scriptures ignored by Trinitarians.

[Zebra1552]

every bible ever written disagrees with your fantasy scripture. they all say 'the only true god.' or 'the only real god.' I don't accepty your fanatasy made up scripture that says "the only full representation of god." Butlet me say this about that right here.if represent means is as you are asserting, then your fantasy translation really means this. "the only fully is god." So then you are saying that god the father is the only fully is god, which would leave the fictious god the son and god the holy spirit out of the picture. so in our vern acular what you are saying is that God the father is the only one who fully is god (represent means is in your fantasy vocabulary). so Jesus then according to you isn't fully god, nor is god the holy spirit. or does only mean 1/3 in your fantasy vocalbulary? probably. I don't care you don't care nobody cares but Jesus.

You're ignoring what I'm saying, so we're done. I don't discuss things with people who put words in my mouth and attack an argument I'm not making, especially not after they've been told more than twice that they're doing it.

it's not an insult it's afact that you don't understand simmple english words like represent and image, amongst others. not an insult it's a fact.Lets see I have a photo of a battleship, it's an image of a famous battleship,WOW I have a battleship cause an iomage of something is that something, accoirding to you. it's really amazing what you believe.

You're creating a giant straw man argument, nothing more.

nah it's cause you don't understand language. you don't understand a mnultitude of words such as represent and image. I see below that you think the image of something is it too. like a photo is an image of someone so according to you a photo is that person. I can't debate with someone who doesn't understand even simple english .

Hermeneutics is not simple! It never has been! You're not dealing with a difference in words, you're dealing with a difference in culture too, and you're refusing to take that into account. You're also getting hung up on ONE passage, which, even if you did interpret your way doesn't actually show what you want it to show and are completely ignoring every single one of my main points to try to 'win' this one. Tell me why I should care to continue this!

 

[Breetai]

John chapter 1.

In John 1:1c, we read:
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

You see θεὸς being positioned first here because it's being stressed that everything θεὸς is, ὁ λόγος also is. Yet, there's no definite article on θεὸς, but there is on λόγος. Why? Because it keeps them exclusive from each other. Greek grammar demands this.

In fact, the entirety of John 1 stresses this; that Christ is God, there is only One God, but also that Christ and the Father are individual from each other. The nominative at the beginning of John 1 is ὁ λόγος, which carries over at the main nominative throughout the narrare and is exactly what the context brings out with δι᾽ αὐτοῦ in verse 3. It's clear in English, and it's clear in Greek.

It should be translated"it" not "he" or "him" because word is an it not a he. Translators put he and him here because of their doctrine ,, not grammar.

αὐτοῦ is the masculine genitive form, and should be translated as "him". It is a "he." αὐτόν would be "it". It is because of grammar.

he word translated 'with' is the Greek word 'pros' which means towards or unto. In fact, this is about the only verse , or possible one of the very few, that has pros translated as 'with.'

Nothing wrong with translating it as "with" if the context demands it. Also, are you just using the KJV??? Why are you getting "unto" so many times? πρός comes up 700 times. 43 times it's translated as "with". 43 does not equal "about the only verse". πρός is a multi-use preposition that's decided by the context of the sentence, usually depending on the declension of the nouns affected by it.

 

[2ducklow]

^

 

[Breetai]

^

 

[Breetai]

I changed my mind and decided that your response about he was so uninformed that it was useless to explain to you that pronouns in greek, unlike in english, agree with the gender of the noun they refer tio (English nouns don't have genders). they don't agree, as in English, with what the noun actually is, whether a he, a she or an it. I also concluded that you must know this but are refusing to acknowledge it. hence i felt it useless to explain it to you, so i changed it to a circumflex.

Column me under uninformed as it's been awhile for me. λόγος is masculine, and αὐτός follows suit. Still, I don't see the problem with the translation(s) saying "he/him"... not that this really has anything to do with the topic here, does it?

How about the other points from my post. I'll try not to post in a condescending manner to you. If I did, I'm sorry. Please show me the same respect.


edit: you added the entire second paragraph to your preceding post a full hour and a half after its originally posting, just to personally attack me. What kind of person does that?

 

[2ducklow]

Column me under uninformed as it's been awhile for me. λόγος is masculine, and αὐτός follows suit. Still, I don't see the problem with the translation(s) saying "he/him"... not that this really has anything to do with the topic here, does it?

I thought I explained quite well. look at it like this. IN Greek the pronoun is determined b y the gender of the noun, IN english the pronoun is determined by what the word actually is. A woman takes a fem. she pronoun, a man takes a male he pronoun, a car, bike, street , lake, dirt, sentence, letter, word whatever, always takes a neuter It pronoun, in English, not in Greek..
In Greek a word takes a he pronoun because word is masculine. spirit is neuter in Greek so it takes a netuer it pronoun. It doesn't matter in Greek what the noun a pronoun refers to actually is.
You cant translate pronouns from Greek into english exactly because of this difference in our languages.

How about the other points from my post. I'll try not to post in a condescending manner to you. If I did, I'm sorry. Please show me the same respect.

Nothing wrong with translating it as "with" if the context demands it. Also, are you just using the KJV??? Why are you getting "unto" so many times? πρός comes up 700 times. 43 times it's translated as "with". 43 does not equal "about the only verse". πρός is a multi-use preposition that's decided by the context of the sentence, usually depending on the declension of the nouns affected by it.

Translators change pronouns to anything they want it to in order to insert their doctrine into the bible. Does 'in' in English sometimes mean with, sometimes by sometimes for? no 'in' in English always means in and so it does in Greek. Changing pronouns is an easy way for bible translators to insert their doctrine into the bible. they change "all things were create in Christ' to "all things were created by christ'. It would be like me saying "all things were created in Christ" (qhich is what the Greek actually says) and some greek guy comes along and translates it "all things were made by Christ" into Greek.

You know what you get if you translate all preposistions literally unless the english idiom absolutely requires it? YOu get the concordant literal, or Rotherham, or NWT translations.

take the word dia which means through. it is translated as by in English, which is unecessary and changes the meaning.

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by (dia) the law;
NOw for an accurate translation.
(Rotherham) Romans 2:12 For, as many as without law sinned, without law, also shall perish, and, as many as within law sinned, through (dia) law, shall be judged;

there is no need to change dia, which means through to by. through the law is perfectly understandable in english and paints a different word picture.

the only reason to change pros which means towards or unto to with in john 1.1 is because of the trinity doctrine and because of the word is a being and not the written and oral word of god. IT isn't because of idiom. "the word was towards god" or "the word was unto god" is perfectly understandable in english and it doesn't mean the same thing as " the word was with god."

 

[Zebra1552]

I changed my mind and decided that your response about he was so uninformed that it was useless to explain to you that pronouns in greek, unlike in english, agree with the gender of the noun they refer tio (English nouns don't have genders). they don't agree, as in English, with what the noun actually is, whether a he, a she or an it. I also concluded that you must know this but are refusing to acknowledge it. hence i felt it useless to explain it to you, so i changed it to a circumflex.

I figured it's just as useless to explain it to you as to try and explain that represent and image do not mean is. Just as useless as to explain to the trinitarian professor i debated with that in a sentence every verb has a subject ( he said verbs don't have subjects and is is an action verb) Imagine a professor at a college saying such nonsense, it happens all the time.. false doctrine causes people to say these sort of ridiculous things and you can't debate with people in that mode of thinking.

You can't debate with the ridiculous.

That last statement cannot possibly be true, lest much of argumentation prove futile and our perceptions unreliable.

 

[Breetai]

I thought I explained quite well. look at it like this. IN Greek the pronoun is determined b y the gender of the noun, IN english the pronoun is determined by what the word actually is. A woman takes a fem. she pronoun, a man takes a male he pronoun, a car, bike, street , lake, dirt, sentence, letter, word whatever, always takes a neuter It pronoun, in English, not in Greek..
In Greek a word takes a he pronoun because word is masculine. spirit is neuter in Greek so it takes a netuer it pronoun. It doesn't matter in Greek what the noun a pronoun refers to actually is.
You cant translate pronouns from Greek into english exactly because of this difference in our languages.

Ummm..., when I said "λόγος is masculine, and αὐτός follows suit", I was demonstrating that I did understand it and admitted my mistaken assumption. Thanks for explaining again, though.

Translators change pronouns to anything they want it to in order to insert their doctrine into the bible. Does 'in' in English sometimes mean with, sometimes by sometimes for? no 'in' in English always means in and so it does in Greek. Changing pronouns is an easy way for bible translators to insert their doctrine into the bible. they change "all things were create in Christ' to "all things were created by christ'. It would be like me saying "all things were created in Christ" (qhich is what the Greek actually says) and some greek guy comes along and translates it "all things were made by Christ" into Greek.

You know, I am aware of all this. As I said, it's been awhile since I've studied Greek and I'm just getting into it again.

"Peace on earch, good will toward men", right? But probably you know better than that. The best translations from the oldest manuscripts actually say "peace on earth to men on whom God's favour rests." Different grammatical example, but I'm showing that I do understand the importance of always looking at the original language when picking apart scripture. Picking through an English translation is rather useless without referring to Greek (or Hebrew).

Again, I do understand your points about Greek and I thank you for keeping me in check. It's literally been 10 years since I studied it last and obviously am needing to get back into it.

Let's stop with the examples of how Greek works now, since it's already served its purpose.

How about my other points which you haven't addressed. I still strongly feel that John 1 does demonstrates that there is one God, that Jesus is God, but also that the Father is God and finally that Jesus and the Father are different beings. It doesn't make much sense from our logical point of view, but I still believe it says exactly this. Resurrecting from death doesn't make much sense from our logic, either.

 

[2ducklow]

Ummm..., when I said "λόγος is masculine, and αὐτός follows suit", I was demonstrating that I did understand it and admitted my mistaken assumption. Thanks for explaining again, though.

k, I misunderstood you. I thought you were just ignoring everything I said and restating your view.

You know, I am aware of all this. As I said, it's been awhile since I've studied Greek and I'm just getting into it again.

"Peace on earch, good will toward men", right? But probably you know better than that. The best translations from the oldest manuscripts actually say "peace on earth to men on whom God's favour rests." Different grammatical example, but I'm showing that I do understand the importance of always looking at the original language when picking apart scripture. Picking through an English translation is rather useless without referring to Greek (or Hebrew).

Again, I do understand your points about Greek and I thank you for keeping me in check. It's literally been 10 years since I studied it last and obviously am needing to get back into it.

Let's stop with the examples of how Greek works now, since it's already served its purpose.

How about my other points which you haven't addressed. I still strongly feel that John 1 does demonstrates that there is one God, that Jesus is God, but also that the Father is God and finally that Jesus and the Father are different beings. It doesn't make much sense from our logical point of view, but I still believe it says exactly this. Resurrecting from death doesn't make much sense from our logic, either.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with ( the greek preposistion here is pros which means towards , the idea is that hte word of God points us towards God, IMO.)God, and the Word was God. but look here

1:1​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

pros​

pros​

Prep​

TOWARD​

. In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God.​

1​

pros​

pros​

Prep​

TOWARD​

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf
The word is what God says, You assume the word is some being and thus the reason for your interpretation. I take word to mean what God says, just like it is in the rest of the bible. In this case the meaning is the same as if I said to you.

Your words are you Breetai.
which is like
You are what you eat.

God is a qualitative predicate nominative in john 1.1c. (the word was god) which means that the word god acts pretty much like an adjective describing the word. God's words show us what and who God is. Just like our words show other people what and who we are. In ww2 the Germans had a saying, "hitler is Germany." of course they didn't mean it literally, what they meant was that Germany reflected who hitler was in that it was transformed to a certain extent into the image of hitler.

As to john 1.14, the verse explains what 'the word became flesh" means.


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.

the word (what god says both orally and written) became flesh by God begatting Jesus

 

[2ducklow]

Column me under uninformed as it's been awhile for me. λόγος is masculine, and αὐτός follows suit. Still, I don't see the problem with the translation(s) saying "he/him"... not that this really has anything to do with the topic here, does it?

How about the other points from my post. I'll try not to post in a condescending manner to you. If I did, I'm sorry. Please show me the same respect.


edit: you added the entire second paragraph to your preceding post a full hour and a half after its originally posting, just to personally attack me. What kind of person does that?

Moi? you sure?

 

[Breetai]

In fact all of our souls existed before Creation. How can we have eternal souls if there was a point in which they did not exist?

That isn't Biblical. Out souls didn't exist before we were conceived in the womb. 1 Cor. 15.

 

[Breetai]

That's silly. Of course they existed. We have eternal souls. Eternity has no beginning or ending.

Jer 1:5

Don't take stuff out of context.

"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." God isn't talking about pre-existence there. He's talking about appointing Jeremiah as a prophet and that, since He is omniscient, that was in the plans from the start. Not only that, but the verse you're referencing says nothing of "eternal souls." Case of eisegesis here.

Are you Mormon?

 

[Breetai]

I don't know what eisegesis means. I don't know what Mormons believe in so I can't tell you if I am Mormon or not.

Well, the pre-existance of souls is a fundamental part of the Mormon faith. It's a very unorthodox thing for a Christian to say. I can not think of any orthodox (ie. regular Christian) demominations that teach this. In fact, it is taught against.

"Eis" is Greek for "into" (or among). Eisegesis means "to bring an outside meaning/thought into scripture." Poor hermeneutical (way of interpreting the Bible) practice. Contrastingly, Ek(or Ex) means "from/out of". Exegesis means "to bring an idea out of the text". That's good hermeneutical practise.

I didn't take anything out of context. If God preordained Jeremiah to be a prophet before he was born then he must have know Jeremiah was going to be a prophet.

Of course. God is omniscient.

You can't possibly know something that doesn't exist.

Hold on. You've just contradicted yourself. God is all-knowing and therefore knows not only the past and present, but also the future. He absolutely can and does know who will be born in the future and what will happen in their lives.

Time is an irrelevant dimension to matter and especially to an eternal God. Matter cannot be created or destroyed it can only change states. The soul is the same. God knew Jeremiah's soul before it was placed into the womb and knew he would be a prophet.

Okay, I see where you're trying to go. But, what you've just said has nothing at all to do with the pre-existance of souls. You've simply restated what Jeremiah 1:5 already says, and that has nothing to do with the pre-existance of souls. You won't find that teaching in the Bible (which is why I was wondering if you were Mormon, because they do have that teaching in their other scriptures).

If you go to the latter part of 1 Corinthians 15, you'll read that "the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven." So, you've got Paul here saying that we are first from the earth, then you've got the verse quoted from Jeremiah saying nothing about pre-existance. In other words, perhaps you should reconsider the idea that "all of our souls existed before Creation."

 

[Breetai]

Where did our souls come from if they did not exist before creation? Suddenly an eternal soul just poofs into existence and exists forever? are you saying God's existence is geometrically represented by a line and ours is represented by a ray?

Just what do you mean by eternal soul, and why do you keep saying that? You're a Christian because you trust that the things said in the Bible are true, right? Some stuff in the Bible are the opinions of men (like some things that Paul said, that you reference), but we're not talking about that here. We're into theology. So, where do you get the idea that our individual souls have always existed in the past? Orthodox Christianity doesn't teach that, because it's agreed amounst every major church body that the Bible does not teach that (where do you go to church?). The verse you brought up in Jeremiah isn't talking about eternal souls, and you've agreed on that. I show you a verse that does teach that souls begin when that live begins on earth, and your response is to discredit that part of the Bible. So, where is that idea coming from?

Neither your ideas of souls pre-existing before an earthly conception or your concept of the Trinity is orthodox, so where are these ideas coming from?

 

[k2svpete]

The bible does not teach an immortal soul. I think you need to establish what soul means first, before going off on this tangent any further.

 

[Breetai]

I mean that the Bible says that the body will perish but the soul is eternal. Your soul either spends eternity in Heaven or Hell. My question is, how can an eternal soul have a beginning. I thought all eternal things were eternal in both directions.

Again, there in the Bible does it say that the soul is eternal? It really doesn't in the sense that an individual's soul has always and will always exist. That simply isn't Biblical. Our souls do very much have a beginning.

Here another verse for you, in addition to the one that's already been quoted from 1 Cor. 15. They aren't even from Paul, if that makes you happy. This is directly from Jesus:

John 8:23
And [Jesus] said unto them, Ye are from beneath [the earth]; I am from above [heaven]; ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

I really don't know how that can be any clearer. Jesus is eternal from heaven, but we were created here on earth. We do have everlasting life in Christ, and in that sense our soul is eternal, but don't confuse that with having eternally existed. Adam was created from dust, and God literally breathed life into him and created his soul. This is exactly what is says in Genesis 2:7. Adam became a living soul at that very moment; created by God.

I don't currently have a home church. I spent the first 10 years of my life in Nazarene church. From 10-15 I went to a Pentecostal church. From 15-20 I attended a Baptist church. From 20-25 I went to an non-denominational mega church. For the last 3 years I have been wandering around. I used to play in a gospel band and I have been in a couple hundred churches in my life. I attended services at least 3 times a week for a long time.

I won't claim to know much about what the Narerene church teaches, but I know that there is not central body in what's generally known as the "Baptist" denomination. In other words, each church doesn't necessarily follow strict doctrine. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see how some churches can easily stray from orthodox teachings. Even moreso in the case of non-denominational churches. There isn't a strong set of checks and balances to keep doctrine in check. You can definitely come to Christ at these chruches and praise God, but whether they teach sound doctrine or not is up in the air. In my opinion, this lack of authority can lead to a lot of confusion and the loss of good doctrine.

I don't know where my ideas come from specifically. I just know that I believe them because they are conclusions I came to after reading the Bible for myself. The Bible should be our guide, not Creeds or Doctrines, no matter how old the tradition may be.

Well, the Bible is the standard by which creeds and doctrines come from. That's not to say things like the Nicene Creed, Athenasian Creed, Calvin's Institues of the Christian Religion, Luther's Bondage of the Will, or the Catholic Encylopedia are perfect, but they are extremely in depth, well researched and provide the results of hundereds (or more) of theological study. Men who've dedicated their lives to the cause of Christ have written things like this, and are well worth listening to; lest anyone falls into hetrodoxy or worse. If you simply draw your own conclusions from reading the Bible without having studied things like Hebrew culture, Greek culture, both the Hebrew and Greek languages, and the old Jewish religion in depth, then how can you hope to possibly make sound conclusions about the Bible? For example, you know the praise "Peace on earth, good will toward men"? It's a very famous line from Luke. Did you know that because of a confusion between the nominative and genitive noun declentions, it's been translated wrongly for years (ie. KVJ)? It should read something more like, "Peace on earth toward men on whom God's favour rests." Or, how about Christ "coming on the clouds" that you read about in something like Mark 13? If you studied the OT and Jewish thought, you'd know that "coming on the clouds" was a common simile meaning "God's judgement." I'm a bit off topic perhaps (as is this whole conversation about the pre-existance of souls in this thread), but I think it's important to understand that things like doctrine and creeds do have a great amount of importance in studying the Bible.

 

[Breetai]

Lutherans don't believe in eternal souls? I didn't know that. Like I said. I have been to at least 300 churches and they ALL preached eternal souls that will either be in heaven or torment for eternity.

What other denominations besides Lutheran and Universalists don't believe in eternal souls?

I'm not sure if you really read and understand what I said. Virtually no denomination teaches the pre-existence of souls (eternal souls), but they all teach that souls are immortal (will never perish). The idea that our souls are eternal before earthly conception is a Platonic idea, not Christian.

Universalism, by the way, is not considered to be within orthodox Christianity.

BTW, what percent of those churches you've attended since you were 10 years old are Baptist, non-denominational or Pentecostal? Numbers don't really mean a lot. Understanding what each denomination teaches and why they do means a lot more.

 

[Vanhin]

it's obvious, if you can't see it, then I'm quite sure my explaining it won't help.

For what it's worth, I think it's quite obvious. Then again we also have the witnesses of modern prophets and apostles.

And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father — That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (D&C 76:22-24)​

Sincerely,
Vanhin

 

[Vanhin]

Lutherans don't believe in eternal souls? I didn't know that. Like I said. I have been to at least 300 churches and they ALL preached eternal souls that will either be in heaven or torment for eternity.

What other denominations besides Lutheran and Universalists don't believe in eternal souls?

Mormons believe that the spirit of man is co-eternal with God, and that we existed with him before entering mortality. We believe that early Christians also had this belief but that it was lost due to apostasy.

Regards,
Vanhin

 

[Breetai]

Mormons believe that the spirit of man is co-eternal with God, and that we existed with him before entering mortality. We believe that early Christians also had this belief but that it was lost due to apostasy.

Regards,
Vanhin

The early church fathers from the first and second centuries taught no such thing, unless you count Origen who was considered a heretic even at the time. Christianity, as a whole, has never taught that the human soul was eternal from the beginning. Even you Mormons teach that human souls were created through spiritual procreation by Heavenly Father at some point in the past. That's not even the same as what someone like Origen taught.