Just looked over your site . . .

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (Tim) — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:43:57 GMT

Hey, Roger,

I havn't had time to read through the posts you deleted. But, I'm sure it was no great loss.

I guess there is no longer any question whether Tacodog's former lies were intentional or not. Funny how people who intentionally lie can claim to have the truth.

Tim

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (Roger) — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:31:26 GMT

RS wrote:
Hello to All:

I just signed up. I have been following a conversation between members here, and have seemed to have lost some of the latest ones and am very interested in them and teh outcome.

Please help.

RS-Robert Spitzer

"RS,"

The two missing posts were deleted by me and the users banned.

You need to know that as the...

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (RS) — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:51:12 GMT

Hello to All:

I just signed up. I have been following a conversation between members here, and have seemed to have lost some of the latest ones and am very interested in them and teh outcome.

Please help.

RS-Robert Spitzer

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (Chris) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:41:18 GMT

Thanks Tim,

That makes sense. Its amazing how much information is packed into John 1:1. The verse requires both a plural God as you describe above and that Jesus Himself is One of the Plurality (based on the identification of the Logos in v. 14).

Chris.

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (Tim) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:30:08 GMT

Why do you believe John failed to use the article in the last clause of verse 1? Are you suggesting that it was necessary to clearly distinguish the Logos as the subject of the clause? Especially since both are written in nominitive form (Theos and Logos) and since Theos comes first sequentially (presumably to provide emphasis).

John intentionally omitted the article in the last clause of John 1:1 because including it requires that "the...

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (Chris) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:05:52 GMT

Tim,

Why do you believe John failed to use the article in the last clause of verse 1? Are you suggesting that it was necessary to clearly distinguish the Logos as the subject of the clause? Especially since both are written in nominitive form (Theos and Logos) and since Theos comes first sequentially (presumably to provide emphasis).

You said: "Finally, the fact that omitting the article is necessary in order to distinguish the subject from the predicate nominative,...

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (Tim) — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:36:16 GMT

I thought I should devote a separate article to John 1:1, "and the Word was God."

There are four ways to arrange the words John used, these would end up with three different meanings. They are:

kai qeoV hn o logoV
and God was the Word

kai o logoV hn qeoV
and the Word was God

kai o qeoV hn o logoV

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (Tim) — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:46:16 GMT

The difference between us originates with your view of the Bible which you clearly interpret based on theology verses my view, which is based solely and purely on the Bible itself, without preconceived theology or outside sources. I found your response to be more of an emotional knee jerk reaction to my post to Roger!
...

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (tacothedog) — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:12:27 GMT

Hi Tim:

You and I have differences of opinion (excluding the insults) regarding my post number 68, which was written in response to "Roger" which originates with my original post and then the exchanges between me and "Robert."

Tim

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (rhawes73) — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:37:20 GMT

Thanks, Tim. I'm playing catch-up where the early church fathers and their beliefs are concerned. I was educated in Christian schools all the way up through the college level and sat through a lot of Bible classes, but the ECFs were rarely mentioned or quoted.

- Robert

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (Tim) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:11:22 GMT

Robert,

The Epistles that are considered genuine by scholars are the short versions of the Epistles to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnians, and the Epistle to Polycarp. The longer versions almost certainly contain later embellishments. The other Epistles are considered spurious.

While discussion of "the Trinity" using that language, is scarce in the early writers, what is abundantly clear...

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (rhawes73) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:41:25 GMT

Tim,

I read your article on John 1:18 once before (it's excellent, btw), and have been reading through it again in preparation for responding to Tony's ("Taco's") last post to me. In this second reading, I saw something I had forgotten about. In the quote you cite from Ignatius, we see the following:

"And there is also one Son, God the Word..."

If authentic, this would be an even earlier testimony to Trinitarian...

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (Tim) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:48:55 GMT

Taco,

Your last post is filled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations.

Most of the differences in translation of John 1:1 do NOT support your theology, even the ones you are quoting. Your argument betrays your lack of even a basic understanding of Greek grammar. The lack of the definite article is necessary (whether or not the noun is definite) because the clause in question is a predicate nominative. I have written an article on this...

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (tacothedog) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:15:03 GMT

Roger:

Thank you for your reply it was much appreciated, however, if you carefully read my entire post, you would have noticed that 15% (it is actually about 20%+) of the English Bibles in existence do not translate John 1:1 with the singular phrase "….and the word was God" like the NIV,...

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (Roger) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:29:05 GMT

TTD - I now respond here, to all five references, beginning with John 1:1. I begin by quoting from the NIV… MNT… NEB… SGAT… WET…BNT… CNT… ISV… ONT…...

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (tacothedog) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:37:19 GMT

Crazy:

What you want from me, you're...

Re: Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (tacothedog) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:32:16 GMT

Robert:

I suspect you, like Gregg, are/were associated with the Way International or maybe one of it's splinter groups. I know the Way instructs it's followers to refrain from divulging their association whilst debating a theological point. Is this why you are afraid to reveal...

Just looked over your site . . .

feeds@yuku.com (GreggArchitect) — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:48:35 GMT

...and the premise for all you say is great. Pristine Faith and Restoration are great themes....but how can you honestly think that The Trinity is an original Christian doctrine "once delivered to the Saints". Jesus never taught it, Paul never taught it, Peter never taught it.....nobody did until a couple hundren years after Jesus assended into Heaven. It is not being "pristine" and holding this illogical, unintelligible and...