The Trinity

[1Mind1Spirit]

Godhead means deity or divine nature. It's a synonym. Nothing has been added.

For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; - Colossians 2:9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians2:9&version=NKJV

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. - Colossians 2:9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians2:9&version=KJV

For hoti in en him autos the ho whole pas fullness pl?r?ma of ho deity theot?s dwells katoike? in bodily s?matik?s form, - Colossians 2:9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians2:9&version=MOUNCE

Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. - Acts 17:29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts17:29&version=NKJV

So oun since we are hyparch? the offspring genos of ho God theos, we ought opheil? not ou to think nomiz? that the ho divine being theios is eimi like homoios an image carved charagma in gold chrysos or ? silver argyros or ? stone lithos by human anthr?pos skill techn? and kai imagination enthum?sis . - Acts 17:29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts17:29&version=MOUNCE

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, - Romans 1:20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans1:20&version=NKJV

Ever since apo the creation ktisis of the world kosmos, · ho his autos invisible aoratos attributes , · ho that te is , his autos eternal aidios power dynamis and kai divine theiot?s nature , have been clearly seen kathora? , being understood noe? through what ho has been made poi?ma . So eis they autos are eimi without excuse anapolog?tos . - Romans 1:20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans1:20&version=MOUNCE

I've posted on this in the past.

You had no offering then.

All you're doing is saying hey, it's bible gateway, must be right.

:nono:

As for the word "gospel," all you need to do is look at a dictionary to see how we got that word.

The English word gospel is derived from the Anglo-Saxongodspell*(“good story”). The classical Greek word*euangelionmeans “a reward for bringing of good news” or the “good news” itself.

From: https://www.britannica.com/topic/godspell

:kookoo:

Thanks anyhow.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You are the poor brainwashed soul on his way to eternal damnation.

Now this is an oxymoron.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I've posted on this in the past.

You had no offering then.

All you're doing is saying hey, it's bible gateway, must be right.

:nono:

What does my source being Bible Gateway have to do with this? I am quoting different versions of the Bible to show you that nothing was added, and that the only difference between the versions is the word used.
I've refuted your point, now make another argument, or respond to my argument.

:kookoo:

Thanks anyhow.

Right, so instead of admitting you might be wrong, you just refuse to reply. You should probably just leave the thread if you're not going to discuss.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Now this is an oxymoron.

Oxymoron - a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction

Where is the oxymoron in his statement?

 

[Ktoyou]

Oxymoron - a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction

Where is the oxymoron in his statement?

Maybe he is thinking of a moron who takes oxy?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

What does my source being Bible Gateway have to do with this? I am quoting different versions of the Bible to show you that nothing was added, and that the only difference between the versions is the word used.
I've refuted your point, now make another argument, or respond to my argument.

Godhead is a Trinitarian morph from Godhood.

Right, so instead of admitting you might be wrong, you just refuse to reply. You should probably just leave the thread if you're not going to discuss.

Stick with, "great is the MYSTERY of godliness" and we wont have a problem.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Oxymoron - a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction

Where is the oxymoron in his statement?

If one's mind is washed he would not be headed for eternal damnation.

 

[Lon]

Nobody has it totally right friend. I think the JW's are right on John 1:1.

What makes you think your translations are any better? Are you twisting as much as they are? I would not be secure in their boat or yours.

Because you caused fights between you, BR, JR and 1M1S, I'll answer (Again try and pay attention this time).

᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

So clear there are no Greek Unitarians (did you know that?).


᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Word-for-word, it is 'better' because it is correct. There is NO ONE that can translate any better or clearer. ANYTHING else is beyond the clear teaching so "NO" JW's are worse for their addition and it is CLEARLY addition. I gave you this word for word. Nothing can be added or taken away to make it any clearer. No JW can argue this. :nono:

　

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Because you caused fights between you, BR, JR and 1M1S, I'll answer (Again try and pay attention this time).

᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

So clear there are no Greek Unitarians (did you know that?).


᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Word-for-word, it is 'better' because it is correct. There is NO ONE that can translate any better or clearer. ANYTHING else is beyond the clear teaching so "NO" JW's are worse for their addition and it is CLEARLY addition. I gave you this word for word. Nothing can be added or taken away to make it any clearer. No JW can argue this. :nono:

　

Does that mean the Greeks were right and Unitarians are wrong. :idunno:

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/but-what-about-john-1-1

Thanks for trying to bring peace, Lon.

 

[Lon]

Does that mean the Greeks were right and Unitarians are wrong. :idunno:

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/but-what-about-john-1-1

The NT is originally written in Greek. Some will argue that, but it'd be a rabbit trail and not worth more than a mention.
Modern Greeks can read the NT Greek pretty well. It'd be akin to our reading KJV perhaps with a bit of Gaelic.

Thanks for trying to bring peace, Lon.

Keypurr is a bit grumpy this thread, but I don't think even he wanted to start a fight. I just think he forgets. -Lon

 

[keypurr]

Because you caused fights between you, BR, JR and 1M1S, I'll answer (Again try and pay attention this time).

᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

So clear there are no Greek Unitarians (did you know that?).


᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Word-for-word, it is 'better' because it is correct. There is NO ONE that can translate any better or clearer. ANYTHING else is beyond the clear teaching so "NO" JW's are worse for their addition and it is CLEARLY addition. I gave you this word for word. Nothing can be added or taken away to make it any clearer. No JW can argue this. :nono:

　

JW's can argue as they wish, they do not represent me Lon.

I think they are right in John 1:1. The logos is a form of God, but it is a created form of God. There is only one God and his name is YHWH.

Long time since we last conversed, hope things are well with you.


Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[Lon]

JW's can argue as they wish, they do not represent me Lon.

Rather you represented them.

I think they are right in John 1:1.

I've shown you what it says.
You realize 'why' you want to 'think' this, right?

The logos is a form of God, but it is a created form of God. There is only one God and his name is YHWH.

Whatever you believe, it should line up with the clarity of John 1:1

Long time since we last conversed, hope things are well with you.

Our greatest need is to be in Christ. I wish the same for you. -Lon

 

[keypurr]

The NT is originally written in Greek. Some will argue that, but it'd be a rabbit trail and not worth more than a mention.
Modern Greeks can read the NT Greek pretty well. It'd be akin to our reading KJV perhaps with a bit of Gaelic.


Keypurr is a bit grumpy this thread, but I don't think even he wanted to start a fight. I just think he forgets. -Lon

I'm not grumpy!
I am a man of peace. I love all as Christ taught me too.
It is not my problem if some wish to fight because I show them a different picture than what they have been exposed to.

What I have read is that the Jews in the holy lands were speaking Aramaic and Hebrew. Only the elite knew other languages. Makes more sense to believe the side that say that the originals were in Aramaic or Hebrew. Greek came later. But neither of us were there so its only a guess.


Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[Lon]

I'm not grumpy!
I am a man of peace. I love all as Christ taught me too.
It is not my problem if some wish to fight because I show them a different picture than what they have been exposed to.

What I have read is that the Jews in the holy lands were speaking Aramaic and Hebrew. Only the elite knew other languages. Makes more sense to believe the side that say that the originals were in Aramaic or Hebrew. Greek came later. But neither of us were there so its only a guess.

(
The LXX was written because most Jews, after dispersion, could no longer read Hebrew. Some of the Teachers (like today) could read Hebrew. Most writing from early A.D. were Greek, including what was read in many synagogues. Only theology with agenda seeks to explain things backwards than from what is found in archeology from that time period. There is no reason to second guess the artifacts we find.

See here. It is accurate as to when Aramaic came to influence the world, when Greek was what most spoke, and when Hebrew ceased to be spoken.

 

[keypurr]

Rather you represented them.


I've shown you what it says.
You realize 'why' you want to 'think' this, right?


Whatever you believe, it should line up with the clarity of John 1:1
Our greatest need is to be in Christ. I wish the same for you. -Lon

Not so, I do not represent any church other than the church that I believe Jesus Christ established.

I disagree with your understanding od John 1. It goes deeper in detail than the religions teach. They do not teach that the spirit son was sent, not born.

I consider myself in Christ for I feel his spirit filling me with love and a small measure of wisdom. I feel blessed to share that love with all in my life.



Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Lon]

Not so, I do not represent any church other than the church that I believe Jesus Christ established.

I disagree with your understanding od John 1. It goes deeper in detail than the religions teach. They do not teach that the spirit son was sent, not born.

No it doesn't. I just translated it word for word for you. That is as deep and clear as it goes. Can't get any better.

I consider myself in Christ for I feel his spirit filling me with love and a small measure of wisdom. I feel blessed to share that love with all in my life.

The lesson, I think, of the Samaritan women, was indeed that she was wrong. Jesus made that very clear, yet He also spent time with her and pointed her to Himself as the Living water she needed. We all know well the story of the good Samaritan. Jesus took a people that were 'half-breeds' which was indeed bad, they had rejected Judaism, but the Lord Jesus Christ used them for His story to ask who was loving.

I honestly feel 'picked on' by Unit-arians on this website. I let it run off like water on a ducks back. It is pretty easy to put those who cannot but be contentious, on ignore. The Samaritan woman seemed to do the same thing: "We worship on this mountain, but you Jews..." It wasn't as if no Jew knew that. It must have been for the umpteenth time, like picking at sores so they will not heal.

All this to say, I think the Samaritans pretty well made their own dilemma against Jews. They were fairly despised for going against Jewish orthodoxy....

I'd leave you with memorizing this verse, if you would: John 5:23
that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.　

That 'just as' word means 'inasmuch as' 'exactly the same as.'

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not so, I do not represent any church other than the church that I believe Jesus Christ established.

Jesus didn't establish a church. His apostles did.

I disagree with your understanding od John 1. It goes deeper in detail than the religions teach.

You can't get any clearer than the original writings, Keypurr.

They do not teach that the spirit son was sent, not born.

And rightly so, because the original texts do not say that that Christ indwelled a physical body at the baptism of Jesus, it says that God the Son Himself became a child, a baby in a manger, to show that His intentions were peaceful, during a time of peace, to bring peace to all men, and to contrast that with when he returns, on a white horse in the sky, seeking to conquer.

I consider myself in Christ for I feel his spirit filling me with love and a small measure of wisdom. I feel blessed to share that love with all in my life.

 

[keypurr]

No it doesn't. I just translated it word for word for you. That is as deep and clear as it goes. Can't get any better.

The lesson, I think, of the Samaritan women, was indeed that she was wrong. Jesus made that very clear, yet He also spent time with her and pointed her to Himself as the Living water she needed. We all know well the story of the good Samaritan. Jesus took a people that were 'half-breeds' which was indeed bad, they had rejected Judaism, but the Lord Jesus Christ used them for His story to ask who was loving.

I honestly feel 'picked on' by Unit-arians on this website. I let it run off like water on a ducks back. It is pretty easy to put those who cannot but be contentious, on ignore. The Samaritan woman seemed to do the same thing: "We worship on this mountain, but you Jews..." It wasn't as if no Jew knew that. It must have been for the umpteenth time, like picking at sores so they will not heal.

All this to say, I think the Samaritans pretty well made their own dilemma against Jews. They were fairly despised for going against Jewish orthodoxy....

I'd leave you with memorizing this verse, if you would: John 5:23
that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.　

That 'just as' word means 'inasmuch as' 'exactly the same as.'

Just looked over your last post about the early Hebrew and Aramaic. Very interesting indeed, but it really does not change my thoughts that Aramaic was most likely used in the early m/s. Thank you for that post.

You really should not think disagreement is a personal attack Lon, it's not.

I honor the Son as Lord of all creation, made so by our God. That does not make him God, even though he was given the power of God. All images are creations, creatures not God. I see the Son in that way. God has glorified him to the highest of anyone except God himself. Who am I to question his choice? I honor the Son as my Lord, not my God.

Peace


Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[keypurr]

Jesus didn't establish a church. His apostles did.



You can't get any clearer than the original writings, Keypurr.



And rightly so, because the original texts do not say that that Christ indwelled a physical body at the baptism of Jesus, it says that God the Son Himself became a child, a baby in a manger, to show that His intentions were peaceful, during a time of peace, to bring peace to all men, and to contrast that with when he returns, on a white horse in the sky, seeking to conquer.

Without Christ there is no church friend.

I do not think the originals were in Greek.

The scriptures do say that Christ in dwelled Jesus.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

Just looked over your last post about the early Hebrew and Aramaic. Very interesting indeed, but it really does not change my thoughts that Aramaic was most likely used in the early m/s. Thank you for that post.

Keypurr, your thoughts do not match historical fact (not fiction or opinion, fact), which is that the New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek.