Revelation On The "I AM" Delusion

[Lee Freeman]

Not so I'm agreeing with the bible. Jesus is divine. And we can have the same divine nature that Jesus has and it won't make us God either.

Acts 17:29-30
29   "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.
30   "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
(NKJ)

2 Pet 1:4
4   by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
(NKJ)

So you agree with the Bible? Then you agree with Peter that Jesus was God:

Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ . . . (II Pet. 1:1 NKJV)


Pax.

I said
I cant believe you said that. Have you even read the verse you posted.

2 Pet 1:1-2

1   Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
2   Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord,
(NKJ)

The second verse defines the first verse. Knowledge of God "and" of Jesus our Lord.
If your going to try and pervert a verse dont use that one. And if your going to make a claim of such exaggeration dont look at what Jesus said.

John 17:1-3

1   Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,
2   "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.
3   "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
(NKJ)

John 20:17
17   Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'"
(NKJ)

And dont look at what Paul said. One God the Father.

1 Cor 8:6
6   yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
(NKJ)

Eph 4:6
6   one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
(NKJ)

Dont you know the difference between circumstantial verses and factual verses??

So now there's "factual verses" and "circumstantial verses" huh? All of those verses I quoted you that call Jesus God are circumstantial? How does one tell the difference? And what is a "circumstantial" verse and how is it different from a "factual" verse?  Is that something the Holy Spirit told you? Because I can't find a definition for either of these in
the Bible.

The second verse doesn't define the first verse. The second verse simply states that our God and Savior Jesus Christ is also our Lord.

Both Peter and Paul call Jesus God. In II Timothy 3:16 Paul says that "God was manifest in the flesh." Who else can this be but Jesus?

No, Squeaky, this is a case of someone making the Bible say what they want it to say. You believe, or have been told to believe, that Jesus was not God. But you have to do something with those passages that call Jesus God. So what you do is what false teachers have been doing for centuries-you say the verses really don't mean what they say. Some verses are to be taken literally, at face value, and some aren't. Again, what is your formula for deciding? Oh, that's right. The Holy Spirit told you so. Basically, when challenged to defend your view you fall back on "the Holy Spirit told me so."

Squeaky, have you ever considered that whoever taught you to believe the Holy Spirit personally inspires you like this was/is a false teacher? That they're wrong? You need to take Paul's advice and "test the spirits to see whether they be from God." If you do this, you may be surprised.

So I guess this verse is a "circumstantial verse" too?

But to the Son He says:


    " Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
      A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
      You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
      Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
      With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.

[Squeakybro]

Thats hardly blasphemy Squeaky (defaming the name of God).... and I think there is a quite a difference between partaking in the divine nature of God through faith in Jesus Christ (which no one would doubt, and I believe that in our eternal life we are partaking in his divine nature, but that doesn't mean we are divine).

You can drink pure water and be a "partaking in the pure nature of the water", but that does not make you pure water.

Understand?

I said
Isnt that what I said. Jesus was divine and we can be divine and neither of us is God.

[Squeakybro]

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Today at 03:45:45 PM
Quote from: Squeakybro on Today at 03:09:26 PM
Quote from: Lee Freeman on Today at 01:00:01 PM
Quote from: Squeakybro on Today at 12:57:32 PM
Not so I'm agreeing with the bible. Jesus is divine. And we can have the same divine nature that Jesus has and it won't make us God either.

Acts 17:29-30
29   "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.
30   "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
(NKJ)

2 Pet 1:4
4   by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
(NKJ)





So you agree with the Bible? Then you agree with Peter that Jesus was God:

Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ . . . (II Pet. 1:1 NKJV)


Pax.




I said
I cant believe you said that. Have you even read the verse you posted.

2 Pet 1:1-2

1   Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
2   Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord,
(NKJ)

The second verse defines the first verse. Knowledge of God "and" of Jesus our Lord.
If your going to try and pervert a verse dont use that one. And if your going to make a claim of such exaggeration dont look at what Jesus said.

John 17:1-3

1   Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,
2   "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.
3   "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
(NKJ)

John 20:17
17   Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'"
(NKJ)

And dont look at what Paul said. One God the Father.

1 Cor 8:6
6   yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
(NKJ)

Eph 4:6
6   one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
(NKJ)

Dont you know the difference between circumstantial verses and factual verses??


So now there's "factual verses" and "circumstantial verses" huh? All of those verses I quoted you that call Jesus God are circumstantial? How does one tell the difference? And what is a "circumstantial" verse and how is it different from a "factual" verse?  Is that something the Holy Spirit told you? Because I can't find a definition for either of these in
the Bible.

The second verse doesn't define the first verse. The second verse simply states that our God and Savior Jesus Christ is also our Lord.

Both Peter and Paul call Jesus God. In II Timothy 3:16 Paul says that "God was manifest in the flesh." Who else can this be but Jesus?

No, Squeaky, this is a case of someone making the Bible say what they want it to say. You believe, or have been told to believe, that Jesus was not God. But you have to do something with those passages that call Jesus God. So what you do is what false teachers have been doing for centuries-you say the verses really don't mean what they say. Some verses are to be taken literally, at face value, and some aren't. Again, what is your formula for deciding? Oh, that's right. The Holy Spirit told you so. Basically, when challenged to defend your view you fall back on "the Holy Spirit told me so."

Squeaky, have you ever considered that whoever taught you to believe the Holy Spirit personally inspires you like this was/is a false teacher? That they're wrong? You need to take Paul's advice and "test the spirits to see whether they be from God." If you do this, you may be surprised.

So I guess this verse is a "circumstantial verse" too?

But to the Son He says:


    " Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
      A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
      You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
      Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
      With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.

[twd]

So, if the verse states that Jesus is God, as in John 1:1 ("the Word was God"), it's circumstantial, but if it shows the relationship of the Son to the Father, it's factual?

So when Revelation 5 mentions the throne of God, and mentions the Lamb, that's factual, but when it mentions that the Lamb is in the middle of God's throne, it's circumtstantial?

When it can be made to fit Squeaky's heterodoxy, it's factual, but when it explicitly shows the divine essence of Jesus or the Holy Spirit, it's circumstantial.  That's called twisting scripture.

[Lee Freeman]

So Squeaky, Jesus couldn't have been both God and Savior?

If I say to you that I'm both a son and a brother that's an untrue statement? Even though I really do have a father and a brother? Or if I said Benjamin Franklin was a statesmen and an inventor that, too would be an untrue statement? He has to have been one or the other but he couldn't be both?

You said the word "and" implies that something can be the same or be different, yet how do you tell which? And how does that square with the examples I used above? It's a fact that I'm both a son and a brother, just as Ben Franklin was a statesmen and an inventor. Just as Jesus is God and Savior.

Pax vobiscum.

[Squeakybro]

So, if the verse states that Jesus is God, as in John 1:1 ("the Word was God"), it's circumstantial, but if it shows the relationship of the Son to the Father, it's factual?

So when Revelation 5 mentions the throne of God, and mentions the Lamb, that's factual, but when it mentions that the Lamb is in the middle of God's throne, it's circumtstantial?

When it can be made to fit Squeaky's heterodoxy, it's factual, but when it explicitly shows the divine essence of Jesus or the Holy Spirit, it's circumstantial.  That's called twisting scripture.

I said
You sure do alot of assuming. How does John 1-1 say that Jesus is God? It doesnt.

John 1:1

1   In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NKJ)

It says the Word. Your only assuming the Word was Jesus. It says the Word(verses) is full of grace and truth in verse 14. Then it says in verse 17 that the Word that is full of grace and truth came through Jesus. So what we have is the only begotten Word of God(verse 1 and 14) came through the only begotten Son of God -Jesus.

John 1:14
14   And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
(NKJ)

John 1:17-18
17   For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
18   No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
(NKJ)

[Bon Voyage]

If those last verses are the verses your "Holy Spirit" gave you, and you can't see that you just proved yourself wrong, I don't know what to tell ya.

[Dennis]

At times you must simply stop feeding the trolls.

[Cliftyman]

Squeaky do you believe Jesus is from God?

[Arkstfan]

Squeaky when the Word became flesh (human) who did the Word become if not Jesus.

The Word was God and the Word became human. Who was the Word?

[twd]

At times you must simply stop feeding the trolls.

Yep, you are so right.

[Squeakybro]

At times you must simply stop feeding the trolls.

I said
Or you could admit your wrong and repent. But that would take humility.

[Squeakybro]

Squeaky do you believe Jesus is from God?

I said
Well ofcourse. Dont you?

[Squeakybro]

Squeaky when the Word became flesh (human) who did the Word become if not Jesus.

The Word was God and the Word became human. Who was the Word?

I said
Have you ever looked up the definition of flesh in that verse??? Its carnally minded. The word flesh is not talking about skin and bones.

[Lee Freeman]

Squeaky when the Word became flesh (human) who did the Word become if not Jesus.

The Word was God and the Word became human. Who was the Word?

I said
Have you ever looked up the definition of flesh in that verse??? Its carnally minded. The word flesh is not talking about skin and bones.

So you're saying "The Word became carnally minded?"

I presume you're takjing your definition from Webster's rather than a Greek dictionary. Webster's gives several definitions for "flesh"; how did you decide which definition was the right one?


Verse 14 says "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." The original Greek translates as something like "pitched his tent" or "tabernacled" among us. The Word, which was with God and was God became human and dwelled among us. There's simply no other way to sensibly interpret this passage.

Pax.

[Cliftyman]

That word "sarx" doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation.  It can simply mean human nature.  And yes it can mean flesh and bones, as its used in the following verses.

John 6:55, "for my flesh is meat"
Ephesians 5:30 "we the members of his body of his flesh and of his bones"

------------------------

Squeaky I certainly believe Jesus Christ is from God, otherwise I would be the antichrist....

However I'm trying to figure out where you stand in all of this.  You believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, that he is from God, but you don't believe he is the same as God?

[Cliftyman]

Squeaky listen up really close.

I never got your response on this.

30I and the Father are one. (Jesus speaking)"  31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"  33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God. (John 10:30-33)"

This is clearcut evidence that Jesus was claiming he was God.  The Jews understood him perfectly and Jesus did not dispute that he and the Father were the same.  You must agree with this, or you must think the Jews misunderstood him or that Jesus was a liar.

[Squeakybro]

Squeaky when the Word became flesh (human) who did the Word become if not Jesus.

The Word was God and the Word became human. Who was the Word?

I said
Have you ever looked up the definition of flesh in that verse??? Its carnally minded. The word flesh is not talking about skin and bones.

So you're saying "The Word became carnally minded?"

I presume you're takjing your definition from Webster's rather than a Greek dictionary. Webster's gives several definitions for "flesh"; how did you decide which definition was the right one?


Verse 14 says "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." The original Greek translates as something like "pitched his tent" or "tabernacled" among us. The Word, which was with God and was God became human and dwelled among us. There's simply no other way to sensibly interpret this passage.

Pax.

I said
You should look for the gift of discernment.  I never said the Word became carnally minded. The carnally minded is what motivated the flesh. And when someone start walking according to the Word the Word becomes what motivates the flesh. Then a person is spiritually minded.

That is from a bible dictionary, strongs.

John 1:14
14   And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
(NKJ)

4561  sarx (sarx);

probably from the base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul [or spirit], or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties [physically or morally] and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such):

KJV-- carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).

[Squeakybro]

That word "sarx" doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation.  It can simply mean human nature.  And yes it can mean flesh and bones, as its used in the following verses.

John 6:55, "for my flesh is meat"
Ephesians 5:30 "we the members of his body of his flesh and of his bones"

------------------------

Squeaky I certainly believe Jesus Christ is from God, otherwise I would be the antichrist....

However I'm trying to figure out where you stand in all of this.  You believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, that he is from God, but you don't believe he is the same as God?

I said
Yes Jesus Christ was the Son of God. And no Jesus Christ wasnt God. God was in Him just like God can be in us and it won't make us God.

2 Cor 5:19
19   that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
(NKJ)

[Squeakybro]

Squeaky listen up really close.

I never got your response on this.

30I and the Father are one. (Jesus speaking)"  31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"  33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God. (John 10:30-33)"

This is clearcut evidence that Jesus was claiming he was God.  The Jews understood him perfectly and Jesus did not dispute that he and the Father were the same.  You must agree with this, or you must think the Jews misunderstood him or that Jesus was a liar.

I said
Well I posted the "Are One Delusion" but they took it off. So I will give you the short version. Jesus prayed that we "are one" the very same way that He and the Father "are one". Its talking about being in agreement.

John 10:30
30   "I and My Father are one."
(NKJ)

John 17:22
22   "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:
(NKJ)

In total agreement.

I Jn 5:7-8
7   For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
8   And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
(NKJ)

[Dennis]

At times you must simply stop feeding the trolls.

I said
Or you could admit your wrong and repent. But that would take humility.

1.  You mean you think we should feed the trolls? 

2.  You talking about humility seems more than a bit ironic.

[Cliftyman]

Squeaky there is another verse in the John 17 passage that explains what Jesus is talking about...

23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Jesus's prayer is regarding unity, not how Christians can become divine...

[Lee Freeman]

Squeaky when the Word became flesh (human) who did the Word become if not Jesus.

The Word was God and the Word became human. Who was the Word?

I said
Have you ever looked up the definition of flesh in that verse??? Its carnally minded. The word flesh is not talking about skin and bones.

So you're saying "The Word became carnally minded?"

I presume you're takjing your definition from Webster's rather than a Greek dictionary. Webster's gives several definitions for "flesh"; how did you decide which definition was the right one?


Verse 14 says "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." The original Greek translates as something like "pitched his tent" or "tabernacled" among us. The Word, which was with God and was God became human and dwelled among us. There's simply no other way to sensibly interpret this passage.

Pax.

I said
You should look for the gift of discernment.  I never said the Word became carnally minded. The carnally minded is what motivated the flesh. And when someone start walking according to the Word the Word becomes what motivates the flesh. Then a person is spiritually minded.

That is from a bible dictionary, strongs.

John 1:14
14   And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
(NKJ)

4561  sarx (sarx);

probably from the base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul [or spirit], or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties [physically or morally] and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such):

KJV-- carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).

Squeaky why do you insist on forcing John 1:1-ff to say something John never intended? You've gotta do all these exegetical gymnastics in order to force the text into agreeing with your preconceived ideas. As Occam's Razor holds, the simplest solution is usually the correct one. So with Biblical interpretation, the simplest reading is usually the more accurate. Why do you feel compelled to read into the text stuff that isn't there?

Pax.

[Lee Freeman]

Squeaky, here's an old post by Bobby Valentine (a NT Greek scholar) which I hope you'll consider:

It is my intention to explain "How did [the] apostle John get the IDEA that the WORD is a 'he'?"   The answer is quite elementary actually: Greek grammar!  The text reads:
 
"houtos an en arche pros ton theon" (John 1.2)

"houtos" is the demonstrative pronoun and it is masculine in gender and singular in number. 

In all reality the Greek can be translated as: "This man was in the beginning with God."  Or better simply"He was in the beginning with God." 

I wanted to be sure, lest I mistranslate.  So I went to "have a talk with Baur" (that is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition).  Baur says "houtos" is used with something that immediately preceded" (p. 740) and cites John 1.2 as an example.  Now this is quite significant for our discussion.  Ed keep insisting that "he" of v.2 is NOT the "word" of v.1. But grammatically he hasn't a leg to stant on. 

Just in case Baur was wrong I checked the rules of demonstrative pronouns.  I used Blass, Debrunner and Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.  If we look on p.151 (paradigm 190) we learn that:

"houtos is used to point to someone . . . to someone previously mentioned = the subject which is continued in the discussion . . . and especially to introduce what is to be narrated about a person after an introduction." (emphasis in B-D-F).

This speaks volumes to our discussion.  1) John thought the word was a "he" because that is what he calls him with the demonstrative pronoun; 2) there is NO doubt who "houtos" refers to grammatically. 

So now we know why John 1.1-2 is translated as it is and quite accurately.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Milwaukee, WI

The Greek is against your interpretation, Squeaky.

Pax.

[Squeakybro]

Squeaky when the Word became flesh (human) who did the Word become if not Jesus.

The Word was God and the Word became human. Who was the Word?

I said
Have you ever looked up the definition of flesh in that verse??? Its carnally minded. The word flesh is not talking about skin and bones.

So you're saying "The Word became carnally minded?"

I presume you're takjing your definition from Webster's rather than a Greek dictionary. Webster's gives several definitions for "flesh"; how did you decide which definition was the right one?


Verse 14 says "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." The original Greek translates as something like "pitched his tent" or "tabernacled" among us. The Word, which was with God and was God became human and dwelled among us. There's simply no other way to sensibly interpret this passage.

Pax.

I said
You should look for the gift of discernment.  I never said the Word became carnally minded. The carnally minded is what motivated the flesh. And when someone start walking according to the Word the Word becomes what motivates the flesh. Then a person is spiritually minded.

That is from a bible dictionary, strongs.

John 1:14
14   And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
(NKJ)

4561  sarx (sarx);

probably from the base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul [or spirit], or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties [physically or morally] and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such):

KJV-- carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).

Squeaky why do you insist on forcing John 1:1-ff to say something John never intended? You've gotta do all these exegetical gymnastics in order to force the text into agreeing with your preconceived ideas. As Occam's Razor holds, the simplest solution is usually the correct one. So with Biblical interpretation, the simplest reading is usually the more accurate. Why do you feel compelled to read into the text stuff that isn't there?

Pax.

I said
Your the one running on a preconcieved idea. I take John 1-1 for what it says. I'm sorry but someone told you along time ago that the Word means Jesus and it doesnt.

John 1:1

1   In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NKJ)

[Squeakybro]

Squeaky, here's an old post by Bobby Valentine (a NT Greek scholar) which I hope you'll consider:

It is my intention to explain "How did [the] apostle John get the IDEA that the WORD is a 'he'?"   The answer is quite elementary actually: Greek grammar!  The text reads:
 
"houtos an en arche pros ton theon" (John 1.2)

"houtos" is the demonstrative pronoun and it is masculine in gender and singular in number. 

In all reality the Greek can be translated as: "This man was in the beginning with God."  Or better simply"He was in the beginning with God." 

I wanted to be sure, lest I mistranslate.  So I went to "have a talk with Baur" (that is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition).  Baur says "houtos" is used with something that immediately preceded" (p. 740) and cites John 1.2 as an example.  Now this is quite significant for our discussion.  Ed keep insisting that "he" of v.2 is NOT the "word" of v.1. But grammatically he hasn't a leg to stant on. 

Just in case Baur was wrong I checked the rules of demonstrative pronouns.  I used Blass, Debrunner and Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.  If we look on p.151 (paradigm 190) we learn that:

"houtos is used to point to someone . . . to someone previously mentioned = the subject which is continued in the discussion . . . and especially to introduce what is to be narrated about a person after an introduction." (emphasis in B-D-F).

This speaks volumes to our discussion.  1) John thought the word was a "he" because that is what he calls him with the demonstrative pronoun; 2) there is NO doubt who "houtos" refers to grammatically. 

So now we know why John 1.1-2 is translated as it is and quite accurately.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Milwaukee, WI

The Greek is against your interpretation, Squeaky.

Pax.

I said
Ok I considered it. And dont agree with it. That is just someones opinion.

[twd]

Nope.  I said I wasn't going to provide any more troll chow, and I'm not.   ::)

[Lee Freeman]

Squeaky, here's an old post by Bobby Valentine (a NT Greek scholar) which I hope you'll consider:

It is my intention to explain "How did [the] apostle John get the IDEA that the WORD is a 'he'?"   The answer is quite elementary actually: Greek grammar!  The text reads:
 
"houtos an en arche pros ton theon" (John 1.2)

"houtos" is the demonstrative pronoun and it is masculine in gender and singular in number. 

In all reality the Greek can be translated as: "This man was in the beginning with God."  Or better simply"He was in the beginning with God." 

I wanted to be sure, lest I mistranslate.  So I went to "have a talk with Baur" (that is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition).  Baur says "houtos" is used with something that immediately preceded" (p. 740) and cites John 1.2 as an example.  Now this is quite significant for our discussion.  Ed keep insisting that "he" of v.2 is NOT the "word" of v.1. But grammatically he hasn't a leg to stant on. 

Just in case Baur was wrong I checked the rules of demonstrative pronouns.  I used Blass, Debrunner and Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.  If we look on p.151 (paradigm 190) we learn that:

"houtos is used to point to someone . . . to someone previously mentioned = the subject which is continued in the discussion . . . and especially to introduce what is to be narrated about a person after an introduction." (emphasis in B-D-F).

This speaks volumes to our discussion.  1) John thought the word was a "he" because that is what he calls him with the demonstrative pronoun; 2) there is NO doubt who "houtos" refers to grammatically. 

So now we know why John 1.1-2 is translated as it is and quite accurately.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Milwaukee, WI

The Greek is against your interpretation, Squeaky.

Pax.

I said
Ok I considered it. And dont agree with it. That is just someones opinion.

Squeaky, this isn't "somebody's opinion"; its a fact. Do you have compelling evidence to refute it? Are you a better Greek scholar than Bobby or the specilaists he quoted? Saying that Jesus wasn't God won't it so. If you can offer compelling evidence from a respected Greek scholar to refute this evidence I'm listening.

You can choose to accept the fact of Christ's deity or reject it, just like, incredibly, there are still some people who believe the earth is flat. But the world is round in spite of their belief. Your belief that Jesus was just an ordinary guy won't change the fact that he was God incarnate. But at some point you're going to have to face the facts-you cannot continue to live in denial. "Don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind" won't get you very far.

Pax.

[Squeakybro]

Squeaky, here's an old post by Bobby Valentine (a NT Greek scholar) which I hope you'll consider:

It is my intention to explain "How did [the] apostle John get the IDEA that the WORD is a 'he'?"   The answer is quite elementary actually: Greek grammar!  The text reads:
 
"houtos an en arche pros ton theon" (John 1.2)

"houtos" is the demonstrative pronoun and it is masculine in gender and singular in number. 

In all reality the Greek can be translated as: "This man was in the beginning with God."  Or better simply"He was in the beginning with God." 

I wanted to be sure, lest I mistranslate.  So I went to "have a talk with Baur" (that is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition).  Baur says "houtos" is used with something that immediately preceded" (p. 740) and cites John 1.2 as an example.  Now this is quite significant for our discussion.  Ed keep insisting that "he" of v.2 is NOT the "word" of v.1. But grammatically he hasn't a leg to stant on. 

Just in case Baur was wrong I checked the rules of demonstrative pronouns.  I used Blass, Debrunner and Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.  If we look on p.151 (paradigm 190) we learn that:

"houtos is used to point to someone . . . to someone previously mentioned = the subject which is continued in the discussion . . . and especially to introduce what is to be narrated about a person after an introduction." (emphasis in B-D-F).

This speaks volumes to our discussion.  1) John thought the word was a "he" because that is what he calls him with the demonstrative pronoun; 2) there is NO doubt who "houtos" refers to grammatically. 

So now we know why John 1.1-2 is translated as it is and quite accurately.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Milwaukee, WI

The Greek is against your interpretation, Squeaky.

Pax.

I said
Ok I considered it. And dont agree with it. That is just someones opinion.

Squeaky, this isn't "somebody's opinion"; its a fact. Do you have compelling evidence to refute it? Are you a better Greek scholar than Bobby or the specilaists he quoted? Saying that Jesus wasn't God won't it so. If you can offer compelling evidence from a respected Greek scholar to refute this evidence I'm listening.

You can choose to accept the fact of Christ's deity or reject it, just like, incredibly, there are still some people who believe the earth is flat. But the world is round in spite of their belief. Your belief that Jesus was just an ordinary guy won't change the fact that he was God incarnate. But at some point you're going to have to face the facts-you cannot continue to live in denial. "Don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind" won't get you very far.

Pax.

I said
I can offer the best evidence of all. The Holy Spirit.

John 14:26
26   "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
(NKJ)

We are not to even trust our own opinions mose less someone elses opinion. You trust in mans wisdom, I dont.

Rom 12:16
16   Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.
(NKJ)

Mans wisdom says what your trying to say not the Word of God.

Rev 22:18-19
18   For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
19   and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(NKJ)

It would be nice if you knew the Holy Spirit.

[Cliftyman]

Squeaky plain and simple.  If houtos doesn't refer to a man in John 1:2, then half the bible makes no sense.

houtos - Strong's # 3778

Mat 5:19 Whosoever 3739 1437 therefore 3767 shall break 3089 one 3391 of these 5130 least 1646 commandments 1785, and 2532 shall teach 1321 men 444 so 3779, he shall be called 2564 the least 1646 in 1722 the kingdom 932 of heaven 3772: but 1161 whosoever 3739 302 shall do 4160 and 2532 teach 1321 [them], the same 3778 shall be called 2564 great 3173 in 1722 the kingdom 932 of heaven 3772.

Mat 13:22 He also 1161 that received seed 4687 among 1519 the thorns 173 is 2076 he that 3778 heareth 191 the word 3056; and 2532 the care 3308 of this 5127 world 165, and 2532 the deceitfulness 539 of riches 4149, choke 4846 the word 3056, and 2532 he becometh 1096 unfruitful 175.

Mat 12:23 And 2532 all 3956 the people 3793 were amazed 1839 , and 2532 said 3004 , Is 2076 not 3385 this 3778 the son 5207 of David 1138?

and it appears this way hundreds of times in the bible.

So as I said you are simply wrong.... and the Holy Spirit is not wrong, so what you have learned is not from the Holy Spirit.

I know that you did not gain this knowledge from the Holy Spirit.... who taught this to you?  An elder with your church?  That person that taught this to you is a false teacher.  You can either choose to recognize this as a wise person and heed it, or you can be a fool and disregard it.

This is the end of my communication with you.  The evidence is plain and clear to understand.  "houtos" is a demonstrative word that refers to people not things and it is always masculine.  Learn from this teaching, share it with the false teacher who taught the incorrect meaning to you and watch their reaction.  You'll know a false teacher by their fruit.

[Dennis]

Squeakybro,

I, and many here have discussed matters with Bobby Valentine on many occasions, so we are familiar with his background and education.  We can thereby evaluate the credibility of his Greek analysis.

If you are going to challenge his analysis, then to have any credibility, you need to tell us your background and education as a Greek scholar. Otherwise, you denials have no substance.

[Lee Freeman]

Squeaky, I can't say it much better than Clifty did above. The way the word houtos is used in other places in the Bible tells us, along with the context of John 1:2, how houtos should be interpreted there.

Can't you understand that to us, defending your, to us strange views, by saying "The Holy Spirit told me so," is a cop-out? By claiming the Holy Spirit said so as you do, you basically make it so that you can never be wrong!!! Peter had the Holy Spirit, right? Yet he said in II Peter 3:16 that the Apostle Paul wrote some things that are hard to understand. How can this be? Didn't Peter have the Holy Spirit?

John 1:2, however, is not at all hard to understand. As Clifty said, the Holy Spirit would not inspire an interpretation that clearly contracticted other scripture, let alone the usages of ancient Greek, in which the Holy Spirit chose to write.

Why would the Spirit inspire the NT authors to write in NT Greek and then allow them to violate the rules of that language? You cannot arbitraily pick the definition of a word and try to make that definition automatically fit everywhere that word is used. You can't do it with English, and you certainly can't do it with Greek. The Jehovah's Witnesses do this.

No, Squeaky, as Paul said, "God is not the author of confusion." You are.

Pax.

[Squeakybro]

Squeaky plain and simple.  If houtos doesn't refer to a man in John 1:2, then half the bible makes no sense.

houtos - Strong's # 3778

Mat 5:19 Whosoever 3739 1437 therefore 3767 shall break 3089 one 3391 of these 5130 least 1646 commandments 1785, and 2532 shall teach 1321 men 444 so 3779, he shall be called 2564 the least 1646 in 1722 the kingdom 932 of heaven 3772: but 1161 whosoever 3739 302 shall do 4160 and 2532 teach 1321 [them], the same 3778 shall be called 2564 great 3173 in 1722 the kingdom 932 of heaven 3772.

Mat 13:22 He also 1161 that received seed 4687 among 1519 the thorns 173 is 2076 he that 3778 heareth 191 the word 3056; and 2532 the care 3308 of this 5127 world 165, and 2532 the deceitfulness 539 of riches 4149, choke 4846 the word 3056, and 2532 he becometh 1096 unfruitful 175.

Mat 12:23 And 2532 all 3956 the people 3793 were amazed 1839 , and 2532 said 3004 , Is 2076 not 3385 this 3778 the son 5207 of David 1138?

and it appears this way hundreds of times in the bible.

So as I said you are simply wrong.... and the Holy Spirit is not wrong, so what you have learned is not from the Holy Spirit.

I know that you did not gain this knowledge from the Holy Spirit.... who taught this to you?  An elder with your church?  That person that taught this to you is a false teacher.  You can either choose to recognize this as a wise person and heed it, or you can be a fool and disregard it.

This is the end of my communication with you.  The evidence is plain and clear to understand.  "houtos" is a demonstrative word that refers to people not things and it is always masculine.  Learn from this teaching, share it with the false teacher who taught the incorrect meaning to you and watch their reaction.  You'll know a false teacher by their fruit.

I said
Its usually the simpliest understanding that is correct.
Now God is neither male nor female and we call Him a "He" the Holy Spirit is neither male nor female and we call Him a "He". "He" is a spiritual title of authority. And why wouldnt Gods Word carry the same spiritual title of authority? God Word carries the spiritual title of "He" to over rule mans word.

[Lee Freeman]

Squeaky where in God's Word did he say that "he" was a title of "spiritual authority?" Do you have evidence from ancient Greek that Greek authors they ever used "he" in such a way? Of course not. It can't be that way just because you say so. You've gotta support your assertion with textual evidence from the Greek. Around here we call that an inference. The same word you say is used here as a title of "spiritual authority" is the same demonstrative masculine pronoun used to describe other, oridinary, men.

You're correct that God, Christ and the Spirit are spirit, yet when God became flesh he took on masculine characteristics. Which is why John 1:2 translates literally as: "This man was in the beginning with God" or "He was in the beginning with God."

The same he that was with God and was God, "made his dwelling among us."

Pax.

[Cliftyman]

The LORD <03068> is my shepherd <07462>; I shall not want <02637>. 2HE maketh me to lie down <07257> in green <01877> pastures <04999>: he leadeth <05095> me beside the still <04496> waters <04325>.

David was inspired by the Holy Spirit, your words would make him out like he wasn't.

As I said before you need to investigate and consider that whoever has taught you these things is a false teacher.  I know you didn't come to them by your own study and I know the Holy Spirit didn't reveal them to you.

Isn't that right?  Who taught you this Squeaky?  I know if you answer this falsely you would be lying.... further proof that the Holy Spirit is not guiding you in this belief.

Some man or woman out there has taught you these things and they have told you they are true because the Holy Spirit told them it was.  You've been shown that the words of John 1:2 refer to a man (houtos) and that man is Jesus.  You've come back with saying that the bible doesn't refer to God as a man, or as he, yet I've showed you where the Prophet David, a man after God's own heart referred to God as "he".  So if these people taught you this way and it is false the Holy Spirit is not behind their teaching.

Think and ponder this.  Satan and false teachers are trying to destroy your soul.  As I said before you can either acknowledge this and consider what we are saying (and we are trying to help you) or you can disregard it as a fool would... living in knowing ignorance.

If you do disregard it (even when you've been shown its false) and continue teaching it you have become a false teacher yourself, and you will be held accountable for that.  Its one thing to believe wrongly, its quite another to teach falsely.