Posted on 05/20/2011 5:24:45 PM PDT by bibletruth
Magisterium will NEVER replace the higher teaching ministry of the HOLY SPIRIT...The GodHead...The WORD.
Through God, I am sanctified; I am justified; I have the promise of future glorification; I am a child of God; I am a son of God. My God teaches my soul correct Bible doctrines because the entire Godhead indwells my soul. I am are declared a son of God in Romans 8:14-15.
Do you have a problem with my use of the Scriptures to show what I believe? Because that’s exactly what I’ve always done and will continue to do.
“But if the person does not reveal their beliefs on this basics, the discussion reduces to confusion.”
Does my use of the Scriptures confuse you? I try to avoid the use of philosophical and foreign terms or $3 words when something simpler would do.
So, when someone debates on Baptism for the remission of sins or not, both holding to scripture and both espousing contradictory views.
the fact is that the authenticity of SS does not require that it preclude differences or produce 100% comprehensive doctrinal unity — which has never been achieved — but that holding that which is wholly inspired of God as supreme, is the only material methodical means to a Biblical unity, supplying the magisterium but not as a supreme entity over that which is God-breathed.
Which is exactly the orthodox viewpoint that what the Apostles taught is what we have had handed down to us from Apostolic times.
And that conformity to Scripture and not holding men above that which is written is also the basis for warranted division. -- so you're saying that those who follow various men's interpretations are wrong -- even if they follow their own?
See -- each one of your post's lines is filled with a lot of conflation and decorous words but no content
No. And I am pained that you think that. I only pointed out to you that
"cyc" is honest to tell us about them and I respect his right to have these and to share these -- on a religion forum, we should know what our basic beliefs ARE before we sit down to discuss details, which is why it can be quite against the spirit of sharing our faith when people hide their beliefs (neither you nor cyc have done this here so this is not highlighting you)
Since you believe that Jesus is the first-born of all God's creatures, then the discussion around Baptism is not on the efficacy of this but rather on whether it is the Trinitarian formula or not.
That is quite a different discussion from something that a Baptist or Anglican would discuss on, correct?
I totally agree. cyc was simply obfuscating the issue.
“Dr William Newcome, Archbishop of Armagh, “and the word was a god”
“The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop
Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text”-The London Society, 1808, LONDON”
So if you call a translation “faulty” I'm going to ask you to show how dozens of translations are faulty on the basis of how they translate John 1:1.
You can take a shot at the one above.
Just to be picky, I don't see that Divine Inspiration and bad grammar are mutually exclusive. We're going to wipe out a whole bunch of radio preachers with that doctrine! ;-)
But, literarily speaking, John's Gospel seems the most carefully crafted of the four. His omission of the definite article needs attention.
The προς seems to me, as a Trinitarian, to argue against modalism, not against the Trinity.
I generally construe the confessions of IHS as Κυριος to be confessions that He is THE God.
C, I realize that this is what JW Bible says, but there is no other way to honestly translate εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος.
It says "and the word was with/towards/near the god and [a] god was the word".
In Greek, unlike in English, proper names get definitive article, i.e. the God. At the same time, the absence of a definite article is equivalent to the English indefinite article—a(ny).
So you are now attempting to make me responsible for what you do not understand?
Sorry but your obtusification is your burden not mine.
This is just going to be a rant, feel free to throw rocks or ignore it or whatever:
I think at some point we have to think hard about what "making sense" can mean in conversations about God.
Jesus says,"I am the door of the sheep"(gate of the sheepfold, whatever). We have some idea of what he means because we have seen and used doors. And doors are wonderful. There is a long and hysterical series in the comic strip Pogo about a door standing all by itself somewhere. And in the last book of the Narnia books, a door by itself plays a big role. A principal work in the Zen school is the Mumonkan, the Gateless Gate.
We start by thinking Jesus is just making metaphor. He is saying he is LIKE a door in that, in some sense, we must pass through him.
But then I began to think that actually He IS the door, and the doors I use are pale imitations of him. And so with "Way" or with calling God "Father".
Being a father, I learn something about God from my role. But then I learn something about how to be a father from God, and I realize that I am an imitation father, while he is sho' 'nuff FATHER.
Now it gets worse. I encounter "individuals" -- by which I take us to suggest that a human person is somehow not divided-- an a-tom, a not-cut. And I encounter single objects, one cup of coffee.
But for all our lives and from before they began, physicists have been precisely 'cutting' the 'not-cut', the atom, and so we take for granted that there are sub-atomic particles.
I start to wonder if "one" is a word like "door","father", "way" where I think I know what it means but maybe I don't, where MY experience of 'one' teaches me something important about God, but after a while maybe my experience of God will teach me something important about 'one'.
And in the meantime, I am not so certain that the 'sensible use of the English language' can get me as far as I need to go in worshipping Him with my heart and mind. The English language, and any language, is well suited to creatures. It shatters like crystal on tile when it comes up against The Lord.
I hereby appoint you keep of the list of really good typographical errors on the Religion Forum.
I feel particularly obtussified this morning.
:-)
John 10:34,35 says
34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?Psalm 82 says
35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.This is substantially different from John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Firstly, in the psalms, it clearly says that the judges may think of themselves as gods but they die like men
in contrast John 1:1 says clearly that Jesus existed in the Beginning, created everything and was God
Now, since we believe in ONE God, hence Jesus Christ was/is God.
John 10:34,35 says
34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?Psalm 82 says
35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.This is substantially different from John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Firstly, in the psalms, it clearly says that the judges may think of themselves as gods but they die like men
in contrast John 1:1 says clearly that Jesus existed in the Beginning, created everything and was God
Now, since we believe in ONE God, hence Jesus Christ was/is God.
John never said "a god", he said "the Word (Jesus) was God", not "a" god
C, second century Christian apologetics are uniformly suboridnaitonalist in their beliefs, that is, the Son is subordinate to the Father, and only marginally triniatrian. That is to say, the early Christian trinitarianism is not the same as that of the First two Ecumenical Councils, developed 2 centuries later.
In fact, the wide-spread variation on this subject was the subject and the reason for the convening of the First Nicene Council in 325 AD.
The Second and third century apologetics (incluing Eusebius up to the First Council) spoke of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost but not as co-equal, and in many cases as not co-eternal. In fact, the Holy Ghost is mentioned very rarely as God, but more as the power of God (which is closer to what Judaism teaches).
Spot on, MD.
The προς seems to me, as a Trinitarian, to argue against modalism, not against the Trinity.
That is a valid point, but I don't think modalism was an issue even in the late first century, when "John" wrote. No one believed that God the Father appeared as Jesus or that God the Father became flesh. The problem with "John' is the fact that it is heavily interpolated and that apparently more than one auhtor contributed his beliefs to the book.
I generally construe the confessions of IHS as Κυριος to be confessions that He is THE God.
Κυριος is simply a title of superiority or rank, not necessarily or exclusively a divine title. It is equivalent to the English "Sir." The Apostles never prayed to Jesus (earthly or risen), but only to God, the Father. There was never any confusion in that respect who was God and who was their lord (κυριος)
...There is no doubt that, grammatically, the verse reads "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [or towards, or near] God, and the Word was a God.The use of Greek articles leaves no doubt that the second God was [a god].
Likewise, saying that there is only one God and therefore there can be no other Gods is not true. Logically, if someone is himself the one and only Lord God, then he is not "with" or "towards" or "near" himself, thus the Greek pros here represents a problem with the official Church explanation.
Can you cite any grammatical rule, source or authority in support of your assertion that this clause of John 1:1 should be translated, "...the Word was a god"? As far as I can tell no one ever translated John 1:1 into English that way until 1950, when the Watchtower Society published its hideous, ignoramus "translation" of the Bible.
Every grammatical authority that I have ever seen on the use of the Greek article in this verse refutes the notion that it should be translated "a god."
Article citing various grammars and lexicons on John 1:1
Cordially,
Your source also mentions Sabelianism. This, too, is disingenuous. John's late 1st century theology was as far as it gets from any orthodox Christology to even contemplate arguing against Sabellianism or modalism, which is a 3rd century Christological doctrine.
It is my understanding that, while Κυριος is as you say, it is also the word used in the LXX for the Holy Name.
I was just pointing out to cyc that there is not point in he and I discussing Baptismal details (for example) or any other detailed Christian dogma like the Eucharist etc. if we don't agree on the basic thing -- whether Jesus is a creature or not
We can discuss that topic and debate on that, but discussing the details of Baptism doesn't make sense unless we agree on this basic thing
For example, I can debate with Hindus on whether God is one, but for me to argue over whether Shiva or Vishnu is more numero uno god is silly as I don't believe either is God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.