Salvation and the Trinity

[2ducklow]

Sure, you can say that. In fact, I said explicitly that "you are entitled to that opinion."



Once again, you are relying upon a hasty reading or it's that you were lying in wait expecting something to be said to you which, whether or not it actually was said, is what you want to reply to.

Not only did I say that you are entitled to your opinion--which doesn't mean I have to agree to it in order to respect your POV--but I didn't say that if one doesn't believe in the Trinity, he cannot be saved. I took care, in fact, not to say that. And I didn't say anything even close to "It's impossible to believe in Jesus and not believe in the Trinity."

herei s what you said in post #38

You're entitled to that opinion, but I am of the opinion that it is virtually impossible to accept the Bible--even with the problems of translations and grammar, etc. -- and NOT believe that Jesus was God in the flesh

I took your statement to be saying "it's impossible to believe in Jesus and not believe iJesus is god" and you did not explain what you meant, you just denyed that you meant that. what did you mean when you said it? It can only mean that you b elieve anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is god doesn't accept the bible, aka, me. how was I suppose to take it? the f act is you contradicted yourself here.

Let me correct you. You are "inferring" from what I wrote. I didn't "insinutate" anything of the sort.

and once again you didnt explain what you meant.

Aibrean has already covered the most famous verse of that sort. In addition, we have Romans 5:9

'wrath of god THOUGH Jesus christ" Romans 5.9 proves Jesus is not god.

and Jesus accepting Thomas' proclamaintion that he was Lord and God.

Thomas uttered an exclamation as proven by the undeniable fact that Lord and God are in the nominative case and not the vocative case. Jesus is never addressed anywhere in the bible in the nominative case, nor is anyone else. the nominative case is not used to address someone it is used to talk about someone. in this case an exclamation.
trinitarians have made up a grammar rule that says the nominative is used for the vocative, but the o nly example they have is john20.28 the verse you refer to. why don't you just quote the scripture that says "Jesus is God"? cause you don't have one.

Then we have the use of the divine term for himself (I AM) which caused the Jews to accuse him of blasphemy.

your interpretation, so Jesus is God cause you interpret it that way. your interrpetation he was stone for claiming to be god. scripture supports that they attempted to stone him for claiming to be the christ.

And the various places in scripture (Sermon on the Mount, for instance) where Jesus purports to have the powers that only God can have--to forgive sins, etc.

all power and authority is given to Jesus by God. Including the power to forgive sins. where is the scripture that sayss Jesus is god? you don't have one. Yet you interpret scriptures right and left t o mean something the bible doesn't say about Jesus.

Three Gospels record Jesus as calling himself the "Lord of the Sabbath," a clear reference to God. He calls himself the judge of all men, although the Bible teaches that God alone judges, not some delegate.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke record him as being eternal, with the Father from everlasting--which no created being, no being other than God, can be. He claims to be equal to the Father, which no created being could be. And that's only the beginning of it.

you are refering to bad translations here, mostly, however your bad translations are condemned as such by this verse.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

The proofs are many, but you have already insultated yourself against all of them by use of that one reply--the Bible translations everyone but you use are "spurious," mistranslated, or inaccurate.

I have not, I have examined in great detail the verses you allude to, and have found them to be in no way proof that Jesus is god, I have demonstrated just a few of them here, but I could with everyone of them equallly demonstrate their invalidity as proof of Jesus being God.

 

[Albion]

The word of God is not literally God, God is not the words he speaks. God's words did not literally take a human form.

Except that that is exactly what the Gospel does say God did!

In John 1:1 we read that "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God...." I agree that there is some possibility that this could be referring to what you are calling "words he speaks," although somehow intimate enough to Him to be referred to as God himself.

HOWEVER, in the very next verse, in the very next word in fact, we read "He was in the beginning...."

"He" explains "word."

That "word" is defined in personal terms, not as a spoken sound. And then the verse goes on to speak of "He" again and again, leading up to describing those who came to "Him" and then saying "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." (vs. 14).

In other words, there is no possibility whatever that the reference is to God's spoken utterance.

 

[2ducklow]

Except that that is exactly what the Gospel does say God did!

In John 1:1 we read that "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God...." I agree that there is some possibility that this could be referring to what you are calling "words he speaks," although somehow intimate enough to Him to be referred to as God himself.

HOWEVER, in the very next verse, in the very next word in fact, we read "He was in the beginning...."

"He" explains "word."

That "word" is defined in personal terms, not as a spoken sound. And then the verse goes on to speak of "He" again and again, leading up to describing those who came to "Him" and then saying "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." (vs. 14).

In other words, there is no possibility whatever that the reference is to God's spoken utterance.

The word became flesh can't be figurative? I say it can and is. The word or God's plan for man, which is what hte bible is, took on a fleshly form with the birth of Jesus because Jesus is the fulfillment of God's plan for man. As the bible says all things were created in for, through and unto Jesus. Jesus is the fulfillment of God's word, therefore figuratively he is the word.

ever hear someone say something like "Oh mike he is football." you know that means Mike is a football fanatic,. You know that Mike is not football because to say so would be nonsense, Likewise, it is nonsesne to say Jesus is god's word, what 'God says.
All Greek nouns have gender, English nouns have no gender. Whether autos should be translated 'he' or 'it', depends in
english on whether one considers 'word' to be an it or a he.

This is why Rotherham ( as do the ASV, DARBY, and Douay-Rhiems trnaslations )translates it as 'the same' leaving the decision to the reader as to whether logos is an it or a he.

Rotherham) John 1:2 The same, was originally, with God.

Or the YLT says "this one" he too leaves it to the reader to decide if the word is an he or an it.

(Young) John 1:2 this one was in the beginning with God;


in other words you can't decide based on Greek grammar where autos is masculine, because all Greek words have one of 3 genders, masculine, neuter, or feminine. so translating it as he or it is a matter of ones doctrine, not Greek grammar.

Spirit is neuter in Greek, so that would mean that the HOly Spirit is neuter and therefore an it and not a he if one , as you have indirectly done, translates the pronouns literally with no regards to the difference in Greek an English on this matter.

 

[Albion]

The word became flesh can't be figurative?

Well, that's not very figurative language. But if it is what you say, what do we do with the dozen or so lines of scripture that surround this phrase and which speak of him as a man who came unto his own home, that the people received him not, that those who did, however, became children of God, that he was "beheld," etc., and then identifies "him" the "son of God," after which this "word" is NAMED JESUS CHRIST!?

No, there is no way that all of that refers to a sound that is spoken (word).

And that's to deal with just ONE of many verses in scripture that show Jesus to be God incarnate!

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]Thomas uttered an exclamation as proven by the undeniable fact that Lord and God are in the nominative case and not the vocative case. Jesus is never addressed anywhere in the bible in the nominative case, nor is anyone else. the nominative case is not used to address someone it is used to talk about someone. in this case an exclamation.
trinitarians have made up a grammar rule that says the nominative is used for the vocative, but the o nly example they have is john20.28 the verse you refer to. why don't you just quote the scripture that says "Jesus is God"? cause you don't have one.[ . . . ]

This is a specious argument. You started a thread john 20.28 nom for nom., posted some misquotes, out-of-context quotes from 2-3 online sources and ignored all the lexical, and grammatical evidence which refuted your fallacious arguments and then abandoned your own thread. Four of the Greek grammars which refuted your arguments begins Here!

 

[2ducklow]

Well, that's not very figurative language. But if it is what you say, what do we do with the dozen or so lines of scripture that surround this phrase and which speak of him as a man who came unto his own home, that the people received him not, that those who did, however, became children of God, that he was "beheld," etc., and then identifies "him" the "son of God," after which this "word" is NAMED JESUS CHRIST!?

No, there is no way that all of that refers to a sound that is spoken (word).

And that's to deal with just ONE of many verses in scripture that show Jesus to be God incarnate!

The word was god, Hitler is Germany, Ralph is football, are all equally figurative statements. The germans did say durring ww2 "Hitler is Germany" so usinig your reasoning that isn't very figurative so Hitler had to be the German land and people literally.


nevertheless, you say emphatically it's not very figurative language, I say emphaticaly it cis very figurative language because God's word is not Jesus literally, Gods word is what god says, Jesus is a man. a man is not what god says..

you misquoted the scriptures you refer to. Jesus didnt come unto his own home, he came unto his own. you supplied "home." He came unto his own because he was and is a Jew, being born of a jewish woman, Mary.

John 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.


John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

His own home received him not? no way. It was his own people, fellow Jews who received him not. But perhaps you meant that Jesus is god because his own people are the Jews and Jews are the people of god. That would mean if I say "my people aren't like your people" then I too am god and you are god. But we both know that means the people we belong to.. To say Jesus is God because a verse says Jesus came unto his own, is very weak proof that Jesus is god. you need scripture that flat out says Jesus is god, but you have none so you are continually interpreting scripture to mean something the bible doesn't say (namely that Jesus is god).

John 1.14 explains clearly how the word became flesh, by the Father begatting Jesus.

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

You know of course what begotten means, It means God the Father fertilized Mary's egg, and he did it with new male seed that he God the Father created. I'm sure you don't believe Jesus was begotten literally since you believe the word turned into flesh. that is not the definition of begatting. So since you obviously have some sort of figurative or no explanation of how Jesus was begotten, why is it impossible that the word became flesh figuratively? the only reason is cause it supports your doctrine.

 

[Albion]

The word was god, Hitler is Germany, Ralph is football, are all equally figurative statements.

Those statements may be seen as such ONLY if they are taken alone. The wording of the first 18 verses of the Gospel of John precludes such an interpretation, as I explained.

nevertheless, you say emphatically it's not very figurative language,

That's right.

I say emphaticaly it cis very figurative language

Well, we have 95% of all Christian scholars and Bible experts, linguists, and translators of a dozen well-known Bible versions on one side of the argument supporting the deity of Jesus...and then we have, on the other side, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Unitarians, and a handful of unaffiliated anti-Trinitarians who are saying that they are the only ones who understand these things. I really doubt the objections you raise have never been thought of before by the legions of experts who have translated the scriptures into English.

you misquoted the scriptures you refer to. Jesus didnt come unto his own home, he came unto his own. you supplied "home."

Oh oh. Making that guess puts to rest your claim of being a Bible expert yourself. I took that wording straight from one of the better known Bible translations.
John 1:11 -- ("He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.")



.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

To be a Christian, one must at the least accept that Jesus is God, and there are two reasons for this:

1- If he was only God's son, then that means there are (at least) two Gods, and therefore we must dismiss Christianity as a monotheistic religion. How could the earliest of Christians call Jesus their Lord and God, and yet still hold to the Judaic claims of monotheism -
"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:5)

2-If Jesus was not God, and not God's son, but only a human (or even half-human/half-God hybrid), then his death has no relevance. He would have been as sinful as the rest of us, and therefore no substitution for our sins. Unless of course, it is possible to live a completely sinless life, which also puts the Bible's claims as false. If we could earn heaven for ourselves, there would be no need for Jesus in the first place -
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us". (1 John 1:8)

Therefore the only logical way for a person to be a Christian is to accept Jesus as God.

~ Regards,

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

John 1.14 explains clearly how the word became flesh, by the Father begatting Jesus.

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

You know of course what begotten means, It means God the Father fertilized Mary's egg, and he did it with new male seed that he God the Father created. I'm sure you don't believe Jesus was begotten literally since you believe the word turned into flesh. that is not the definition of begatting. So since you obviously have some sort of figurative or no explanation of how Jesus was begotten, why is it impossible that the word became flesh figuratively? the only reason is cause it supports your doctrine.

Hi 2Duck,

After reading this thread, it seems you have very strong feelings on this topic. Just to comment on this one part of your most recent post, the word "begotten" is not in the original Greek. It is how some translators have chosen to render it. The Greek word is "μονογενής " (G3439 in Strong's Concordance) and refers to "only child", "sole child". Many translations take this simplest understanding and render it "only son", rather than "only begotten son". The Greek has no implications of sexual interaction or mingling Mary's DNA with God's.

Just a thought

~ Regards,

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Oh, one more point I would like to add about Jesus' claims of Godhood. Many of the passages have been addressed already, but I haven't seen any discussion yet of John 8:58.

To put some context into it, Jesus is teaching in the Temple and he tells them that if they keep to his words, they will never see death. The Jews call him a liar and point to the fact that Abraham is dead, and all the prophets are dead. Jesus then says that they are wrong, and that he has seen Abraham. Again the Jews scoff, laughing that Jesus is still very young (not yet fifty) and claims to have seen Abraham.

In response to this, Jesus makes the following claim:

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58).

The term "I am" which concludes these comments is a reference to Yahweh, the God of Israel, who in Exodus was asked by Moses what name he should give the Israelites, God replies: "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:14). This is an outright claim by Jesus, identifying himself as the "I AM", claiming he was God.

To counter this claim, those who don't believe Jesus was God have tried to tell me that the passage is simply saying "Before Abraham existed, God existed". But there is one very big flaw in that argument. This would not be heretical. It would not rile the Jews up into such a frenzy that they would try to pick up rocks and stone Jesus on the spot.

But that's exactly what did happen - John 8:59 records those in the Temple immediately grabbing rocks. Nothing short of an outrageous and blasphemous claim such as "I am God" could set them off the way it did.

~ Regards, PA

 

[2ducklow]

Those statements may be seen as such ONLY if they are taken alone. The wording of the first 18 verses of the Gospel of John precludes such an interpretation, as I explained.

all youy have done is assert emphatically that it can't be figurative, that's no reason why it can't. And something about well John 1.14 says the word became flesh so john 1.1 can't be figurative, to which i responded with johh 1.14 states that the way the word became flesh ways by God begatting Jesus (only begotten of the Father). So the ball is in your court to explain why john 1.14 doesn't mean that the word became flesh by God begatting Jesus as john 1.14 states. Ignoring it isn't a response.

That's right.


Well, we have 95% of all Christian scholars and Bible experts, linguists, and translators of a dozen well-known Bible versions on one side of the argument supporting the deity of Jesus...and then we have, on the other side, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Unitarians, and a handful of unaffiliated anti-Trinitarians who are saying that they are the only ones who understand these things. I really doubt the objections you raise have never been thought of before by the legions of experts who have translated the scriptures into English.

Zechariah 4:10 For who hath despised the day of small things? for these seven shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel; these are the eyes of Jehovah, which run to and fro through the whole earth.

Those that believed in Jesus at the beginning of christianity could all fit into an upper room. When pentecost came back at stones folly in 1900 it was one woman who started it all. If you go back to 1400 every crhistian in western europe was catholic and believed in puragotory. etc.

Oh oh. Making that guess puts to rest your claim of being a Bible expert yourself. I took that wording straight from one of the better known Bible translations.
John 1:11 -- ("He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.")



.

well the question is is the word home in the original Greek manuscirpts or is it the translators interpretation.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) John 1:11 eiV <1519> ta <3588> {TO} idia <2398> {HIS OWN} hlqen <2064> (5627) {HE CAME,} kai <2532> oi <3588> {AND} idioi <2398> {HIS OWN} auton <846> ou <3756> {HIM} parelabon <3880> (5627) {RECEIVED NOT;}

Search for 'Genesis 1:1' in the version

and the word home is not in the original Greek manuscipts so your translator supplied the extra word 'home' to the scripture.

 

[2ducklow]

To be a Christian, one must at the least accept that Jesus is God, and there are two reasons for this:

1- If he was only God's son, then that means there are (at least) two Gods, and therefore we must dismiss Christianity as a monotheistic religion. How could the earliest of Christians call Jesus their Lord and God, and yet still hold to the Judaic claims of monotheism -
"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:5)

the earlist christians, Paul, Thomas, Mark, John etc, didn't call Jesus their God, the early christian gentiles steeped in Greek philosophy brought the concept to Christianity via logos christology.

God is a spirit, and spirit does not begat flesh, yet God who is spirit begat flesh (Jesus). This was accomplished by god creating new human flesh (male seed) to begat Jesus with and with which he caused Mary to conceive, thus making Jesus , not a hybrid, but 100 percent human. Jesus was not half god and half man,

so your opening premise is based on a false assumption that god who is spirit begat by his spirit flesh, he didn't.

2-If Jesus was not God, and not God's son, but only a human (or even half-human/half-God hybrid), then his death has no relevance. He would have been as sinful as the rest of us, and therefore no substitution for our sins. Unless of course, it is possible to live a completely sinless life, which also puts the Bible's claims as false. If we could earn heaven for ourselves, there would be no need for Jesus in the first place -
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us". (1 John 1:8)

you are still assuming that god who is spirit begat Jesus who is flesh with his spirit , he didn't. That c oncept contradicts plain and clear scripture.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Therefore the only logical way for a person to be a Christian is to accept Jesus as God.

~ Regards,

your premise is faulty therefore your conclusion is invalid.

 

[2ducklow]

Hi 2Duck,

After reading this thread, it seems you have very strong feelings on this topic. Just to comment on this one part of your most recent post, the word "begotten" is not in the original Greek. It is how some translators have chosen to render it. The Greek word is "&#956;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#951;&#769;&#962; " (G3439 in Strong's Concordance) and refers to "only child", "sole child". Many translations take this simplest understanding and render it "only son", rather than "only begotten son". The Greek has no implications of sexual interaction or mingling Mary's DNA with God's.

Just a thought

~ Regards,

As I recall, some believe it should be 'only begotten" others are of the opinon that it shouldn't. My guess is that they are attempting to get the fact that Jesus was begotten by god out of the bible, and so they probably just made it up to do that, just like they often translate the Greek word that means begat as conceive in order to take the fact that Jesus was begotten of god out of the bible. It is a fact that rubs against the Jesus is god doctrine and contradicts that doctrine, so get it out of the bible. just like the grammar rules they invented to make the bible say something it doesn't. (sharps, coldwells, verbs have no subjects, is and become are action verbs and not linking verbs, nominative for vocative etc.)

The Old Latin translation was made not later than the 2nd. century, and it is significant that the translators who were in a position to know how the word MONOGENES was understood by contemporary Greek Christians, rendered it "UNIGENITUS - "only-begotten", not UNICUS - "only". It is therefore clear that the rendering "only-begotten Son" in the Authorised Version is well supported by ancient evidence.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...y+begotten+john+1.14&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

THe real motivation, IMO,is to get the fact that Jesus was begotten of God out of the bible, thus for that reason I'm highly suspicious of their claims that it monogenes doesn't mean only begotten.


It makes no difference as to whether Jesus was begotten or not b ecause other scripture clearly states that Jesus was begotten by God.

Acts 13:33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

(Young) Matthew 1:20 And on his thinking of these things, lo, a messenger of the Lord in a dream appeared to him, saying, `Joseph, son of David, thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife, for that which in her was begotten [is] of the Holy Spirit,

and here is what most bibles change matthew 1.20 to.

(ASV) Matthew 1:20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

god didn't have sex with Mary or mingle his DNA with Mary's, God created male seed that contained DNA that mingled with Mary's DNA. If Jesus didn't have DNA he wasn't human.

Jesus is the new creation of god to replace the old creation (Adam) who is dieng and about gone.

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

god created new human male seed (the new t hing) which enabled a woman (Mary) to compass or go around a man to conceive. thus Jesus is the beginning of that new creation of God.

Revelation 3:14 And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:

And Jesus is also called the firstborn of that new creation of god.

Colossians 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

and Jesus is called the firstborn amongst many brethern, who are also new creations by being in Christ Jesus who is the beginning of Gods new creation of man.

Romans 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:

Jesus was born you know, he came out of a womans womb as a maybe 10 pound enfant. He was tied with an umbiblical cord that had to be cut, he was all covered in fluids, he couldn't talk when he came out of the womb, he didn't know one word of anything, he had to learn it all,. Jesus didn't come out of the womb spouting calculus formulas.




The bible says Mary conceived so I believe Mary conceived Jesus, don't you?

 

[2ducklow]

Oh, one more point I would like to add about Jesus' claims of Godhood. Many of the passages have been addressed already, but I haven't seen any discussion yet of John 8:58.

To put some context into it, Jesus is teaching in the Temple and he tells them that if they keep to his words, they will never see death. The Jews call him a liar and point to the fact that Abraham is dead, and all the prophets are dead. Jesus then says that they are wrong, and that he has seen Abraham. Again the Jews scoff, laughing that Jesus is still very young (not yet fifty) and claims to have seen Abraham.

In response to this, Jesus makes the following claim:

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58).

The term "I am" which concludes these comments is a reference to Yahweh, the God of Israel, who in Exodus was asked by Moses what name he should give the Israelites, God replies: "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:14). This is an outright claim by Jesus, identifying himself as the "I AM", claiming he was God.

To counter this claim, those who don't believe Jesus was God have tried to tell me that the passage is simply saying "Before Abraham existed, God existed". But there is one very big flaw in that argument. This would not be heretical. It would not rile the Jews up into such a frenzy that they would try to pick up rocks and stone Jesus on the spot.

But that's exactly what did happen - John 8:59 records those in the Temple immediately grabbing rocks. Nothing short of an outrageous and blasphemous claim such as "I am God" could set them off the way it did.

~ Regards, PA

the whole discussion in john 8 is Jesus claiming to be the Christ without directly stateing that he is the christ. The reason Jesus didn't straight out say he was the christ is because they would have stoned him to death if he did, which they did do at his trial when he finally straight out admited that he is the christ.
scripture makes it clear that this is what he meant when he said "before
Abraham was, I am (he , the Christ)."

John 10:24-25 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me.


Jesus told them that he was the christ previously in John 8.58, but not plainly,and they didn't believe him then. John 10.25 explains what john 8.58 means. I am he. he is understood.

 

[Der Alte]

The word became flesh can't be figurative? I say it can and is. The word or God's plan for man, which is what hte bible is, took on a fleshly form with the birth of Jesus because Jesus is the fulfillment of God's plan for man. As the bible says all things were created in for, through and unto Jesus. Jesus is the fulfillment of God's word, therefore figuratively he is the word.

ever hear someone say something like "Oh mike he is football." you know that means Mike is a football fanatic,. You know that Mike is not football because to say so would be nonsense, Likewise, it is nonsesne to say Jesus is god's word, what 'God says.

This argument might be relevant if it could be shown that 1st century Koine Greek had the same colloquial idiomatic expressions as modern English.

All Greek nouns have gender, English nouns have no gender. Whether autos should be translated 'he' or 'it', depends in
english on whether one considers 'word' to be an it or a he.

Or the context requires it.

This is why Rotherham ( as do the ASV, DARBY, and Douay-Rhiems trnaslations )translates it as 'the same' leaving the decision to the reader as to whether logos is an it or a he.

Rotherham) John 1:2 The same, was originally, with God.

Or the YLT says "this one" he too leaves it to the reader to decide if the word is an he or an it.

(Young) John 1:2 this one was in the beginning with God;

Private translations by individuals are irrelevant because, not being subject to any review, they will reflect the bias of the translator.

in other words you can't decide based on Greek grammar where autos is masculine, because all Greek words have one of 3 genders, masculine, neuter, or feminine. so translating it as he or it is a matter of ones doctrine, not Greek grammar.

Spirit is neuter in Greek, so that would mean that the HOly Spirit is neuter and therefore an it and not a he if one , as you have indirectly done, translates the pronouns literally with no regards to the difference in Greek an English on this matter.

Greek has grammatical gender, i.e. the noun pneuma (spirit) is always neuter, but there is also the natural gender, thus a neuter noun, pnemua can be used to identify a masculine or feminine spirit.

Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., LL.D., LITT.D.

VIII. Concord in Gender. Here we deal only with nouns, for verbs have no gender. But gender plays an important part in the agreement of substantive and adjective.

(a) FLUCTUATIONS IN GENDER. The whole matter is difficult, for substantives have two sorts of gender, natural and grammatical. The two do not always agree. The apparent violations of the rules of gender can generally be explained by the conflict in these two points of view with the additional observation that the grammatical gender of some words changed or was never firmly settled. P. 410

9. Gender and Number. Little remains to be said about variations in gender and number. Two passages in John call for remark, inasmuch as they bear on the personality of the Holy Spirit.
In 14:26, o de paraklhtos, to pneuma to agion o pemfei o pathr en tw onomati mou ekeinos umas didaxei, the relative o’ follows the grammatical gender of pneuma. Ekeinos, however, skips over pneuma and reverts to the gender of paraklhtos. In 16:13 a more striking example occurs, otan de elqh ekeinos to pneuma ths alhqeias.. Here one has to go back six lines to ekeinos again and seven to paraklhtos. It is more evident therefore in this passage that John is insisting on the personality of the Holy Spirit, when the grammatical gender so easily called for ekeino. Cf. o’ in Jo. 14:17, 26 and auto in 14:17. The feminine ekeinhs in Lu. 19:4 evidently refers to odou unexpressed. P. 708-709.
​

 

[hybrid]

the whole discussion in john 8 is Jesus claiming to be the Christ without directly stateing that he is the christ. The reason Jesus didn't straight out say he was the christ is because they would have stoned him to death if he did, which they did do at his trial when he finally straight out admited that he is the christ.
scripture makes it clear that this is what he meant when he said "before
Abraham was, I am (he , the Christ)."

John 10:24-25 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me.


Jesus told them that he was the christ previously in John 8.58, but not plainly,and they didn't believe him then. John 10.25 explains what john 8.58 means. I am he. he is understood.

so did jesus as the christ pre-existed abraham or not?

.

 

[2ducklow]

so did jesus as the christ pre-existed abraham or not?

.

That's a big negatory. the bible says the beginning of Jesus christ was his conception/begatting. In Fact there is one version that translates it as beginning, can't recall which one off hand. but, here are two similar readings.

18 But the origin of Jesus Christ was thus. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the holy spirit. 19

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...s+Christ+mathew+1.18&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


(Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:18 Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.

In matthew 1.18 ,the greek word is gennhsiV which means beginning or generation or birth, but not just birth. It's equivalent to our English word genesis. 2n&#8217;s whereas there is only one n in the greek word for just birth. It&#8217;s two different words The greek word for just birth is genethV, as found in john 9.1

(Douay-Rheims) John 9:1 And Jesus passing by, saw a man who was blind from his birth.




Most people don &#8216;t know that cause it's a big whack O to the Jesus is god doctrine/preexistant Christ doctrine. As is too what 1 pet. 1.20 actually says but alas that's another story. . but here's a more better explanation of what matthew 1.18 actually says (not what bible translators change it to).

CONTEXTUAL STUFF

Our text should be read with 1:1-17 in mind. They are intentionally connected by Matthew. Our lessons begins: "The genesisof Jesus Christ was like this" (v. 18). Mt 1:1 reads: "A book of the genesis of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." Matthew could have used other words for "genealogy" or "birth," but he used this word, which is also the Greek title of the first book of scriptures. Similar wording is in the LXX at Gn 2:4 "This is the book of the genesis of heaven and earth;" and in 5:1 "This is the book of the genesis of human beings. In the day God made Adam, according to the image of God he made him." I think Matthew intended a connection between these two sections of chapter 1 and with the first book of scriptures. This is a new beginning -- a new creation.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...s+Christ+mathew+1.18&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I sorta kinda know what your response is gonna be, something like "'well how do you explain _______________________:?

I'll let you know if I guessed right.

 

[hybrid]

I sorta kinda know what your response is gonna be, something like "'well how do you explain _______________________:?

I'll let you know if I guessed right.

well, it's easy to justify jesus' humanity of course. it's not even scriptural to deny his humanity. so it's really no big deal to prove by scriptures that jesus is human ciento por ciento.


but if jesus would like just to refer to be the messiah promised by god long ago, how would you explain this away .....


Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

which clearly meant that he existed long before abraham. what kind of a figure of speech jesus used? wadyathink.


.

 

[2ducklow]

well, it's easy to justify jesus' humanity of course. it's not even scriptural to deny his humanity. so it's really no big deal to prove by scriptures that jesus is human ciento por ciento.


but if jesus would like just to refer to be the messiah promised by god long ago, how would you explain this away .....


Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

which clearly meant that he existed long before abraham. what kind of a figure of speech jesus used? wadyathink.


.

well I guessed wrong, I had thought you would ask me about John 17.5. . john 8.58 is not figurative it is literal. the meaning is that Jesus is the christ the one promised even before abraham was. I interpret john 8.58 to mean something the bible says about Jesus, that he is the christ, you interpret it to means something the bible doesn';t say about Jesus, that he is god.

but to answer your question, I answered it to another person in this thread in post #74, here it is again in a little more detail. I could go into much more but i don't think it would serve any purpose.

the whole discussion in john 8 is Jesus claiming to be the Christ without directly stateing that he is the christ. The reason Jesus didn't straight out say he was the christ is because they would have stoned him to death if he did, which they did do at his trial when he finally straight out admited that he is the christ.
scripture makes it clear that this is what he meant when he said "before
Abraham was, I am (he , the Christ)."

John 10:24-25 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me.


Jesus told them that he was the christ previously in John 8.58, but not plainly,and they didn't believe him then. John 10.25 explains what john 8.58 means. I am he. he is understood.

 

[hybrid]

I interpret john 8.58 to mean something the bible says about Jesus, that he is the christ, you interpret it to means something the bible doesn';t say about Jesus, that he is god.[./quoe]

i interpret that the christ is not a purely human being becasue of this passage ....

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

it was clear between the dialogue that jesus claims pre- existence even before abraham.

but to answer your question, I answered it to another person in this thread in post #74, here it is again in a little more detail. I could go into much more but i don't think it would serve any purpose.

Jesus told them that he was the christ previously in John 8.58, but not plainly,and they didn't believe him then. John 10.25 explains what john 8.58 means. I am he. he is understood.

this did not simply told them that he is the christ in john 8:58, jesus plainly told them that he has seen abraham and abraham had seen his days.

i don't think no human can do that.


.