Yuku free message boards

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!

You are indeed entitled your opinion, as I am of mine, wherein you characterize my post as being filled with "inaccuracies and misconceptions" and "lies" which I believe you have actually made and will attempt to express why below.

When I spoke of "most" I did so in regards to manuscripts and NOT as to "translations" or "versions", as you so wrongly (or should I say lyingly) state the opposite of what assert regarding extant manuscripts. I stand by what I have stated, when I express that "most" of the manuscripts (which include parts and fragments thereof) discovered to date, use "only begotten God" in John 1:18. In the end, as discussed below IT DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE AS YOU CANNOT REFER TO GOD IN THESE TERMS EVER!!!

Concerning the Greek language, and YOUR conclusion that what I express is incorrect, inaccurate and misleading, please know, that I have read your writing on this matter as referenced in the link you provided, and note that you are no Greek scholar, (and as an author lacking) and further note that most all of your conclusions are based on sources outside (3^rd party) the Bible with plain old conjecture, parading itself as opinion (or opinion of others) claiming to be Bible, when it is NOT! It seems you and others like you on this board, think too much of yourself, as you write as though anyone who disagrees with your views, is just plain wrong! Lovely, I am sure you are the smartest person on this board possibly in the world; just ask you?

That's it? That is your response to all of the research in my article on John 1:18??? No challenge to any specific point made?

Regarding John 1:1; much of which is understood today, is sadly based on rules emulating from "Calwell's Rule" which today has been proven wrong buy all accounts; which some of your writing touches upon! For an "up to date" discussion of this, while I could refer you to various sources, I wish to refer you to one, "Truth in Translation" Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament" (a University textbook for a course on Greek) by Jason David Debuhn, who is a Professor and Biblical Scholar in NAU-Northern Arizona University. I would be more than happy to send you (or anyone else a pdf) the attachment, excerpt of his book on John 1:1, via email; should you wish to contact me at praetorian_g@hotmail.com (that is an underscore between the "n" and the "g")

No, I did not rely on Colwell's rule. And your bringing it up shows that either you do not understand Colwell's rule, or you did not understand my argument, or both. Colwell's rule says that, in sentences where the copulative verb is expressed, when a DEFINITE predicate nominative follows the verb, it has the article. But when a definite predicate nominative precedes the verb, it does NOT have the article. Colwell's rule is true. The problem is that it has been badly misused by some well meaning Trinitarians to prove that the predicate nominative must be definite in John 1:1. That is not what the rule states. It simply states that IF the predicate nominative preceeding the copulative verb is definite, it will not have the article. While the rule is true, its reverse is not necessarily true (an anarthrous predicate nominative before the verb MUST be definite). What the rule shows is that the JW's claim, that the absence of the article with "God" means that "God" is indefinite (a god) is NOT true, and that we should expect the predicate nominative NOT to have the article even if it was definite. This rule, properly understood, does NOT prove the "Trinitarian" interpretation true. Rather, it proves the JW - Arian claim, false. The rule is NOT wrong, and has never been proven to be wrong. What has been shown, is that many expositors have misunderstood and misused the rule, making it say more than it actually says.

In my previous posts, I have not argued the point that Colwell made. My point was a different grammatical point, that the inclusion of the article (assuming that John meant "theos" to be definite), would render the sentence difficult to understand (at best), because one could not identify whether "theos" or "logos" was the subject. In a predicate nominative construction, there are really only two ways that various languages identify which of the two nouns is the subject, word order (placing the subject before the verb and the predicate nominative after the verb), OR, the use of the article before the subject and leaving the predicate nominative anarthrous. In Greek, word order almost NEVER resolves these kinds of issues because in Greek word order is used for EMPHASIS not for the purpose of grammatical identification of subject, direct object, or predicate nominative.

If John had a Trinitarian understanding, he would NOT have used the definite article with God in this sentence. That is what Colwell's rule shows in this instance. It does not show, however, that John definitely had a Trinitarian understanding from this rule applied to this sentence alone.

The translations you quoted that do not treat "theos" as a definite noun argue for a "qualitative" force. Hence, Wallace argues that the sense is "The Word was Divine" or "and what God was, the Word was." Rather than identifying Jesus with the person, "God," he was identifying the essence or nature of the Word as being that of "God." I disagree with Wallace. But, even if I agreed with Him, it still supports the deity of Jesus Christ.

I am NOT arguing that John's prologue proves the "Trinity." That is not the case. It does however prove the DEITY of Jesus Christ, and that He existed AS A DISTINCT PERSON "in the beginning" before the world was created. The number of Divine persons is not stated here, nor is the Holy Spirit brought into the equasion in this passage. To prove the Trinity, one must prove that in total there are THREE DISTINCT persons who are clearly identified as DIVINE and ETERNAL, all being THE God. Scripture does teach this, but not in this passage.

Debuhn, while being a Scholar, does not exude the arrogance found so readily available on this board!!! It just wreaks of it!!!

After your tirade against "CrazyMark," this sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle, black. What you call "arrogance" is actually confidence that I know what I am talking about, and being absolutely certain that you do not.

You go on to discuss rules of Greek and English grammar, which is not altogether accurate and I repeat that should you want to read something from a Scholar, whose findings on the Greek, are not challenged today by NOTE, other "Scholars" but those, rather wanna-be Scholars that speak with "authority" by the use of their own opinion and artfully contrived words!

Why don't you actually make a grammatical point yourself??? Why don't you actually deal with the grammatical points made here, and refute them with counter examples from Scripture??? The fact is, you know little (or nothing) about Greek grammar, and are not capable of dealing with the issues raised here. Please do NOT try to knock someone who explains the grammar and makes a grammatical point as being "arrogant" just because you can't understand what he is talking about, and have no way of answering or making an intellegent case against it!

You also misquote me on another issue, as this is beginning to look as though you are doing this on purpose, as the alternative is also lacking, that of your not comprehending words, that are simply stated!

You again, twist my words, and also put words into my mouth;

If I misquoted you, or put words in your mouth, them post the quote that I allegedly made, and demonstrate how I misquoted you. Your vague accusations, with NO examples, means absolutely NOTHING. I just serves to demonstrate that you are incapable of dealing with the actual issues raised.

I state and will state again (and this is a challenge, that is still waiting on takers, not word twisters) that God is distinguished in the Greek from Jesus as God's Son, (who is also a God, just not "THE GOD") as the Bible plainly tells (without interpretation or trickery or words) that HE, (the God and Father of Jesus) is in that only one that is ever described in the Greek, using the article THE, as "TON THEON" or "HO THEOS" period, thus in English, "The God." Knock yourself, out as there are no manuscripts that ever do this!!! This ignores the fact, that this same scripture in John 1:1, does not allow for, or state plainly, simply and clearly that God is Triune….it does not state this!!! EVER!!!! The Bible even calls Jesus the Servant of God!!!! Not that God is the Servant of Jesus, EVER!!!!!! Get real!!!! Read English, slowly not with a mystical twist!!!!

Didn't you read my previous posts? I gave TWO examples where the definite article is used with "theos" and refers to Jesus Christ! 2 Pet. 1:1 has "TOU THEOU" ("the God" in the gentitive case). Titus 2:13 has the same thing. But, just to drive the nail all the way in, John 20:28 calls Jesus, "HO THEOS." (o kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou). I took your challenge, and proved it UTTERLY FALSE. I went even farther and showed, from the same chapter, that "theos" WITHOUT the article frequently refers to the one true God. So, please stop pretending that your "challenge" has gone unanswered.

You then reference Titus 2:13, (where the Wycliffe New Testament uses a comma, making a separation or distinction, between God and his Son Jesus and so perhaps you need to read my post number 66 above to Crazy, the section of the story of FINK) and 2 Peter 1:1, and note that I have never stated that Jesus was not a God or a Great God, again this is a clear and purposeful distortion of what I express; what I have done, is repeatedly maintain that Jesus himself, as a God, has himself a God and Father, the one who made, created (generated-begot) him! ...

I don't care where Wicliffe out the comma, or what the comma means in that position. The Greek has no punctuation, and I have already explained the grammatical rule that proves that "Jesus" is "the great God" in that verse. Titus 2:13 has the definite article with God. God is definite. It CANNOT be rendered "a God" as you are trying to do. It is THE God who is "great."

That is what only or first begotten means; in Greek to exact English, "ONLY GENERATED", a term that cannot never ever be applied to the God and Father of Jesus. Therefore, you're referring me a few scriptures that refer to Jesus as God and Savior, does nothing to alter what I have expressed!

No, it does not "alter" what you have said, it absolutely OVERTHROWS it. These passage do not say Jesus is "a God." They say He is "THE God." I agree that "only begotten" (monogenes) means "only generated." But this term is used EXCLUSIVELY of the INCARNATION, Jesus' conception within the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit. And this is why He is called "the only begotten Son" and "Son of God."

It is you and those like you, who on the other hand have MANY scriptures that clearly express that Jesus has a God and Father, ...

That is because Jesus LOWERED HIMSELF from His former Divinity, to take on Himself the form of a man. Of course, as a man, Jesus was LOWER that the Father, in power and position. It was a place He willingly took upon Himself. However, before the incarnation, He was "in the beginning" and "created all things" because HE too was and is "God."

...not to mention that nowhere in the scriptures do you find a clear scripture that says that God is Triune, that is why Trinitarians (not all, but many, some etc.) are forced to admit that the doctrine is not explicitly stated or found in the Bible, not the other way around!!!!!!

What I am arguing for is that Jesus is God, in the same sense that the Father is God, that He existed as God in the beginning (before Creation), that God is a plural being, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all referred to as "the God" in Scripture, and no others. That the Bible does not use the term "trinity" means absolutely nothing, since this is a theological term that was invented later to describe the overall teaching of the Scriptures on this issue.

Rather, it is you that totally ignores obvious scriptures that state that Jesus has a God and Father, and therefore cannot be his own God and Father; AGAIN, this is Biblically speaking, as if one speaks from a theological standpoint, then you are totally correct! However, I am referring to keeping this subject matter strictly on the Bible and submit that you cannot believe this doctrine of a Triune God, on the plain and simple words of the Bible alone!!!

I am not ignoring anything. I have explained in what sense Jesus has a "God and Father," because HE lowered Himself and limited His Divine attributes in order to become man. The passages that refer to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" do not in any way present a problem for the Trinity teaching, if the incarnation is properly understood.

Fellow, if I have erred, I have erred, then establish it, as your opinion making the claim does not grant or make you an authority!

I have established it in previous posts and this one, too. What you attribute to me, (making your opinion the authority) is what you have done. When your "opinion" of the ramifications of some text have been challenged on grammatical or logical grounds, you have nothing to answer except repeating them over and over. This is a perfect example. You claim that the Scripture plainly teaches that Jesus has a God and Father. OK. I agree. But your real point is based on an INFERRENCE you are drawing, which is NOT required at all, can then claim that your inferrence is what the Bible plainly teaches. Excuse me if I am not buying. There is a perfectly good explanation, that is articulated in Philippians 2, which accounts for this, and even asserts that Jesus was equal with God in that very passage! Paul's explanation in that passage proves that the inferrence that you claim is absolutely required, is not required at all.

To state that I am purposely doing something clandestine and accuse me of things, is bold of you, "godlike" in the manner in which you have chosen to judge me! You have the same issue as most here, and that is extreme hubris, taking it upon yourself to make pronouncements! OK, good for you but that, in the end, does not make you right and me wrong!!!

I am judging your work, which is inferior, and mistaken throughout. You have presented as "fact" in this thread things that are NOT TRUE. I call that "lies." A lie is a lie, regardless of whether you know it to be a lie, or are repeating it thinking it is true. Either way, it is a lie. I wrote before that it COULD be because of ignorance or brainwashing, thereby not directly challenging your motives. I have no way of judging your motives. But I can certainly judge your work. And as I have said repeatedly, it is filled with lies.

Let me take the assumptive position that you are indeed correct and that the sources I have used for my information is wrong; FACT: Some manuscripts, and note, I gave two references of Greek interlinear's and one Bible, (three) that use "only begotten God", (instead of Son) then I submit, even if "only begotten Son" were the only way it appeared in the Greek (though it is not) that it will take you to the same place, and that is; that this expression in the Greek, "ONLY BEGOTTEN" or "GENERATED" Son/God" can never ever apply to God, but does fit God's Son! What do you expect a Son of God to be? Another God, but not his God and Father as this makes no sense!!!!

I am indeed correct, that the vast majority of manuscripts have "only begotten Son" in that passage, and I have demonstrated in my article on this subject that the reading "only begotten God" was a corruption from Gnostic influence, and was taken up later by Arians.

Your claim that the term "only begotten Son" cannot apply to Jesus in a Trinitarian understanding is also dead wrong. The word, "SON" in this clause, refers to Jesus' BIRTH from Mary's womb. Jesus is God's "only begotten Son" because Jesus is a "God-man" not just "God" or just "man." So, "Son of God" and "Son of Man" both apply, the former title expresses His divinity, and the latter title expresses His humanity. What is "generated" is His HUMANITY not His DIVINITY, in which HE always existed as "The Logos." It makes perfect sense, except to those who refuse to see.

Tell me, when God was alone, before he made others like him, (because he did) what was his first act of creation, and you know it cannot be the material universe and humans? Who was the first spirit person he made, generated like himself? As there had to be a first or did he make all of his spirit sons at the same time? Does God call or refer to his spirit sons as God? So what would one call the first spirit Son of God, that he made, if he indeed made a first one? (Proverbs 30:4)

The premise of your question is wrong. God was NEVER "alone" because He has always been a plural being, consisting of three distinct persons. The very first verse in the Bible introduces God as "Elohim," the plural noun for God. Literally, "In the beginning Gods created the heavens and the earth." And when He made man, He said, "Let US make man in our image, and after our likeness." How can a plural being be "alone?" The term "God" in the OT is usually plural, but sometimes singular as well. That is because, somethimes the plurality of this being is being emphasized, and somethimes the UNITY of this being is being emphasized. God did NOT create any others LIKE HIM in substance. He created man "in His image" regarding certain qualities.

Prov. 30:4 (like Psalm 2) is prophetic, and refers to the incarnation.

Your and other's regular use of and insistence on quoting sources OUTSIDE (3^rd party) the Bible show your dependence not on God's word, but on mans!

Please! What outside 3rd party sources am I using? I am interpreting Scripture, and using sound logic and Greek grammar. Are you proposing that we not use logic and grammar?

Look Tim-fellow, I will gladly stand by what the Bible actually, simply, plainly and clearly states, anytime before my Maker, while you stand on your interpretation of his simple words and that of other men, outside the Bible to tell you and others what God means by them! This is audacity at it's finest!!!!

doing this, you and those like you, take the position that God apparently could not inspire or pen words clearly enough so that, you and those like you need interpret, or clarify what he actually meant, thus, if there is someone here that is insulting God, worse, blaspheming him, it is YOU!

The words are clear enough. I have NOT in any way added to them. I have, on occasion, appealed to the Greek because that is the language in which the text was written, and the English translation is often less clear. You, on the other hand, try to take some of the ambiguity of certain the English translations and use them to twist the meaning of the text. The fact is, God did not inspire the English text, or the punctuation, or any particular translation. He did, however, inspire the original autographs, which were perfect in every detail. Part of the PFRS process is to appeal to the Greek text, and argue from it to solve any ambiguities that arise from the various English translations. That's what we do here. If you want to argue from the "plain sense" of the English text of some particular translation that you think favors your interpretation, you are on the wrong forum. If you want to misrepresent the evidence, and make bogus claims about the manuscript evidence, or the beliefs of the early Church, and then whine about it when you are proven to be lying, you are in the wrong place. That kind of stuff doesn't fly here.

I close by referring you to Jesus' words at John 8:42-47, where Jesus clearly, plainly and simply states (no interpretation needed) that if you were from God you would love him, because God "sent" him (that is as simple as you can) however, you seek to twist things, very much like those to whom Jesus stated these words, thus it is very appropriate for you to eat the words in the reciprocal you threw at me, found in verse 44! In the end, you cannot reach the conclusion that God is Triune, from the clear, plain uncomplicated and simple words of the Bible and a simple exercise in word substitution will prove this, or we will have to alter the way people speak today! As according to theology, words mystically change, like yes, means no, and God, means Son, and dog, means cat….where does this nonsense end! It ends with people like you and with God and his Son holding us all accountable for what we do and believe! I for one, choose not to alter what God's word says, and believe that that what is plainly stated is what God intended it to be!

You cannot love Jesus unless you first know who He is. So, let me tell you who He is. Jesus is "the God and Savior," He is (like Thomas exclaimed), "My Lord and my God." Everything in this Creation was made BY Him and FOR Him. When God said, "Let US make man in our image," He was speaking to the One who later "became flesh" and "came in the likeness of men." He was "equal with God" before He lowered Himself to become man. And one day He will be glorified with the same Glory that He had when He was with the Father before the world was.

He is NOT, however, "God the Son." That term is faulty, because it implies that His "sonship" relates to His divinity. It does not. "Sonship" as well as "only-begotten" relates ONLY to His humanity. The correct term is "the Son of God." But, it is also "the God," because He shares the same substance and essence with the Father. He existed "before the world was." He was not created, made, generated, or "begotten," except as it relates to His humanity through the womb of Mary.

Tim