Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The Name /One Lord | Matt 28:19 | Hank | 181760 | ||
shing - Chances are that "your Bible" and "my Bible" share a common bond, because "my Bible" also is decidedly monotheistic from Genesis to Revelation. But it also teaches trinitarianism, or the triunity of God, and from your post I gather that you could use some tutoring on this biblical doctrine. For starters, why not visit the following link: http://www.gotquestions.org/trinitarianism.html .... Now let's look at a passage of Scripture together. Turn to Matthew 3:13-17 -- go ahead, use "your Bible" if you wish -- and you will see Matthew's account of Jesus' baptism. Look at three segments with me, please. I'm using the KJV, but use whatever version you customarily use. (1) "And Jesus, when he was bapized" -- This is God the Son, right? (2) "and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him." -- This is God the Holy Spirit, don't you agree? (3) "And lo a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." -- This clearly is God the Father, isn't that true? ..... So here in two verses of Scripture we have one of the clearest manifestations in all of the Bible of the Triunity. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT that all three Persons of the Trinity are involved here on the occasion of Jesus' baptism. The Son is baptized, the Spirit descends and the Father speaks. ..... Additionally you may wish, as Kalos has pointed out, to avail yourself of a multitude of posts on the Trinity that are in this Forum's archives. And, finally, I'd strongly recommend that you get yourself a good book on systematic theology -- Wayne Grudem's comes readily to mind -- and study it. I've discovered that it is far better and infinitely wiser to avail oneself of the wisdom of saints, who have done an enormous amount of trail blazing, many of them long before I was born, than to fly by the seat of my pants and be forced to reinvent the wheel every day. We see all too prevalently in our time pitiful examples of men and women who have forsaken orthodoxy and in attempting to "reinvent the wheel" on their own, they have created a monster of deception, gutting the church of sound doctrine and replacing it with various brands of "feel good religion." --Hank | ||||||
2 | The Name /One Lord | Matt 28:19 | MarkS | 181811 | ||
... | ||||||
3 | The Name /One Lord | Matt 28:19 | kalos | 181827 | ||
I see you are quoting from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, that rock of biblical honesty. | ||||||
4 | The Name /One Lord | Matt 28:19 | MarkS | 181840 | ||
... | ||||||
5 | The Name /One Lord | Matt 28:19 | kalos | 181849 | ||
"No one uses the NWT except the JW's. JW's on the other hand will use nothing else!" ____________________ 'The first thing you say to a JW before you study with them is that you [do] not accept anything from the NWT as authoritative. But they won't accept any other Bible in their heart, even though they might allow you to use one. 'The NWT is so extremely biased and perverted, it is questionable if any Hebrew or Greek scholars worked on it. It is nothing more than a sectarian paraphrase, not a translation. 'No one uses the NWT except the JW's. 'JW's on the other hand will use nothing else! 'It has undergone many revisions. 'It is not a translation, but a corrupt sectarian paraphrase' (www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm). |
||||||
6 | The Name /One Lord | Matt 28:19 | MarkS | 181861 | ||
... | ||||||
7 | The Name /One Lord | Matt 28:19 | mark d seyler | 181863 | ||
Hi Mark, John 1:1 is solid textual evidence that Jesus is in fact God. Compare what your Watchtower claims about that verse to the Greek construction of John 1:18. The Watchtower claims that since "theos" appears without the direct article in John 1:1, it is indefinate, thus declaring that Jesus is "a god". Not only does this render the Watchtower polytheistic, but if you apply the same interpretive reasoning to verse 18, you have a serious conflict. Because while verse 18 says that no one has seen God at any time, this is another instance of "theos" without the direct article. So according to how the Watchtower would have you to understand Greek grammer, vs. 1 is saying that Jesus is "a god", while verse 18 would be saying that no one has seen "a god" at any time. John also describes Jesus as "that which we have seen. . ." "kai theos en ho logos" "and God was the Word" While you could say in English "and the God was the Word", this does not work in Greek. "ho" logos, the word, is in the nominative case, while theos, God, is also in the nominative case. These terms are botn naming someone. "Ho", the, is the direct article, which must appear in the same case as the noun it refers to. But "ho" also indicates the subject of the sentence, or in this case, the clause. If we were to write this sentence with the direct article appearing with theos, God, then it would be: kai ho theos en ho logos and the God was the Word The problem with this is that it renders the clause as having two subjects, and that is just bad grammer. So when the Watchtower claims that there would have to be a direct article before theos in order for it to be truly saying that Jesus is "the" God, it is in reality demanding that John write with bad grammer that would actually render his sentence meaningless and circular. The reality is that John names the subject, ho logos, the Word, and tells us something about this subject, the Word was God. Now, whether this is "a god" or "the God", the context gives us all we need. In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with the God, and God was the word. Now, immediately you'll notice that there is an article in the first use of "God" - the Word was with "the God". This is because this is in the "Accusative" case, that is, the direct object. The Word was with - what? The God. But as "God" next appears in the Nominative, there is no direct article. But one must ignore the immediate context to argue that the second appearance of "theos" is any less definate than the first. Not to mention that they don't apply their own rule just a few verses later. Not to mention that many times the Bible declares the diety of Jesus. I hope this clears things up a bit. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||