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.
Each of the verses are clear that Jesus created all things, and each of the verses confirms the others.
Well of course you would say so, believing this is a part of your delusion, but they only seem to confirm each other in your mind because you start out with the wrong assumptions. Your whole idea of scripture is built around this delusion. You see everything through Trinitarian goggles, and you maintain your delusion by testing things through the lenses of those goggles, but you can prove many false assumptions to be true in your own mind when you start with the wrong assumptions and draw every conclusion you come to from them. You have been brainwashed, and no amount of truth can break through that, until you by your own will decide to open your eyes and look at the other side of the coin, but in all probability you are too brainwashed to do that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
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, [this is correct. all of your other assumptions about the context are wrong] 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.
Sorry, all wrong!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
It is within that context that the Father states that the Son created the heavens and the earth.
This is a context created by your preconceived Trinitarian assumptions and is far, far from the only possible or the correct context. It is the goggles again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
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.
Once again, your Trinitarian goggles have deceived you! It is always necessary to look at the context verses are found in. Your problem with making hasty assumptions is what has lead you to read scripture through theologically skewed preconception and bias.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
Matt. 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. -Jesus
There is no question that Christ's blood was shed, jimmie. The issue is WHY??? It was NOT to appease God. It was because our ancestors were brutal savages and barbarians who had no conception of agape love.
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. -Jesus
The blood of the son of man is the truth, the word of God. It is life. Use it for the forgiveness of sin.
"If you do not eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you. For my flesh is true food and my blood is honest drink. Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall live forever and I will raise him up on the last day.
It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is useless. The words I spoke to you are spirit and life."
Those are not my words but the words of the Lord who sent me.
There is no question that Christ's blood was shed, jimmie. The issue is WHY??? It was NOT to appease God. It was because our ancestors were brutal savages and barbarians who had no conception of agape love.
I agree and all support the reality that it is not Definite, so there should be no "G" rather at best "god".
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
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.
Qualitative refers to measuring or describing the quality of something. In John 1:1c the Word is stated to both be with God, and to Himself be God. The only way that the Word can Himself be God is by having the nature of God.
Since in John 1:1c the Word is stated to be God, it of necessity means that the Word has the nature or essence that is inherent of God.
You agree that Θεὸς John 1:1c is not definite. If it were definite it would mean that the Father was the same person as the Word which is clearly not the case since the Word is contrasted with the Father.
But you have not addressed the fact that if Θεὸς was indefinite John would have been teaching polytheism - the belief in more than one God. But John was not polytheistic. He did not believe that Jesus was a god, or another god. Or, you would be implying that the Word was some created divine being who created all that has been created. But it was God, not some created divine being that created the heavens and the earth.
You claim that EVERY scholar agrees with your statement that qualitative NEVER means essence or nature at all. This is simply not true, and I've already pointed out in post #215 that New Testament scholar Dan Wallace states that John 1:1c means exactly that. I also pointed out in post #228 that Henry Alford (1810-1871) and Johann Peter Lange (1802-1884) state that Θεὸς in John 1:1c must be taken as implying God, in substance and essence. The commentary in the NET Bible also agree with this. NETBible: John 1:1 - ''Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father).''
Furthermore, Paul Dixon in his Master of Theology thesis states:
''A qualitative noun is a noun which does not stress definiteness, that is, individual identity, but stresses a quality, nature or essence. A qualitative predicate nominative is a predicate noun which stresses a quality, nature or essence of the subject.''
The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative In John, Paul Stephen Dixon, May 1975, p. 9
Dan Wallace refers to Dixon's thesis in his Greek Grammar, ''Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics'', p. 259
Quote:
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.
The Word in John 1:1c is directly stated to be Θεὸς (God). John again refers to Jesus as God in John 1:18 and in John 20:28 where Thomas calls Jesus both Lord and God. The Gospel of John emphasizes the deity of Jesus.
Quote:
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 reason, as already stated, why Θεὸς is anarthrous is because if John had used the article, he would have been saying that the Father was the same person as the Word. John worded it the way he did because of his theology. He knew that Jesus was Good but that He was not the Father.
Quote:
Quote:
“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.
There's nothing unlikely about the translation ''and the Word was God''. kai theos en ho logos means exactly that. It was the Word who brought all things into being as stated in John 1:3. Since it was God who brought all things into existence, and it is the Word who is stated to have brought all things into being, John plainly intends for it to be understood that he is stating that the Word was God.
Quote:
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)
No, because once again, John states that it was the Word who brought all things into being. And since it was God who created all that has been created, then John's meaning is that the Word was God. Not simply a divine being.
Quote:
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.
Then why do Trinitarians keep using a false argument?
''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.
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?
Two simple requests.
First of all, the argument is not false.
Secondly, you want me to ''list another 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.'' You need look no further than John 1:14.
John 1:14 ''And the Word became flesh . . . '' John 1:14 Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
John 1:14 is a PVPN and refers to the Word becoming flesh which clearly has the meaning of taking the nature of man.
Both Θεὸς in John 1:1c and σὰρξ (flesh) in John 1:4 are qualitative, both are pre-verbal predicate nominatives, both are anarthrous.
Just as ''the Word became flesh'' refers to the Word taking the nature of flesh, so also, ''the Word was God ''refers to the Word having the nature of God.
John 1:1c - the Word was God.
John 1:14 the Word became flesh.
The Word had the nature of God and became the nature of flesh. God became man.
You also asked for an early church Father who knew Greek and used John 1:1 to support the doctrine of the Trinity. Simply refer to Tertullian (ca. AD. 155-240) who alludes to John 1:1 in Against Praxeas in which he defends the doctrine of the Trinity.
CHAPTER 2 -- THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AND UNITY, SOMETIMES CALLED THE DIVINE ECONOMY, OR DISPENSATION OF THE PERSONAL RELATIONS OF THE GODHEAD.
In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered,God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her -- being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; [Bolding mine]
There is no question that Christ's blood was shed, jimmie. The issue is WHY??? It was NOT to appease God. It was because our ancestors were brutal savages and barbarians who had no conception of agape love.
Jesus stated the reason. See bolded below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
Matt. 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. -Jesus
Jesus is God 1 John 5:20 John declared: "he (Jesus Christ) is the true God and eternal life" John 20:28 Thomas addressed the physically risen Jesus as "my Lord and my God" Titus 2:13 Paul speaks of: "the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," Romans 9:5 Paul declares: Christ (the Messiah) ... is God over all, forever praised.
To state otherwise is Arianism heresy.
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.
