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.
Questions like this are distracting. There is ONLY ONE God and Christ manifested His characteristics perfectly while on earth. That is what pcamps is saying, period.
Questions like this are distracting. There is ONLY ONE God and Christ manifested His characteristics perfectly while on earth. That is what pcamps is saying, period.
Not distracting at all.
God is a:
Being but not just a person
Person but not the being
Jesus a person but not the being
His Father a person but not the being
The Holy Spirit Ditto
All three but not a person just a Being
and so on.
Oh and a Nature.essence but NOT a Being or person.
Learn what you are being taught as after a while you see why it has to be explained with ... "it is a mystery". IT is a mystery why any believes a man made .... mystery.
the best rule of interpreting the bible is to use scripture to interpret scripture. What that means is you always use the clear and straightforward statements of truth in the bible to understand anything that might not be as clear.
When your theology is in disagreement with clear biblical concepts then that Theology is always incorrect!
This we can agree on even if we disagree on how to interpret those Bible truths.
Here's a little gem on rendering John 1:1. It comes from work produced by George Horner who did extensive translation of the New Testament from the Sahidic language...
Why is the Sahidic valuable in gaining insight into the New Testament translation particularly where John 1:1 is concerned?
Koine Greek and Latin languages did not have an indefinite article whereas the Sahidic language did.
Would the scribes or translators have understood Koine Greek and the proper rendering of John 1:1?
Yes, the Sahidic dialect was contemporary with the Koine Greek. Greek culture was widespread in Egypt for centuries following the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great.
Would these early translators of John 1:1 be influenced by later Church adoption of doctrines?
Horner goes on to state, " The internal character of the Sahidic supplies confirmation of a date earlier than the third century." So the answer would be no.
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 seems straightforward (no textual criticism, no definite or indefinite articles to worry about, one doesn't have to read into it but just read it as is) and attempts to make it fit into one kind of thinking are convoluted.
Here's a little gem on rendering John 1:1. It comes from work produced by George Horner who did extensive translation of the New Testament from the Sahidic language...
Why is the Sahidic valuable in gaining insight into the New Testament translation particularly where John 1:1 is concerned?
Koine Greek and Latin languages did not have an indefinite article whereas the Sahidic language did.
Would the scribes or translators have understood Koine Greek and the proper rendering of John 1:1?
Yes, the Sahidic dialect was contemporary with the Koine Greek. Greek culture was widespread in Egypt for centuries following the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great.
Would these early translators of John 1:1 be influenced by later Church adoption of doctrines?
Horner goes on to state, " The internal character of the Sahidic supplies confirmation of a date earlier than the third century." So the answer would be no.
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 seems straightforward (no textual criticism, no definite or indefinite articles to worry about, one doesn't have to read into it but just read it as is) and attempts to make it fit into one kind of thinking are convoluted.
You are correct and I know Coptic and have done some translating work in it.
"a G/god" is the exact wording of the Coptic, which is closely related to Greek in many ways and was probably the 1st language the NT was translated into and by Christian Greek speakers who knew the grammar and meaning.
On the other hand, that is also the problem I find with Christianity as practiced today--it has drifted too far from the historical Jesus and has become for many a need to "prove" everything rather than have faith in something!
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
I agree that Christianity has "drifted", but the need to "prove" something is not the issue, as much as the issue is, "I want to know what I believe, and have the correct proof of why I believe it."
In the case of Jesus, He is undoubtedly Divine. He is the Son of God. He is the I AM. My questions don't dis-authenticate the authority and preeminence of Jesus, but they shed light on things.
Jesus said that He doesn't know everything. The one thing that He mentions not knowing, is WHEN the Second Coming will occur, in Mark 13:32, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." So this, at the very least, gives the Father an infinitely larger amount of knowledge, because the Son is absent in one area, and infinity is all, whereas not knowing something shows a lack of infinity.
Jesus definitely is subordinate to the Father, so there is a difference in authority there.
Jesus is the Son, so this means He has emanated from the Father in some way. If He didn't emanate from the Father, then He would not be considered a begotten Son. Whether or not Jesus was 'inside the Father' in eternity past, I would think that He was, since sons are a part of a father. John says He was here before the creation of the earth, and all things were created by Him, and He was there in the beginning with God. But the word 'beginning' means that it is the start of something, not necessarily that Jesus was there His own in the total infinity of eternity past. The words 'I AM' gives us the meaning that Jesus is eternal, but the eternal past may mean that He was in His Father's loins until the Father decided to bring Him forth. Then this brings about all kinds of questions as to HOW he was originated, such as, "was He born as a Spirit, like an angel, first, and then was he somehow placed inside Mary's womb to become human?", or was it some other way...
The Trinity is another question. Like some other religious words that define a doctrine, it is not in the Bible as a word. If God failed to put it in His Word, there must be a reason, so why would I want to use it? There are 3 mentioned, and they work in total unity...The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, but the inner workings, makeup, when and where they began, are not specifically defined.
Jesus has all the power of God, but was it given to Him from the Father, or did He have it of His own accord? And why did Jesus do the creating, and not His Father?
I know that Jesus is our mediator, so this means that He stands between us and the Father.
I don't have the solid answer on these things, but I have no lack of faith in Jesus as the Son of God. I also enjoy reading the Word and having God open my eyes to truths AND to error, because in this way I can grow.
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
I agree that Christianity has "drifted", but the need to "prove" something is not the issue, as much as the issue is, "I want to know what I believe, and have the correct proof of why I believe it."
In the case of Jesus, He is undoubtedly Divine. He is the Son of God. He is the I AM. My questions don't dis-authenticate the authority and preeminence of Jesus, but they shed light on things.
Jesus said that He doesn't know everything. The one thing that He mentions not knowing, is WHEN the Second Coming will occur, in Mark 13:32, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." So this, at the very least, gives the Father an infinitely larger amount of knowledge, because the Son is absent in one area, and infinity is all, whereas not knowing something shows a lack of infinity.
Jesus definitely is subordinate to the Father, so there is a difference in authority there.
Jesus is the Son, so this means He has emanated from the Father in some way. If He didn't emanate from the Father, then He would not be considered a begotten Son. Whether or not Jesus was 'inside the Father' in eternity past, I would think that He was, since sons are a part of a father. John says He was here before the creation of the earth, and all things were created by Him, and He was there in the beginning with God. But the word 'beginning' means that it is the start of something, not necessarily that Jesus was there His own in the total infinity of eternity past. The words 'I AM' gives us the meaning that Jesus is eternal, but the eternal past may mean that He was in His Father's loins until the Father decided to bring Him forth. Then this brings about all kinds of questions as to HOW he was originated, such as, "was He born as a Spirit, like an angel, first, and then was he somehow placed inside Mary's womb to become human?", or was it some other way...
The Trinity is another question. Like some other religious words that define a doctrine, it is not in the Bible as a word. If God failed to put it in His Word, there must be a reason, so why would I want to use it? There are 3 mentioned, and they work in total unity...The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, but the inner workings, makeup, when and where they began, are not specifically defined.
Jesus has all the power of God, but was it given to Him from the Father, or did He have it of His own accord? And why did Jesus do the creating, and not His Father?
I know that Jesus is our mediator, so this means that He stands between us and the Father.
I don't have the solid answer on these things, but I have no lack of faith in Jesus as the Son of God. I also enjoy reading the Word and having God open my eyes to truths AND to error, because in this way I can grow.
These are good points.
It is interesting that the "trinity" Doctrine is not explicitly taught in the Bible and if we ignore the actual doctrine we lose nothing.
The Father is our only God: KJV 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God,the Father,
Jesus is the one who died for us and whom we must know as well: KJV John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
The Holy Spirit is necessary in a believers life: NIV Romans 5:5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
I agree that Christianity has "drifted", but the need to "prove" something is not the issue, as much as the issue is, "I want to know what I believe, and have the correct proof of why I believe it."
The instant you have absolute "proof" of any of it---then you no longer have faith. You have what agnostics have with science and history--proof that doesn't necessarily make your life one bit better.
The famous theologian, Soren Kierkegaard, once said, "We need to burn all the Bibles." His point being that so many people had belief in the Bible more than faith in the One Who saves, that the Bible indeed had become a stumbling block to real faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumpethim;
Jesus said that He doesn't know everything. The one thing that He mentions not knowing, is WHEN the Second Coming will occur, in Mark 13:32, [I
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." [/i]So this, at the very least, gives the Father an infinitely larger amount of knowledge, because the Son is absent in one area, and infinity is all, whereas not knowing something shows a lack of infinity.
But how many Christians spend a tremendous amount of time and effort studying to "get some idea about when" this will happen? Dozens of books written on the subject. Several sub-threads on the Christian thread about "when."
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumpethim;
Jesus definitely is subordinate to the Father, so there is a difference in authority there.
Jesus is the Son, so this means He has emanated from the Father in some way. If He didn't emanate from the Father, then He would not be considered a begotten Son. Whether or not Jesus was 'inside the Father' in eternity past, I would think that He was, since sons are a part of a father. John says He was here before the creation of the earth, and all things were created by Him, and He was there in the beginning with God. But the word 'beginning' means that it is the start of something, not necessarily that Jesus was there His own in the total infinity of eternity past. The words 'I AM' gives us the meaning that Jesus is eternal, but the eternal past may mean that He was in His Father's loins until the Father decided to bring Him forth. [B
Then this brings about all kinds of questions as to HOW he was originated,[/b] such as, "was He born as a Spirit, like an angel, first, and then was he somehow placed inside Mary's womb to become human?", or was it some other way...
The Trinity is another question. Like some other religious words that define a doctrine, it is not in the Bible as a word. If God failed to put it in His Word, there must be a reason, so why would I want to use it? There are 3 mentioned, and they work in total unity...The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, but the inner workings, makeup, when and where they began, are not specifically defined.
Jesus has all the power of God, but was it given to Him from the Father, or did He have it of His own accord? And why did Jesus do the creating, and not His Father?
I know that Jesus is our mediator, so this means that He stands between us and the Father.
I don't have the solid answer on these things, but I have no lack of faith in Jesus as the Son of God. I also enjoy reading the Word and having God open my eyes to truths AND to error, because in this way I can grow.
Who cares about what one believes regarding the Trinity. Here's what Jesus was very, very clear about what He wanted from His followers---obedience.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
If we wanted to DO His will as much as we want to KNOW His will, we would know it. All the other "knowledge" means nothing if one is not practicing what Jesus taught in terms of loving God and those around oneself. It means nothing--and I mean NOTHING!! You can protest to Jesus that you had it all figured out with regard to Who He was/is, how the Trinity works, whether the chicken or the egg came first and it means naught. DOING THE WILL OF THE FATHER IS ALL THAT WILL EVER MATTER.
Look at all the good things many of us will protest to Jesus in that day of judgment--about our knowledge, about the wonders done in His name and it will all be as so much garbage if we can't say, "I tried to be like you with every person I ever met."
These are good points.
It is interesting that the "trinity" Doctrine is not explicitly taught in the Bible and if we ignore the actual doctrine we lose nothing.
The Father is our only God: KJV 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God,the Father,
Jesus is the one who died for us and whom we must know as well: KJV John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
The Holy Spirit is necessary in a believers life: NIV Romans 5:5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
According to Scripture God can not die. Jesus died.
According to Scripture No man can see God and live. People saw Jesus and lived.
According to Revelation 1 v 5; 3 v 14 Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God. God is uncreated.
Only God was before the beginning. Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.
John 17 v 3 uses the conjunction word ' AND '. God ' and ' Jesus [ the word ' and ' connects one person with another, it does Not make the one person be the same person with the other person ]
In Scripture [ Numbers 11 vs 16,17, 25 ] God's spirit is neuter as being an ' it'.
In Greek grammar a ' neuter ' can be addressed in the masculine or feminine, but it does Not become male or female but it remains a neuter. Like in English we can properly call a boat or ship as ' she ' although it remains a neuter.
When God sends forth his spirit things are created. - Psalm 104 v 30
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.
