Jesus Is The Father

[calvin]

Calvin,

Unfortunately the quote you came with John 14:23 "Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." does not have the "we" or "our" in it. That was inserted into the translation to satisfy the translators assertion of a trinity doctrine. Sorry. Look it up for yourself. G#2064 to be correct then look at all the uses for it.
snip

G'day young man.
You brought up an interesting word.
We all need to take cognizance of all of its attributes. It is a very complex marker, not easily translated I'll grant you that. Of all the attributes of that word, one of the most pertinent is that it is 'plural' in number. The translators have no alternative but to take number into account when translating. We should take notice of number when studying the word also.
we are/will/did come/ing is required for or by a plural word such as #G2064. Unfortunately Strong's seems to omit the number in the description, but it is there nonetheless.
So Ryan, with respect, do not do as you accuse the translators. You are of a 'oneness' persuasion and therefore looked at the text from that perspective. You accuse the translators of trinitarian bias, but you are just as biased. The Greek number must be observed at all times.

 

[calvin]

Phillipians 1:19 " For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,"

Ryan, you are really arguing 'the straw man' here. The Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit. What really are you trying to prove? There is only one God, not three. We are all agreed on this point........aren't we? You do in fact believe that there is only one Lord?
Are you saying that Jesus is not the Lord?
Are you saying that only the Father is Lord?
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is not integral with the Lord, ie. the Lord is divisible?

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

So who is this Jesus that shared the Glory of the Father? Will the Father share His Glory with another?.....not likely.

 

[Ryan Lepko]

Calvin, just a cursory search, not all 600 of the times G2064 is used, but the passage in question is the only time a plural word is used in conjunction with it. I am also no English teacher, but it just seems to be an addition. So to me, that verse is in question.

So yes, I still disagree with the 3 persons Godhead. That's what caught my attention a few pages back.

I miss our spirited debates with you, Major, Bill, and others. Maybe that's why I am back. Just a sucker for punishment I guess.

Also love the hearts and Rusty likes this.

 

[calvin]

Calvin, just a cursory search, not all 600 of the times G2064 is used, but the passage in question is the only time a plural word is used in conjunction with it. I am also no English teacher, but it just seems to be an addition. So to me, that verse is in question.

So yes, I still disagree with the 3 persons Godhead. That's what caught my attention a few pages back.

I miss our spirited debates with you, Major, Bill, and others. Maybe that's why I am back. Just a sucker for punishment I guess.

Also love the hearts and Rusty likes this.

Ryan it is good that you search things out and do your own research.
The big problem with using or rather relying on the Strong's dictionary is that though it is pretty good, it only supplies the lexal or the most basic form of a word. It does not delve into the various grammatical variations.
For example, the Greek Text for John 14:23, uses ελευσομεθα for 'we will come' . Strong's gives a different version of the same word..ἔρχομαι They look totally different don't they......not my fault. They are fully interchangeable, and as I said previously it is a very complex marker.
Doing a Strong's search though helpful, robs us of a lot of information that is available from a studious approach to the texts. So that you understand what I am driving at, lets look at the Greek word for God. It is not exactly θεος as most would immediately say. It is simply θε ('the', not the definite article) that is the lexal.
Strong's does list it as θεος just to make a liar out of me But well perhaps I should expand my argument to say that Strong's uses the most basic form of a word. θε is indeed the lexal, but it must use some other bits to give it context and meaning. So,...giving it an ending such as ος, or ον, or ου tells the reader something about how God is being discussed.
So we have in John 1:1 In the beginning was the word and the word was with θεον, and the word was θεος......
Else where we can read ..Jesus is the son θεου (of God)
See how the word structure changes with context and meaning?
Sorry if this was a bit long winded Ryan but I think you deserve a better response that just a rebuke.
Perhaps if nothing else, what I have posted can generate a bit more respect for the efforts of the translation teams....as long as they stick to translation and leave interpretation on the bench at the door. (leaving this last bit of red for Jeff to see)

 

[Ryan Lepko]

Ryan it is good that you search things out and do your own research.
The big problem with using or rather relying on the Strong's dictionary is that though it is pretty good, it only supplies the lexal or the most basic form of a word. It does not delve into the various grammatical variations.
For example, the Greek Text for John 14:23, uses ελευσομεθα for 'we will come' . Strong's gives a different version of the same word..ἔρχομαι They look totally different don't they......not my fault. They are fully interchangeable, and as I said previously it is a very complex marker.
Doing a Strong's search though helpful, robs us of a lot of information that is available from a studious approach to the texts. So that you understand what I am driving at, lets look at the Greek word for God. It is not exactly θεος as most would immediately say. It is simply θε ('the', not the definite article) that is the lexal.
Strong's does list it as θεος just to make a liar out of me But well perhaps I should expand my argument to say that Strong's uses the most basic form of a word. θε is indeed the lexal, but it must use some other bits to give it context and meaning. So,...giving it an ending such as ος, or ον, or ου tells the reader something about how God is being discussed.
So we have in John 1:1 In the beginning was the word and the word was with θεον, and the word was θεος......
Else where we can read ..Jesus is the son θεου (of God)
See how the word structure changes with context and meaning?
Sorry if this was a bit long winded Ryan but I think you deserve a better response that just a rebuke.
Perhaps if nothing else, what I have posted can generate a bit more respect for the efforts of the translation teams....as long as they stick to translation and leave interpretation on the bench at the door. (leaving this last bit of red for Jeff to see)

God bless you Calvin, very insightful and will need to look more deeply into this passage. Of course we could get into translation/interpretation issues, but maybe not in this lifetime.

That being said, I will bow out and move onto Auschwitz and have Sheila go it alone. So from here on Sheila, you are one. Yeshua bless you to