trinity question

[2ducklow]

.

The doctrine of the Trinity (or, Godhead) – attacked by cults (such as the Watchtower Society,
or Jehovah's Witnesses) so that they can also deny the deity of Jesus – is one of the most basic
fundamentals of Christianity.

http://dianedew.com/godhead.htm

Godhead
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Col 2:9)
The compound word Godhead is found three times in the AV.95 God obviously refers to deity, divine personality or nature, the supreme being, or the character and quality of being God. The suffix -head is a form of the more common suffix -hood, referring to state or condition of being. However, Godhead is one of the few words that retains a distinction between godhead and godhood. The Godhead is a good reference to the Trinity as it occurs only three times.

Problem is that the greek words theotes and thiotes which are mistranslated Godhead, do not mean trinity. So although godhead is a good reference to trinity, the greek word theotes is not a good reference or any kind of reference to trinity.

This fact is lost in the new translations where Godhead is always rendered by two or more words.

Trinity is lost in the new translations because theotes or theiotes doesn’t mean trinity.

The NRSV uses "deity" twice96 and "divine nature" once.97 The NASB employs "deity" only once,98 but "Divine Nature" capitalized once99 and "divine nature" lower case once.100 The NIV utilizes three different terms (divine being, divine nature, Deity) to update Godhead.101 The NKJV retains the AV reading of Godhead twice102 but changes the third instance to "Divine Nature."103 Yet the word Godhead can even be found in the Economist magazine: "The older Kim, who ran the North for nearly 50 years, is being elevated in death to something near godhead."104

http://vancepublications.com/excerpt%20archaic.htm

is amazing how much error there is in this world. Yesterday I got an e-mail from a Pentecostal who asked if I was a "Trinitarian". The question prompted me to write this article on the tri-unity (aka the trinity) of God (I prefer the Bible word "Godhead").

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/trinity.htm

The identity of essence. In the Trinity there is a oneness in essence. The three persons are of the same divine nature and substance; so that in Deo nonest magis et minus,‘there are no degrees in the Godhead’; one person is not God more than another.

http://www.the-highway.com/trinity_Watson.html

I tried to find some post on line that used godhead in the correct sense of 'godhood', but everyone's post I found, both pro trinity and against trinity, misused godhead to mean trinity when in fact the meaning of the word as it translates theotes is godhood. Hardly anyone knows that godhead is an incorrect translation, or apparently even cares. Godhead, as a synonym for trinity is not in the bible. Godhood is. Nobody cares that godhead isn't in the bible they keep using the word no matter what.

 

[Bananna]

hey Duck,

Its a good thing online translation sources are not all 'christianized' or we would have lost the intent of the language long ago.

Translating a Jewish idea in to a Greek or latin language with Greek and Roman overtones and then into English with agnostic views can creat some real hurdles in understanding the Jewish mindset.

I used to think that Spirit of God did refer to God himself and now I'm leaning toward an ministering agent/representifive that was manifest through out the ages... Once thought it was Yehoshuah himself... not sure of that either. I have a hard time with the idea of everyone's spirit being created from the foundation of the world literally.

bananna

 

[2ducklow]

hey Duck,

Its a good thing online translation sources are not all 'christianized' or we would have lost the intent of the language long ago.

Translating a Jewish idea in to a Greek or latin language with Greek and Roman overtones and then into English with agnostic views can creat some real hurdles in understanding the Jewish mindset.

I used to think that Spirit of God did refer to God himself and now I'm leaning toward an ministering agent/representifive that was manifest through out the ages... Once thought it was Yehoshuah himself... not sure of that either. I have a hard time with the idea of everyone's spirit being created from the foundation of the world literally.

bananna

Howdy Bananna;
Well, of course the bible says that God is spirit or a spirit. If the spirit of God is not god then who or what is god? If god is not a spirit but has a spirit, then what is God?

Colossians 1:16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;ASV

or

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.ASV

greek word here is di or δι, ιτ means through. just like in col. 1.16. So putting the 2 verses together we get that all things were created though Jesus and are through Jesus. god created all things through Jesus, and all things are still through Jesus. Notice whom is a direct object, or is it indirect object? Nevertheless, an indirect object or direct object is the object of a subject which in this case is
god. God created all things through Jesus . Not Jesus created all things through jesus.
greek word here is en or εν which means in. Everything was created in, through and unto Jesus. Which is like us saying 'up one side and down the other'. Notice 'unto' which means everything was created for Jesus. Notice 'through' which means everything was created through the thought of Jesus in God's mind, so to speak. notice, 'in' Everything that was created was created in the realm of Jesus. Nothing was created literally 'in' Jesus or 'through' Jesus.. it's figurative. through, unto, in it's all saying the same thing. Jesus is the reason for everything. Jesus the new man is the reason god created everything. we are that new man in christ Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

God created all things unto through and in Jesus, and when all things are subdued unto Jesus, then Jesus shall put all things under God. The world got out of whack becuase of Adam, thats why everything has to be subdued unto Jesus, where all things rightfully belong.

Notice this verse from isaiah a messianic prophecy.

Isaiah 43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

Jesus was created, made and formed. Jesus was called by his Daddy's name.

John 17:11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.


Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.kjv

or is it

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain.ASV.

Probably the ASV is the more accurate, it is immensly more accurate than the KJV. In which case nothing in here indicates Jesus was slain way before he was slain, which is a nonsensical concept. i dunno there might be some 'eternally slain' doctrine out there somewhere. that would be some machine gun, rat a tat tat tat tat for all eternity.
I don't know what scriputre you are refering to when you say 'spirit slain from the foundation of the world. maybe rev. 13.8?

 

[Peterson]

In the N.T. the Word was God, and the Word acting upon himself became flesh, and we beheld his glory as the glory of the only begotten of the father.

The Word, Jesus, did not act upon himself to become flesh. He responded to the will of the Father. John 4:34; "Jesus said to them, My nourishment is that I do the will of Him who sent me and, and completely do His work."

John 6:38;" For I came down from heaven, not to do my will but the will of Him who sent me."

 

[2ducklow]

In the N.T. the Word was God, and the Word acting upon himself became flesh, and we beheld his glory as the glory of the only begotten of the father.

The Word, Jesus, did not act upon himself to become flesh. He responded to the will of the Father. John 4:34; "Jesus said to them, My nourishment is that I do the will of Him who sent me and, and completely do His work."

John 6:38;" For I came down from heaven, not to do my will but the will of Him who sent me."

Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.


Wisdom is a metaphor for Jesus.

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


The word is a metaphor for Jesus. there is not some being named wisdom who has children and God does not have a seperate being called word. both are metaphors in these two verses.

 

[Der Alte]

In the N.T. the Word was God, and the Word acting upon himself became flesh, and we beheld his glory as the glory of the only begotten of the father.

[SIZE=-1]The Word, Jesus, did not act upon himself to become flesh. He responded to the will of the Father. John 4:34; "Jesus said to them, My nourishment is that I do the will of Him who sent me and, and completely do His work."

John 6:38;" For I came down from heaven, not to do my will but the will of Him who sent me."[/SIZE]

Before giving me a knee jerk, same old, same old "Neener, neener, neener," reply you should actually check your facts. Google interlinear parsed Greek N.T. and you will find that [SIZE=+1]εγενετο[/SIZE] the word translated "became" in John 1:14 is 2ADI-3S, second aorist, deponent, indicative, 3d singular. "Deponent" means the subject performed the action.

Had John intended something else he would have used a different voice for the verb, such as middle. If he had used the middle voice instead of deponent then it would read, e.g. "was made," and would mean that someone, or something, other than the subject was doing the action.

Now you can, ignore the evidence, and go back to your "Hail fellow well met" with those who believe exactly as you do.

 

[Der Alte]

Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Wisdom is a metaphor for Jesus.

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

The word is a metaphor for Jesus. there is not some being named wisdom who has children and God does not have a seperate being called word. both are metaphors in these two verses.

Robertson Word Pictures 11:19 {Wisdom is justified by her works} (\edikai“thˆ apo t“n erg“n autˆs\). A timeless aorist passive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 836f.). The word "justified" means "set right" Luke (Lu 7:35) has "by all her children" as some MSS. have here to make Matthew like Luke. These words are difficult, but understandable. God's wisdom has planned the different conduct of both John and Jesus. He does not wish all to be just alike in everything. "This generation" (verse 16) is childish, not childlike, and full of whimsical inconsistencies in their faultfinding. They exaggerate in each case. John did not have a demon and Jesus was not a glutton or a winebibber. "And, worse than either, for \philos\ is used in a sinister sense and implies that Jesus was the comrade of the worst characters, and like them in conduct. A malicious nickname at first, it is now a name of honour: the sinner's lover" (Bruce). Cf. Lu 15:2. The plan of God is justified by results.​

But you do have one thing right, "God does not have a separate being called word."

And OBTW you are contradicting yourself here. You have said repeatedly that the "the Word became flesh" was a personification, now you say metaphor. So which is it? It cannot be both.

 

[2ducklow]

Before giving me a knee jerk, same old, same old "Neener, neener, neener," reply you should actually check your facts. Google interlinear parsed Greek N.T. and you will find that [SIZE=+1]εγενετο[/SIZE] the word translated "became" in John 1:14 is 2ADI-3S, second aorist, deponent, indicative, 3d singular. "Deponent" means the subject performed the action.

The information I found says different.

3rd person aorist middle indicitive. Singular. Εγενετο

3rd person = he, she, it , they

aorist = historical tense, generally translated as the simple past, focus on the verbal idea not the process or result… I destroyed.

Middle voice - subject acting upon self or interests.

Indicative, expresses an affirmation….I am destroying.

http://www.zhubert.com/

He says nothing about εγενετο being deponent or 2nd aorist. He just says aorist.

2.o
Morphoparadigms: I use the term “morphoparadigm” to indicate a regular sequence of personal endings for singular and plural in each voice category, as they are employed in apropriate combinations for tense and mood with adjustments for loss of intervocalic sigma and contraction of vowels:

3.3 “deponents” Verbs are conventionally termed “deponent” if they appear in passive or middle morphoparadigms but have an “active" sense. 5 Thus μορενομαι “go one’s way”, since its morphoparadigm is middle, is called a “deponent verb,” similarly εδυνεθην, the aorist 1st sg. Of “be able,” is termed a “passive deponent verb.” But these verbs are intransitive- it is absurd to say that they carry an “active” sense. The term “deponent” seems to imply that verbs lacking an active form are somehow misbegotten: either they must once have had an active form and lost it or else they never had an active but really should have had it at any rate, they do not display the behavior of a “standard” Greek verb. I really doubt that a speaker or writer of ancient Greek would have thought these verbs were formed or function in any irregular manner. I believe that the problem of “deponent verbs:” shows that our description of grammatical voice is in one or more respects not adequately descriptive of the way it really functions.

http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/Docs/NewObsAncGrkVc.pdf

This guy says deponent verbs are deponent if they are in the passive or middle morphoparadigm but have an active sense, which he says is impossible. he also says deponent verbs are intransitive. Isn't became transitive? I;m not great at grammer but I think it is.

Plus the first guy I quoted says that verbs in the middle voice act upon self or intrests. So you cannot say definitively that the word was acting upon itself, it could be acting upon its intrests. Grammatically speaking.

Had John intended something else he would have used a different voice for the verb, such as middle. If he had used the middle voice instead of deponent then it would read, e.g. "was made," and would mean that someone, or something, other than the subject was doing the action.

well the source I looked up said it εγενετο is in the middle voice. and the other source defines deponent such that εγενετο cannot be a deponent verb. it isn't intransitive.
Plus deponent verbs seem to be disputed in the academic community. at least that is my impression from reading the second quote.

Now you can, ignore the evidence, and go back to your "Hail fellow well met" with those who believe exactly as you do.

 

[Peterson]

Trinitarians make the false assumption that the Holy Spirit, if not a third person of a coequal, coeternal Trinity, then must be an unthinking force like electricity. This is the "straw man" that they set up in order to knock it down with Scripture verses like those that have been cited in this thread. One post cites 40 plus verses, as though quantity equates to quality. The truth of the matter is that none of these verses have anything to do with proving a third person, or a Trinity.

Merely tossing Bible verses out without explanation proves nothing. The attributes of personality in no way prove them to be the attributes of a coequal, third person Holy Ghost. In fact, when taken in context, these verses all redound to the Father and his personality.

I certainly don’t intend to go through all the verses that were given, but I’ll take a few that will adequately illustrate how Trinitarians take them out of context, and one doesn’t have to be able to parse Greek to understand them in context.

Example: Matthew 12:31-34 is cited as proof of the Trinitarian Holy Ghost where Jesus says: "but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven unto men." In verse 32... Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Nothing in these verses identifies a third person. To identify who is being spoken of, one must go back to verse 18: "Behold my servant (Jesus), whom I (Father) have chosen: my (Father’s) beloved (Jesus), in whom my soul (Father’s) is well pleased: I (Father) will put my (Father’s) spirit upon him (Jesus), and he (Jesus) shall show judgement to the gentiles."

In verse 28, Jesus tells the Pharisees; "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God (Father), then the Kingdom of God (Father) is come unto you." The Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out devils by the power of Beelzebub, instead of the Father, when they knew better (v.24). In effect they were calling the Father, Beelzebub, the prince of devils.

Nowhere can it be shown that a third person Holy Ghost is identified here. Only the Father and Jesus, and nary a hint of coequality.

Romans 8:27 is cited to prove that the Holy Spirit has a distinct mind, and is not merely an unthinking force: "And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." Nothing here indicates a third person. When taken in context with verse 34, we can see that it is the Father’s spirit working through Christ that is the intercessor: "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, ye rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God(Father), who also maketh intercession for us." Christ is our only mediator (1 Tim 2:5; 1Cor 8:6).

One more. Romans 8:11. Here it is claimed that a third party raised Jesus from the dead: "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Trinitarians, again, twist Scriptures, and fail to put them in context with other verses. It was not a third party that raised Christ from the dead, it was the Father.

Galatians 1:1; "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead." See also: Eph. 1:20; 1 Thess 1:10; Romans 10:9; Acts 13:33-34; Acts 10:40.
It is the Father’s Spirit through Christ that indwells Christians, and will raise them from the dead.

There is no Trinitarian, coequal, coeternal, third person of a Trinity in Scriptures; not in 40 verses, not in one verse. Father and Son only. The Holy Spirit has a mind, will, emotion, personality, because the Holy Spirit is the Father: John 4:24: "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth."

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]The information I found says different.

http://www.zhubert.com/

He says nothing about εγενετο being deponent or 2nd aorist. He just says aorist.

http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/Docs/NewObsAncGrkVc.pdf

This guy says deponent verbs are deponent if they are in the passive or middle morphoparadigm but have an active sense, which he says is impossible. he also says deponent verbs are intransitive. Isn't became transitive? I;m not great at grammer but I think it is.

Plus the first guy I quoted says that verbs in the middle voice act upon self or intrests. So you cannot say definitively that the word was acting upon itself, it could be acting upon its intrests. Grammatically speaking.

well the source I looked up said it εγενετο is in the middle voice. and the other source defines deponent such that εγενετο cannot be a deponent verb. it isn't intransitive.
Plus deponent verbs seem to be disputed in the academic community. at least that is my impression from reading the second quote.[/SIZE]

How many websites did you have to comb through until you found two that seem to contradict my post? How many legitimate sources did you have to ignore?

Let's see what we have now, some guy named Zhubert's private blog. Yeah right!

Then an unpublished paper by one ex-professor of classics, which has been reviewed by whom, supported by whom?

OTOH the parsing I posted is from UBS.

According to you logos is John 1 is either a personification or a metaphor. Please tell me how a word spoken into the air, before the world existed, without any atmosphere to carry it, can act on itself, or its own interests?

Now back to a reliable source, the Logos, which had been performing actions, in John 1:2-13, acting upon himself became part of mankind.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Trinitarians make the false assumption that the Holy Spirit, if not a third person of a coequal, coeternal Trinity, then must be an unthinking force like electricity. This is the "straw man" that they set up in order to knock it down with Scripture verses like those that have been cited in this thread. One post cites 40 plus verses, as though quantity equates to quality. The truth of the matter is that none of these verses have anything to do with proving a third person, or a Trinity.

Merely tossing Bible verses out without explanation proves nothing. The attributes of personality in no way prove them to be the attributes of a coequal, third person Holy Ghost. In fact, when taken in context, these verses all redound to the Father and his personality....[/SIZE]

Merely saying "Pooh, pooh, pooh, it's not true." also does not prove anything.

The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is the third person in the Trinity. He is fully God. He is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, has a will, a mind, a distinct self, and can speak. He is alive. He is a person. He is not particularly visible in the Bible because His ministry is to bear witness of Jesus (John 5:26).

Some false teaching religions like the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., say that the Holy Spirit is nothing more than a force (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 406-407). This is false. If the Holy Spirit were merely a force, then He could not speak (Acts 13:2); He could not be grieved (Eph. 4:30); and He would not have a will (1 Cor. 12:11), a self, (Jn 16:13), or a mind, (Rom 8:27).

The truth is there are seventy two (72) personal characteristics attributes, listed in scripture for the Holy Spirit and He is a person the same as the Father and the Son are within the Trinity.

Names of the Spirit

1. God -Acts 5:3-4
2. Lord - 2 Cor. 3:18
3. Spirit - 1 Cor. 2:10
4. Spirit of God - 1 Cor. 3:16
5. Spirit of Truth - John 15:26
6. Eternal Spirit - Heb. 9:14

Attributes of (9)

7. Eternal -Heb. 9:14
8. Omnipotent - Luke 1:35
9. Omnipresent - Psalm 139:710
10. Distinct Will from the father and the son– 1 Cor. 12:11
11. Loves - Rom. 15:30
12. Speaks - Acts 8:29; 13:2
13. Distinct Mind from the father and the son – Rom 8:27
14. Distinct Self from the father and the son – John 16:13
15. Alive – John 14:17

Symbols of (3)

16. Dove - Matt. 3:15
17. Wind - John 3:5
18. Fire - Acts 2:3

Sins Against (6)

19. Blasphemy - Matt. 12:31
20. Resist (Unbelief) - Acts 7:51
21. Insult - Heb. 10:29
22. Lied to - Acts 5:3
23. Grieved - Eph. 4:30
24. Quench - 1 Thess. 5:19

Power in Christ's Life (6)

25. Conceived of - Matt. 1:18,20
26. Baptism - Matt. 3:15
27. Led by - Luke 4:1
28. Filled with Power - Luke 4:14,18
29. Witness of Jesus - John 15:26
30. Raised Jesus - Rom. 8:11

The Works of the Holy Spirit (42)

1 Access to God - Eph. 2:18
2 Anoints for Service - Luke 4:18
3 Assures - Rom. 8:15-16; Gal. 4:6
4 Authors Scripture - 2 Pet. 1:20-21
5 Baptizes - John 1:232-34; 1 Cor. 12:13-14
6 Believers Born of - John 3:3-6
7 Calls and Commissions - Acts 13:24; 20:28
8 Cleanses - 2 Thess. 3:13; 1 Pet. 1:2
9 Comforts - Act 9:31
10 Communion with believers – 2 Cor 13:14
11 Convicts of sin - John 16:9,14
12 Counsels - John 14:16
13 Creates - Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4
14 Empowers - 1 Thess. 1:5
15 Empowers Believers - Luke 24:49
16 Fellowship with believers – Phil 2:1
17 Fills - Acts 2:4; 4:29-31; 5:18-20; 9:17
18 Forbids action - Ac 16:6
19 Gives gifts - 1 Cor. 12:8-11
20 Glorifies Christ - John 16:14
21 Guides in truth - John 16:13
22 Helps our weakness - Rom. 8:26
23 Indwells believers - Rom. 8:9-14; Gal. 4:6
24 Inspires prayer - Eph. 6:18; Jude 20
25 Intercedes -Rom. 8:26
26 Interprets Scripture - 1 Cor. 2:1,14; Eph. 1:17
27 Leads - Rom. 8:14
28 Liberates - Rom. 8:2
29 Molds Character - Gal. 5:22-23
30 Produces fruit - Gal. 5:22-23
31 Raises from the dead - Rom. 8:11
32 Regenerates - Titus 3:5
33 Reveals – Luk 2:26
34 Sanctifies - Rom. 15:16
35 Seals - Eph. 1:1314; 4:30
36 Sends - Acts 13:4 Sent - Gal 4:6; 1 Pet 1:12
37 Sent - Gal 4:6; 1 Pet 1:12
38 Strengthens - Eph. 3:16; Acts 1:8; 2:4;1 Cor. 2:4
39 Testifies of Jesus - John 15:26
40 Victory over flesh - Rom. 8:2-4; Gal. 4:6
41 Warns – Acts 20:23
42 Worship helper - Phil. 3:3.

 

[Bananna]

Duck,
great points

Peterson,
wow Never caught all those before. Thanks for the post.
bananna

 

[2ducklow]

How many websites did you have to comb through until you found two that seem to contradict my post? How many legitimate sources did you have to ignore?

Actually it was the first 2 sources I found. I will post some more that say the same thing. They don't seem to contradict your post. they do.

Let's see what we have now, some guy named Zhubert's private blog. Yeah right!

.

I'd rather read what Zhubert wrote than what is in the occultic Kabala.

Then an unpublished paper by one ex-professor of classics, which has been reviewed by whom, supported by whom?

read my next post for more support.

OTOH the parsing I posted is from UBS.

the notation given was a D, which is for middle deponent. which is why it is translated in the middle voice. it is deponent because it has an additional active voice meaning.

According to you logos is John 1 is either a personification or a metaphor. Please tell me how a word spoken into the air, before the world existed, without any atmosphere to carry it, can act on itself, or its own interests?

The word was made flesh, or became flesh is figurative. the word is being spoken of as if it were a being, a being named Jesus. a metaphor is something ussed to represent something is it not? depends on how you look at it as to wheter you call it a metaphor for Jesus , in how it is used or if you say the word is being personified by speaking of it as if it were a being and thereby giving it human qualities. Jesus was a man. No one doubts that Jesus was a man, well most don't anyway. your 'word acting upon itself' doesn't work with john 1.3, which is the same greek word in every respect.

Now back to a reliable source, the Logos, which had been performing actions, in John 1:2-13, acting upon himself became part of mankind.

refuted by the same word in john 1.3 egeneto. all thiings were not acting upon themselves through Jesus.

 

[2ducklow]

You haven’t provided any quotes or links to support your claims, but I'll post one that supports a middle deponent voice for john 1.14

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

here is another source that says the same thing. .

John 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.ASV.

The Greek word translated ‘were made’ is the exact same word in person tense voice mood and number as the verb translated ‘became’ or ‘was made’ in john 1.14. All things did not act upon themselves through Jesus, and the word did not act upon itself to become Jesus.. Both words are exactly the same. And here is the same information from another source.

Current word ​

Inflected εγενετο

form:​

Base ​

form:​

Major1: ​

verb ​

Person: ​

3rd ​

Tense: ​

aorist

Voice:

middle
Mood:
indicative
Number:
singular ​

​

http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/cgi-bin/gnt?id=04011405#h​

Had John intended something else he would have used a different voice for the verb, such as middle. If he had used the middle voice instead of deponent then it would read, e.g. "was made," and would mean that someone, or something, other than the subject was doing the action.

It was middle deponent which means it has a middle voice ending but has an active voice additonal meaning. So it's still middle voice.​

Word was made flesh is middle voice. That's how it's translated.
'was made' or 'became' both are middle voice.​

Ok so since I have shown from 2 different sources that egeneto is in the middle voice. you have to agree that the word was not acting upon itself in john 1.14. you said if it was in the middle voice, and it is, that someone other than the word was doing the action. What you have failed to comprehend is that deponent means and additional active voice to the middle voice.​

Main Entry: 1de·po·nent
Pronunciation: di-'pO-n&nt​

Function: adjective

Etymology: Late Latin deponent-, deponens, from Latin, present participle of deponere​

: occurring with passive or middle voice forms but with active voice meaning ****e deponent verbs in Latin and Greek>​

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/deponent​

[ ​

More on deponent.​

So-called “Deponent” verbs

Traditional grammarians have referred to verbs that have no “active” voice-forms but regularaly have present-tense forms in –μαι as “deponent” verbs. The term “deponent” has been variously explained, most commonly with an implication that they are somehow defective, perhaps that they once had an “active” morphoparadigm but lack one in the historical period of the language. Also some verbs that have active forms in the present tense but whose future is middle (e.g. βαινω/βηςομαι, μανθανω/μαθηςομα&#953 are by the same reasoning termed “future deponents.” And again, a distinction is drawn between “middle deponents” (verbs that have a present-tense form in –μαι and future in –σομα&#953 and “passive deponents” (verbs that have a present-tense form in –μαι and future in –θησομα&#953.
In fact, however, the term and concept of “deponency” is confusing and misleading. Verbs such as ερχομαι and αποκρινομαι and δυναμαι ought not to be considered in any way irregular or wanting because they have no “active-voice” forms. The Greek-speaker understands these verbs as involved in a kind of relationship to the grammatical subject that properly finds expression in the middle-passive morphoparadigm.. It may be difficult for non-Greek-speakers to grasp the distinctive notion implicit in these”middle-passive” forms, but one should make the effort to discern their flexibility for expression of notions of entering into a state or condition or action, whether involuntarily or voluntarily, and for notions of undergoing a process or action or being subjected to an action. One ought not to suppose that these verbs, because they may be translated into English by “active-voice” verb-forms, are in any way irregular or accidentally given forms that are not appropriate to them.​

​

​

http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/Docs/UndAncGrkVc.pdf​

deponet verbs are confusing and misleading. better to just say aorist, indicitive, middle voice, 3rd person, as my two sources stated. it is the middle voice , whether or not it has an active voice meaning is an addition, it doesn't exclude at all the middle voice meaning. so john 1.14 is translated correctly in the middle voice. . .​

 

[2ducklow]

oopsy-daisy
made a mistake

 

[2ducklow]

thought I might throw in what I feel is a better explanation of morphoparadigm than my first explanitory quote.

Morphoparadigm-a conjugated verb pattern—that has flexibility of verbal meaning and can fluctuate between intransitive notions of entering into a state or condition or activity and transitive notions indicative of actions being performed upon the grammatical subject. That is to say: verbs in sentences such as c. above may be understood as passive and may be translated as passive in English: “The boy will be baptized tomorrow.” But such verbs may just as well indicate that the boy will with clear and resolute intention submit himself to baptism, in which case we might translate the verb βαπτιςθηςεται as “The boy will have himself baptized tomorrow.” But this means that the verb, although we might want to call it transitive, is not really passive any more than it is active. It is what Greek traditionally calls “middle voice”---a grammatical category that often seems difficult for English speakers to understand rightly.

http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/Docs/UndAncGrkVc.pdf

So since john 1.14 is in the middle voice, according to the above it should read, "the word had itself made into flesh." middle voice englidh, not past not present but middle

Kind of a difficult concept, morphparadigm but if you can grasp it, it's a neat word to add to your vocabulary. Use it and everybody will think you're a brainiac.
so morphoparadigm means a verb form that indicates the subject acting out something and at the same time the subject being acted upon. That's what I get out of the above.

So middle deponents would be some verb ending in say a future tense, and would have a double meaning. it would mean both that the subject was acted upon but the primary meaning is it will act out something.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]thought I might throw in what I feel is a better explanation of morphoparadigm than my first explanitory quote.[/SIZE]

This is the same guy right. An old retired classics, NOT Greek professor writes a paper and speculates, "This might be..." "Or it could be..." "We might translate it..." "It is possible that..." And you are all over it like it really proves something. Once again, it means nothing unless it was reviewed and supported by some academic body. Was it?

Question, why didn't you quote Metzger? Because he did not support what you were trying to prove?

[SIZE=-1]So since john 1.14 is in the middle voice, according to the above it should read, "the word had itself made into flesh." middle voice englidh, not past not present but middle[/SIZE]

Wrong again. As I said middle deponent the subject performs the action. In John 1:14 who is the subject, who is the object. This is a very important question as it relates to John 1:3.

The rest of your post is irrelevant you making meaningless speculations based on other meaningless speculations.

In one post you said that in John 1:3, all things made were not acting upon themself. Hey! You finally got something right. Who or what is the subject in John 1:3 and who or what is the object? How many nouns? Who does the verse say did the making? Now back to John 1:14, how many nouns, who does it say did the making?

Just because something is posted on the internet that does not make it true. As old as you are you should know that.

 

[2ducklow]

This is the same guy right. An old retired classics, NOT Greek professor writes a paper and speculates, "This might be..." "Or it could be..." "We might translate it..." "It is possible that..." And you are all over it like it really proves something. Once again, it means nothing unless it was reviewed and supported by some academic body. Was it?

Here is another source stating the same thing only much more concise and direct to the point.

A good example of the problems caused by assuming that the classical use of the middle is always present is found in 1 Corinthians 13:8, where Paul says that the gifts of tongues “will cease” (pauvsontai). It is argued by some … Paul is saying the gift of tongues will cease in and of itself.
Regardless of one’s views on the topic of spiritual gifts, we feel this is an incorrect use of the middle. It assumes that the middle here has the classical usage, even though BAGD lists no self-interest meaning for the middle of pauvw. And when one looks at the other eight occurrences of the verb, it is seen that the verb is a middle deponent and not reflexive. The best example is in Luke 8:24, where Jesus calmed the sea. “Jesus rebuked the wind and calmed the water, and they ceased and became calm” … The wind and water certainly did not “cease” in and of themselves. The middle of this verb does not designate “self-interest”; it is deponent (deponent means the verb is middle or passive in form, but active in meaning).

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1603

Notice the wind and water did not cease of themeselves.
Notice that ceased is middle deponent, same voice as john 1.14. therefore, the wind didn't cease of itself and the word was not made flesh of itself. pretty solid case. The wind came to be (εγενετ&#959 calm, and the word came to be (εγενετ&#959 flesh. You can't use egeneto as proof that the word was or is a being, anymore than you can use egeneto to proove that the wind is a being.




furthermore;

(Greek NT - (wh) w/ Grammar tags) Luke 8:24…………

egeneto <1096> (5633) {V-2ADI-3S}

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1603

Again it is the exact same word egeneto 2nd aortist middle deponent 3rd person singular . the wind did not cease of its on accord and the word was not made flesh of its on accord. both are the exact same verb. you better give it up der alter. you're digging a deep hole for yourself here, unless you want to say hello to Mr. Wind.

Question, why didn't you quote Metzger? Because he did not support what you were trying to prove?

Didn't find anything written by him on the topic.

Wrong again. As I said middle deponent the subject performs the action. In John 1:14 who is the subject, who is the object. This is a very important question as it relates to John 1:3.

Wrong, the subject does not perform the action. the wind did not perform the action in 'the wind ceased' in Luke 8.24, ceased is middle deponent just like egeneto is in john 1.14.

The rest of your post is irrelevant you making meaningless speculations based on other meaningless speculations.

Obviously you didn't read it. it isn't just a bunch of speculations.

In one post you said that in John 1:3, all things made were not acting upon themself. Hey! You finally got something right. Who or what is the subject in John 1:3 and who or what is the object? How many nouns? Who does the verse say did the making? Now back to John 1:14, how many nouns, who does it say did the making?

all things is the subject. Jesus is an indirect object. the verb is the exact same one as in john 1.14. middle deponent.

Just because something is posted on the internet that does not make it true. As old as you are you should know that.

I'm not old. I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[2ducklow]

I put this in the wrong place. sorry. don;t know how to delete this post.

 

[Peterson]

Is a third person actuallythe Power in Christ&#8217;s life?

First, the logical question arises: If the Holy Ghost, and Christ are coequal, why would it be necessary for Jesus to rely on the Holy Ghost for power, since they are supposedly already coequal with each other in every way, including power?

Matthew 1:18, 20 are Scriptures that are supposedly proof of this power in Christ&#8217;s life, and in his conception: V.18; Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: when as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. V.20 ... That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
In Matthew 1, the Holy Ghost (Spirit) is in every case, pneuma, breath, or wind, which is indicative of the invisible spiritual power of God the Father. That is why Jesus called him "my Father", and the Father could call Jesus, "My Son." The conceiving was accomplished by the power of the Father, not some third party. If that had been the case Jesus would have called the Holy Spirit Father, and not the Father.
In effect, Jesus is the product of the spiritual genes of the Father, and thus Jesus is the first born, eldest Son in the family (elohim) of God, the Father.

Incidentally, notice also, in V.18, the phrase; "Before they came together," which tells us that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus.