The Way International

bubblegirl'
here is what I said about john 1:1.

John 1:1 the word was god. God is an anarthrous preverbal noun in the nominative case, a predicate nominative, coupled by the verb to be with an articular noun in the nominative case (word). God is not the direct object of the verb to be it predicates something about the subject, in this case word. a preverbal predicate nominative acts more like an adjective in this situation. God qualifys or predicates something about the subject, in this case word. God said,

Quote: Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
If God magnifys his word above his name surely he magnifys his word above the title θεος surely therefore θεος can qualify λογος. how does it qualify word? i'd say because god gives power to his word, god says it and then backs it up with action. something like that.
to interpret the logos λογος as a being is just as absurd to me as to say my words are me. Gods words or his logos are not god and gods words or logos isnt jesus or any man. the logos became flesh just means the logos or word or plan of god took on a fleshly form and its greatest fullfillment with the birth of JEsus. besides john 1:1 says both that the word was with god and that it w as god, which is a literal impossiblilty. if the word was god then it cant be with god. also, the same gramatical construction is used in 1 john where it says ' God is love' . god is not literaly the emotion love but love qualifys or predicates something about god.

bubblegirl0101 said:

jessedance and anyone else-
And to anyone familiar with Way beliefs, this was a random question I've been wondering about for awhile. If the Way teaches that there is no hell, and that hell is gehenna or the grave, then what are verses like Luke 16:22 ff, Matthew 13:42, Revelation 20:15 etc. talking about? I'm not looking to debate the existence of hell, I was just wondering what they believe.
Also, the words triune and trinity aren't in the Bible, but neither are many Way beliefs including the law of believing. Any comments?

Click to expand...

Many of the words translated "hell" or "grave" should have been translated gravedom. This is a place or state of being where there is no consciousness. Specifically "sheol" and "hades". To my knowledge the Way does teach that there is a "hell", it just isn't the correct translation for Sheol and Hades. Take a quick look at the verses where these Hebrew and Greek words are used and variously translated and you will get a different understanding of the verses. The law of believing is:

MK 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

Simply, what you say with your mouth and believe in your heart will come to pass. So just saying something is not enough, believing is required. What you really believe is what you really receive, and vice versa. Believing is a process of heart not a process of the mind alone, it is emotion, reason and logic all wrapped together. When the thoughts of your mind are lined up with what the Word says, and you act on those thoughts with believing action you will receive what the Word of God promises. On the same token believing is action, as a worker you put yourself into what your job is to learn to do it better, faster etc. you are "believing" to improve. You put your head and heart into something, you are trying to be successful at whatever activity it is, if you are successful then you have believed. It isn't magic, it is a basic principle that works for everyone, hence it is called a "law".

jessedance said:

here is what I said about john 1:1.

John 1:1 the word was god. God is an anarthrous preverbal noun in the nominative case, a predicate nominative, coupled by the verb to be with an articular noun in the nominative case (word). God is not the direct object of the verb to be it predicates something about the subject, in this case word. a preverbal predicate nominative acts more like an adjective in this situation. God qualifys or predicates something about the subject, in this case word.

Click to expand...

This is all nonsense which JD doesn’t even understand himself. It is just a cut and paste from some anti- website. We have had this discussion before. He has his one quote which appears to support his presuppositions so everything which contradicts him he just ignores.

Here are the notes, from real Greek scholars, on John 1:1 from the New English Translation (NET) on John 1:1

NET 3tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of qeov" (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous qeov" in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.​

During the Babylonian captivity the Jewish scholars translated the scritures into Aramaic, they were called Targums. Where ever YHWH appeared to be too "human the scholars replaced YHWH with with “memra.” “Memra” is the Aramaic for “word.” Here is a citation from the Jewish Encyclopedia, which documents at least eighty examples where the name of YHWH was replaced, in the Targums, there are many, many more. When John, who was a Jew, said to his Jewish audience, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God,” he was not saying anything new.

Following this article is the exegesis of John 1:1 by a professor of Greek who taught graduate level Greek for 47 years.

zeontes said:

Many of the words translated "hell" or "grave" should have been translated gravedom. This is a place or state of being where there is no consciousness. Specifically "sheol" and "hades". To my knowledge the Way does teach that there is a "hell", it just isn't the correct translation for Sheol and Hades. Take a quick look at the verses where these Hebrew and Greek words are used and variously translated and you will get a different understanding of the verses.

Click to expand...

I have studied the topic very, very thoroughly and no I do not come away with a different understanding. Here is a link to a thread titled, “What is hell?”

http://www.christianforums.co.uk/t94853&page=1

Read the thread for a thorough understanding of the topic of hell, hades, gehenna. Below is some of the information I posted in my discussions in that thread.

Jewish Encyclopedia-Gehenna

The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch was originally in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). For this reason the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a); according to Gen. R. ix. 9, the words "very good" in Gen. i. 31 refer to hell; hence the latter must have been created on the sixth day.

The "fiery furnace" that Abraham saw (Gen. xv. 17, Hebr.) was Gehenna (Mek. xx. 18b, 71b; comp. Enoch, xcviii. 3, ciii. 8; Matt. xiii. 42, 50; 'Er. 19a, where the "fiery furnace" is also identified with the gate of Gehenna).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=115&letter=G

Ge-hinnom

Name of the valley to the south and south-west of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, xviii. 16; Neh. xi. 30; II Kings xxiii. 10; II Chron. xxxiii. 6; Jer. vii. 31 et seq., xix. 2, xxxii. 35). Its modern name is "Wadi al-Rababah." The southwestern gate of the city, overlooking the valley, came to be known as "the gate of the valley." The valley was notorious for the worship of Moloch carried on there (comp. Jer. ii. 23). According to Jer. vii. 31 et seq., xix. 6 et seq., it was to be turned into a place of burial; hence "the accursed valley Ge-hinnom" ("Gehenna" in the N. T.) came to be synonymous with a place of punishment, and thus with hell (comp. Isa. Lxvi. 24; Enoch, xxvi. et seq.; and the rabbinical Hebrew equivalent).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=116&letter=G

The Jewish Encyclopedia-Gehenna.

The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch was originally in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). For this reason the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a); according to Gen. R. ix. 9, the words "very good" in Gen. i. 31 refer to hell; hence the latter must have been created on the sixth day. Yet opinions on this point vary. According to some sources, it was created on the second day; according to others, even before the world, only its fire being created on the second day (Gen. R. iv., end; Pes. 54a). The "fiery furnace" that Abraham saw (Gen. xv. 17, Hebr.) was Gehenna (Mek. xx. 18b, 71b; comp. Enoch, xcviii. 3, ciii. 8; Matt. xiii. 42, 50; 'Er. 19a, where the "fiery furnace" is also identified with the gate of Gehenna). Opinions also vary as to the situation, extent, and nature of hell. The statement that Gehenna is situated in the valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem, in the "accursed valley" (Enoch, xxvii. 1 et seq.), means simply that it has a gate there. It was in Zion, and had a gate in Jerusalem (Isa. xxxi. 9). It had three gates, one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem ('Er. 19a). The gate lies between two palm-trees in the valley of Hinnom, from which smoke is continually rising (ib.). The mouth is narrow, impeding the smoke, but below Gehenna extends indefinitely (Men. 99b). According to one opinion, it is above the firmament, and according to another, behind the dark mountains (Ta'an. 32b). An Arabian pointed out to a scholar the spot in the wilderness where the earth swallowed the sons of Korah (Num. xvi. 31-32), who descended into Gehenna (Sanh. 110b). It is situated deep down in the earth, and is immeasurably large. "The earth is one-sixtieth of the garden, the garden one-sixtieth of Eden [paradise], Eden one-sixtieth of Gehenna; hence the whole world is like a lid for Gehenna. Some say that Gehenna can not be measured" (Pes. 94a). It is divided into seven compartments (Sotah 10b); a similar view was held by the Babylonians (Jeremias, "Hölle und Paradies bei den Babyloniern," pp. 16 et seq., Leipsic, 1901; Guthe, "Kurzes Bibel-wörterb." p. 272, Tübingen and Leipsic, 1903).

Because of the extent of Gehenna the sun, on setting in the evening, passes by it, and receives from it its own fire (evening glow; B. B. 84a). A fiery stream ("dinur") falls upon the head of the sinner in Gehenna (hag. 13b). This is "the fire of the West, which every setting sun receives. I came to a fiery river, whose fire flows like water, and which empties into a large sea in the West" (Enoch, xvii. 4-6). Hell here is described exactly as in the Talmud. The Persians believed that glowing molten metal flowed under the feet of sinners (Schwally, "Das Leben nach dem Tode," p. 145, Giessen, 1892). The waters of the warm springs of Tiberias are heated while flowing past Gehenna (Shab. 39a). The fire of Gehenna never goes out (Tosef., Ber. 6, 7; Mark ix. 43 et seq.; Matt. xviii. 8, xxv. 41; comp. Schwally, l.c. p. 176); there is always plenty of wood there (Men. 100a). This fire is sixty times as hot as any earthly fire (Ber. 57b). There is a smell of sulfur in Gehenna (Enoch, lxvii. 6). This agrees with the Greek idea of hell (Lucian, Αληθες Ιστορίαι, i. 29, in Dietrich, "Abraxas," p. 36). The sulfurous smell of the Tiberian medicinal springs was ascribed to their connection with Gehenna. In Isa. lxvi. 16, 24 it is said that God judges by means of fire. Gehenna is dark in spite of the immense masses of fire; it is like night (Yeb. 109b; comp. Job x. 22). The same idea also occurs in Enoch, x. 4, lxxxii. 2; Matt. viii. 12, xxii. 13, xxv. 30 (comp. Schwally, l.c. p. 176).

Judgment.

It is assumed in general that sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell (B. M. 83b). To every individual is apportioned two shares, one in hell and one in paradise. At death, however, the righteous man's portion in hell is exchanged, so that he has two in heaven, while the reverse is true in the case of sinners (hag. 15a). Hence it would have been better for the latter not to have lived at all (Yeb. 63b). They are cast into Gehenna to a depth commensurate with their sinfulness. They say: "Lord of the world, Thou hast done well; Paradise for the pious, Gehenna for the wicked" ('Er. 19a).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=115&letter=G
​

Der Alter said:

This is all nonsense which JD doesn’t even understand himself. It is just a cut and paste from some anti- website. We have had this discussion before. He has his one quote which appears to support his presuppositions so everything which contradicts him he just ignores.



Here are the notes, from real Greek scholars, on John 1:1 from the New English Translation (NET) on John 1:1

NET 3tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of qeov" (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous qeov" in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
​

During the Babylonian captivity the Jewish scholars translated the scritures into Aramaic, they were called Targums. Where ever YHWH appeared to be too "human the scholars replaced YHWH with with “memra.” “Memra” is the Aramaic for “word.” Here is a citation from the Jewish Encyclopedia, which documents at least eighty examples where the name of YHWH was replaced, in the Targums, there are many, many more. When John, who was a Jew, said to his Jewish audience, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God,” he was not saying anything new.




Following this article is the exegesis of John 1:1 by a professor of Greek who taught graduate level Greek for 47 years.

Jewish Encyclopedia Memra-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M

Robertson, Word Pictures in the N.T.-Joh 1:1 -

In the beginning (en archei). Arche is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Gen_1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.

Was (en). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in Joh_1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Joh_8:58 “before Abraham came (genesthai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).

The Word (ho logos). Logos is from lego, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Pro_8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John’s standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo [emphasis added] who uses the term Logos, but not John’s conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logos is applied to Christ only in Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14; Rev_19:13; 1Jo_1:1 “concerning the Word of life” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of “the Word of God” in Heb_4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Co_8:9; Phi_2:6.; Col_1:17) and in Heb_1:2. and in Joh_17:5. This term suits John’s purpose better than sophia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto, Joh_1:14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.

With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jo_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (parakleton echomen pros ton patera). See prosopon pros prosopon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnoston tes pros allelous sunetheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mar_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Joh_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.

And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism [emphasis added] by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1Jo_4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism [i.e. J.W] also because the Logos was eternally God [emphasis added], fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.
​

Click to expand...

all this has nothing to do with what i said, namely that theos is to be interpreted as qualitative and not articular or anarthrous. you have merely shown a typical trinitarian interpretation of john 1:1 without even touching on the subject of its qualitative nature. I pointed out to you in the past that A. T. Robertson says theos is qualitative , I showed it to you in black and white and you refused to believe it. many trinitarian scholars such as a. t. roberston agree that theos is qualitative, they just say interpret that qualitativeness with a trinitarian viewpoint.

der alter '
oops, you did touch on the qualitative nature of theos, excuss me.

A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous qeov"

Click to expand...

This is what I am saying. that theos is qualitative. this guy is just trying to find a way around the fact that theos is qualitative by saying "from a techical standpoint' . 'from a techical standpoint' means 'thats what the greek really means'.
this guy further states in his explanation of how theos is 'technicaly qualitative' thusly;

The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons.

Click to expand...

my bold Without equating the persons would be the case if theos were translated as definite. (the god) He is saying the true meaning of theos is not definite, (and most definitely not indefinite I assume for him) but qualitative.
How you interpret that qualitativeness is a different matter. I gave my ideas on how it is qualitative. they gave theirs. my interpretation is roughly what my church teaches, im not sure exactly what the position of our church is on this . but I know that our church interprets it qualitatively.
I might say that you just cut and paste long quotes about john 1;1c and never comment on them. you just predicate it with aspersions cast the way of me and my sources. So it appears you don't understand what your quoting.

bubblegirl0101 said:

Semantic games aside, no matter how you translate hell, Jesus is clearly alluding to something besides an unconscious state after death even in the verses where the word is hades or gravedom. In my discussion with Way members they do reject the existence of hell. If you're not saved, they believe you do just enter an unconscious state. There is no eternal torment as mentioned by Jesus. Anybody, feel free to correct any misunderstanding I have or to explain how they can dismiss the idea of eternal punishment.

Click to expand...

It is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance. Fear is a powerful motivator, it is everywhere in our culture. However, it makes more sense to my heart to show people how great God is than to beat people over the head with fear of eternal damnation. When faced with hell most people are not inspired, they are just upset and fearful. Can you use it? Of course, but I don't. Eternal judgment is upon all of us, I am grateful for God's mercy and grace, they give me peace. God's love inspires me. From this respect, rather than whether or not people are gonna burn, is where I come from on this topic.

Way people are people, some are more knowledgeable than others. I am happy for everyone who has accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior, whether they believe in hell or not. How about you?

bubblegirl0101 said:

Once again if one looks at the context, at the verse before, Jesus is speaking of faith in God, not just faith or believing in anything, like your ablility to do your job per the example. In MK 11:23 God has the power, not your belief. That is my main problem with the law of believing. Is there any other Biblical support for this law, because that verse doesn't seem to support it at all.
On an unrelated note, does anyone know if the Way believes YHWH is the Father? I was just wondering in general, because my friend in the Way had never heard of YHWH.

Click to expand...

From a practical point of view you can see this verse happen to people all day long. How many times have you heard, "I told you this would happen!" ? What you believe, you receive. If you do not believe this scripture you will not receive it, no matter how many examples I could show you. Why would you not want to believe that this life principle was demonstrated by Jesus to his apostles? Read more of the context; Jesus had cursed the fig tree and the disciples heard it. They were astonished because, what Jesus had spoken to the tree had come to pass.

Another record:

MK 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things [are] possible to him that believeth.

Jesus demanded that people believe to receive healing in most cases. He spoke the things that were not, as if they were, and they became. This believing in action was demonstrated time and time again, throughout his ministry and in the book of Acts.

God gives us power. It is not in us by our own selves to perform miracles, etc. it is in the power that is given to us from God. But, if you do not believe that you have this power, you will fail to act as if you have the power. You will not be able to use it, if you do not believe that you have it. You have to have confidence, trust, and faith in God to use what He has given for your benefit.

In the practical every day world confidence is required to keep a positive mental attitude. Confidence is a form of believing, so is trust, faith is the highest form of believing.

The word faith has several usages in the Bible and may be the cause of some of the confusion on this issue. The faith of Jesus Christ is not believing by the person, it is the believing from Jesus Christ reaching down and altering the spiritual landscape. It is what enables us to receive the new birth, as we confess with our mouths Jesus is lord, believing that God raised him from the dead. There was no "faith of Jesus Christ" in the Old Testament, there was believing and faithfullness though. Faith came from Jesus Christ on the day of Pentecost.

There are many names/titles for God in the Old Testament. For me the name I will call God is Father. Would you call your earthly father Larry or whatever his name is or would you call him Dad? The creator of the heavens and the earth, the supplier of all that I will ever need, the one who saved me from a pitiful life, is my heavenly Father.

Knowledge inflates your ego, but the love of God strengthens you and enables you to build others up. If you look on others who have less knowledge than you as being inferior, that does not change the truth that Jesus sacrificed his life for them. You can determine the value of an item by what it costs, that friend of yours is priceless, the value of Christ's sacrifice. God bless you and have a good night.

jessedance said:

all this has nothing to do with what i said, namely that theos is to be interpreted as qualitative and not articular or anarthrous. you have merely shown a typical trinitarian interpretation of john 1:1 without even touching on the subject of its qualitative nature. I pointed out to you in the past that A. T. Robertson says theos is qualitative , I showed it to you in black and white and you refused to believe it. many trinitarian scholars such as a. t. roberston agree that theos is qualitative, they just say interpret that qualitativeness with a trinitarian viewpoint.

Click to expand...

Dead wrong as usual. If you did show me something from Robertson I responded and more than likely I showed you how you were quoting out-of-context.

Don't talk to me about a "typical Trinitarian" until you have studied Greek my friend. Because you don't know the first thing about Greek, you are just blowing in the wind. The only thing you can do, and have done, is copy and paste, bits and piece, of this and that, which only appear to support your presuppositions. Just like your Eusebius argument. And when shown irrefuatable proof, you still cling to your assumptions and presuppositions. Without one single shred of evidence you still try to claim that Matt 28:19 was changed to support the Trinity.

AFIK you have never posted anything that states the second QeoV in John 1:1 is totally qualitative. There is not one historical reference in the ECF which interprets it as qualitative. And your argument totally ignores my points from the Jewish Encyclopedia showing that from the time of the Babylonian captivity to the Jews, God was literally the Word and the Word was literally God.

Post your Robertson again.

when i was a memeber of the way 20 years ago most of the members that I came in contact with were young people, they said that was because the way was new on the west coast. I guess they are older now. anyway they were kjv only and didn't have much experience. I percieved that they interpreted the bible without any scholarly advice. just tried and make the kjv scirptures fit as best they could. they have a college in ohio and thats where they make doctrine. they said that it changes from time to time as they discover new truth. so it may be different than when i was in there.

bubblegirl0101 said:

zeontes-
My bad for not asking these questions in a clearer manner. I wasn't attempting to insinuate anything about Way members. My best friend is a Way member, and I was certainly not trying to say that I think he's stupid for not knowing about Yahweh, I was honestly just wondering if the Way taught anything about Yahweh since he didn't know.

Click to expand...

Okay, The Way International Biblical Research, Teaching and Fellowship ministry has undergone many changes since the Founder died in 1984. Honestly I do not have any idea what they are teaching now. I was involved with the ministry from 1977 to 1987 at which time I left on friendly terms but had some personal differences with the local leadership. I will explain to you the way things were and you will have to ask your friend for an update.

The organization was not like most congregational type churches. The Bible shows that the church of the first century met in homes and so it was felt that was the best way to meet the needs of the people who attended the fellowships. The structure of the organization had its strengths and weaknesses. Instead of one pastor teaching a congregation of 100+ members, you have 12 fellowship coordinators. Each one of these coordinators has a slightly different understanding of the Bible, but each has been taught the same doctrine. The fellowship coordinators in turn are part of a larger unit over which a leader with greater spiritual perception and awareness will serve. The training to become a fellowship coordinator as invisioned by the founder was a four year program called the Way Corps. This was an indepth program requiring great committment and helped individuals develop there unique abilities in order to serve the body of Christ. The students were given access to the top leadership of the ministry during the course of their training. In practical terms though the ministry grew so rapidly that the Way Corps program could not effectively train enough leaders to fill positions in the field. So, the Way Corps usually filled the position above the fellowship coordinators. When this occurred many people serving as fellowship coordinators were not sufficiently trained nor were they spiritually sharp enough to deal with all of the difficulties that they faced. They did the best they could and God Bless every one of them for rising up to face the challenge.

The Foundational class on Power for Abundant Living was taught on Audio, Video, and film at the local fellowship level. In this class, so many things were covered in such a short period of time that even after participating in over 30 classes there were still things that I learned. The foundational class was focused on two major points 1) the keys to how the Word of God interprets itself and 2) increasing the power of God in your life. The class, being recorded, gave a continuity to the ministry, as we all had the same basic foundation from which to build upon. Weekly Sunday Night Service tapes, and the Way Magazine monthly, were also available. These served to unify the body of believers. With unity and direction great things can be accomplished. Questions that people had, were answered at the lowest level possible. If someone had a question that could not be answered then it was forwarded to the next higher level or directly to headquarters if necessary. The same was true for things that people needed to be prayed for.

The people who took the class came from every walk of life, it wasn't just rich or poor, educated or uneducated, they were people who had come to the point in their lives that they needed to know the truth. Those who were truly searching to know God, that had not found what their heart was seeking anywhere else.

Knowing God's name is not the same thing as having a personal relationship with Him and with His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. The class did not get into the different names/titles of God and consequently if people were to learn them it would come by way of the fellowships, personal study, or from people such as yourself.

bubblegirl0101 said:

All I'm asking is how a Way member would view statements in the Bible about weeping and gnashing of teeth, and the lake of fire and other things like that that wouldn't be possible if death for the unsaved was an unconscious state.

Click to expand...

I have not researched the subject of the how it will go down for the unsaved for some time so forgive me if I am a little rusty. As I remember people fall into one of several categories. There is a difference between Old Testament saints and New Testament saints. In the Old Testament they were servants of God, in the New Testament due to the redemption of Christ we are Sons of God. The believers will be rewarded according to their works as they carry out the will of God. The unbelievers fall into the category of being judged according to their works. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The reason they need a resurection is because they are dead. There is a resurection of the just and of the unjust then,...

REV 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

REV 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

REV 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

REV 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

REV 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Notice that death and hell (hades) were cast into the lake of fire. If hades is the "hell" that everyone thinks, how could it be cast into hell?
These scriptures look pretty self explanitory to me and I was never taught differently concerning the unbelievers. However, this does not say that all of the unbelievers are not found in the book of life does it. What about that poor child in deep dark africa that never had a chance of hearing the Word? Well if that child is properly judged according to his works he will get exactly what he deserves. God is a merciful God, but that child will miss out on the benefits that he would have received had he had the opportunity to hear. We need to do our part to make the Word available to people!

bubblegirl0101 said:

As for the law of believing, you can't accuse me of not believing these scriptures because I disagree. I believe what I understand these verses to mean just as you do- even though alot of these aren't your words, they're Wierwille's.

Click to expand...

First off they were my words, Dr. Wierwille was never that blunt to others, so I apologize for being rude. (I spent too much time discussing the flood and fossils, so I was a bit edgy. Not an excuse, just an explanation.)

Like I said before there are several usages of the word "pistis" translated faith or "pisteuo" believing. I am no Greek expert but I will give you what I understand. Believe is a verb which connotes action, faith is a noun the name given to that which is believed. The fruit of the spirit "faith" is the result of your operation of the spirit, fruit. This fruit will enhance your ability to believe even more of God's Word. This is like experiential learning, you know more and can now believe more. The manifestation of the spirit "faith" is your operation of the God given abiltiy to believe God to bring to pass the impossible at your command according to what God has revealed to you, through word of knowledge, word of wisdom, or discerning of spirits, it also inspires believing in others. There is the family faith, the common faith shared by all of God's children. Once we are born again we belong to God's family and share in the common family faith. Your personal faith toward God is how much of the Word of God that you believe and act on. That is why Way people say it is "your believing" to be gramatically correct though it is your faith. This takes us back to Mark 11: 23.

Ok, you said :

bubblegirl0101 said:

From a practical point of view, how many times have you expected something to happen, and it hasn't? Does that automatically mean there was something wrong with your faith? What if I truly believed it was going to rain today, and it didn't. Or what if I believed for a car that I truly needed, and I didn't recieve it? If my belief had the power, whatever I believe should happen. I don't believe I have an impersonal power from God to accomplish my will, I believe God has the power and accomplishes his will. I believe that God healed those people and that God is giving you the car and making it rain, not my own power of belief. But my motto is "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"

Click to expand...

This is about the technical aspects of the principle of believing. If you only think that you are believing, you are not believing. There is a doubt, else you "would have whatsoever he sayeth". Does that make you or me a bad person, absolutely not. The believing principle is getting your mouth and your heart coordinated. The best way to get them coordinated is to align your will to God's will. That way it is not just your will that gets done. You can believe to buy that new car that you want and take action to get it without it being God's will. It will not be in your best interest to do so, but you can still do it by your own believing action. Too much emphasis is placed on the principle and not enough on aligning your will to God's will. But what we are all after is getting to the place that we have the confidence that whatever we pray for we know we will receive, because we know it is God's will. When that takes place in your heart, you will be using your believing faith to do the will of God and God will be working with you to perform it.

1JN 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:

1JN 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

bubblegirl0101 said:

I would be interested if you would demonstrate more what the faith of Jesus Christ is, and how faith now is different than the believing of the OT.
Once again, I apologize, but I would appreciate it if you kept it in mind that I have good intentions.

Click to expand...

ROM 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

GAL 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

GAL 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
GAL 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

GAL 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

GAL 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

GAL 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

PHIL 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

If it is something that you do it is your believing "faith", if it is what Christ accomplished for you it is his faith, the faith of Jesus Christ. His faith is what spans the chasm between the natural man and God, Jesus is the mediator. Before the faith of Jesus Christ was available Gal 3:23 says that mankind was under the law, so there was a time where there was no faith!

Have a great night.

i only have fond memories of the way international. for me it was a steping stone to something higher in the LORD. i was in the process of changing churches when vicotr died. for me , he cut through the false teaching so previlant amongst christians that Jesus is god, and showed me through the scriptures how that Jesus couldn't possibly be god and gods son both. and since that he was obvioulsy god's son that ruled out him being god.

Short, sweet and simple so that even a child can understand. I cannot be my father, how we humans like to complicate things to the end that we appear smart and boy does that make us look foolish in the eyes of God!