Thanks! You just stumbled into honesty, you never read my reply that included a link to a comprehensive report on radiometric dating from a Christian Physicist at Los Alamos National laboratory. The link is over in the section that I'm blocked from. Go read what you never read the first time!
Thanks! You just stumbled into honesty, you never read my reply that included a link to a comprehensive report on radiometric dating from a Christian Physicist at Los Alamos National laboratory.
- Lexical: δύναμις
- Transliteration: dunamis
- Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
- Phonetic Spelling: doo'-nam-is
- Definition: (a) physical power, force, might, ability, efficacy, energy, meaning (b) plur: powerful deeds, deeds showing (physical) power, marvelous works.
- Origin: From dunamai; force (literally or figuratively); specially, miraculous power (usually by implication, a miracle itself).
- Usage: ability, abundance, meaning, might(-ily, -y, -y deed), (worker of) miracle(-s), power, strength, violence, mighty (wonderful) work.
- Translated as (count): power (82), miracles (14), powers (4), ability (3), miraculous powers (3), of Power (3), the power (2), with power (2), a work of power (1), by miracles (1), full strength (1), mighty works (1), of miracles (1), the powers (1), work of power (1).
In other words, the power to do miracles.
I suggest you reread HEB 1:3 Again, slowly. God is a spirit and so his express image.
So are you asserting then that God is visible? (Something that I do not, so long as it remains without a clarifying phrase, disagree with, as Jesus, being God, is God in the flesh.)
Your unstated argument falls apart by you making that statement.
What is "it," Keypurr? Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit (not an it, but a "He") and with the power to do miracles. Going beyond the text puts you in the wrong, Keypurr.
If you say that a boy is the spitting image of his father, it means the boy looks like his father.
It isn't saying the boy is an image.
The only reason you have to interpret Colossians 1:15 to mean that Jesus is an image is your own perverted beliefs, because it DOES NOT come from the text.
This coming from the blind man who gouged his eyes out because he convinced himself that he didn't need them anymore, instead of asking God to restore his sight.
You fail to understand that many are called but few are chosen.
I hope the day you see the Truth for who He really is is not on Judgment Day, Keypurr. Because that's currently how things will pan out if you don't humble yourself.
Not necessarily. For example, even in English, "one" doesn't always mean a "singular" entity. For example:
"There is at least one crowd of people on this one street."
In the above sentence, there are two different ways (that are relevant to our discussion) of using the word "one."
The first instance is referring to the crowd, which is many people, as a single entity, without it being "singular" in nature, but rather "plural" in nature. One crowd, many people.
And of course, the second instance is referring to a single, solitary street.
When the Bible says, in Deuteronomy 6:4 (and this would probably go better below), that "Elohim is one God," it does NOT mean it as the second instance above, but as the first, and the word used for "one" in the Hebrew supports this.
"Echad" means a united "one", "one of plurality."
"in the beginning, GODS created the heavens and the earth".
However, something that isn't apparent in the English (and I pointed this out, but you didn't seem to catch or read it) is that, even in Hebrew verbs must match grammatically the subject of the sentence, which in the case of "bara" (Hebrew for "created"), does not.
Which is the whole reason I pointed it out as being the most studied verse in the entire history of studying the Bible. You'd think that if it was an error, people would make a bigger deal out of it, especially those who study it.
The fact is that if, as you say, God is a single, singular entity (yes, that is what I intended to write), or instead that God is multiple entities (as some suggest, including the angels in verse 1), then the verse should either say (in Hebrew) "God (singular subject) created (singular verb)" OR "Gods (plural subject) created (plural verb)."
What it actually is:
"Gods (plural subject) created (singular verb)"
This is NOT a mistake.
If it were a mistake, it likely would have been corrected centuries ago.
"This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality. -The NIV Study Bible
However, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
When God says, "Let US create man in OUR image, it is the ORIGIN of the "royal 'we'" that royalty uses to refer to themselves. It also has the added benefit of expressing His plurality.
says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1.There is a vast amount of scholarly work confirming the plurality relates to the majesty and not a plurality of persons when applied to the one God.
Bald-faced assertions have no value here unless they are backed up.
Simply comparing the Hebrew scriptures to the Septuagint reveals how ancient scribes understood the term Elohim; when clearly applying to YHWH, they translated it as a singular (as in the Greek NT): thoes. Whenever elohim clearly refers to a plural noun, it is always found to be plural in number in Greek (just as in the New Testament Greek): "gods" theoi or theois. In Genesis 1:1 the Septuagint says, “In the beginning God [theos, the singular word for “God”) made the heavens and the earth.”
And therefore "Gods" in the Hebrew must be incorrect?
You're putting the cart before the horse in terms of which has priority.
The Hebrew scriptures have priority over the Septuagint.
Question for you: Does the Greek New Testament make any distinction between "gods" (such as the Greek pantheon) and "God" (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)?
The plurality argument with Elohim makes no sense as it infers 'Gods' in relation to the 'one God',
In order for it to make sense (according to your beliefs) you would have to change what the text says. Doing so invalidates your position, unless you can prove indisputably that Genesis 1:1 has a grammatical error in it, where a plural subject is used with a singular verb.
Since the only ways to do that is to show the original manuscripts, which have since been lost to time, or to show earlier manuscripts than the ones we have that do not have this alleged error in it, you have a very high bar to overcome before you can say that such is an error.
The fact of the matter is that "Gods (pl. subj) created (s. verb)" is what the Hebrew says.
If your theology requires you to change it to make sense, then your theology is what needs to be corrected.
However, Deuteronomy 6:4 is not saying there is one God, it's saying that God is one (a united being).
This is why "Elohim" is used, and not "El" or "Elah." It's pointing out that "Elohim" (the plural form of the Hebrew word for "God") is one (a plural unity).
Again, "echad" means "one of unity," and is the word used in Deuteronomy 6:4.
Strong's h259
- Lexical: אֶחָד
- Transliteration: echad
- Part of Speech: Adjective
- Phonetic Spelling: ekh-awd'
- Definition: one.
- Origin: A numeral from 'achad; properly, united, i.e. One; or (as an ordinal) first.
- Usage: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together,
- Translated as (count): one (665), of one (51), and one (42), a (41), the one (29), first (14), on the first (13), in one (12), like one (10), as one (9), once (9), one of (6), to one (6), an (5), had one (4), of the one (4), within one (4), for one (3), of the first (3), and the one (2), but one (2), from one (2), into one (2), of first (2), the first (2), with one (2), - (1), a few (1), and first (1), and like one (1), and on the first (1), and the first (1), at one (1), But in one (1), day (1), few (1), Had _2 one (1), in one of (1), in the one (1), on first (1), on the first [day) (1), one of them (1), so that with one (1), some (1), the same as one (1), This one (1), to the one (1), upon one (1), when as one (1).
The name YHWH to a trinitarian is synonymous to the word "trinity",
I won't disagree, however I would like to clarify: "YHWH" is synonymous to at least one of the Persons of the trinity, the Father, and/or the Son, and/or the Holy Spirit.
the trinity = the Father/Son/HS, likewise YHWH= the Father/Son/HS. Thus to say YHWH rained down fire from YHWH in the sky is an oxymoron
Gen 19:13 "for we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before Yahweh that Yahweh has sent us to destroy it", notice what v13 says "we will destroy this place...Yahweh has sent us to destroy it". Gen 19:1 expresses the ones that were speaking in v13 were angels, "Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening".
Whoever told you that it does is a liar, or was lied to himself.
YHWH ALWAYS refers ONLY to God.
The Bible often refers to God's angelic representatives as YHWH speaking and acting himself as they are acting on his behalf, simply reading Exo 3:2-4 demonstrates this.
Though all the good angels are angels of God, or angels of the Lord, there is one special angel who is distinct and unique from all the other angels, he is
Deut 6:4 was simply reminding the nation of Israel that YHWH was not a God that consisted of many beings or persons, but rather a single deity, "Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah".
That's because that wasn't the point of the list. The point of the list was to show that Christ is/was/will always be YHWH, which is CRUCIAL to understanding the tri-unity of God.
Read it again, and consider why such a list might be important:
Christ's message was centered, focused on Himself.
Why is that important? Because NO OTHER CREATURE has the right to focus a message from God upon themselves.
I agree that Jesus is God in some sense according to those verses,
Except that it does. Why? Here's why: If Jesus is not God, then He is a blasphemer, because, as Hebrews 1 rightly states, God spoke through Him, and yet Jesus not only focused His message on Himself, but claimed the words as His own. The ONLY way that Jesus did not place himself above/before God is if He IS God.
NO CREATED BEING EVER has the right to claim ownership of the things of God, nor can a created being rightly focus his message upon himself, saying such things as "Follow me," pray and act "in My name," the Holy Spirit comes "in My name," "I will abide in you," "Do things for My sake," "I never knew you, depart from Me," "love Me," "I am the Way," "I am . . . the Truth," "I am . . . the life," and the list goes on and on.
For ANY created being to utter those things in the same contexts of the verses they are found in, it would be blasphemy.
and there lies the issue. Also, none of those verses express 'God is one being who is three persons who are co-equal and co-eternal',
I'm literally giving you the verses. Are you that blind?
I told you before, just because you can't see it there doesn't mean it's not there, and just because you can't understand it doesn't make it false.
Step back. Try getting the big picture of what I'm trying to tell you for once.
God says "by two or three witnesses a matter is established."
I gave you at least 8 witnesses that God is triune in the post you are responding to.
1) the use of a plural subject with a singular verb in Genesis 1:1
2) The use of "echad" describing the plural "elohim" as "one of unity" in Deuteronomy 6:4
3) Jesus' use of "I say unto you" replacing "thus says the Lord"
4) Jesus' focus on Himself in His ministry, which if He is not God, would be blasphemous
5) John 1 calls the Word (Jesus) "God"
6) Hebrews 1 teaches that the Son is God
7) The Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5)
8) The Father is, of course, God (1 Thessalonians 1)
And I asked if I should go on, seeing as how 8 should be enough.
Please point out, in Acts 5, 1-5, where Ananias lied to Peter, or said anything, for that matter, that is recorded in scripture.
And if you would also, please, explain why you disagree with Peter when he says that Ananias did NOT lie to men, but to God, and explain why you think Peter was lying when he accused Ananias of lying "to the Holy Spirit."
In addition: Please point out, in my post, where I said anything about Acts 5:9, and how it is relevant to the discussion.
Peter claimed they lied to "not to men, but to God",
But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” - Acts 5:3-4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts5:3-4&version=NKJV
Nope. I would say it's rather explicitly explained by Peter that Ananias, in lying to the Holy Spirit, was lying to God, which makes the Holy Spirit, God.
throughout scripture, there are numerous instances where the following principle is used: Actions by, for or against "A" are logically equivalent to actions by, for or against "B".
For example in 1 Samuel 12:1 it states "Finally Samuel said to all Israel: “Here I have done all that you asked of me, and Iappointed a king to reign over you", however in v13 it states "Look! Jehovah has appointed a king over you". One verse states Samuel appointed a king but the other Jehovah, is Samuel YHWH? No, Samuel appointing a king was equivalent to YHWH appointing a king.
Philippians 3:6 with Acts 9:5
2 Samuel 5:3 with 2 Samuel 12:7
Exo 32:33,35 with Nehemiah 9:11,12
Psalms 77:20 with PSalms 77:20
Numbers 14:2 with Num 14:26,27
Peter was given the gift of HS so he could read and know Ananias was lying according to his heart, Ananias, lied to Peter and the Holy Spirit that God had given to the apostles through Jesus, so was ultimately lying to God.
Peter asked Ananias, "Why have you lied to the Holy Spirit?" He then said, "You have not lied to men, but to God.
By your rationale, Peter is God, because Ananias did not lie to men, as the scripture says, but to God, and you claim that Ananias lied to Peter. Ergo, Peter is God.
But Peter is not God. And Ananias did not, as Peter said, lie to men, but Ananias did, as Peter said, lie to the Holy Spirit.
(John 20:22, 23) "..After saying this he blew on them and said to them: “Receive [the] [H]oly (S)pirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you retain those of anyone, they are retained...”
1. Does the Bible mention three distinct persons?
No, the bible does not speak of three separate persons, it speaks of the Father and Son and refers to them as persons, but I do not accept the HS as a person.
You cannot lie to something that is not a person. Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. Ergo, the Holy Spirit is a Person. Whether you accept Him as one has no bearing on that fact.
2. Does the Bible refer to each of these persons as God?
No, it refers to the Father as the 'one God',
No, it does not call others "God(s)." It calls them gods, little 'g'.
Big difference.
See Exo 7:1, 2 Cor 4:4, Ps 8:5, John 10:34 for some examples. Trinitarians first need to explain why people such as Moses are called God ("I have made you GOD to Pharoah" Exo 7:1),
“Behold, I have made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet” (Exod. 7:1).
The English versions differ as to the precise translation of the first clause of Exodus 7:1. A few contemporary versions agree with the KJV, which takes it to quote the Lord as saying to Moses, “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh” (so, with slight and irrelevant variations, the KJV, NAB, and NJB). Most contemporary versions take the verse to quote the Lord as telling Moses, “I have made you like/as God to Pharaoh” (so, again with minor variations, the ESV, HCSB, NASB, NET, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV). Several versions offer paraphrases that amount to the same thing: “I have put you in the place of God to Pharaoh” (CJB); “I have set thee in God’s stead to Pharaoh” (JPS 1917); “I place you in the role of God to Pharaoh” (TNK); and “I will make you seem like God to Pharaoh” (NLT). The majority of versions is not always right, but in this instance exegesis of the text shows they are quite correct.
The Hebrew says, “I have made you elohim to Pharaoh.” Notice that the Lord (Yahweh) did not tell Moses that he “is” elohim but that the Lord has “made” Moses elohim “to Pharaoh.” These qualifications make it absolutely clear that this text is to be understood along the same lines as Exodus 4:16, which as we have seen in the Hebrew is a simile. In this text the lack of the particle meaning as simply changes the figure of speech from a simile to a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a comparison is made without the use of the words as or like. In other respects, though, a metaphor is equivalent to a simile in terms of the resulting meaning. Thus the sentences, “My daughter is like an angel” and “My daughter is an angel” mean exactly the same thing. Anyone reading the first sentence and then shortly thereafter reading the second sentence ought to have no trouble understanding that the second sentence is a metaphor.
The Septuagint translates the same clause, “I have given you [as] God to Pharaoh” [dedōka se theon Pharaō]. Here se theon is a double accusative, object-complement construction, in which se (“you”) is the direct object of the verb and theon (“God”) is the complement. The construction can be used to express a metaphor, as in Jesus’ statement that he had come “to give [dounai, the infinitival form of the same word didōmi used in Exodus 7:1 LXX] his life [as] a ransom [tēn psuchēn autou lutron] for many” (Mark 10:45). Here “ransom” is a metaphor that expresses the significance of Jesus giving his life (i.e., dying) for the many thereby benefited. Thus, the LXX rendering of Exodus 7:1 is also easily interpreted as referring to Moses as “God” metaphorically. In light of Exodus 4:16, that is exactly how we should take it.3 This means that we should translate elohim and theos in Exodus 7:1 “[as] God” rather than “a god.”
Even if one were to prefer the rendering “a god” in Exodus 7:1, in context the statement would still be metaphorical. That is, if that were the correct translation, then the text would mean that the Lord said that he would make Moses like a god to Pharaoh.
prior to them assuming Jesus being called GOD implies he is [JR: Again, I presume you meant to say "not"] the 'one God', since 1 Cor 8:6, among other scripture, clearly teaches the Father is the 'one God'.
In other words, yes, the Bible teaches there is only one God. Period.
I'm using "G" for a reason, NWL. First, it's His name, and second, using it as a rule of thumb helps distinguish between God and gods.
however, it clearly teaches there are other beings that are correctly called G-god, the term "G-god" when applied to these ones only relates to them in a secondary lesser sense; simple read 1 Cor 8:4-6 to see this.
In other words, yes, the Bible teaches there is only one God, big 'G,' which is what I asked.
“there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for usthere is one God, the Father" (1 Cor 8:4-6)
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),yet for us there is one God,the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one LordJesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. - 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians8:5-6&version=NKJV
Last I checked, God is through whom are all things, and through whom we live. That makes Jesus God.
Most of my material is from Bob Enyart, in particular the list of things Jesus said that would be blasphemy if He was not God, especially "I say unto you."
We don't believe in the same God and Jesus, your Jesus might not be God, but the one I believe in is both The Son of God and God, so see you at the Judgment !
A science claim is never to be taken as un-provable truth, we aren't supposed to use it to 'negate' but to 'check.' Science is MUCH more fluid than theology. As to 'in' the Bible:
This isn't true, Caino. I've told you often where your Urantia thread has clearly disparaged the Lord Jesus Christ. How could you possibly delude yourself that you don't when we have told you, very strongly and clearly in your thread even, where and when it does damage to scripture truths?
Why or how could you think it is about 'losing a debate' at that point? I've clearly showed you, in your thread, where it actually does.
Regarding your first point, I have nowhere made the argument the "Word" is not an actual person. I believe the Word to be the pre-incarnate Jesus as most Trinitarians believe; this changes nothing about what I've argued.
Regarding your second point: You are making the mistake of having tunnel vision once again; you were perfectly able to deduce context changes the use of strong definite language and negative phrases, such in Heb 2:7,8, but with John 1:3 you're ignoring the context of John 1:1 (Gen 1:1) simply because of strong language used. I could just as well say that the writer of Hebrews wanted to further define his use of "all things" in Hebrews 2:8a by the modification "By subjecting all things to him, God left NOTHING that is not subject to him", as to express he meant entirely everything.
The argument you make is weak and ignores the immediate context. It is perfectly acceptable for John to say in regards to the physical creation of the heavens and the earth "not one thing in all creation was made without him", as the creation is in relation to the physical earth and heavens. You repeating the verse word for word and claiming it should be understood in relation to literally everything, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU SAY IT DOES, does not negate the context of John 1:1 and Gen 1:1. You'll have to try harder.
No, I don't have to try harder. The scripture itself qualifies itself. John 1:3 is indeed emphatic whether you grasp that or not. It says 'without Him "NOTHING" was made that was made! Scripture does! Not Lon!
Regarding your third point: I again could say Hebrews 2:8 has a double emphasis just as you are trying to argue, and it was the writer of Hebrews way of clarifying he 'literally' meant God subjected "all things" under man, including himself and the angels.
No, you really cannot. The reason? Simple: You HAVE to ADD to make that happen. I literally did not. It is LITERALLY in scripture. THAT, my friend, is why I don't think you did well on the standardized test in 'Contextual reading.' Why? Because you don't 'seem' to grasp the difference :noway:
The double emphasis does not change the context at all. Hebrews 2:8 "You gave them authority over all things.” Now when it says “all things,” it means nothing is left out." Did you notice the double emphasis and further modification? Should we assume God did in fact subject himself and the angels under Man?
Yes, I caught the "One emphatic in scripture" and the one YOU 'emphatically said that isn't implicity, but what YOU decided it had to mean.' Do you actually know the difference? Did you do this well in school? It LITERALLY is nothing more than an ability to grasp grammar correctly. I'm convinced that if Unitarians simply knew how to read contextually, they'd not make mistakes like this. Of course, there is part of me that is forgiving because you literally don't know any better, but Jesus told the Pharisees they were accountable because they actually believed they were 'not blind.' Because of that, they took ownership of their own ignorance. It is important, just now, to tell Unitarians, many of you take ownership for your poorer school grades. That is NOT good!
The Genesis account was about the physical creation of the heaven and the earth, John used the phrase "in the beginning" so that the Jewish reader or hearer would think back to Gen 1:1 and understand it in relation to that verse, John easily could have written it as follows and it would have the same intended meaning:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the Word was with God, and the Word was theos...All things were created through him [the Word], and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created"
Again, the "creation" in the above was in relation to the creation of the heaven and the earth, any claim the "creation" in John 1:3 is speaking about anything else other than the creation outlined in Genesis 1 is reading presupposed theology into the verse.
Whether or not it was on purpose or not, this is a strawman. The question and points we are currently discussing have nothing to do with John 1:1c. The rest of the paragraph is fluff imo.
Because you don't want to face it. It was certainly an accusation against your 'assertion/insertion.' YOU are adding to the text. It stands clear despite your stubborn refusal and relegation. So 1) no, I'm denying your strawman claim, it is what you are doing with scripture and 2) I'm denying your 'fluff' dismissal as well. Neither is true, just you squirming and inability to substantiate any of your claims. A bit of advice: Any time you make a statement, especially repeated "fluff," it is projecting. It means it is a comment about yourself, not me.
Let's look at my 'fluff:'
Like you and Modalists, I truly believe there is One God, alone. Yet right in front of me, with no scruples whatsoever is: "Was with" God AND 'was God!' I could try and come to some conclusion BUT listen to what I just said: I could try to come to a conclusion. The problem? 1) me (as a fallible human, despite how intelligent I am, just got in God's way. I cannot possibly know His nature without the scriptures specifically because I am not Him, Not eternal, do not have the wherewithall, AND am a fallen being. I literally, as intelligent as I am, don't know unless He alone tells me (and He has). I don't WANT my-ology. I want His-ology. There is no point and definitely nothing good from me asserting anything.
First line: "There is one God."
NWL: "Fluff."
Second line: John 1:1'
NWL: Calls SCRIPTURE "fluff." : Plain:
Third line: Someone is writing their own narrative and someone is reading and believing God's
NWL: Fluff, strawman
Sixth line: His theology verse 'our-ology'
NWL: "Fluff."
: Plain:
Again, we are not currently discussing John 1:1c. You complain conversations spiral out of control in various other side-arguments develop and yet here you are trying to discuss John 1:1c despite your previous complaint that made me reduce the list of questions you mostly refused to answer to a single one. Let's try and stay focus and concentrate on the matter at hand.
No, it is your false assumption that John emphasis was for the sake of eliminating the immediate context from the statement; nothing in the text suggests John was trying to do this, you simply have a presupposition the "all things" relates to literally all things and thus 'want' to ignore the immediate context.
Does the double emphasis and further modification in Hebrews 2:8 suggest literally 'all things' were subjected to mankind?
Hebrews 2:8 "..You gave them authority over ALL THINGS.” Now when it says “ALL THINGS” it means nothing is left out..."
If your answer is in the negative, then why do you demand it needs to be the case in John 1:3? Lon, is it possible according to the grammar and context John was NOT trying to claim he meant literally 'all things' by the double emphasis? Imo you are stuck, as any denial John might NOT have been trying to claim "all things" meant literally all things, and that the double emphasis demands it, means you have to accept the implication of the double emphasis in Hebrews 2:8.
I know of no unitarian, or anyone for that matter, that has re-written John 1:1. If you're speaking in regards to translating John 1:1 into English in a manner other than the traditional way, then this is not re-writing it, but rather, translating it according to one's own understanding of the grammar and context. But let's not get distracted, let's focus on the matter under question.
I've made my point regarding John 1:3 and how it doesn't necessitate Jesus is the creator, which leaves the door open for the possibility he might be included in creation as it's not excluding him. It seems your only defense against my argument is John's double emphasis; what you seem to ignore however is the reason why I used Hebrews 2:8 specifically, it uses the same sort of negative and definite phrases as John 1:3. On one hand you believe John's emphasis in John 1:3 infers "all things" literally meant all things, yet on the other hand you'll no doubt reject the double emphasis in Hebrews 2:8 and deny the emphasis there infers "all things" literally means all things. I contend John's language in John 1:3 was him enveloping all creation into his statement, and rather, the idea you are pushing is a presupposition that ignores the context of both John 1:1 and Gen 1:1 that both show the creation was limited to physical creation. What are your thoughts?
It's utterly pathetic you claim to have a PhD in the ancient languages, attended seminary, and allude to yourself being scholarly, yet, you can't even refute my point, or, not use use ad hominem in your responses simply to try and bolster your position.
You at no point explained where I apparently went wrong; simply claiming I made a bad point and have not understood the context is hardly an "expert" response, show me and everyone else on TOL 'WHERE' and 'HOW' I went wrong.
It's your claim John's double emphasis in John 1:3 negates the context of "all things" being limited to the creation of the heaven and earth as per the context of John 1:1 and Gen 1:1. If this is the case then please tell me what the difference is when it comes to Hebrews 2:8!
HEBREWS 2:8
God put, "all things under man"
We then have a further modification and clarification of the statement, "when it says “all things,” it means nothing is left out."
JOHN 1:3
"All things" were created through Jesus
We then have a further modification and clarification of the statement, "and without him was not any thing made that was made".
You can use as many ad hominem attacks on me as you like Lon, it will never explain away the issue you have on you hands. Please do not respond back if you're only capable of 'claiming' I'm wrong. Please only reply back if you have the ability to explain why I am wrong.
Both verses are in relation to physical creation (see Gen 1:1 and Hebrews 2:7) and both verses double emphasize the extent to what "all things" applies. The limit of John 1:1 emphasis is "not anything" was left out, and the limit of Hebrews 2:8 is also the same by according to the words "[God] left nothing unsubject to him". PLEASE SHOW ME THE DIFFERENCE, PLEASE SHOW ME WHAT I'VE GOT WRONG.
Are you able to refute what I say using the scripture, or, are you only able to claim I'm incorrect with literally no reasons as to why? (PLEASE do not repeat John 1:3 until you acknowledge the context of what the "made" in v3 is in relation to, namely Gen 1:1 and explain how it is not an issue. PLEASE do not claim the double emphasis negates the context until you explain the issue I've presented with the double emphasis in Hebrews 2:8).
---------------------------------------------------------------
No, I don't have to try harder. The scripture itself qualifies itself. John 1:3 is indeed emphatic whether you grasp that or not. It says 'without Him "NOTHING" was made that was made! Scripture does! Not Lon!
How many times do I have to highlight the "without Him, nothing was mad.....THAT WAS MADE" is in regard to Genesis 1:1 as per the context of John 1:1. Telling me over and over again that "NOTHING WAS MADE WIITHOUT JESUS" whilst ignoring what is being spoken of is in relation to the creation of the Heaven and the Earth makes you look stupid Lon. Until you express how scripture expresses otherwise then your point is moot.
No, you really cannot. The reason? Simple: You HAVE to ADD to make that happen. I literally did not. It is LITERALLY in scripture. THAT, my friend, is why I don't think you did well on the standardized test in 'Contextual reading.' Why? Because you don't 'seem' to grasp the difference :noway:
What on earth are you talking about, I've added nothing, all I'm doing is using your own reasoning against you. If the double emphasis in John 1:3 apparently clarifies that "all things" means litreally all things, then how is the double emphasis in Hebrews 2:8 not a clarification that "all things" means all things when it states "For in subjecting all things to him, He [God] left nothing that was not subjected to him".
Yes, I caught the "One emphatic in scripture" and the one YOU 'emphatically said that isn't implicity, but what YOU decided it had to mean.' Do you actually know the difference? Did you do this well in school? It LITERALLY is nothing more than an ability to grasp grammar correctly. I'm convinced that if Unitarians simply knew how to read contextually, they'd not make mistakes like this. Of course, there is part of me that is forgiving because you literally don't know any better, but Jesus told the Pharisees they were accountable because they actually believed they were 'not blind.' Because of that, they took ownership of their own ignorance. It is important, just now, to tell Unitarians, many of you take ownership for your poorer school grades. That is NOT good!
Again, the "without Him, nothing was mad.....THAT WAS MADE" in John 1:3 is in relation to John 1:1, Gen 1:1, the creation of the heaven and the earth. You sound foolish repeating the same thing over and over.
Because you don't want to face it. It was certainly an accusation against your 'assertion/insertion.' YOU are adding to the text. It stands clear despite your stubborn refusal and relegation. So 1) no, I'm denying your strawman claim, it is what you are doing with scripture and 2) I'm denying your 'fluff' dismissal as well. Neither is true, just you squirming and inability to substantiate any of your claims. A bit of advice: Any time you make a statement, especially repeated "fluff," it is projecting. It means it is a comment about yourself, not me.
Let's look at my 'fluff:'
You're a hypocrite Lon, again, the only reason I stopped speaking about John 1:1c with you was because you refused to explain why it could only be translated "was God" in John 1:1c, I asked you to explain several times and you turned down the offer every time. Now that I'm respecting your wish to only answer one question you're randomly bringing up John 1:1c and claiming I don't want to face it, it's truly absurd.
It's utterly pathetic you claim to have a PhD in the ancient languages, attended seminary, and allude to yourself being scholarly, yet, you can't even refute my point, or, not use use ad hominem in your responses simply to try and bolster your position.
Er, no. I'm very sure you don't even know what an actual ad hominem is. This isn't it. Close, but no. Someone may rightly 'assess' your prowess. That isn't an ad hominem (look up the definition), it is trying to explain why we don't see eye to eye and why I believe the Unitarian conjecture is substandard. In the next paragraph below I address one of the contextual problems I always seem to encounter with every Unitarian I've ever met, or spoken to online.
Judge Rightly: I'm literally giving you the verses. Are you that blind?
I told you before, just because you can't see it there doesn't mean it's not there, and just because you can't understand it doesn't make it false.
Déjà Vu. He has said the exact same thing. It MUST come from his own problem at that point. (not a slam or an ad hominem NWL. I'm seeing a pattern and I think it the reason you have trouble with scriptures. Such can be repaired with a bit of education).
I can't make you see from my position until you change your position to mine. It's called a paradigm shift.
Your paradigm won't let you see what I'm telling you. Take the unitarian glasses off, just for a moment.
Similar here. It is either doctrinal blinding, a problem with comprehension from context, or a combination.
The English versions differ as to the precise translation of the first clause of Exodus 7:1. A few contemporary versions agree with the KJV, which takes it to quote the Lord as saying to Moses, “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh” (so, with slight and irrelevant variations, the KJV, NAB, and NJB). Most contemporary versions take the verse to quote the Lord as telling Moses, “I have made you like/as God to Pharaoh” (so, again with minor variations, the ESV, HCSB, NASB, NET, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV). Several versions offer paraphrases that amount to the same thing: “I have put you in the place of God to Pharaoh” (CJB); “I have set thee in God’s stead to Pharaoh” (JPS 1917); “I place you in the role of God to Pharaoh” (TNK); and “I will make you seem like God to Pharaoh” (NLT). The majority of versions is not always right, but in this instance exegesis of the text shows they are quite correct.
Another Déjà Vu. Mayhap it'll help NWL get this, coming from two different people
So, let's address 'utterly pathetic' which REALLY means you are troubled because your theology is spun by those without the where-with-all on a dime and you are duped, or because I'd mentioned a problem in reading comprehension (nothing to make fun of you for, I am not). We are accountable to God for what is true. That would have me humbled (means you should be humbled before God at this point, you've been wrong).
You at no point explained where I apparently went wrong; simply claiming I made a bad point and have not understood the context is hardly an "expert" response, show me and everyone else on TOL 'WHERE'
It isn't just me. Others have given you correction as well over these same points. I'm not being intentionally mean, although many JW's and other Unitarians, as you've seen, come here pridefully and haughty and with exactly the same demonstrable problem with reading comprehension. What kind of 'expert' response are you needing? I have already shown you why. Yes, I can explain it further. What part didn't you understand? Could you ask for clarification?
It's your claim John's double emphasis in John 1:3 negates the context of "all things" being limited to the creation of the heaven and earth as per the context of John 1:1 and Gen 1:1. If this is the case then please tell me what the difference is when it comes to Hebrews 2:8!
Easy. I have one rep so far, it means somebody actually gets it, if not you, against your claim. Now stop. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing against the text. All I said was scripture: John 1:3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” I realize you keep asking me to stop repeating it, but I prefer God's word be your teacher, especially as you don't like it all from this particular mailman (or however you view me).
HEBREWS 2:8
God put, "all things under man"
We then have a further modification and clarification of the statement, "when it says “all things,” it means nothing is left out."
GOD gave you that, not me! YOU are playing quick and fast with scriptures. YOU are! And I'm "utterly pathetic???" YOU are posturing. I don't care if you are emotional, I care about truth AND I want to ensure you have it. Truth does its own work. God does His own work. There is no "Lon" as far as that goes. You don't have to like a mailman (me) or deliveryman. It isn't my aim to make you dislike me, but I'm not really the important part of this conversation. YOU need God and HIS truth.
JOHN 1:3
"All things" were created through Jesus
We then have a further modification and clarification of the statement, "and without him was not any thing made that was made".
You can use as many ad hominem attacks on me as you like Lon, it will never explain away the issue you have on you hands. Please do not respond back if you're only capable of 'claiming' I'm wrong. Please only reply back if you have the ability to explain why I am wrong.
You are wrong. That is NOT an ad hominem. I'll tell you what: report me for it (it is against many forum rules including this one). Telling you 'why' you are wrong is not an ad hominem.
Both verses are in relation to physical creation (see Gen 1:1 and Hebrews 2:7) and both verses double emphasize the extent to what "all things" applies. The limit of John 1:1 emphasis is "not anything" was left out, and the limit of Hebrews 2:8 is also the same by according to the words "[God] left nothing unsubject to him". PLEASE SHOW ME THE DIFFERENCE, PLEASE SHOW ME WHAT I'VE GOT WRONG.
I've done so: One scripture is different than the other, FROM God! His words don't allow you to overstretch (what you are doing) the similarity. You are cloaking an idea that doesn't fit both passages.
Both are emphatic: One upon "All" meaning all and the other "All" directly tied to 'over the works of His hands.' YOU cannot rewrite scripture to fit your theological whim. Do you understand that JW's made that part up for no other reason than to shore up their preconceived notions they are importing into the Bible? That isn't scripture. That isn't following God. That is following men.
Are you able to refute what I say using the scripture, or, are you only able to claim I'm incorrect with literally no reasons as to why? (PLEASE do not repeat John 1:3 until you acknowledge the context of what the "made" in v3 is in relation to, namely Gen 1:1 and explain how it is not an issue. PLEASE do not claim the double emphasis negates the context until you explain the issue I've presented with the double emphasis in Hebrews 2:8).
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe not. Your reading comprehension isn't up to par (look just above, I'm attempting to show you why). It means all of us on TOL are going to have to go to remedial means to try and explain and teach reading comprehension. Do I need to start that thread? Will you attend?
How many times do I have to tell you, YOU imported that into the text! Do you really not understand that YOU took an idea from your head from one text and imported it into the other? Yes, we both did that with Hebrews, but John 1:3 doesn't say that AND we should be careful doing it with Hebrews 2 as well. It is our ideas, at that point. For my part, I KNOW my ideas, aren't scripture, even if I use scripture in that answer (as you've done). Everybody gets to inspect whether we tied them together correctly and everybody gets to judge whether we've done it correctly or not, because we are not sole authorities on the Word of God. Our ideas are not necessarily God's. EVERY JW gets inspection whether he wants it or not.
Our goal however is God's thoughts, not our own, especially when we can point out problems in another's reading comprehension. It means we don't really have all the tools to make no mistakes. The problem is, perhaps by necessity, that JW's separate themselves and aren't open to correction. We all need to be open and I am talking with you, but to date, as I've said (not an ad hominem) JW's and Unitarians do indeed to seem to have reading comprehension disabilities. They really do. It isn't ad hominem, it is the reason you guys believe the way you do. If you know it, you can address it. It is indeed part of this needed conversation.
Telling me over and over again that "NOTHING WAS MADE WIITHOUT JESUS" whilst ignoring what is being spoken of is in relation to the creation of the Heaven and the Earth makes you look stupid Lon.
Ineptly. I've shown you, clearly. Reading comprehension is something you can work on. Next? YOU brought up John 1:3 as your set up, remember? I simply agreed that the context says 'all' doubled down. Hebrews? All thing of 'the works of His hands.' John 1:3 "all things" and in Hebrews 2:9 All things 'made.' YOU are the one trying to apply it to God, not me. The text ALREADY limits it in Hebrews, not in John.
If the double emphasis in John 1:3 apparently clarifies that "all things" means litreally all things, then how is the double emphasis in Hebrews 2:8 not a clarification that "all things" means all things when it states "For in subjecting all things to him, He [God] left nothing that was not subjected to him".
I told you, because it says clearly right in the exact verse (not another book), or ideas you haphazardly tie together, cobbled together from other books, the Hebrews 2:9 Says 'All things over the works of your hands."
Again, the "without Him, nothing was mad.....THAT WAS MADE" in John 1:3 is in relation to John 1:1, Gen 1:1, the creation of the heaven and the earth. You sound foolish repeating the same thing over and over.
It's scripture. 1 Corinthians 4:10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute...
You're a hypocrite Lon, again, the only reason I stopped speaking about John 1:1c with you was because you refused to explain why it could only be translated "was God" in John 1:1c,
Your incapability is not my problem (I'm willing to make it mine, however, if it'd serve you). The reason it can only be translated that way is because ANY reason for any other translation MUST BE because the translation of it demands something is added ONLY to write it correctly into that language. You do not add a word for 'doctrinal' reasons. That isn't translation, that's adding to God's word. The literal word for word is fully functional and stands as correct conveyance.
I asked you to explain several times and you turned down the offer every time. Now that I'm respecting your wish to only answer one question you're randomly bringing up John 1:1c and claiming I don't want to face it, it's truly absurd.
Er, no. You don't ask questions very well AND I've repeated my answers. You've repeated similar with Judge Rightly and he has assessed something similar here. You don't see them? Ask for clarification. Your reading comprehension is not my problem (again, willing to work on it with you). I've given you plenty of profitable ways to get answers should the first query fail. This 'crying' tack doesn't work for me.
He is Alpha and Omega , the first and the last ! 2
He is Alpha and Omega , the first and the last ! 2
We have Linked the Lord Jesus Christ, the One speaking in Rev 1:11
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
And Linked that One to The Redeemer Isa 44:6
6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts;I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Now we Know that Jesus is the Redeemer, we Know that He is the King of Israel, now lets see also that He is the Lord of Hosts !
Remember Isaiahs Prophecy here Isa 6:1-3
In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
You know who that " The Lord of Hosts" is ? Its the Lord Jesus Christ.
Notice in Isa 6:1 when the prophet said he saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne, denoting that He is a King, but it also says that His Train filled the Temple ! This speaks to His being also a High Priest, a Priest on a Throne, Zech 6:13
Even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
Thats why He is said to have a Train that filled the Temple. The Word Train here is hebrew shul:
skirt (of a robe)
The Vision of the Divine Being had a Robe On, something that the High Priest would wear as per
of high priest's robe Exodus 28:33 (twice in verse); Exodus 28:34 = Exodus 39:24,25,26
Now this is extrememly important because in the Vision that John has of Jesus Christ in Rev 1 it is stated of the One who spoke the words in Rev 1:11-13 this:
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
Thats describing the Train that Daniel saw in the Vision of Isa 6:1-3 ! Its the same Divine Being, the Lord of Hosts, who is God Almighty, but yet, its also the Son of God, not the Father, for the Father is not the High Priest of the People, thats the Sons Role ! Heb 4:14
Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Thats who Isa saw as the Lord of Hosts here Isa 6:1-3
In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
Also John confirms that Christ is the Lord of Hosts here Jn 12:41
41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
I'm going to ask at this point that any who want to continue discussing the Urantia book continue doing so in the Urantia thread. This is not the thread for it.
Jesus is God by Authority of Apostolic Testimony !4
Jesus is God by Authority of Apostolic Testimony !4
1 Jn 5:20
20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
The Apostolic testimony goes to say of Believers, We are in Him that is True, which again can apply to either the Father or the Son, in fact the Father has Chosen all believers in His Son the Lord Jesus Christ before the foundation Eph 1:3-4
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
And yet the scripture teaches that the Church is in God the Father as well 1 Thess 1:1
Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now we are in Him that is True, wheter the Father or the Son, Even" in his Son Jesus Christ"
I'm going to ask at this point that any who want to continue discussing the Urantia book continue doing so in the Urantia thread. This is not the thread for it.
Er, no. I'm very sure you don't even know what an actual ad hominem is. This isn't it. Close, but no. Someone may rightly 'assess' your prowess. That isn't an ad hominem (look up the definition), it is trying to explain why we don't see eye to eye and why I believe the Unitarian conjecture is substandard. In the next paragraph below I address one of the contextual problems I always seem to encounter with every Unitarian I've ever met, or spoken to online.
Ad hominem: To attack an opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument
Comments you made in your third paragraph: "Did you do this well in school?", "if Unitarians simply knew how to read contextually", "many of you take ownership for your poorer school grades"; these are all character attacks. Nothing in your third paragraph in paragraph actually refuted anything I stated, you merely claimed I was not understanding the context of the verse, but nowhere demonstrated in your paragraph or ones after how exactly I was reading it out of context. You attacked "my character" and claimed what you believed to be my lack of reading and comprehension skill in an attempt to undermine my argument, this is called an 'Ad hominem'; please stop being so pedantic.
Déjà Vu. He has said the exact same thing. It MUST come from his own problem at that point. (not a slam or an ad hominem NWL. I'm seeing a pattern and I think it the reason you have trouble with scriptures. Such can be repaired with a bit of education).
I asked JR to produce verses that explicitly teach the trinity, i.e, "There is one God who is three persons, namely, the Father/Son/HS, and that these three persons are co=-equal and co-eternal. He's yet to produce a single verse that teaches anything I just stated, he's within his right to deny this, but doing so does not necessarily make him correct.
What am I meant to "get" about Exo 7:1, you didn't express what specific translation you agreed with or what point I wasn't getting that you and JR agree with? In fact, in the paragraph you quoted from JR, he did not even make a point direct point but simply expressed how various translations render the Exo 7:1. I do not deny the existence of different variation of English translations of Exo 7:1 so what point am I meant to "get", for you to say, "Mayhap it'll help NWL get this, coming from two different people"?
Both the Hebrew and the Greek of Exo 7:1 express the same thing, both use the term God and apply it to Moses, this is a fact. English translations try to make sense of what the application means by translating the text as, "like God", "a G-god", "as God", "in Gods place", but this does not negate the fact a direct application of the word "theos" and "elohim" is applied to Moses. I agree with most if not all the variations of the text, as all of them express more or less the same thing.
Easy. I have one rep so far, it means somebody actually gets it, if not you, against your claim. Now stop. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing against the text. All I said was scripture: John 1:3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” I realize you keep asking me to stop repeating it, but I prefer God's word be your teacher, especially as you don't like it all from this particular mailman (or however you view me).
You answer with the word "easy", but, nowhere did you address my actual question. You stated I'm not arguing against you but against the text, quoted John 1:3, highlighted that I asked you to stop repeating, and expressed you prefer to use God's word to be my teacher, BUT WHERE DID YOU DEAL WITH MY POINT. Let me remind you, you said it was "easy" but nowhere tackled it.
Again, I stated "it's your claim John's double emphasis in John 1:3 negates the context of "all things" being limited to the creation of the heaven and earth as per the context of John 1:1 and Gen 1:1. If this is the case then please tell me what the difference is when it comes to Hebrews 2:8!", how does quoting John 1:3 show the difference between it and Hebrews 2:8 when I already expressed the word "all things" and "made" in John 1:3 are contextually in reference to John 1:1 and Gen 1:1.
"Does John do it", you ask, yes he does! How could you be so utterly bold to say the context of John 1:3 is not limited in the same way as Hebrews 2:7,8. Again, John opens up with "in the beginning", this is a direct parallel to Genesis 1:1, do you agree or disagree that John was referencing the "beginning" as mention in Gen 1:1 by his words found in John 1:1 Lon?
You are wrong. That is NOT an ad hominem. I'll tell you what: report me for it (it is against many forum rules including this one). Telling you 'why' you are wrong is not an ad hominem.
It is one thing telling someone they have not understood the context of a particular passage, and a completely another thing to claim they have not understood the context due to them being uneducated, having bad school grades, or them being an ignorant unitarian (as if all unitarians are ignorant). You've repeated the same said comments in many of your post, it's hard to believe they are you innocently speaking your mind, over being backhanded, and belittling insults. Either they are ad hominem attacks or backhanded insults; either is bad and should have no place in these discussions.
I've done so: One scripture is different than the other, FROM God! His words don't allow you to overstretch (what you are doing) the similarity. You are cloaking an idea that doesn't fit both passages.
Both are emphatic: One upon "All" meaning all and the other "All" directly tied to 'over the works of His hands.' YOU cannot rewrite scripture to fit your theological whim. Do you understand that JW's made that part up for no other reason than to shore up their preconceived notions they are importing into the Bible? That isn't scripture. That isn't following God. That is following men.
I do not understand how you cannot see where what you're saying contradicts itself. I understand you take the "over the works of your hand" as the limiting factor of the word "all" in Hebrews 2:8; "all things" can only be understood as far as the context that being "the works of [Gods] hands", namely creation. What you've yet to make sense of is the fact John 1:3 also has a limiting factor, namely, John 1:1 and its reference of the "beginning" of Gen 1:1. Hebrews 2:8 and Gen 1:1 have the same limiting factor as both are in reference to the "works of Gods" hand as per Gen 1:1 and Hebrews 2:7
If the "all" in Hebrews 2:8 is directly tied to 'over the works of His hands' as per v7, then on what basis to do ignore what John was directly tieing the word "all" to in John 1:3 when he referenced God creating the heaven and the earth by paralleling Gen 1:1? (Question is dependant on your answer to John 1:1 in relation to Gen 1:1)
If your defense is that a double emphasis can negate the direct context, then what do you do with the double emphasis in Hebrews 2:8?
Maybe not. Your reading comprehension isn't up to par (look just above, I'm attempting to show you why). It means all of us on TOL are going to have to go to remedial means to try and explain and teach reading comprehension. Do I need to start that thread? Will you attend?
This is coming from the person who wasn't pressed a single question multiple times in a row and then stated 'he wasn't even aware what question I was even asking him'; who, states something is 'easy' and then fails to actually address the issue he called "easy". I believe your reading and comprehension skills are poor, you'll no doubt disagree with this the same way I'll disagree with you. I would not be so belittling to ask you to attend my reading comprehension thread. Again, stop with the backhanded comments.
How many times do I have to tell you, YOU imported that into the text! Do you really not understand that YOU took an idea from your head from one text and imported it into the other? Yes, we both did that with Hebrews, but John 1:3 doesn't say that AND we should be careful doing it with Hebrews 2 as well. It is our ideas, at that point. For my part, I KNOW my ideas, aren't scripture, even if I use scripture in that answer (as you've done). Everybody gets to inspect whether we tied them together correctly and everybody gets to judge whether we've done it correctly or not, because we are not sole authorities on the Word of God. Our ideas are not necessarily God's. EVERY JW gets inspection whether he wants it or not.
I believe it was John who was importing it as it was him making the parallel. According to what you said you'll be forced to deny scriptures such as John 8:58 teach Jesus is YHWH as any thought that someone is attempting to parallel prior scripture by their words is "importing thoughts" into the text; such an idea is ridiculous, it is literally what is required when exegeting. There are plenty of texts where the writer is referencing a prior text or events leaving it to the reader to understand and make such a deduction, the fact you claim this is incorrect creates more issues for a trinitarian than it solves.
(1) In the beginning.—The reference to the opening words of the Old Testament is obvious, and is the more striking when we remember that a Jew would constantly speak of and quote from the book of Genesis as Berēshîth (“in the beginning”).
In the beginning - This expression is used also in Genesis 1:1. John evidently has allusion here to that place, and he means to apply to "the Word" an expression which is there applied "to God."
John 1:1-2. In the beginning — Namely, of the creation, (for the evangelist evidently refers to the first word of the book of Genesis, בראשׁית, bereshith, rendered by the LXX. εν αρχη, the expression here used,)
I have somewhere above asked you to state whether or not you believe John was referencing the same "beginning" as mentioned in Gen 1:1 so will await your response.
Ineptly. I've shown you, clearly. Reading comprehension is something you can work on. Next? YOU brought up John 1:3 as your set up, remember? I simply agreed that the context says 'all' doubled down. Hebrews? All thing of 'the works of His hands.' John 1:3 "all things" and in Hebrews 2:9 All things 'made.' YOU are the one trying to apply it to God, not me. The text ALREADY limits it in Hebrews, not in John.
Your incapability is not my problem (I'm willing to make it mine, however, if it'd serve you). The reason it can only be translated that way is because ANY reason for any other translation MUST BE because the translation of it demands something is added ONLY to write it correctly into that language. You do not add a word for 'doctrinal' reasons. That isn't translation, that's adding to God's word. The literal word for word is fully functional and stands as correct conveyance.
My incapability? Did you read what I wrote, YOU were the one who refused to speak about it, not me.
In regards to your 'reason', I've said to you many times before, no, the traditional translation does not make sense. Remember, if Jesus is "the God", and "the God" in John 1:1b was the Father or the trinity, then Jesus 'is' the Father or the trinity. Remember was YOU that expressed in your last post that I've "imported" the idea that John 1:3 is in relation to John 1:1 and Gen 1:1 and suggest I'm incorrect to have imported such an idea since God's word does not directly state it. Now let's apply your little principle to John 1:1.
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with THE GOD, and the Word was THE GOD.
Without "importing" anything that isn't explicitly stated apart from what's expressed in the text itself, explain to me how the translation of the "Word was THE GOD", which infers Jesus was "THE GOD" (definite), doesn't imply Jesus 'was' the trinity or the Father? Good luck.
Yes, I caught the "One emphatic in scripture" and the one YOU 'emphatically said that isn't implicity, but what YOU decided it had to mean.' Do you actually know the difference? Did you do this well in school? It LITERALLY is nothing more than an ability to grasp grammar correctly. I'm convinced that if Unitarians simply knew how to read contextually, they'd not make mistakes like this. Of course, there is part of me that is forgiving because you literally don't know any better, but Jesus told the Pharisees they were accountable because they actually believed they were 'not blind.' Because of that, they took ownership of their own ignorance. It is important, just now, to tell Unitarians, many of you take ownership for your poorer school grades. That is NOT good! 
"...without Him, nothing was mad.....THAT WAS MADE." : Plain: 