Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As is clearly stated in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:10-11, Jesus brought all things into existence. The heavens and the earth are the works of the Sons hands as stated by the writer of Hebrews.
And as was already stated, while Jesus is God, He did not die as God, but as a man. The fact that God cannot die is one of the reasons why the Second Person of the Trinity had to become a man.
Jesus knew He would be resurrected and stated that He had the authority to both lay down His life and to take it up again.
John 10:17 "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18] "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."
Jesus is the God-man. While it was as a man that He died, yet because He is God He had the authority, the sovereignty to raise Himself from the dead. Jesus participated in His own resurrection. While in Acts 2:32, Rom. 6:4, Heb. 13:20, and 1 Pet. 1:21 Jesus is said to be raised by the power of God, in John 10:17-18 Jesus says that He has the authority to raise Himself from the dead. Jesus is God.
We've been through all of this before. You are hopelessly brainwashed and delusional! You have no understanding of the true meaning of these passages. Jesus is the author of the New creation. He had nothing to do with the Genesis creation. Get a clue!
As is clearly stated in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:10-11, Jesus brought all things into existence. The heavens and the earth are the works of the Sons hands as stated by the writer of Hebrews.
And as was already stated, while Jesus is God, He did not die as God, but as a man. The fact that God cannot die is one of the reasons why the Second Person of the Trinity had to become a man.
Jesus knew He would be resurrected and stated that He had the authority to both lay down His life and to take it up again.
John 10:17 "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18] "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."
Jesus is the God-man. While it was as a man that He died, yet because He is God He had the authority, the sovereignty to raise Himself from the dead. Jesus participated in His own resurrection. While in Acts 2:32, Rom. 6:4, Heb. 13:20, and 1 Pet. 1:21 Jesus is said to be raised by the power of God, in John 10:17-18 Jesus says that He has the authority to raise Himself from the dead. Jesus is God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nivram
We've been through all of this before. You are hopelessly brainwashed and delusional! You have no understanding of the true meaning of these passages. Jesus is the author of the New creation. He had nothing to do with the Genesis creation. Get a clue!
John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:12-11 are quite clear that Jesus brought into existence all that has been created.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Colossians 1:16 For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Hebrews 1:10 [God the Father speaking to the Son] And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11] they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
And of course, as pointed out, as God, Jesus also participated in His own resurrection from the dead as John 10:17-18 states.
God didn't die and can't die. That's one of the reasons why the Second Person of the Trinity had to become a man. It was the humanity of Jesus that died on the cross.
Again, I'm not taking the thread off topic to discuss whether Jesus' sacrifice was a real sacrifice. The topic is the tri-unity of the Persons of the Godhead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Then God did not die for our sins.
Oops then either those who believed he did are wrong or they are wrong about Jesus being "God".
No. God did not die for our sins as God. But one of the Persons of the Godhead became a man and died for our sins, as a man. Ever since the incarnation Jesus is both God and man. He did not die as God, but as a man He could and did die. After having been judged for our sins, Jesus then brought His physical life as a man to a close by dismissing His spirit into the hands of the Father (Luke 23:46).
The doctrine of the hypostatic union of Jesus is that in the one person of Jesus exists two distinct natures. His divine nature as God, and His human nature as a man. While the union of the two natures of Jesus in one person is inseparable, the attributes of each of the two natures do not mix. The attributes of His deity do not mix with the attributes of His humanity. As such, Jesus is both eternal and infinite God, and true humanity in one person forever. He is not half god and half man.
While the humanity of Jesus could die, that is, while his human soul and spirit could leave His human body, which is physical death, His deity was unaffected.
And it was His spiritual death on the cross while He was still physically alive that paid the penalty for our sins. Jesus was still physically alive when He said tetelestai -'It has been finished,' or 'it has been accomplished.' Tetelestai is in the perfect tense which refers to action completed with results continuing on.
John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:12-11 are quite clear that Jesus brought into existence all that has been created.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Colossians 1:16 For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Hebrews 1:10 [God the Father speaking to the Son] And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11] they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
And of course, as pointed out, as God, Jesus also participated in His own resurrection from the dead as John 10:17-18 states.
Continuing to pull verses out of their context (the context being within the surrounding verses) gives no indication that you have any idea at all what they mean. You just pull them out and supply your own context and voila they magically confirm the non-existant Trinity. As long as you don't put them back into their context where they mean no such thing. Your strategy has been to pull as many verses as you can at one time and string them together, rather than showing how each individual verse fits into its own context, because in this way you can keep keep people bamboozled into thinking you are making a point. This is why the majority of Christians learn very little of the true meaning of scripture, because they are unwilling to do the work of real exegesis which is only done within the context that the writers placed each verse into. Each one of these verses that you abuse deserves its own analysis of how it fits into both the immediately surrounding passages as well as the context of scripture as a whole. You are lazy and unwilling to do this, and you teach others to do the same. Your understanding of scripture is therefore twisted and convoluted, because you have allowed your pride to be your guide! The quick analysis method rarely provides accurate results as most greatly evidenced by your post speaking of a vision, which occurs in the minds eye, as being an actual event in reality. This was absolutely comically absurd!
You said, ''You need to study the facts, not just what suits you.'' It seems to me that you are guilty of doing what you imply that I am doing. And Wallace is not the only Greek expert I mentioned.
I agree and all support the reality that it is not Definite, so there should be no "G" rather at best "god".
Quote:
I'll tell you what Expat. You get yourself a degree in ancient Greek, write a Greek Grammar, and then try to argue with actual experts in Greek such as the ones I already mentioned.
I have studied Greek for over 40 years and have friends who are Greek (Biblical Greek ) scholars. I can read it and I own many grammars and research tools. I accept the qualitative theory
Quote:
Wallace and the others I mentioned agree that nouns can be qualitative, and that John 1:1c is qualitative.
And here's the issue. If John 1:1c was not qualitative, but was simply indefinite, then John would be teaching polytheism. John did not believe in polytheism. The Bible does not teach polytheism. The Bible teaches that there is only one true God. Therefore, Jesus cannot be another god. He is, as John said, the Word who was with God, and was Himself God.
And here is the thing you need to directly address. The "qualitative" meaning NEVER means Essence or Nature at all. It is characteristics as I pointed out in John 6:70 and EVERY scholar knows this.
In neither passage is Jesus unequivocally called God, while again and again in the Gospel He is named ‘the Son of God.—Vincent Taylor, The Expository Times, January 1962. p. 117.
In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos so the phrase means ‘The Word was divine’.—The Translator’s New Testament, p. 451.
As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.—Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.
“The Logos appears sometimes as only an aspect of the activity of God, at other times as a “second God” an independent and it might seem a personal being.” We have seen that ‘and the Word was (a) God’ is a possible, if unlikely, translation of kai theos en ho logos. This is apparently accepted by E.F. Scott—J. Gwyn Griffiths, The Expository Times, July 1951, pp. 314-316.
Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated “the word was with the God (= the Father), and the word was a divine being.—John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible, p. 317 (McKenzie was a Jesuit Priest/scholar)
Every use of the sentence structure in John 1:1c, a PVPN, in scripture is qualitative AND never means essence as in form of existence at all. It is like in English when we say she is an angel, we do not mean a spirit creature.
a few examples:
John 4:9 9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
John 4:19 19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
John 8:44 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
John 8:48 48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
John 9:17 17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
John 9:25 25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
John 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
Quote:
Dan Wallace is a Trinitarian. He wasn't denying the personality of the Holy Spirit. He was arguing against the use of certain grammatical arguments which are used to argue for the personality of the Spirit. The personality of the Spirit can be seen by the fact that Romans 8:27 plainly states that the Holy Spirit has a mind which the Father knows, and that the Spirit intercedes on behalf of believers regarding the matter of prayer. A Person has a mind. A mere force or influence doesn't.
Then why do Trinitarians keep using a false argument?
Quote:
Furthermore, on page 125 of that paper, Wallace states,
''I am not denying the doctrine of the Trinity, of course, but I am arguing that we need to ground our beliefs on a more solid foundation.''
Wallace and the others agree that John wrote John 1:1c as he did to say that while the Word was God and had the attributes of God, He was not the Father.
''That is their theology but they do not ever give grammatical evidence. That is the problem. Why does neither Wallace nor any other Trinitarian scholar ever give other verses as evidence where the same structure exists? They know there are none. They are driven by theology.
Quote:
Again, if John 1:1c had been definite then John would have been saying that the Word was the Father. If John 1:1c was indefinite then John would have been teaching polytheism. John wrote John 1:1c the way he did to show that the Word was just as much God as the Father, but that the Word was not the Father.
To make this easy please list any verse in the book of John where the same structure is used, a PVPN, AND qualitative AND nature/essence is meant and translated and understood that way.
Also find just 1 early church father, who supported the Trinity and would know Greek as a daily language who EVER used John 1:1c to support the doctrine?
John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:12-11 are quite clear that Jesus brought into existence all that has been created.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Colossians 1:16 For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Hebrews 1:10 [God the Father speaking to the Son] And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11] they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
And of course, as pointed out, as God, Jesus also participated in His own resurrection from the dead as John 10:17-18 states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nivram
Continuing to pull verses out of their context (the context being within the surrounding verses) gives no indication that you have any idea at all what they mean. You just pull them out and supply your own context and voila they magically confirm the non-existant Trinity. As long as you don't put them back into their context where they mean no such thing. Your strategy has been to pull as many verses as you can at one time and string them together, rather than showing how each individual verse fits into its own context, because in this way you can keep keep people bamboozled into thinking you are making a point. This is why the majority of Christians learn very little of the true meaning of scripture, because they are unwilling to do the work of real exegesis which is only done within the context that the writers placed each verse into. Each one of these verses that you abuse deserves its own analysis of how it fits into both the immediately surrounding passages as well as the context of scripture as a whole. You are lazy and unwilling to do this, and you teach others to do the same. Your understanding of scripture is therefore twisted and convoluted, because you have allowed your pride to be your guide! The quick analysis method rarely provides accurate results as most greatly evidenced by your post speaking of a vision, which occurs in the minds eye, as being an actual event in reality. This was absolutely comically absurd!
Each of the verses are clear that Jesus created all things, and each of the verses confirms the others. As I've stated before, In Hebrews chapter 1 the writer of Hebrews has the Father speaking to the Son, calling Him God and stating that He (the Son) created the heavens and the earth.
The context of Hebrews chapter one is of the Son's superiority over the angels, that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father's nature, that He is the radiance of the Father's glory and that the Son upholds all things by the word of His power.
It is within that context that the Father states that the Son created the heavens and the earth.
There should be no need to go into the context of the other two verses. The context given for Hebrews 1:10-11 should be sufficient for the objective person to clearly see that Hebrews 1:10-11 is stating that the Son created the heavens and the earth.
Each of the verses are clear that Jesus created all things, and each of the verses confirms the others. As I've stated before, In Hebrews chapter 1 the writer of Hebrews has the Father speaking to the Son, calling Him God and stating that He (the Son) created the heavens and the earth.
The context of Hebrews chapter one is of the Son's superiority over the angels, that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father's nature, that He is the radiance of the Father's glory and that the Son upholds all things by the word of His power.
It is within that context that the Father states that the Son created the heavens and the earth.
There should be no need to go into the context of the other two verses. The context given for Hebrews 1:10-11 should be sufficient for the objective person to clearly see that Hebrews 1:10-11 is stating that the Son created the heavens and the earth.
You are taking things out of context agsin, Mike...
You are taking things out of context agsin, Mike...
Mike's theology is a well-crafted compilation based on a false context of a wrathful God who needed to be appeased by blood sacrifices of innocents. Once you begin with a context for God that is so at variance with the God revealed and unambiguously demonstrated by Jesus the Christ, you can not possibly get it right. That is why his theology has so much created jargon to explain the convoluted "mysteries" and inferences that are not compatible with the revelations of Jesus.
Mike's theology is a well-crafted compilation based on a false context of a wrathful God who needed to be appeased by blood sacrifices of innocents. Once you begin with a context for God that is so at variance with the God revealed and unambiguously demonstrated by Jesus the Christ, you can not possibly get it right. That is why his theology has so much created jargon to explain the convoluted "mysteries" and inferences that are not compatible with the revelations of Jesus.
Matt. 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. -Jesus
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
