Jehovah alone is the creator of the Universe.

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7,

Did you ever think to consult the Greek, Trev?
No...of course not....why should you....you NEVER do!
Had you bothered to even look to the Greek of your hand-picked example, you would have discovered that the arthrous 'THE Wisdom' is called-out.
'THE Wisdom' is an epithet referring to The Third Person of The Trinity.
What can you do now, Trev? :cigar:

I suggest that this is typical of your whitewash and then adding the Trinity. Did Jesus need to learn from a child?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Apple7]

Proverbs 2:1–9 (KJV): 1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; 2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; 3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; 4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; 5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. 6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. 7 He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly. 8 He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints. 9 Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path. [/color] Kind regards
Trevor

And...?

Where exactly do you think that The Second Person of The Trinity is mentioned in this example, Trev?

The 'Mouth of God' refers to The Second Person of The Trinity....and guess what comes forth from The Son?

Correct!

Wisdom, Knowledge and understanding....ALL epithets for The Holy Spirit!


I've told you time and again, the ONLY way that dense peeps like yourself are EVER going to grasp The Trinity is to undertake a serious study of the names, titles and epithets of the Triune God - and there are 1,000+ in the Holy Bible!

But...you can't be bothered.

What a wasted life you lead...

 

[Apple7]

Greetings again Apple7,I suggest that this is typical of your whitewash and then adding the Trinity. Did Jesus need to learn from a child?

Kind regards
Trevor

What does the GREEK say?


:cigar:

 

[Apple7]

False. Here's Apple7's quote:



Apple7's quote does not even include the translator's closing bracket, itself, nor all that precedes the translator's closing bracket, as you should easily be able to see from Apple7's ellipsis.



How is lying about Apple7's quote, as you have just done, not a personal attack against Apple7?

Kudos for backing me up!

T2 is toast...

 

[Apple7]

Apple7 wrote:

It is fairly obvious that even many Trinitarian scholars believe correctly that Is. 61:8, 9 is a statement where YHWH begins talking and stops at the end of :9.

The following Bible translations show this to be true by their use of quotation marks - CJB (61:8); ISV (new speaker at :8, 9) KJ21; NIV; NCV; NKJV; WEB.

Uhmmm...and?

Do you not yet even know what The Trinity is?

Please don't tell us that you have been fighting a straw-man, of your own making, for decades!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7,

What does the GREEK say? :cigar:

You will continue to bypass this question using your usual bluff and language claims because you believe that Jesus in his youth was God the Son.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Apple7]

Greetings again Apple7,You will continue to bypass this question using your usual bluff and language claims because you believe that Jesus in his youth was God the Son.

Kind regards
Trevor

When does scripture assign that title to Him?

 

[Tigger 2]

7djengo7 wrote: "How is lying about Apple7's quote, as you have just done, not a personal attack against Apple7?"

How about actually looking at the evidence before you convict yourself. first examine post #95. Anyone can look up the information I have given there. Then look at his response in #98. He ignored the Hebrew Lexicon source I had given him but said "No serious student of scripture uses a modern English Webster's Dictionary when defining Biblical terms." If he had actually read my post he would have seen that was explained in context.

Then my post #102 repeated the Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon info and added the respected BAGD Lexicon. Next he posted #118 accusing me of quoting Gesenius improperly and adding his own quote from it.

My reply in #122 explained to him that he had quoted the information enclosed in brackets [ ]. I explained that the preface of the book said that words enclosed in brackets were not Gesenius' words but were, instead, the insertion of the trinitarian translator's opinions.

His answer in 125 was,

Incorrect, again.

The brackets mentioned in the preface (XII) are located half inside, and half outside of the portions that you deceitfully and conveniently forgot to quote.

You can't fool anyone.

and #126

Hardly.

I personally own the very book that T2 'quoted' from, and the only lesson learned here is the utter desperation of T2 in falsely quoting the lexicon.

I also have a copy which I quoted from initially.

My #127 showed how he was incorrect again. This time it was his false assertion that the brackets did not enclose his quote. So in my reply (#134) to that I actually gave a link so he and anyone else could actually go to the page in Gesenius Lexicon and see that I certainly was not lying or incorrect! All he had to do was just click on it! https://archive.org/details/hebrewchaldeelex00geseuoft/page/349

His reply? #135:

You just proved to all readers that you lied.

Then, in #150 he posted

A few verses after Isa 61.1 - 2, the Servant of Yahweh calls Himself Yahweh…. ‘for I, Yahweh, love justice…’ Isa 61.8.

I answered in #152

It is fairly obvious that even many Trinitarian scholars believe correctly that Is. 61:8, 9 is a statement where YHWH begins talking and stops at the end of :9.

The following Bible translations show this to be true by their use of quotation marks - CJB (61:8); ISV (new speaker at :8, 9) KJ21; NIV; NCV; NKJV; WEB.

Check it out! I make plenty of mistakes but I do not lie!

Then you post in #156

How is lying about Apple7's quote, as you have just done, not a personal attack against Apple7?

"Lying"? "Personal attack"? Is anyone sane here???

 

[7djengo7]

I answered

False.

by way of explanation because your question assumed a separate identity for the Holy Spirit

False. Questions do not assume; only persons assume.

and you thus framed your question with a Trinitarian viewpoint.

What you wrote, here, is merely gobbledygook.

To answer yes or no adopts this framework which I reject.

What you're telling me is that, by answering "YES, the Holy Spirit is eternal", you would be adopting Trinitarianism, and that, by answering "NO, the Holy Spirit is not eternal", you would be adopting Trinitarianism. That's an asinine claim for you to make.

And, you're telling me that, by answering "YES, the Holy Spirit had a beginning", you would be adopting Trinitarianism, and that, by answering "NO, the Holy Spirit had no beginning", you would be adopting Trinitarianism. That's an asinine claim for you to make.

Your reaction here demonstrates your method.

That is true: my method is logic. I accept, rather than reject, the law of excluded middle.
Your reaction to my questions, however, demonstrates your hatred of logic, and your rejection of the law of excluded middle.

See, every thing MUST be EITHER eternal OR not-eternal; no thing can be NEITHER eternal NOR not-eternal.
And, every thing MUST EITHER have a beginning OR not have a beginning; no thing can NEITHER have NOR not have a beginning. Or, look at it this way: Consider the class of everything there is as divisible into two sub-classes:

1. Everything that is eternal
2. Everything that is not eternal

Together, those two sub-classes necessarily exhaust the class, 'everything there is'. By refusing to answer either YES or NO to the questions I asked you, you are trying to hide from having to say of which of those two sub-classes you think the Holy Spirit is a member. Such an attempt to hide stands out like a sore thumb--or, perhaps, it is better to say, here, that it stands out like a sore index finger, which index finger points straight to the fact that it is purely out of weaselly, calculated hedging that you have stonewalled against answering the questions:

• Is the Holy Spirit eternal? Yes or No?
• Did the Holy Spirit have a beginning? Yes or No?

It doesn't matter that you despise logic, and desire not to abide by it, see, because, the fact of the matter is that logic is never going to get out of the way of your opposition to truth, and, when you war against it, you simply must needs embarrass yourself, as you have done, here.

 

[7djengo7]

Did Jesus need to learn from a child?

Where, in the Bible, are we told that Jesus "need[ed] to learn from a child"? That's right: NOWHERE.

 

[Tambora]

Is the Holy Spirit eternal? Yes or No?

Yes.

Did the Holy Spirit have a beginning? Yes or No?

No.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

Is the Holy Spirit eternal? Yes or No?
Did the Holy Spirit have a beginning? Yes or No?

I am willing to answer the following:
Has God always existed: Yes.
Has the Spirit of God or God’s Spirit always existed: Yes.

Where, in the Bible, are we told that Jesus "need[ed] to learn from a child"? That's right: NOWHERE.

Again I am willing to answer the following:
Did Jesus learn from a child and grow in wisdom? Yes.
On the other hand there are many Scriptures that speak of the Wisdom and Understanding of God:
Romans 11:33 (KJV): O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7,

When does scripture assign that title to Him?

I agree, the Scriptures do not assign that title. The Scriptures teach that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Apple7]

Greetings again Apple7,I agree, the Scriptures do not assign that title. The Scriptures teach that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.

Kind regards
Trevor

Look at where you started from in this thread, and where you have ended-up, Trev.

We have watched you abandon your hand-selected passages, one by one, as you were incapable of defending them.

Now, you have pulled-out your last pathetic attempt to save face.

So...tell us, Trev, in the original languages, what the difference is between the juxtaposing of the terms?

Good luck...

 

[Apple7]

7djengo7 wrote: "How is lying about Apple7's quote, as you have just done, not a personal attack against Apple7?"

How about actually looking at the evidence before you convict yourself. first examine post #95. Anyone can look up the information I have given there. Then look at his response in #98. He ignored the Hebrew Lexicon source I had given him but said "No serious student of scripture uses a modern English Webster's Dictionary when defining Biblical terms." If he had actually read my post he would have seen that was explained in context.

Then my post #102 repeated the Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon info and added the respected BAGD Lexicon. Next he posted #118 accusing me of quoting Gesenius improperly and adding his own quote from it.

My reply in #122 explained to him that he had quoted the information enclosed in brackets [ ]. I explained that the preface of the book said that words enclosed in brackets were not Gesenius' words but were, instead, the insertion of the trinitarian translator's opinions.

His answer in 125 was,

and #126

I also have a copy which I quoted from initially.

My #127 showed how he was incorrect again. This time it was his false assertion that the brackets did not enclose his quote. So in my reply (#134) to that I actually gave a link so he and anyone else could actually go to the page in Gesenius Lexicon and see that I certainly was not lying or incorrect! All he had to do was just click on it! https://archive.org/details/hebrewchaldeelex00geseuoft/page/349

His reply? #135:

Then, in #150 he posted


I answered in #152 Check it out! I make plenty of mistakes but I do not lie!

Then you post in #156

"Lying"? "Personal attack"? Is anyone sane here???

What a sore pathetic loser you are.

Perhaps you should get used to losing, because it will become more of a normal thing for you the longer you continue dialogue.

By your obvious surprise, it seems that no one has ever challenged you on your references, and here, I picked one of yours, at random, and caught you in the big lie.

In fact, your so-called 'Gesenius reference' is an incomplete paraphrase and NOT even a quote of the lexicon, at all!

I had to step-in, and DIRECTLY quote Gesenius, for you, because you were too afraid to actually show context....and, when I did so, you were so upset that I showed the ORIGINAL lexical definition that you had to invent yet another lie to cover-up for the first one.

What a joke.

Go back-edit your decades old references and tell the WHOLE lexical story before I decide to choose yet another of your paraphrased beauties and make you look even more of a fool than you already are...

Your call...

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7,

Look at where you started from in this thread, and where you have ended-up, Trev. We have watched you abandon your hand-selected passages, one by one, as you were incapable of defending them. Now, you have pulled-out your last pathetic attempt to save face. So...tell us, Trev, in the original languages, what the difference is between the juxtaposing of the terms? Good luck...

I was interested in your assessment of our discussion of various passages. As far as the term “the Son of God” is concerned you may recall that I insisted that an important occurrence of this is in Luke 1:35 where Jesus is called the Son of God because God the Father was his father and Mary was his mother. In our discussion, did you ever agree with this, as I recall that you insisted that it is never recorded that Jesus called Mary his mother as a last desperate attempt to avoid the fact that Mary was his mother as the Scriptures clearly state. Also will you resort to the original languages here again to confuse the simplicity and clarity of this teaching, and even also attempt to juxtapose the terms here in Luke 1:35? The Holy Spirit did not shrink God the Son into the womb of Mary.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Apple7]

Greetings again Apple7, I was interested in your assessment of our discussion of various passages. As far as the term “the Son of God” is concerned you may recall that I insisted that an important occurrence of this is in Luke 1:35 where Jesus is called the Son of God because God the Father was his father and Mary was his mother. In our discussion, did you ever agree with this, as I recall that you insisted that it is never recorded that Jesus called Mary his mother as a last desperate attempt to avoid the fact that Mary was his mother as the Scriptures clearly state. Also will you resort to the original languages here again to confuse the simplicity and clarity of this teaching, and even also attempt to juxtapose the terms here in Luke 1:35? The Holy Spirit did not shrink God the Son into the womb of Mary.

Kind regards
Trevor

Heb 1.5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, "You are My Son; today I have begotten You"? And again, "I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me." Psalm 2:7


Hmmm....

We see His Father mentioned...where is His mother mentioned again, Trev?

 

[Bladerunner]

1. The grammar and usage of John shows that he intended "and the Word was a god." See my study of 'Seven Lessons': http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2013/02/seven-lessons-for-john-11c-a.html

2. Being the firstborn of creation, Jesus was there at the beginning of the creation of the universe.

3. All things came into existence through (di') him. Jesus was not the creator, but the one through whom the Creator worked.

Notice how “through” solves any possible confusion in the following scriptures. Even though the Law was spoken of as “the Law of Jehovah” - 1 Chron. 16:40, and “the law of the God of heaven” - Ezra 7:12, and we are specifically told “there is only one Lawgiver ...” - James 4:12, NASB, we still see another person “giving the law”! Is that person, then, also equally God?


Yes, the inspired scriptures also tell us, “Did not Moses give you the law?” - John 7:19 NASB. And the same “Law of Jehovah” is also called “the Law of Moses” - Malachi 4:4. Must we conclude then, trinitarian-style, that Moses is Jehovah the God of heaven? Of course not!!


Even if we were unable to figure it out on our own, scriptures such as John 1:17 (“The law was given [from God] through [di'/dia] Moses”) clearly explain it.

I offer the following grammatical explanation of John 1:1.

"First of all, the same Greek word is used in both occurrences of the word "God" in John 1:1. This same word is used in many contexts, whether it refers to the Only True God or whether it is referring to a false god - such as a man-made god (1 Cor. 8:5) or Satan as the ‘god of this age’ (2 Cor. 4:4). The apparent differences in spelling between the word ‘God’ in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’ (‘theos’) and in other places, (even in the previous phrase, ‘and the Word was with God’ (‘theon’)) is due to inflection in the Greek language. Each Greek noun normally has 8 or 9 forms (cases & number) in which it can appear. (See my page on ‘Inflection’ and ‘Cases’ on the Web site). In the first instance in John 1:1 it is the object of preposition and thus is in the accusative case. In the phrase in question, it is in the nominative case (indicating the subject or predicate nominative - equal to the subject). But it is the same word for ‘God’, and in both phrases here indicates the One and Only True God. So the apparent difference is spelling is not because ‘theos’ is a different word than ‘theon’, but is a different form of the identical word." (ref... Creative Commons Attribution...Corey Keating)

The final results, the Jehovah WItnesses are the only ones to translate "a God" as you have.

John 1:1 ..."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Since Jesus is the Author, then He said what HE meant and meant what He said and woe to those that add or take way from HIS WORD. Rev 22:18-19

Blade

 

[Tigger 2]

Hi, Blade.

It is in the link to my own personal study of 'seven lessons' study that the grammatical proof for the meaning of theos in John 1:1c is found. If you won't read it carefully, you won't have any idea of what I have found. Your own ideas and your quotes from others will miss the mark.

In fact the quotation you provided has nothing in it to show how theos in John 1:1c should be translated.

As for JW's being "the only ones to translate 'a God,'"

Even the trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that it is literally translated “a god was the Word”.- p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:
“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

The reason Prof. Dodd still rejects “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upsets his trinitarian interpretations of John’s Gospel! - "The reason why it is inacceptable [sic.] is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole." - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:
“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote:
"Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus with God." - William Barclay: A Spiritual Autobiography, pg 50, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1977. And,

“You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.

Only the JW's?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7,

Look at where you started from in this thread, and where you have ended-up, Trev. We have watched you abandon your hand-selected passages, one by one, as you were incapable of defending them. Now, you have pulled-out your last pathetic attempt to save face. So...tell us, Trev, in the original languages, what the difference is between the juxtaposing of the terms? Good luck...

I decided to repeat the above. It is true that we have not resolved our differences, but I did not abandon any of my passages, but gave up in frustration at your conclusions. You speak as if you have reigned victorious in all that we have discussed. It is a shame that Gilbert and Sullivan are not alive, as they could compose another song: “I am the Very Model of a Modern Trinitarian” and you could suggest a few lines of all your victories discussing Exodus 3:14-15 “He did not look up TWOT, Isn’t he a twit”, Psalm 110:1 right hand is the Holy Spirit, (add a line of your own), and many others. You would most probably only give my discussion one or two lines, but you as the Archer with a quiver full of bent and crooked arrows must have many other victories to boast about.

Heb 1.5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, "You are My Son; today I have begotten You"? And again, "I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me." Psalm 2:7 Hmmm.... We see His Father mentioned...where is His mother mentioned again, Trev?

Matthew 2:11 (KJV): And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

Kind regards
Trevor