the "Mighty God". There the "son ... given" is the "Father of eternity" or "eternal Father".
That was written long before the birth of Jesus, let alone the beginning of the Christian church.
And I might add that the passage is so emphatic that even some evangelical Christians have a hard time with it.
02 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywilljaywill you know from previous 'encounters', that there are two Hebrew words one for this term 'mighty god', which is used exclusively and with reference to Christ only, and another for almighty god which is used only with reference to the father and never anywhere alse. will i list them for you, again?
================================
know you are impressed by the sheer number of Christians that believe in this ... 1,000,000,000 ? ... but the important question is whether or not the early church in the time of Paul taught this doctrine and the answer is NO. NO... It was fabricated a couple hundred years after. ITS MADE UP. ITS AN ADDITION ... Get passage is so emphatic that even some evangelical Christians have a hard time with it.[/b]
02 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie==========================
actually jaywill, i said it tongue in cheek, and also with regard to the length of your posts, it was also said tongue in cheek i thought you may have sensed it, so no offense was intended, hopefully none was taken.
actually jaywill, i said it tongue in cheek, and also with regard to the length of your posts, it was also said tongue in cheek i thought you may have sensed it, so no offense was intended, hopefully none was taken.
=================================
Okay. Your humor often escapes me.
Perhaps it is because I consider this very serious business.
In the mean time please explain to me what you mean by blasphemy. This is important to me.
What do you mean by saying to teach Jesus is God is blasphemy ? It is not a personal matter. It is a matter of the truth to me.
02 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobienow you are being intellectually dishonest, as well as evading serious questions. Your "nuke" option has just been shown to be a dud. Your translation does not hold up to scrutiny. Your entire theology is premised on the shoddy or innacurate translation of one verse, while the prepoderance of theological argument taken directly from the inspired word of God shows you to be clearly wrong. I'm not sure I would be as brave as you in betting my immortal soul on a passage of scripture that I wasn't sure of its translation.
yeah yeah anyone can look up the internet and post a few ill conceived pieces of counter argument, the real trick is to try and understand it for yourself, and from what i have read over the years, it makes perfect and complete sense to me, for the context itself shows quite clearly that the word was not God, otherwise it would have been rendered as they were alive, as for me, i got better things to do than try to substantiate your prejudices.
02 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie===========================
jaywill you know from previous 'encounters', that there are two Hebrew words one for this term 'mighty god', which is used exclusively and with reference to Christ only, and another for almighty god which is used only with reference to the father and never anywhere alse. will i list them for you, again?
jaywill you know from previous 'encounters', that there are two Hebrew words one for this term 'mighty god', which is used exclusively and with reference to Christ only, and another for almighty god which is used only with reference to the father and never anywhere alse. will i list them for you, again?
==============================
If you wish. But your deduction and conclusion is not a forgone one simply because you list these Hebrew words.
You may list what you like. Your conclusion will be scrutinized.
02 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by duecer=========================================
John 1 (Worldwide English (New Testament))
John 1
1The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God.
John 1
1The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God.
===============================
Thank you duecer. I am reading your replies very carefully for I find them helpful.
Robbie's concept seems to be that there was a time when the Word, another god, was not with God Almighty.
However, God says that He knows of no other God even after His creation of the universe !
"I am Jehovah, and there is no one else; Besides Me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5).
The polytheist have to explain why Jehovah God said that He knows of no OTHER God if it is true that the Logos was a created inferior OTHER God before all creation.
Am I right ?
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by jaywillThat appears to be the case. His theological bent is one of gnostisism, where only "the select few' ever truly know the secrets of eternal life, etc...
[b]=========================================
John 1
1The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God.
===============================
Thank you duecer. I am reading your replies very carefully for I find them helpful.
Robbie's concept seems to be that there was a time when the Word ...[text shortened]... is true that the Logos was a created inferior OTHER God before all creation.
Am I right ?[/b]
02 Jun 09
1 edit
"I am Jehovah and there is no one else; Besides Me there is no God." (Isaiah 45:4)
Jehovah God knows of no other inferior created God called the Word or the Logos who became Jesus.
Then again "Thus says Jehovah the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts,
I am the First and the Last, And apart from Me there is no God ... And you are My witnesses, Is there a God besides Me? Or is there any [other] Rock? I do not know of [any]." ( See Isaiah 44:6,8)
Where, Polytheists, Arians and Russellites, is this other inferior god the Logos??
The Word Who was with God is God, the same God and not another.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by jaywillyes to be sure life is a serious business, why is it blasphemous, because it elevates a creature, in this case Jesus Christ, who had a beginning, as the scriptures state, who is the firstborn, of all creation, to a level and place reserved only for the almighty himself, thus it becomes a form of idolatry. secondly, its origins are from pre-christian times, thus making it scriptural suspect, for the Jews, who were the custodians of Gods word for hundreds of years had no concept of it. thus its adoption is not of scripture, although attempts such as yours have been made to substantiate it scripturally, therefore it 'something other than the good news we declared to you', in others words its apostatizing.
[b]==========================
actually jaywill, i said it tongue in cheek, and also with regard to the length of your posts, it was also said tongue in cheek i thought you may have sensed it, so no offense was intended, hopefully none was taken.
=================================
Okay. Your humor often escapes me.
Perhaps it is because I co ...[text shortened]... us is God is blasphemy ? It is not a personal matter. It is a matter of the truth to me.[/b]