Search results

its a forgery http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq026.html http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq026.html So not only is the book of Zofar of late date origin, the christian quotes of it are spurious. the zohar is not in anyway proof that jews are trinitarians. that is absurd.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/03-Torah-Halacha/section-34.html Thought this might be helpfull to explain to those of us unfamiliar with Zohar as to what it is. It would appear from this that the Zofar is unreliable as proof of trinity existing amongst Jews prior to Christ, in as much as...

sounds cool, i might run this by someone at church who knows a lot. i noticed something ineteresting in rabbi Jordan. . WE believe in an unfolding revelation of god to man starting with adam. noah knew more about God than adam, moses knew a lot more about god than noah, God didn't reveal his...

nothing in Wallaces example about firstborn of anything. man. Fallicy. it makes no sense to him. thus it is based on his theology that 'firstborn of all creation ' means something other than what it says. in him all things were created just means God created eveything with Jesus in mind...

the zohar is only 2000 years old. it originated at the time of christ. it is no proof that juadism was trinitarian. http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/about?PHPSESSID=61ffdcf94504315f4f377ffe2f21e8bf So all this argument about the Zohar predefining trinity is groundless...

nothing here but insults, typical.

A count noun? ive never heard of that. not saying your wrong but i have read a little on the grammatical analysis of john 1:1 as to anarthrous and articular nouns in these first verses of john 1. what i have read is that theos is anarthrous (without the article) and therefore can be translated...

isnt it possible that God the father revealed to Jesus the knowledge that nathaniel was under the fig tree? i imagine if we think about it we could come up with other posssibilities.

still up to your same ole tired tricks der alter; proof by insult. everything in this post of yours is personal insults directed at me. you havent analysed even one tiny bit what clement said. and you call yourselfa scholar. you must have got all Fs in debate class. what is this room anyway...

<http://www.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html>[/font][/size] Notice kenneth wuest says that theos is a quality or character of logos. Robertson is saying that logos and theos in john 1:1 are not interchangeable. he states that theos is the predicate meaning predicate nominative. a predicate nominative...

Your comparing apples and oranges here. my quotes were sholars explanations of what Clement said. you basically just quoted Clement and left it at that. not explainingwhat Clement meant by it. i find that those explanations seem plausable as to what clement meant. I have no idea what you think...

guess nobody cares that matthew 28:19 is spurious.

Nope, i was refereing to the fact that greek-english interlinears have 'toward' underneath &#960;&#961;&#959;&#962; in John 1:1,2. and that all english translations have it translated 'with'. that seems fishy to me. i don't trust completly any bible translations and I know for a fact that at...

ok then your saying it should be translated 'toward' and not 'with'? red flags pop up for me when i read interlinears that say 'toward' and translations that all say 'with'. if it means towards then why change it to with? i am aware of verses that all translators change for thelogical reasons...

to tell you the truth tony I can't make heads or tails of what clement is saying. it all sounds like a bunch of confussing statements. it is not straight forward what he is saying, at least to me. but as far as I can tell i think you are right.

here are just afew examples of &#960;&#961;&#959;&#962; in the new testament. &#960;&#961;&#959;&#962; indicates direction not with.

'&#949;&#957; &#945;&#961;&#967;&#965; &#949;&#957; &#959; &#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962; = in beginning was the Word, &#954;&#945;&#953; &#959; &#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962; &#949;&#957; &#960;&#961;&#959;&#962; &#964;&#959;&#957; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#957;, = and the word was toward God...

when words of Jesus or the bible directly contradict our doctrine we always have difficulty with them.

answer; no.[/font] answer; premise is wrong john didnt write that Jesus is the same god as the father. answer is obvious, john 1;1 doesnt prove Jesus is god. only people looking at scripture with trifocal lenses see trinity in john 1;1 that should be obvious. ANSWER; because translators...