Jehovah alone is the creator of the Universe.

Status
Not open for further replies.

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Greetings again 7djengo7, I am willing to answer the following:
Has God always existed: Yes.
Has the Spirit of God or God’s Spirit always existed: Yes.

So, here, you're saying that at least two things have "always existed", since you deny that the Spirit of God is God, making them two, separate things. In other words, you're saying that

  1. God has "always existed", AND
  2. Something that you call "the Spirit of God", and say that is NOT God, has "always existed".
So, how many other things, besides two, would you say have "always existed"?

At any rate, what you say you are "willing to answer" are not the questions I asked you. So far, you have stonewalled against the questions I asked you:
  • Is the Holy Spirit eternal? Yes or No?
  • Did the Holy Spirit have a beginning? Yes or No?
Again I am willing to answer the following:
Did Jesus learn from a child and grow in wisdom? Yes.

Wherever you got that from, you did not get it from the Bible!

Notice that Luke, in Luke 2:52, does NOT say that Jesus' WISDOM grew.
Not only that, but Luke does not even say that Jesus, Himself, grew, in any sense.
NOWHERE in the Bible are we told that Jesus, as a child, possessed a lower degree of wisdom, and that He gradually obtained to a higher degree of wisdom.
 
Last edited:

Apple7

New member
Greetings again Apple7, 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.

Then you abandoned your scriptures.

If your cult doesn't like to be challenged, then you should not be positing scripture that you have no way to actually defend, and save yourself some personal dignity.




You speak as if you have reigned victorious in all that we have discussed.

Correct.



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.

You're starting to sound defeated, Trev.
 

Apple7

New member
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


It took a few months, but you finally caved.

So...now as we already knew, the position of Mary in scripture is one of diminished importance to that in which you would like it to be.

Jesus NEVER refers to Mary as His mother - but Jesus repeatedly refers to His Father.

Mary NEVER declares that 'today, I have begotten you' as The Father does.

In fact, if you want to elevate Mary to a higher position than that of scripture, then perhaps you should become RC.
 

Apple7

New member
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?


Wow....do you think that you could at least provide some references from the 21st century?!


How about the JW's Knight in Shining Armor?

Arguably one of the best NT Greek scholars alive today, Dr. Bart Ehrman.

Dr. Ehrman has ALWAYS been promoted by witnesses, as they think that he supports their scriptural worldview regarding John 1....well, does he?

Let's look...


bartehrman_100x100.jpg




 Bart Ehrman January 7, 2013
"I don’t have an informed view of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, although it’s true that Arians believed that Jesus was God but not that he was equal with God the Father or co-eternal with him. John 1:1 — I think the proper translation is “The Word was God.” (In this Gospel Jesus appears to be equal with God — here I disagree with the Arian view — but he is not *identical* with God, a major point I think.)"
http://ehrmanblog.org/my-next-book/


What can you do now, witness?
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again 7djengo7,
So, here, you're saying that at least two things have "always existed", since you deny that the Spirit of God is God, making them two, separate things. In other words, you're saying that
  1. God has "always existed", AND
  2. Something that you call "the Spirit of God", and say that is NOT God, has "always existed".
So, how many other things, besides two, would you say have "always existed"?
The Spirit of God is an attribute of God the Father, it is God’s Spirit. You have a nose, one mouth, two eyes, two ears, so together with you this is seven separate things. Maybe this is why 7 appears twice in your forum name, there are 7 of you. How many other things beside these seven exist? feet, arms, legs, toes, stomach? The Bible reveals that there is One God the Father.
Wherever you got that from, you did not get it from the Bible!
Notice that Luke, in Luke 2:52, does NOT say that Jesus' WISDOM grew.
Not only that, but Luke does not even say that Jesus, Himself, grew, in any sense.
NOWHERE in the Bible are we told that Jesus, as a child, possessed a lower degree of wisdom, and that He gradually obtained to a higher degree of wisdom.
Actually it was interesting that my daily readings schedule (and Apple7 may be able to confirm our “cults” standard reading plan) was today Luke 2 and I read from an Interlinear RV/AV. The marginal note against the RV of Luke 2:40 “filled with wisdom” has “Gr. becoming full of wisdom”. Now I do not have original language skills, and possibly you may not have, but Apple7 who has confirmed your Post claims these skills, so possibly he can agree or disagree with the RV margin suggestion. I am not sure that he will respond however as he has avoided this question about the growth of wisdom.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Apple7,
Then you abandoned your scriptures. If your cult doesn't like to be challenged, then you should not be positing scripture that you have no way to actually defend, and save yourself some personal dignity. Correct.
I have not abandoned the Scriptures that I presented and still stand behind what I have stated on these. Congratulations on your victory.
You're starting to sound defeated, Trev.
I enjoyed playing two videos of “I am the perfect model ..” and comparing them to some of your claims such as original language skills, etc.
It took a few months, but you finally caved. So...now as we already knew, the position of Mary in scripture is one of diminished importance to that in which you would like it to be. Jesus NEVER refers to Mary as His mother - but Jesus repeatedly refers to His Father. Mary NEVER declares that 'today, I have begotten you' as The Father does. In fact, if you want to elevate Mary to a higher position than that of scripture, then perhaps you should become RC.
So it has taken a few months to almost, but not quite, for you to admit that Mary is the mother of Jesus as the Scriptures, the word of God the Father, written by means of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit upon Matthew and Luke clearly states.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
...to show how theos in John 1:1c should be translated.

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

Nobody TRANSLATES Θεὸς, in Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, "a god", though some assert, falsely, that they do so.

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.

False. And that is why you did not quote what Vine wrote:

To translate it literally, "a god was the Word," is entirely misleading.

I take Vine, here, to be using the word 'translate' in a way similar to how some Christians sometimes refer to Russellites as "JWs" or "Jehovah's Witnesses". No Christian really thinks that you and the Watchtower Society folks are Jehovah's witnesses. Nobody can really TRANSLATE Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος as "a god was the word".

So, you can cross Vine off your little list...er, I mean, torture-stake Vine off your little list. He's just one example of somebody who, like yourself, and everyone else, actually does not translate θεὸς, "a god".

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.

Since Greek has no indefinite article, it is absolutely impossible that 'The Word was a god' could be a word-for-word translation of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

  • What's the English word FOR the Greek word θεὸς? GOD.
  • What's the English word FOR the Greek word ἦν? WAS.
  • What's the English word FOR the Greek word ὁ? THE.
  • What's the English word FOR the Greek word λόγος? WORD.
  • What's the Greek word FOR the English word a? That's right! NO Greek word is FOR the English word a!
NO English phrase that contains the article a, or an, will EVER be a word-for-word translation of ANY Greek phrase. So much for "The Word was a god" being a word-for-word translation.

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.

Weren't you supposed to be giving examples of non-Russellites who, according to you, translate Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, "the word was a god"? Yet, here, you just gave an example of another non-Russellite who, as you even admit, "rejects" that it is to be translated as such, and who, thus, does not translate it so.

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.

Why did you not quote his actual words, in which (you claim) he admits what you teach? Quote his exact words, wherein you claim that he translates Θεὸς, in Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, "a god".

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.

What "preponderance of evidence" did this guy provide? The same list of citations of scholars YOU'VE just handed us--minus himself?

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.

The phrase, "a god", LITERALLY NEVER CAN BE a literal translation of θεὸς, since Greek hasn't an indefinite article.

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.

If, by 'God', Barclay meant God the Father, what's the problem? No Trinitarian identifies, or believes that the Bible identifies, Jesus with God the Father. Rather, to the contrary, every Trinitarian denies, and knows that the Bible denies, that Jesus is God the Father. Such denial is a fundamental tenet of Trinitarianism; sans that denial, one is not a Trinitarian.

If, by 'God', Barclay meant YHWH, then, when he wrote that, he was decidely NOT a Trinitarian, and was, rather, an anti-Trinitarian, and of no use to you, here.

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.

Who, having a high view of the internal coherence of Scripture, would ever commend Barclay as being one who has a high view of Scripture? Everybody who knows that the New Testament is God-breathed, and that the New Testament teaches Trinitarianism, knows that the New Testament never denies Trinitarianism. I, for one, do not recall having ever heard that Barclay was supposed to be a Trinitarian, anyway.

Only the JW's?

Rather, NOT EVEN the "JWs". Nobody has ever TRANSLATED Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος as "the word was a god".

And, even were it possible to TRANSLATE Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος as "the word was a god", that STILL could not contradict Trinitarianism. For, last I checked, YHWH is a god. Do you disagree? Is YHWH not a god?
 

Apple7

New member
Greetings again Apple7, I have not abandoned the Scriptures that I presented and still stand behind what I have stated on these.

You totally abandoned them.

If they were still viable then you would be talking about them, right now.

Own up...




Congratulations on your victory.

Thanks!

Perhaps one day, you can have one....doubtful...



I enjoyed playing two videos of “I am the perfect model ..” and comparing them to some of your claims such as original language skills, etc.

If only you would put that energy into scripture...



So it has taken a few months to almost, but not quite, for you to admit that Mary is the mother of Jesus as the Scriptures, the word of God the Father, written by means of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit upon Matthew and Luke clearly states.

Kind regards
Trevor

If Mary is Jesus' mother, as you keep slavishly barking, then why don't you worship her like you do with Jesus' Father?!!!

Are you a prejudiced bigot...a hater of females...trev?

:cigar:
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Apple7,
You totally abandoned them. If they were still viable then you would be talking about them, right now. Own up...
No. We did not agree or make any progress.
Thanks! Perhaps one day, you can have one....doubtful...
I am more interested in trying to understand what the Scriptures are teaching and share this with others. I am not sure that in some of your positions whether you were fair dinkum or not, or you were only interested in winning an argument or debate using any trick from your quiver.
If only you would put that energy into scripture...
Fair enough.
If Mary is Jesus' mother, as you keep slavishly barking, then why don't you worship her like you do with Jesus' Father?!!! Are you a prejudiced bigot...a hater of females...trev?
:cigar:
I do not worship Abraham, David, Zechariah, Elizabeth, Joseph, Peter, James and John, or Paul either. You seem to be locked up on this concept.
Greetings again 7djengo7, Actually it was interesting that my daily readings schedule (and Apple7 may be able to confirm our “cults” standard reading plan) was today Luke 2 and I read from an Interlinear RV/AV. The marginal note against the RV of Luke 2:40 “filled with wisdom” has “Gr. becoming full of wisdom”. Now I do not have original language skills, and possibly you may not have, but Apple7 who has confirmed your Post claims these skills, so possibly he can agree or disagree with the RV margin suggestion. I am not sure that he will respond however as he has avoided this question about the growth of wisdom.
I mentioned your name in my post to 7djengo7 and with your busy schedule of answering many threads you could have missed this. Could you comment on the RVmg rendition? Also on the other thread you were talking about the Word of God. In my today’s reading I encountered the following:
Luke 3:1–2 (KJV): 1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, 2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. Was this Jesus that met John in the wilderness before the start of John’s ministry?

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Apple7

New member
I mentioned your name in my post to 7djengo7 and with your busy schedule of answering many threads you could have missed this. Could you comment on the RVmg rendition? Also on the other thread you were talking about the Word of God. In my today’s reading I encountered the following:
Luke 3:1–2 (KJV): 1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, 2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. Was this Jesus that met John in the wilderness before the start of John’s ministry?

Kind regards
Trevor


I would say no.

The term used is different, and it is anarthrous.

The same term is used in Luke 1, and refers to a message delivered by Gabriel.

If the term is used when quoting an OT passage, then the OT passage would need to be reviewed first when determining its true meaning...
 

Dartman

Active member
Trevor said:
Luke 3:1–2 (KJV): 1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, 2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. Was this Jesus that met John in the wilderness before the start of John’s ministry?
I would say no.

The term used is different, and it is anarthrous.

The same term is used in Luke 1, and refers to a message delivered by Gabriel.

If the term is used when quoting an OT passage, then the OT passage would need to be reviewed first when determining its true meaning...
So, what does the phrase "the word of God" mean here?
 
Last edited:

Truster

New member
Trevor said:
Luke 3:1–2 (KJV): 1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, 2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. Was this Jesus that met John in the wilderness before the start of John’s ministry?

So, what does the phrase "the word of God" mean here?

Excuse me interupting. It means the rhema of Elohim.
 

Dartman

Active member
Excuse me interupting. It means the rhema of Elohim.
LOL ... you are not interrupting, you are conducting yourself EXACTLY as a "discussion forum" is intended.
ANYONE is welcome to participate.
You do know that rhema and logos are used interchangeably, right?
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words (ree'mata, plural), hath one that judgeth him: the word (logos) that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Truster

New member
LOL ... you are not interrupting, you are conducting yourself EXACTLY as a "discussion forum" is intended.
ANYONE is welcome to participate.
You do know that rhema and logos are used interchangeably, right?
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words (ree'mata, plural), hath one that judgeth him: the word (logos) that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.


Yes I am aware that they are used interchangeably, but each word has a particular meaning and that is implied by the context in which it is used.
 

Dartman

Active member
Yes I am aware that they are used interchangeably, but each word has a particular meaning and that is implied by the context in which it is used.
How would you define the difference between them? And, what variations are supportable by context?
 

Truster

New member
How would you define the difference between them? And, what variations are supportable by context?

Why are you asking me? I now feel as if I am being led down a path that leads to a trap. The reason I feel this is I don't detect any sincereity in your words.
 

Dartman

Active member
Why are you asking me?
Because you haven't given enough information yet for us to know precisely what you mean.

T said:
I now feel as if I am being led down a path that leads to a trap.
If I am in error, I sincerely pray that someone will "trap" me.
You only need to fear a "trap" if you don't have the truth, but are determined to cling to your current thinking.
T said:
The reason I feel this is I don't detect any sincereity in your words.
Why?
 

Truster

New member
Because you haven't given enough information yet for us to know precisely what you mean.

If I am in error, I sincerely pray that someone will "trap" me.
You only need to fear a "trap" if you don't have the truth, but are determined to cling to your current thinking.
Why?

If you haven't been granted understanding that is not my problem. Based on the scripture I gave you it is easily understood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top