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.
1. Most alterations are additions not the dropping of a word or phrase. That alone raises issues [/indent]Yes, God's son, not God.
However the meaning of the word "God" is critical.
In fact calling Jesus God because he is God's son, would require calling Gabriel God as well as he also is a son of God and is also divine. All sons of God in heaven are divine as that is the spirit state they all exist in. Dame nature ... spirit.
Calling Jesus the son of God does not make him God as that is kinda a contradiction in terms. Your son, if you have one, is human, but he is not you and not the same being. He is "a human being" one of many such.
They knew what you posted:
the phrase 'Son of God' was understood by the Jews of Jesus' time in a Messianic sense
Yes, they knew he was NOT claiming to be God, but His son the Messiah.
While the title, 'Son of God' may have been understood in terms of Jesus' Messiahship, the Jews clearly wanted to stone Jesus for making Himself out to be God as stated in John 10:33.
And while the Jews of Jesus' time may have understood the title 'Son of God' in Messianic terms, the fact that the Messiah would be God is made clear in Isaiah 9:6-7.
No matter how much you deny it, the gospel of John emphasizes the deity of Jesus Christ. Your belief that Jesus is not God is heretical.
"The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative caseąthe predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative."
Here is an example.
John 7:70 has the same sentence structure as highlighted above.
KJV John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
Where did the "a" come from according to Grammar AND Wallace?
You are erading a part of what he says and ignoring the relity of what he is saying. A bit more for you.
(GREEK GRAMMAR BEYOND THE BASICS illustrating Daniel B. Wallace's understanding of "Collwells Rule" and its abuses. pp 257-270)
"Our point is that Colwell’s rule has been misunderstood and abused by scholars. By applying Colwell’s rule to John 1:1 they have jumped out of the frying pan of Arianism and into the fire of Sabellianism."
Now explain using grammar why John 6:70 and John 1;1 are not translated the same?
Here is an opportunity to show you understand the grammar issue.
No, I have not misunderstood what Dr. Wallace is saying. What he said was, and I quote;
''In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father.''
And,
''Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in kai; qeo;V h\n oJ lovgoV.'' https://www.teknia.com/newtestamentg...niel-b-wallace
Dr. Wallace said that Jesus Christ is God, but He is not the Father. He is the second person of the Trinity.
While the title, 'Son of God' may have been understood in terms of Jesus' Messiahship, the Jews clearly wanted to stone Jesus for making Himself out to be God as stated in John 10:33.
And while the Jews of Jesus' time may have understood the title 'Son of God' in Messianic terms, the fact that the Messiah would be God is made clear in Isaiah 9:6-7.
No matter how much you deny it, the gospel of John emphasizes the deity of Jesus Christ. Your belief that Jesus is not God is heretical.
You're back to proving the point. John is the only gospel that outright claims Jesus IS God. So only 25 percent of the 4 main gospels claim Jesus is God, yet you have the nerve to say the belief that he isn't is heretical. And ask a Jew if they think the Messiah would actually be God.
You're back to proving the point. John is the only gospel that outright claims Jesus IS God. So only 25 percent of the 4 main gospels claim Jesus is God, yet you have the nerve to say the belief that he isn't is heretical. And ask a Jew if they think the Messiah would actually be God.
Each gospel writer emphasized a different facet of Jesus.
Matthew presents Jesus as King.
Mark presents Jesus as a servant.
Luke presents Jesus as the Son of Man - as man in His essential humanity.
John emphasizes the deity of Jesus.
While it is an implicit rather than an explicit reference to Jesus as God, Matthew 3:3, Mark 1:3, and Luke 3:4, as well as John 1:23 do point to Jesus' deity.
Matthew 3:3 For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said, "THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD, MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT!'"
Isaiah 40:3 A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD (Yhvh; Yah-weh) in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.
In Isaiah 40:3 the reference is to God. In Matthew 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4 and John 1:23, it is applied to Jesus.
Mainstream Christianity recognizes that Jesus is God. So yes, the belief that Jesus isn't God is a heretical belief.
The Jews who wrote the New Testament Scriptures, and the many Jews of that time who received Christ as Savior recognized that Jesus was God. Most Jews today are in unbelief. That will change in the future as a result of the Tribulation which is to come.
As stated also, Isaiah 9:6 shows that the Messiah would be God.
No, I have not misunderstood what Dr. Wallace is saying. What he said was, and I quote;
''In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father.''
And,
''Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in kai; qeo;V h\n oJ lovgoV.'' https://www.teknia.com/newtestamentg...niel-b-wallace
Dr. Wallace said that Jesus Christ is God, but He is not the Father. He is the second person of the Trinity.
Yes you have misunderstood what he is saying about the grammar.
''In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality
He is telling you this is an indefinite qualitative use of a noun. Thus NO capital latter. In fact his own translations shows he is Not agreeing that it should read "The word was God" as he translates it as:
What God was, the Word was
Not was God at all.It is referring to qualities or characteristics. Now look at John 6:70 and see what is meant by qualitative as you do not understand what he is saying at all. (Note his view of the trinity, is theological opinion, not grammar).
KJV John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is adevil (Indefinite Qualitative noun) and no capitalization of the first letter of the noun.
If you translte John 6:70 as Trinitarians want to do with John 1:1 you get "one of you is (the) Devil".
Not identity nor person, but qualitative or "one of you is like the Devil " or "What the devil was one of you was".
You can't make it say what you want, you need to understand the rules of grammar and how they apply.
If you're referring to the phrase in Isaiah 9:6 - 'Eternal Father,' or 'Everlasting Father,' literally 'Father of eternity', or 'Father of the age to come', it is not referring to God the Father. It is an idiom which refers either to the Messiah's relationship to time, or to the protective attitude of Jesus as the ruler of the Millennial kingdom.
God is one in one way, but three in another way. While there are three 'Persons' or centers of consciousness within the Godhead, they are a united One in their nature or essense. The Bible ascribes the uncommunicable attributes of God to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
As for John 1:1 being translated as 'and the Word was God, Daniel Wallace says this;
As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,
"The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative caseąthe predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative."
Here is an example.
John 7:70 has the same sentence structure as highlighted above.
KJV John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
Where did the "a" come from according to Grammar AND Wallace?
You are erading a part of what he says and ignoring the relity of what he is saying. A bit more for you.
(GREEK GRAMMAR BEYOND THE BASICS illustrating Daniel B. Wallace's understanding of "Collwells Rule" and its abuses. pp 257-270)
"Our point is that Colwell’s rule has been misunderstood and abused by scholars. By applying Colwell’s rule to John 1:1 they have jumped out of the frying pan of Arianism and into the fire of Sabellianism."
Now explain using grammar why John 6:70 and John 1;1 are not translated the same?
Here is an opportunity to show you understand the grammar issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
No, I have not misunderstood what Dr. Wallace is saying. What he said was, and I quote;
''In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father.''
And,
''Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in kai; qeo;V h\n oJ lovgoV.'' https://www.teknia.com/newtestamentg...niel-b-wallace
Dr. Wallace said that Jesus Christ is God, but He is not the Father. He is the second person of the Trinity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Yes you have misunderstood what he is saying about the grammar.
''In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality
He is telling you this is an indefinite qualitative use of a noun. Thus NO capital latter. In fact his own translations shows he is Not agreeing that it should read "The word was God" as he translates it as:
What God was, the Word was
Not was God at all.It is referring to qualities or characteristics. Now look at John 6:70 and see what is meant by qualitative as you do not understand what he is saying at all. (Note his view of the trinity, is theological opinion, not grammar).
KJV John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is adevil (Indefinite Qualitative noun) and no capitalization of the first letter of the noun.
If you translte John 6:70 as Trinitarians want to do with John 1:1 you get "one of you is (the) Devil".
Not identity nor person, but qualitative or "one of you is like the Devil " or "What the devil was one of you was".
You can't make it say what you want, you need to understand the rules of grammar and how they apply.
No, I haven't misunderstood the grammar. I never even made a comment about the grammar. I simply posted a bit of what Dr. Wallace said - Post #35.
And Dr. Wallace flat out stated the following. - We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” [Bolded mine] https://www.teknia.com/newtestamentg...niel-b-wallace
And Wallace didn't translate it “What God was, the Word was.” He pointed out that that particuliar translation brings out the force that while Jesus is God, He is not the Father. Here. Read his words.
In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism. https://www.teknia.com/newtestamentg...niel-b-wallace
Do you understand that Wallace said that Jesus is God, but He is not the Father?
There is always an excuse to believe. never able to come to the truth. something missing here or there. if that's so then one need to put down their so called religion and don't say anything. if everything is so wrong with God word why use it?. but because the word of God don't line up with one "OWN" views then there is an excuse. well for all those who want an excuse, acts 17:30.
What you need to do, 101, is get outside your tight-knit circle of Christian dogmatist friends and explore some opinions outside what you and your tight-knit circle of Christian dogmatist friends usually converse about.
Tyr maybe "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman. You don't have to believe him; just listen to what he has to say and consider whether he has a case to make. If you decide he doesn't then you haven't lost anything, even the money because you can check the book out of the library. But at least you've challenged your faith and either found it wanting, or found it rock solid. This book is not on the New York Times Bestseller's List for nothing. If Ehrman was full of sh@t he would have been laughed out of the publishing business years ago. As it stands his books always sell a million copies because people have decided he has something worthwhile to say.
It does no good to constantly say, "I don't have to read that heresy to challenge my faith." That's just running away from fear you might read something that makes sense to you. THAT, for a Christian is scarier than an audience with satan.
In Romans 1:3 we read, " concerning his Son, who came to be from the offspring of David according to the flesh, " David is of the tribe of Judah and Joseph was Jesus's legal father thus "according to the flesh" is in regard to Mary who gave birth to Jesus and would therefore be of the tribe of Judah.
2 Timothy 2:8, "Remember that Jesus Christ was raised up from the dead and was David’s offspring, according to the good news I preach,"
Elizabeth's mom could very well have been from the tribe of Judah. If not then I suppose Mary's mom may have been of a different tribe but that still would not prove Mary is from the tribe of Levi since tribe descent is from the father.
The problem with this is that it is a shotgun approach. What is it that Paul knew, that he could say with certainty that Jesus was "the offspring of David according to the flesh"?
Obviously this could not pertain to Joseph since Joseph had no blood relation with Jesus. So it had to have been Mary? But how can Paul know this with certainty. Was this another revelation he got from the Lord? Or did he get a peek at genealogical records that Luke never had access to. And certainly Luke and Paul were sharing information and revelations with one another since they were steadfast friends traveling the Mediterranean together for so many years. Don't you think that just once Luke would have said, "I was talking with brother Paul and he told me he had a revelation from the Lord that the "flesh" he refers to in linking our Savior to David was through Mary's blood?" Perhaps the reason he never mentions his conversations with Paul in his genealogy is that it was never really Luke who wrote the gospel, coming as it did sometime circa 85-90 AD, which would have put Luke somewhere at 80 years of age when the average life expectancy was about 35-50.
These are hard and fast questions that any Christian needs to ask in order to be absolutely sure that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are not in conflict. It's no good to just say, "I trust the gospels. I have faith." There's nothing noble about that, just blind ignorance.
Yes, John's gospel account emphasizes the deity of Jesus Christ. It is amazing the lengths to which some people go to deny this. Right at the beginning - John 1:1, we are told both that the Word was with God, and that the Word was God. This means that Jesus is God, but that He is not the Father. Or the Holy Spirit.
We see that all things came into existence through the pre-incarnate Jesus and that apart from Him nothing came into being which has come into being - John 1:3.
Jesus' statement in John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." tells of His pre-existence. His ''I am'' statement speaks of His deity - Isaiah 41:4; 43:10-13.
Jesus Christ is eternal and infinite God along with the Father and with the Holy Spirit.
IT"S JUST MY CONSIDERED opinion that "Jesus was with God and was GOD".
Genesis says GOD CREATED ALL THINGS
JOHN SAYS it was JESUS WHO CREATED...........1 X 1 x 1 = 1 An Egg has the parts,
water has different forms, liquid, ice , vapor.
I just think we have to believe it and then it starts to make sense.
But even Steven Hawking can't explain it in a way that everyone agrees on.
After thinking it over I guess he thinks there is a Master Plan.
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.
Or did he get a peek at genealogical records that Luke never had access to. And certainly Luke and Paul were sharing information and revelations with one another since they were steadfast friends traveling the Mediterranean together for so many years. Don't you think that just once Luke would have said, "I was talking with brother Paul and he told me he had a revelation from the Lord that the "flesh" he refers to in linking our Savior to David was through Mary's blood?" Perhaps the reason he never mentions his conversations with Paul in his genealogy is that it was never really Luke who wrote the gospel, coming as it did sometime circa 85-90 AD, which would have put Luke somewhere at 80 years of age when the average life expectancy was about 35-50. 
I don't claim to know absolutely,
