It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by miriam0566
Oh, yes, nearly forgot. I was trying to explain earlier that the call to "know" God is the call to enter into relationship with him.
how can you enter a loving relationship with someone you dont know?
if god is incomprehensible, there is no way we can know him. there is no way we could possible find out what his will is or his thinking on anything. and yet the bible helps us do just that.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
My argument is based on following through the logical consequences of things. This process is essential for all human thought. Your unwillingness to follow through logical consequences undermines your ability to understand.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
My claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is scripturally sound starts, as I was saying before, with the scriptural foundation for the divinity of Christ. I have been making my case on that point in previous posts. You need to go back to them so that we can resolve the question.
Incidentally, it is not advisable to quote texts about false teachers and false prophets if you have any connection with an organisation which once proclaimed that Jesus would return in 1914, and which has, ever since then, been forced to proclaim a theory about this 1914 return which is just as tortuous as anything our own theology has produced. How many false prophecies does it take to identify a community of false prophets?
Are you acquainted with the English proverb- "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones"?
Originally posted by DISRAELI
My first source is John Chrysostom. These are taken from sermons rather than commentaries, but his understanding of the text is obvious enough from the way he treats it. I am finding all these texts on newadvent.org/fathers.
Chrysostom, Homilies on John; relating to John ch8 v58
-----
"He saw my day and was glad". He shows, that not unwillingly He came to His passion, since He praises him who was gladdened at the cross. For this was the salvation of the world. But they cast stones at him, so ready were they for murder, and they did this of their own accord, without enquiry.
But wherefore said he not "Before Abraham was" instead of "I am"? As the Father uses this expression "I Am", so also does Christfor it signifies continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous.
------
This is, I would remind you, the interpretation of a Greek-speaking person, which presumably removes any suggestion that he did not understand the language.
Obviously Augustine is not Greek, but I think it's fair to quote him as
a contemporary supporting view.
Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John; the same passage
------
And the Lord; Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was made, I am. Weigh the words and get a knowledge of the mystery. "Before Abraham was made". Understand, "that was made" refers to human formation; but "Am" to the divine essence. "He was made" because Abraham was a creature. He did not say "Before Abraham was, I was" bt "Before Abraham was made- who was not made save by me- I am". Nor did he say "Before Abraham was made I was made"... Before Abraham was made, I am. Recognise the Creator- distinguish the creature
------
Finally, back to Chrysostom on the subject of Philippians.
This man understands the disputed word as "stolen property", which is actually on your side of the argument about the exact translation. Score one point to you. On the other hand, he then uses this translation to demonstrate the divinity of Christ, so he comes down on my side of the argument on the point that matters.
In brief, his argument is;
"Jesus did not treat equality with God as stolen property
This is because he was already the rightful owner of equality with God."
But of course I must give you the argument in his own words.
Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians; relating to ch2v6
--------
[Paul] says that God, the only begotten, who was in the form of God, who was no whit inferior to the father, who was equal to him, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God. Now learn what this means. Whatsoever a man robs, and takes contrary to his right, he dares not lay aside, lest it perish and fall from his possession, but he keeps hold of it continually. He who possesses some dignity which is natural to him, fears not to descend from that dignity, being assured that nothing of that sort will happen to him... If a man takes anything violently, he keeps firm hold of it continually, for if he lay it down he straightway loses it...Not so they, who have possessions not procured by rapine...
What does one say, then? That the Son of God feared not to descend from his right, for he thought not deity a prize seized. he was not afraid that any would strip him of that nature or that right. Wherefore he laid it aside, being confident that he would take it up again... For this cause, Paul says not "He seized not" but "He counted it not a prize". he possessed not that estate by seizure, but it was natural, not conferred, it was enduring and safe... He did not refuse to lay it aside as one who had usurped it, but since he had it as his own by nature, since it could never be parted from him, he hid it.
Finally, I remind you once again that the divinity of Christ is thus demonstrated from the Greek text of the NT by a Greek speaking person. He knows his own language.
Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by miriam0566
Miriam, The word through in greek also means by (διά).
John 1:3 says in the NIV that All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.This verse does not say that without him nothing was made through him or by him that was made. It clearly states that without him nothing was made that was made.
There is no way around this scripture.
Col 1:17 He is before all things.This refers to time, as in Jn1:1-2 and 8:58."Eternal"
Seven times in 6 verses Paul mentions"ALL creation" "All things" and "everything" this stressing that Jesus is supreme over all.
Originally posted by miriam0566
its this comparative structure that shows what paul was saying.
it wouldnt make sense to say that "although jesus was in the nature of god, he was equal to god."
"although she had training as a teacher, she had to teach" what? the structure doesnt make sense
Originally posted by DISRAELI
It was his native language.
Would you care to track down a Greek -speaking commentator of the period who accepts your interpretation, and we can set them against one another?
Originally posted by oliveoil
Would you like to discuss Westcott and Hort and why Their textual basis is not used by all ?
Originally posted by oliveoil
Unfortunately This version is no longer in print most likely because it is erroneous and is no longer tenable in the light of newer and fuller textual analysis, and is revised to the New American Standard Version which combines the received text and clearly states Colossians 1:16 (New American Standard Bible) 16For (A)by Him all things were created.
www.biblegateway.com...:16&version=NASB#en-NASB-29482.
All other bibles which do not use versions that are textually based on Westcott and Hort( Thats all you seem to base your theory on )
Originally posted by miriam0566
Originally posted by oliveoil
Would you like to discuss Westcott and Hort and why Their textual basis is not used by all ?
would you prefer i just quote from the greek?
and as i said before, "by" is not an incorrect translation.
i can go "by" car for example. or talk "by" phone.
Originally posted by oliveoil
What would be the meaning of the word "by" in common greek of the day in this context.
The Music you hear was recorded "BY" the Beatles
The car you drive is made "BY" Ford.
In this case the word "BY" refers to the maker.
Please use your knowledge of the Greek language to define this
Originally posted by oliveoil
Dont you get it. All of this has been taken into consideration and the reality is that the amount of variation between all this does not fundamentally alter the message of the scriptures one iota that has been taught for thousands of years. You are only concerned with the critical text and what the JW doctrine says.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.*
Footnote
*They have a zeal of God. They were religious, conscientious, zealous. but mistaken and fanatical.