The Trinity.

evyaniy · Oct 6, 2023

Every single challenge with any merit to Psalm 119 being the Son's prayer for life was studied and further proved that Psalm 119 is indeed the Son's prayer to be raised because of His obedience. The challenges were appreciated since they revealed even more evidence that the Psalm is the Son's prayer.

The gift at the end in the last verse where He refers to Himself as a slain Lamb was beyond compare and underserved yet received. When that was realized it was a quiet thank you moment in awe of what was given. The desire was to share the amazing truth of His Word and His prayer. It was rather surprising that others would not receive it but there is no doubt to the veracity of what He revealed and no denying it's meaning.

Needevidence · Oct 9, 2023

evyaniy said:

Every single challenge with any merit to Psalm 119 being the Son's prayer for life was studied and further proved that Psalm 119 is indeed the Son's prayer to be raised because of His obedience. The challenges were appreciated since they revealed even more evidence that the Psalm is the Son's prayer.

The gift at the end in the last verse where He refers to Himself as a slain Lamb was beyond compare and underserved yet received. When that was realized it was a quiet thank you moment in awe of what was given. The desire was to share the amazing truth of His Word and His prayer. It was rather surprising that others would not receive it but there is no doubt to the veracity of what He revealed and no denying it's meaning.

Hi - P119 - where did you get Jesus refers to himself as a 'slain lamb'?

evyaniy · Oct 9, 2023

Needevidence said:

In the last verse 176 where it is mistranslated in nearly all major English translations. The KJV says

I have gone astray like a lost Sheep; seek Thy Servant; for I do not forget thy commandments.

The Hebrew words translated lost Sheep are abad H6 and se H7716. Abad does not mean lost. It means perish and destroy in nearly all of it's many uses in the OT. Perish and destroy is slain. Here are the translation counts for the KJV from the BLB.

The KJV translates Strong's H6 in the following manner: perish (98x), destroy (62x), lose (10x), fail (2x), surely (2x), utterly (2x), broken (1x), destruction (1x), escape (1x), flee (1x), spendeth (1x), take (1x), undone (1x), void (1x).

Even the NT tells us abad mean destroy or destruction in Revelations 9:11 where it uses the Hebrew name Abaddon

And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

If you look up the meaning of Abaddon G3 it means destruction. If you look up Apollyon G623 it means destroyer.

So even the NT tells us abad means destroyed and perished which translates to slain not lost.

The word translated Sheep is se H7716 which could also be translated to Lamb. Here are the KJV counts from BLB

The KJV translates Strong's H7716 in the following manner: sheep (18x), cattle (10x), lamb (16x), ewe (1x), lamb (with H3532) (1x).

So it should have been translated to slain Lamb in verse 176. The verse would have been more accurately translated as.

I am lost like a slain Lamb. Seek Your Servant for I do not forget Your commandments.

In the last stanza of Psalm 119 He was praying while dead. Other verses in the stanza indicate and confirm that. So in the last verse He is saying to His Father that He is lost like a slain Lamb because that was His condition at that point while dead. Then He asks His Father to seek Him because He does not forget His commandments and had completed His obedience in giving His life to save us. He also does not forget His Father's commandment/promise of life to Him that if He gave His life to save us in obedience to the law He would be raised to life again. Leviticus 18:5 is the promise of Life in the Law to Him as the Man Who did or fulfilled the Law would live.

Sorry for the long explanation that has been give many times already. Thank you for asking.

Needevidence · Oct 11, 2023

williamjordan said:

The term “receive” is quite nuanced ever so slightly. The question boils down to this: If I “receive” a gift from you, is that the same as me “taking a gift from you”? Are they mutually exclusive? To “receive” can be understood also as “taking.” So the Father “gives,” Christ “takes” – they are reciprocal concepts.

Look at the tenses of the action verbs throughout Jn. 10:17-18. In Jn. 10:17 it states,

The verb for “love” is in the third person, and is predicated by “the Father.” It is an action “the Father” does, “the Father loves Me… .” The sentence continues,

Notice here, the verb to “lay down” and “take it up” are both in the first person, and are each predicated by the personal possessive pronoun, “I.” It is an action that, “I” (Jesus) does, “I lay down”/“I take it up.”

The terms for “lay down” and “take it up” are active verbs. The term “loves” (used of God the Father) is also active. So in the same way God the Father is performing an active verb (“loves”), so too is the Son performing active verbs (“I lay down,” “I take it up”). The only difference is, the verb that the Father performs is in the third person is something He does towards the Son. But the terms to “lay down,” and “take it up” are not necessarily things God does towards the Son, but things the Son does.

I think it would be a mistake to understand the first half of 10:17 (“I lay My life for the sheep”) as something Christ does, only to understand the juxtaposed phrase in the very next clause (“that I might take it up again”) as anything differently.

Whether one wants to understand the verb as to “receive” or to “take up,” it is something Christ is doing. The verb expresses “possession,” and Christ is wielding that authority and power to “receive” (or “take up”) His life up again.

Jn. 2:19-21 expresses the same idea and thought. I would even argue that Jn. 20:30-31 also speaks of Christ’s “resurrection” as one of the signs/miracles He (Jesus) performed.

Notice, that the only “miracle” in the entire chapter is the resurrection. Yet, v. 30 specifically states (at the heels of Thomas seeing the resurrected Christ), “Now Jesus also performed many other signs in the presence of the disciples which are not recorded in this book.” Which particular miracle in the narrative are these “many other signs” set in juxtaposition to? The text speaks of “many other signs,” but what is the primary sign that John is alluding to in Jn. 20? Jn. 20:1-29 provides the answer.

So to answer your question, three times in John is Christ said to have been involved in some way with His resurrection. He died on the cross, but that does not necessarily mean He ceased to exist, particularly in light that He existed without a fleshly body before coming in the flesh.

That said, yes, the Father did raise Jesus from the dead. But I think the evidence points to the resurrection as a Triune act, hence, even the Spirit is said to have raised Christ from the dead (Rom. 8:11).

How would you respond to an atheist argument;

J10:17 – why does Jesus pray to be saved if he is the one taking his life?

Your last paragraph who raised him - Father (Ephesians 1:20) or Jesus himself (John 2:19-21) - [unlikely to be HS as Rom 8:11 as I read it its 'the spirit of him' not HS] ?

Could this be considered suicide, die for our sins?

or if he could raise himself, then he hasn’t really sacrificed himself? (albeit we understand the pain he went through)

evyaniy · Oct 16, 2023

evyaniy said:

Since no one replied to this post to challenge or confirm it, that must mean what was presented about the verse 176 Hebrew being mistranslated and should have been rendered "slain Lamb" is unassailable. Surely if someone had found fault with what was presented they would have been quick to point it out and prove it if that was possible.

Fact is that abad H6 means perished and destroyed and the word slain encompasses both of those meanings. So the Son refers to Himself as a "slain Lamb" in the last verse of Psalm 119 and no one finds that incredible enough to admit that Psalm 119 is the Son's prayer? The reticence is astonishing or is it about something else at this point after so many took a strong stand against Psalm 119 being the Son's prayer.

You could have replied back to the previous post and said how truly amazing that revelation is and how much it means. But now the case has to be reiterated again since others will not acquiesce to the fact that Psalm 119 is the Son's prayer for life. Maybe it doesn't matter anymore but on the outside chance that it might, it is said once again.

williamjordan · Oct 16, 2023

Needevidence said:

I want to apologize for not responding sooner. I went out of town for a couple days and never got back around to you.

In a lot of ways, I am much like you. But unlike you, I for one think the “evidence” is quite decisive.

Don’t take what I’m about to say the wrong way. I am not trying to “target” you, but simply just pointing out: You have miscategorized my approach as presumptuous, without discussing what the alleged “assumption(s)” were in the first place. If there’s any ridicule to be had, then perhaps we should begin by discussing your own ponderings about Moffatt’s translation, that Moffatt himself nowhere makes.

I realize others may interpret Jn. 1:1 differently, but it would be a mistake to label my approach as presumptuous, and fail to recognize that my responses have (largely) been geared/designed towards interacting with those alternative perspectives.

I do not “assume” Jn. 1:1b is speaking of two distinct individuals (namely, “the Word” and “God”); but derive that from the (13) other occasions in the book where the same phrase is used when speaking of Jesus’ personal relationship with God the Father. And due to the anarthrous nature of Jn. 1:1c , this provides further support for understanding Jn. 1:1b in this way. To this, I would also add that I think I have pretty well demonstrated how understanding Jn. 1:1b and 1:1c in the manner I have laid out (above) does not (contrary to what you previously said) “contradict.” In fact, the claim of “contradiction” is largely misplaced on a (faulty) “assumption.”

There is a bit of irony in the fact that up to this point in the conversation, you have twice now made inaccurate “assumptions,” whether it be about how Trinitarians interpret the text (which you say is “contradictory”), or how Moffatt (a Trinitarian) understood the text. I am simply pointing out that Moffatt’s interpretation is standard Trinitarian fare.

The only “assumption” I make is simply: That when John alludes to text(s) which are “intertextually” related to one another in his prologue, that he would not come out and flatly contradict the very place he is intending to allude to.

For example, in Post #307 I cite a litany of texts that are thematically related each to one another: Gen. 1:1-4, Jn. 1:1-5, Isaiah 45:5-7, and 2 Ezra 6:1-6. Please read back over that post before you continue here.

Though 2 Ezra 6 is non-inspired, it does provide pre-Christian Jewish insights into the (so-to-speak) “mind of the time,” drawing heavily from Gen. 1 and interweaving it together with themes from Isaiah 45, which speak about God’s work (alone) in creation, working through no other “external” forces. “Creation” in it’s own right is something exclusively God does. It is that (creation) which distinguishes God from all other “gods.” It is His “Picasso,” and no other can lay claim to it.

Those that translate Jn. 1:1 indefinitely (“the Word was a god”) are doing so largely in attempt to blunt the force of Jn. 1:1c; thereby, pushing the agenda that “the Word” is an “external force,” completely distinct from God in every way. They are treating “the Word” as (in a round-a-bout way) mutually exclusive from “God.” But that is the issue. No matter how hard they try to disassociate “the Word” from “God,” they get stuck trying to explain the Word’s participation in creation.

In attempt to “detour” around the issue, they point to the fact that Jn. 1:3 speaks of the Word’s “instrumentality,” hoping to limit the Word’s function to but an (external) “instrument,” that has no place in the act of “creation” itself, but is just the “instrument” which God used to create. Taken together with their rendering of Jn. 1:1c, this segways into their interpretation that “the Word” is distinct from “God.” It is “God” that “creates” in and through the “external instrument,” the Word.

Rather than approaching this from an “external” perspective, I argue that we should be approaching Jn. 1:1c from an “internal” one. That God used no forces “external” to His very being to bring about creation is brought out by texts such as Isaiah 45 and 2 Ezra 6. Had John intended to communicate that “the Word” was an “external force,” then might I suggest that he would have been better positioned to express such a thought in a way that Isaiah 45 does. After all, Isaiah 45 is just one of the underlying OT texts governing John’s line of thought. Yet, when Isaiah 45 expresses indefiniteness, it does not do so with a Preverbal Predicate Nominative (as John does in Jn. 1:1c): Isaiah 45:14 LXX. Had John wished to say that “the Word” was “a god,” then following the verbal patterns found in Isaiah 45 LXX, Deut. 4:24 LXX, 32:39 LXX would have been more fitting. After all, these passages (in context) are about no other “gods” existing with God and assisting Him in creation. Rather, John follows a verbal pattern similar to Deut. 4:35 LXX (“the Lord your God, He is God”).

Given the intertextual connections Isaiah 45 has with Gen. 1, it does not seem plausible that John would then go on to contradict one of the very passage(s) governing his line of thought in Jn. 1:1. And had that been John’s intent, it would have been more plausible to express the idea in the same way that the text he’s alluding to does: By placing the verb before the nominative (not the nominative before the verb),

Isaiah 45:14 LXX
οὕτως λέγει κύριος σαβαωθ ἐκοπίασεν Αἴγυπτος καὶ ἐμπορία Αἰθιόπων καὶ οἱ Σεβωιν ἄνδρες ὑψηλοὶ ἐπὶ σὲ διαβήσονται καὶ σοὶ ἔσονται δοῦλοι καὶ ὀπίσω σου ἀκολουθήσουσιν δεδεμένοι χειροπέδαις καὶ προσκυνήσουσίν σοι καὶ ἐν σοὶ προσεύξονται ὅτι ἐν σοὶ ὁ θεός ἐστιν καὶ ἐροῦσιν οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς πλὴν σοῦ

Deut. 4:24 LXX
ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεός σου πῦρ καταναλίσκον ἐστίν θεὸς ζηλωτής

John 1:1
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

Deut. 4:35 LXX
ὥστε εἰδῆσαί σε ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεός σου οὗτος θεός ἐστιν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι πλὴν αὐτοῦ

Further, Christ’s role in creation is not mutually exclusive from God’s. Rather (as suggested by the active verb, ἐθεμελίωσας in Heb. 1:10), Christ’s work in creation is God’s work. Therefore, the notion that Christ is an “external agent,” which God operated through to bring forth creation is riddled with its own problems.

While Heb. 1:10 does speak of Christ’s active involvement in creation, the author (following Paul and John) disambiguates Christ’s role in creation from the Father’s in Heb. 1:3. Paul parses this out by distinguishing the Father (“from whom,” 1 Cor. 8:6a) and the Son (“through whom,” 1 Cor. 8:6b). There is a certain amount of (for the lack of a better term) “reciprocity” in the act of creation. It is “from” the Father, “through” the Son that ἐθεμελίωσας occurs. Both are quite active in bringing forth ἐθεμελίωσας, yet, Paul and John nuance this out so not as to conflate/confuse their roles and persons. The terms, “through” and “from” give us a “behind the scenes” glimpse into the “internal mechanics” of this act, ἐθεμελίωσας.

In order to arrive at the conclusion that Christ (“the Word”) is but a “external” force, one would need to disassociate Him from ἐθεμελίωσας, an act that uniquely belongs to YHWH.

ewq1938 · Oct 16, 2023

evyaniy said:

This is false.

H6
אָבַד
'âbad
aw-bad'
A primitive root; properly to wander away, that is lose oneself; by implication to perish (causatively, destroy): - break, destroy (-uction), + not escape, fail, lose, (cause to, make) perish, spend, X and surely, take, be undone, X utterly, be void of, have no way to flee.
Total KJV occurrences: 184

It's main meaning is to be lost with it meaning perish by implication.

It's pretty obvious since the context is going ASTRAY like a lost sheep. Going astray like a slain sheep makes no sense.

H6
אבד
'âbad
BDB Definition:
1) perish, vanish, go astray, be destroyed
1a) (Qal)
1a1) perish, die, be exterminated
1a2) perish, vanish (figuratively)
1a3) be lost, strayed
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to destroy, kill, cause to perish, to give up
1b2) to blot out, do away with, cause to vanish, (figuratively)
1b3) cause to stray, lose
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to destroy, put to death
1c1a) of divine judgment
1c2) object name of kings (figuratively)
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root

evyaniy · Oct 16, 2023

ewq1938 said:

This is false.

H6
אָבַד
'âbad
aw-bad'
A primitive root; properly to wander away, that is lose oneself; by implication to perish (causatively, destroy): - break, destroy (-uction), + not escape, fail, lose, (cause to, make) perish, spend, X and surely, take, be undone, X utterly, be void of, have no way to flee.
Total KJV occurrences: 184

It's main meaning is to be lost with it meaning perish by implication.

It's pretty obvious since the context is going ASTRAY like a lost sheep. Going astray like a slain sheep makes no sense.

H6
אבד
'âbad
BDB Definition:
1) perish, vanish, go astray, be destroyed
1a) (Qal)
1a1) perish, die, be exterminated
1a2) perish, vanish (figuratively)
1a3) be lost, strayed
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to destroy, kill, cause to perish, to give up
1b2) to blot out, do away with, cause to vanish, (figuratively)
1b3) cause to stray, lose
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to destroy, put to death
1c1a) of divine judgment
1c2) object name of kings (figuratively)
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root

explain the translation counts.

evyaniy · Oct 16, 2023

ewq1938 said:

This is false.

H6
אָבַד
'âbad
aw-bad'
A primitive root; properly to wander away, that is lose oneself; by implication to perish (causatively, destroy): - break, destroy (-uction), + not escape, fail, lose, (cause to, make) perish, spend, X and surely, take, be undone, X utterly, be void of, have no way to flee.
Total KJV occurrences: 184

It's main meaning is to be lost with it meaning perish by implication.

It's pretty obvious since the context is going ASTRAY like a lost sheep. Going astray like a slain sheep makes no sense.

H6
אבד
'âbad
BDB Definition:
1) perish, vanish, go astray, be destroyed
1a) (Qal)
1a1) perish, die, be exterminated
1a2) perish, vanish (figuratively)
1a3) be lost, strayed
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to destroy, kill, cause to perish, to give up
1b2) to blot out, do away with, cause to vanish, (figuratively)
1b3) cause to stray, lose
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to destroy, put to death
1c1a) of divine judgment
1c2) object name of kings (figuratively)
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root

Read every verse where abad H6 is used on BLB or some other Bible search tool. In nearly every instance it is translated as perish(ed) or destroy(ed) and that is the proper meaning for the verse. Lost never fits and it does not fit in verse 176.

ewq1938 · Oct 16, 2023

evyaniy said:

It's pretty obvious since the context is going ASTRAY like a lost sheep. Going astray like a slain sheep makes no sense.

Needevidence · Oct 17, 2023

williamjordan said:

I want to apologize for not responding sooner. I went out of town for a couple days and never got back around to you.

In a lot of ways, I am much like you. But unlike you, I for one think the “evidence” is quite decisive.

Don’t take what I’m about to say the wrong way. I am not trying to “target” you, but simply just pointing out: You have miscategorized my approach as presumptuous, without discussing what the alleged “assumption(s)” were in the first place. If there’s any ridicule to be had, then perhaps we should begin by discussing your own ponderings about Moffatt’s translation, that Moffatt himself nowhere makes.

I realize others may interpret Jn. 1:1 differently, but it would be a mistake to label my approach as presumptuous, and fail to recognize that my responses have (largely) been geared/designed towards interacting with those alternative perspectives.

I do not “assume” Jn. 1:1b is speaking of two distinct individuals (namely, “the Word” and “God”); but derive that from the (13) other occasions in the book where the same phrase is used when speaking of Jesus’ personal relationship with God the Father. And due to the anarthrous nature of Jn. 1:1c , this provides further support for understanding Jn. 1:1b in this way. To this, I would also add that I think I have pretty well demonstrated how understanding Jn. 1:1b and 1:1c in the manner I have laid out (above) does not (contrary to what you previously said) “contradict.” In fact, the claim of “contradiction” is largely misplaced on a (faulty) “assumption.”

There is a bit of irony in the fact that up to this point in the conversation, you have twice now made inaccurate “assumptions,” whether it be about how Trinitarians interpret the text (which you say is “contradictory”), or how Moffatt (a Trinitarian) understood the text. I am simply pointing out that Moffatt’s interpretation is standard Trinitarian fare.

The only “assumption” I make is simply: That when John alludes to text(s) which are “intertextually” related to one another in his prologue, that he would not come out and flatly contradict the very place he is intending to allude to.

For example, in Post #307 I cite a litany of texts that are thematically related each to one another: Gen. 1:1-4, Jn. 1:1-5, Isaiah 45:5-7, and 2 Ezra 6:1-6. Please read back over that post before you continue here.

Though 2 Ezra 6 is non-inspired, it does provide pre-Christian Jewish insights into the (so-to-speak) “mind of the time,” drawing heavily from Gen. 1 and interweaving it together with themes from Isaiah 45, which speak about God’s work (alone) in creation, working through no other “external” forces. “Creation” in it’s own right is something exclusively God does. It is that (creation) which distinguishes God from all other “gods.” It is His “Picasso,” and no other can lay claim to it.

Those that translate Jn. 1:1 indefinitely (“the Word was a god”) are doing so largely in attempt to blunt the force of Jn. 1:1c; thereby, pushing the agenda that “the Word” is an “external force,” completely distinct from God in every way. They are treating “the Word” as (in a round-a-bout way) mutually exclusive from “God.” But that is the issue. No matter how hard they try to disassociate “the Word” from “God,” they get stuck trying to explain the Word’s participation in creation.

In attempt to “detour” around the issue, they point to the fact that Jn. 1:3 speaks of the Word’s “instrumentality,” hoping to limit the Word’s function to but an (external) “instrument,” that has no place in the act of “creation” itself, but is just the “instrument” which God used to create. Taken together with their rendering of Jn. 1:1c, this segways into their interpretation that “the Word” is distinct from “God.” It is “God” that “creates” in and through the “external instrument,” the Word.

Rather than approaching this from an “external” perspective, I argue that we should be approaching Jn. 1:1c from an “internal” one. That God used no forces “external” to His very being to bring about creation is brought out by texts such as Isaiah 45 and 2 Ezra 6. Had John intended to communicate that “the Word” was an “external force,” then might I suggest that he would have been better positioned to express such a thought in a way that Isaiah 45 does. After all, Isaiah 45 is just one of the underlying OT texts governing John’s line of thought. Yet, when Isaiah 45 expresses indefiniteness, it does not do so with a Preverbal Predicate Nominative (as John does in Jn. 1:1c): Isaiah 45:14 LXX. Had John wished to say that “the Word” was “a god,” then following the verbal patterns found in Isaiah 45 LXX, Deut. 4:24 LXX, 32:39 LXX would have been more fitting. After all, these passages (in context) are about no other “gods” existing with God and assisting Him in creation. Rather, John follows a verbal pattern similar to Deut. 4:35 LXX (“the Lord your God, He is God”).

Given the intertextual connections Isaiah 45 has with Gen. 1, it does not seem plausible that John would then go on to contradict one of the very passage(s) governing his line of thought in Jn. 1:1. And had that been John’s intent, it would have been more plausible to express the idea in the same way that the text he’s alluding to does: By placing the verb before the nominative (not the nominative before the verb),

Isaiah 45:14 LXX
οὕτως λέγει κύριος σαβαωθ ἐκοπίασεν Αἴγυπτος καὶ ἐμπορία Αἰθιόπων καὶ οἱ Σεβωιν ἄνδρες ὑψηλοὶ ἐπὶ σὲ διαβήσονται καὶ σοὶ ἔσονται δοῦλοι καὶ ὀπίσω σου ἀκολουθήσουσιν δεδεμένοι χειροπέδαις καὶ προσκυνήσουσίν σοι καὶ ἐν σοὶ προσεύξονται ὅτι ἐν σοὶ ὁ θεός ἐστιν καὶ ἐροῦσιν οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς πλὴν σοῦ

Deut. 4:24 LXX
ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεός σου πῦρ καταναλίσκον ἐστίν θεὸς ζηλωτής

John 1:1
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

Deut. 4:35 LXX
ὥστε εἰδῆσαί σε ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεός σου οὗτος θεός ἐστιν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι πλὴν αὐτοῦ

Further, Christ’s role in creation is not mutually exclusive from God’s. Rather (as suggested by the active verb, ἐθεμελίωσας in Heb. 1:10), Christ’s work in creation is God’s work. Therefore, the notion that Christ is an “external agent,” which God operated through to bring forth creation is riddled with its own problems.

While Heb. 1:10 does speak of Christ’s active involvement in creation, the author (following Paul and John) disambiguates Christ’s role in creation from the Father’s in Heb. 1:3. Paul parses this out by distinguishing the Father (“from whom,” 1 Cor. 8:6a) and the Son (“through whom,” 1 Cor. 8:6b). There is a certain amount of (for the lack of a better term) “reciprocity” in the act of creation. It is “from” the Father, “through” the Son that ἐθεμελίωσας occurs. Both are quite active in bringing forth ἐθεμελίωσας, yet, Paul and John nuance this out so not as to conflate/confuse their roles and persons. The terms, “through” and “from” give us a “behind the scenes” glimpse into the “internal mechanics” of this act, ἐθεμελίωσας.

In order to arrive at the conclusion that Christ (“the Word”) is but a “external” force, one would need to disassociate Him from ἐθεμελίωσας, an act that uniquely belongs to YHWH.

Hi, no problem in the delay, I often don’t visit this site and thank you again for your time in response.

I appreciate what you say, but again there is an opposite opinion, a short summary;

1) your points raised with respect don’t prove - but provide a possible way of reading it IMO does not tackle "and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God." LITERAL translation `Logos' is derived from the root word `Lego' meaning `to speak'. The literal translation of `Logos' is `something spoken or thought'.

2) The above compliments Genesis 1:1 and 3 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." "And the God said, let there be light; and there was light."

3) second line, the phrase used by John for "God" is `ho theo', meaning `the God'. In the last line it is simply `theo', the definitive article `the' is not used. Why? Because, it is a predicate of the subject `ho theo'. The predicate is used to denote the nature, quality, attribute or property of the subject. Here the in this instance the nature of the God's spoken command was Divine. Going back to Dr. James Moffatt, it reads; "the Logos was Divine." – a divine word of God.

4) "It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host." (Isaiah 45:12)

Again, I don’t say you are wrong, but can’t be proved beyond doubt.

I would be interested in your response on #344

williamjordan · Oct 19, 2023

Needevidence said:

I would beg to differ. The much needed thing that seems to be missing is what's called, “interaction.” The points I raised previously should not be so simply “shrugged” off, as if what I have not been doing this entire time (in anticipation of the response), was addressing the exact objection you were ultimately trying to raise. It’s rather anachronistic to “respond” to my post with comments I was interacting with in the first place. You response to me should be trying to do the same, not just simply “restate” the very thing I was engaging in the first place.

The burden of proof is on the Unitarian to “prove” that when John says in Jn. 1:1b, πρὸς τὸν θεόν (“the Word was with God”) that he wasn’t trying to communicate the same thing he does the other (13) occasions where the phrase is used: See Post #313. Or that when John penned Jn. 1:3, he didn’t have in mind the very thing Paul did when he penned Heb. 1:2, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17. Jn. 1:3’s language is consistent with Pauline usage (Heb. 1:2, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17), and is completely consistent within the ensuing narrative when “agency” is in purview (Jn. 1:7, 1:10, 3:17). It’s quite ironic, that the immediate context of John’s Gospel provides all the “answers,” which the Unitarian would prefer to “ignore.” But cannot let John be John. I don’t understand why this is such a big issue, other than for the denial of Trinitarianism.

Nowhere in the Gospel of John is πρὸς τὸν θεόν used of anything (or anyone) other than to describe the relationship between God and Christ. It is really that simple. Who would have thought that such a “simple” thing (such as John’s verbal patterns) could be such a “big problem”?

Not to mention, in Post #313, I was careful to point out the conceptual ties between Jn. 13 and Phil. 2. In my view, Jn. 13 has strong verbal affinities with Jn. 1:1 and alludes (at least, conceptually) to themes found in Phil. 2 (which, ironically stresses Christ’s pre-existence), weaving them back into the overall Johannine narrative (also about Christ’s pre-existence).

As for Post #344, I do not see the “problem” you do. But I do find it ironic how Phil. 2 (a text I just made reference to) answers that very objection. Might I just point out that wrapped up in the backdrop of this “atheist objection” is an assumption that I (as a Trinitarian) do not make: The same one you did in Post #308. And the same one that I could foreseeably be rooted in the follow-up question, “Could this be considered suicide, die for our sins?”

The first question that I think needs to be addressed to the atheist is: “By such question, are you importing ‘Unitarian’ framework back onto ‘Trinitarianism’?” In most instances, their objection is wrapped up in a framework that is not “Trinitarian.” Thus, there is a “hidden presupposition” that gets tucked away in the backdrop. And once that “hidden presupposition” is further elucidated on, we can then begin properly broach the question.

As I see it, the question is designed with quite a bit of “ambiguity”: Was it atheist’s intention to ask, “Why does Jesus pray (to the Father) if He is the one (the Father) taking his own life?” If this was their intent, then of course, the objection is really something akin to, “How can Jesus pray to Himself on the cross?” which is a common misnomer.

If this is what the OP was attempting to articulate, then once one removes the “Unitarian” presupposition, there is no issue. But if we are to take this question at face value and approach it from a proper “Trinitarian” perspective (without the Unitarian baggage), then how is this issue at all?

How is it “suicide” if Christ willingly divested Himself? The question is quite loaded in all the wrong ways. Perhaps you’d be better off by asking (and perhaps appropriately addressed to your parents, specifically), “Is giving birth akin to ‘murder,’ knowing the eventual outcome of man?” And are your parents “murderers” for knowing your eventual outcome? Is “death” even on the mind of a married couple when they bring a newborn into the world? Or is it the new “life” that was brought into the world?

Needevidence · Oct 19, 2023

Hi - I’m not shrugging you off or saying that you are wrong and it’s not necessarily my objections. I’m saying there are others of another opinion. How far and how detailed do we go and to a certain extent we are going around in a circle.

For example, some rely on Coptic text The Sahidic text renders John 1:1c as auw neunoute pe pshaje, clearly meaning literally “and a god was the Word.”

koine Greek had no indefinite article. But Coptic does have an indefinite article, and the text employs the indefinite article at John 1:1c. Hence, a more precise translation then the koine Greek & Latin.

Grammarians state that the word noute “god,” takes the definite article when it refers to the One God, whereas without the definite article it refers to other gods.

A contemporary English Translation of the Coptic Text

1 In the beginning the Word existed. The Word existed in the presence of God, and the Word was a divine being. 2 This one existed in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him; without him nothing that exists came to be. What came to be

What I’m saying is that your opinion may be strong but not absolute!

Some would argue about the gospel of John as to when it was written and by who. Which take me to a point you raise above. Its only really John who portrays Jesus as a sacrificial Lamb. You mention Jesus gave his life willingly, people who commit suicide do so often willingly. That can also be seen are contradictory;
Matthew 9:13 - 13 But go and learn what this means: ***I desire mercy, not sacrifice*** For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Hosea 6:6 - 6 For ***I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Leviticus 20:1-2 - 20 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him.

Many more so not sure that things are clear cut as you me believe.

williamjordan · Oct 19, 2023

Needevidence said:

Let's stop you here: You are simply all over the place. From one post to the next you are throwing ideas into the wind to see if they stick. I am simply asking you to address the objections that I laid out before you. Instead, you are going to a language that you don't know (Sahidic Coptic), even in light of the fact that it contradicts your former post. Either the Word is a person, or not. Your former post is trying to approach it with a Unitarian slant, but now you are contradicting that very notion by running to the Coptic. I am not saying you need to understand Coptic, but perhaps before you throw it out there, you should anticipate my response if you're that "well informed."

Normal conversation does not work this way. I can address the questions about the Coptic rendering, and there is good evidence to suggest that it's rendering is compatible with the "qualitative" force I laid out two or three posts ago. Let's have a normal conversation, and interact with one another materials, not bypass what they wrote and run to an entirely different (and contradictory) view.

williamjordan · Oct 19, 2023

Needevidence said:

One should not rely so heavily on such a “skewed” interpretation of the Sahidic Coptic, but instead try to understand how it could reflect the “mind of the time.” People are “reading” into the Sahidic what may or may not be there, and not asking very significant questions:

How else would the scribes that brought us the Sahidic NT have translated Jn. 1:1 if they had intended to stress “personal distinction”?
What about the Sahidic Coptic’s rendering of Jn. 3:5-6, a text I referred to in Post #331 to help articulate/demonstrate a “qualitative” nuance?
What about the Sahidic Coptic’s rendering of Jn. 1:18?
What about the Sahidic Coptic’s rendering of Jn. 10:33?
What about commentaries written by Sahidic scribes? Do their annotations and comments (all of a sudden) not matter?

JW’s let their “assumptions” run wild, often pointing to the Sahidic when it comes to Jn. 1:1, but then turn “blind eye” to Jn. 1:18, Jn. 10:33, both of which contradict their much “preferred” interpretation.

If one were to work through the authors of the period (from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries) and plot them onto a world map, it would paint a very different picture: One that demonstrates the “mind of the time,” and how authors of the period (irrespective of their geographic locale) understood Jn. 1:1. Why not the Sahidic?

bluto · Oct 19, 2023

Needevidence said:

There it is, your bottom line. williamjordan was right, you are all over the place. Since that's the case let's start here at John 1:1. For one thing you making what is known in logic, "an argument from silence." Just because the name "Jesus" is not used does not mean He's the subject of John 1. Or to put it another way: "The book Acts never once says that Jesus is God, but the Apostle John says that Thomas called Jesus his Lord and God at John 20:28, which is not an argument from silence, it's a fact.

You also said, "and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God" - this defies logic." No it don't! For one thing, if your with someone you can't be that someone. Obviously you don't know what John 1:1 is teaching. And I'm not ridiculing you or putting you down. Lot's of people don't understand what John is teaching at vs1.

Genesis 1:1 starts out the same way as John 1:1, "in beginning" or "in the beginning." The Genesis "beginning" is describing "WHAT HAPPENED" in the beginning. The John 1:1, "in the beginning" the emphasis is on WHO EXISTED in the beginning. It was the Logos/Word/Jesus Christ. Please notice Verses 2 and 3 at John chapter 1. "He/That one was in the beginning with God. Vs3, "All things came into being by HIM, (who's the Him Needevidence?") and apart (or without) Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

So ask yourself a question? If Jesus Christ is not God why is He identified as the creator in these verses? This in view of the fact where Isaiah 44:24 states, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb. I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

Notice the verse does not use the title "Father." It rightly says "the Lord." Also at Isaiah 45:5, "I am the Lord and there is no other; Besides Me there is no GOD." Is this beginning (pun intended) to make sense to you Needevidence? You also brought up which Jesus you should believe, The Trinitarian form, the Unitarian, the JW's etc.

Are you aware what the Apostle Paul stated at 2 Corinthians 11:4? "For if one comes and preaches ANOTHER JESUS whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully," or you might go along with it. Jw' s have a different Jesus who is "a god." Unitarians deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Mormons believe Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan. Oneness Pentecostals teach that Jesus Christ is God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in other words Jesus is all of them, this is called "Modalism."

In closing, let me explain the Trinity and why it's a Biblical teaching. The Bible makes it clear that there are three and only three person who are identified as God in all of the ways that the Bible identifies God. By His name, His titles, His unique attributes (or nature) His unique actions, His worship. I'll give you a couple of examples.

His unique actions. Who's credited with creation? At Genesis 1:1 you have God. At Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and THE SPIRIT OF GOD was moving over the surface of the waters." Then you have Jesus Christ being identified as the creator at John 1:1-3. I could also through in Colossians 1:16.

How about God being recognized by His titles. Called God or Lord, called king, savior and redeemer, bread of life, and many others.

What I am saying is the each person of the trinity receives some combination of the 5 means of identifying and distinguishing God that I listed above. Does this make sense to you?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

CS1 · Oct 19, 2023

How can one deny what one can not fully comprehend?

God is known as the Father and the Creator.
God is known as the Holy Spirit and Spirt of the Living God
God is known as the Son, Lord God, and King

Yet all one but distinct from each other yet One.

Pride causes one to say what they can't know fully. The Eternal Godhead can not fully be understood by Human intellect. Because we are limited in the ability to fully understand. To deny that is pride. Therefore, your salvation is in jeopardy if one is saved at all. To deny what you cannot know is a fool's game.

williamjordan · Oct 19, 2023

I call this “theological swooning.” This is when someone “feels the heat,” but begins “grasping” at other ideologies in attempt to deflect attention away in their moments of “distress.” People of this mindset will attempt all sorts of random “stunts” in order to “get out of jail,” so long as they are not forced to accept the “elephant in the room.” I was never very good at chasing squirrels, especially down long rabbit trails. Rather, I prefer dealing with the “Grizzly Bear” in the room. Though they may look somewhat “stern” and “intimidating,” they are really just big ole teddy bears underneath. Nothing a PBJ (Peanut Butter Jelly) couldn’t handle! Set the trap.

People are importing their own theological nuances and prejudices into the Sahidic, but do not allow the Sahidic scribes to speak for themselves. They do to the Sahidic scribes what they had previously just done to Moffatt, but if they had just allowed Moffatt to speak, he actually contradicts the very notion that they were trying to “whitewash” him with.

The same is with the Sahidic. The Coptic scribes need to be allowed to speak without all the baggage being imported onto them. I would simply suggest that the Copts were simply stressing “personal distinction” of the Word from the one whom He is “with,” and thus is the reason it is rendered it in such way. They didn’t have another way to do it. So how else would they communicate it? When Coptic scribes intend to lay stress on “qualitativeness,” they may also use the indefinite article, as they do in Jn. 3:5-6. Not to mention all the other “noise” going on in the ensuing narrative, such as Jn. 1:18.

There has never been a JW that has put forth a good explanation of why the Copts translated Jn. 1:18 in a way that stands in contrast to their interpretation, if the Copts were really of the same theological “mind set” as the JW’s claim. The Coptic scribes seem to be in agreement with the “appositional” interpretation of Jn. 1:18 when it translates the text thusly (following Horner),

In similar fashion (while commenting on Jn. 1:18), Origen (Contra Celsum, Book II.71) utilizes a gloss which helps identify nouns in apposition (ὢν = being, who is, who being). He literally states here,

The Copts understood μονογενὴς (Jn. 1:18) to function as a substantive (which they translate in Jn. 1:18 as, “the only Son”), just as they previously did in 1:14, a passage where the term υἱός (“Son”) is nowhere present, and where there is no possibility of textual variance, or even a conflated text. Thus, Coptic scribes render and understand Jn. 1:18 in a similar way as the NIV, and the NRSV: “God, the only Son” — as two substantives in apposition. This may also be the way the Diatessaron (Arabic version) renders it (though there may be some ambiguity), so this view does have some historic precedence rooted in Origen and the Sahidic NT.

In J.P. Migne's Patrologia Graecae (1857 ed.), it contains a Greek copy of Titus of Bostra’s (d. 378) Against the Manichaeans. In this letter, it uses a Greek gloss, which also makes the apposition all the more forceful and leaves no room for wiggle, ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς θεὸς (“the only Son, God”).

But the overall point is really this: Unless the Copts were contradicting themselves in the matter of just a few verses, one should probably try to understand their views of Jn. 1:1 in light of 1:18, and in light of the fact that Jn. 3:5-6 lays stress on “qualitativeness.”

At the end of the day, by suggesting Jn. 1:1 expresses indefiniteness means that John was contradicting one of the very places he was alluding to (Isaiah 45). Not to mention, John would have been better positioned to express such indefiniteness had he just followed Isaiah 45:14 LXX, which does speak of the impossibility of other (secondary) “external” gods existing with God, all the mean while John (unlike Isaiah 45:14 LXX) uses an altogether different verbal pattern. Why?

There is no way to get around the fact that Christ was more than just some “external force,” which God used to operate through, as highlighted in Heb. 1:10. In order to get an “external force” (or second god) out of the text, you need to be able to seriously interact with the idea that only the God of Israel is responsible for creation. You know, that thing Isaiah 45 (the place Jn. 1:1 is alluding to) says. The JW needs to place Christ “outside” the verb, when the NT explicitly places Christ's participation “inside” the verb.

Needevidence · Oct 23, 2023

williamjordan said:

Hi – you misunderstand me. I an in general agreement with you, just saying there are difference of opinions.

I’m not trying to put my opinion on you or say you are wrong. Just that, thats the way you read it but not everyone agrees with that interpretation, not 100% fact proof - opinion based.

I understood that this site was not the right forum to have a debate as some get offended, which I don’t want to do.

As you appear to want a detailed response, I forwarded this to my debate group and the below is the reply I got from one of them to you and ‘bluto’

Response:

This is a summary of a response you can go into each point in great length, but would be too long. I make the following bullet points;

The mind of the time – no one at the time of Jesus or before (the Israelites) ever considered the trinity.
Gospel of John
historical record of the gospel not until the end of the 2nd century
2nd century Justin Martyr advocated a logos Christology without citing John’s Gospel explicitly. Such an omission would be strange if it had existed.
Bishop Polycarp – allegedly a student of John the Apostle never quotes John in his letter to the Philippians. Albeit, he quotes Mark, Matthew, Luke…
Genesis 1:2 – some like the Samaritan bible, NRSV etc… use the term "the wind of God" instead of "the spirit of God"! – Psalms 33:6 ‘breath’. Wind or Breath is the more accurate translation of the word "ruach".
Genesis 1:1 does not mention the ‘word’
John 1:3 does not mention the trinuine
John 1:3 should arguably be translated into English as “it” not “him” as English does not have gender in noun eg. In Greek, “wind” (anemos) is masculine, but we would not translate it into English that way. We would say, “The wind was blowing so hard ‘it’ blew the trash cans over,” not “the wind, ‘he’ blew the trash cans over.” When translating from another language into English,
John 3:5-6 –This is a peculiar passage could have many meanings. but 3:7 says you have to be ‘borne again’ for salvation or some parts say you have to be baptised - Luke 23:43 the thief on the cross appears to have been saved without either.
John 1:18 – ‘The only begotten Son’ – begotten is someone created, how can Jesus be God and created?
John 10:33 - The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
The Thomas story has many issues;
Was he not the eleven as Luke 24:-36 and why is nothing recorded as to holes, wounds…etc…
Why is the Gospel of Thomas disregarded
Matt 10:7-8 “raised the dead” – Jesus gave the 12 power to raise the dead, so why would he not believe that Jesus could be raised. Why couldn’t they raise Jesus instead of fleeing? Why have we no records of them raising people from the dead?
Psalm 82:6 I said, “You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High.
"gods" here in Hebrew is "Elohim", which is plural of "EL". It is the same exact thing as "EL" used for Jesus in Isaiah 9:6, since "gods" is a combination of several "EL"s. And as clearly shown here, for someone to be called "god" or "God" in the Bible it wouldn't make him GOD Almighty Himself.
Isaiah doesn’t help.
Paul - arguably preached another Jesus as a lot of his teachings are contrary to Jesus
Colossians 1:15-16 –
‘God created man in his own image’ (not only Jesus). ‘Firstborn’ would imply created & others were firstborn - Jeremiah 31:9 "I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn."
1 Corinthians 8:6 - yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Needevidence · Oct 23, 2023

bluto said:

There it is, your bottom line. williamjordan was right, you are all over the place. Since that's the case let's start here at John 1:1. For one thing you making what is known in logic, "an argument from silence." Just because the name "Jesus" is not used does not mean He's the subject of John 1. Or to put it another way: "The book Acts never once says that Jesus is God, but the Apostle John says that Thomas called Jesus his Lord and God at John 20:28, which is not an argument from silence, it's a fact.

You also said, "and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God" - this defies logic." No it don't! For one thing, if your with someone you can't be that someone. Obviously you don't know what John 1:1 is teaching. And I'm not ridiculing you or putting you down. Lot's of people don't understand what John is teaching at vs1.

Genesis 1:1 starts out the same way as John 1:1, "in beginning" or "in the beginning." The Genesis "beginning" is describing "WHAT HAPPENED" in the beginning. The John 1:1, "in the beginning" the emphasis is on WHO EXISTED in the beginning. It was the Logos/Word/Jesus Christ. Please notice Verses 2 and 3 at John chapter 1. "He/That one was in the beginning with God. Vs3, "All things came into being by HIM, (who's the Him Needevidence?") and apart (or without) Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

So ask yourself a question? If Jesus Christ is not God why is He identified as the creator in these verses? This in view of the fact where Isaiah 44:24 states, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb. I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

Notice the verse does not use the title "Father." It rightly says "the Lord." Also at Isaiah 45:5, "I am the Lord and there is no other; Besides Me there is no GOD." Is this beginning (pun intended) to make sense to you Needevidence? You also brought up which Jesus you should believe, The Trinitarian form, the Unitarian, the JW's etc.

Are you aware what the Apostle Paul stated at 2 Corinthians 11:4? "For if one comes and preaches ANOTHER JESUS whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully," or you might go along with it. Jw' s have a different Jesus who is "a god." Unitarians deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Mormons believe Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan. Oneness Pentecostals teach that Jesus Christ is God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in other words Jesus is all of them, this is called "Modalism."

In closing, let me explain the Trinity and why it's a Biblical teaching. The Bible makes it clear that there are three and only three person who are identified as God in all of the ways that the Bible identifies God. By His name, His titles, His unique attributes (or nature) His unique actions, His worship. I'll give you a couple of examples.

His unique actions. Who's credited with creation? At Genesis 1:1 you have God. At Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and THE SPIRIT OF GOD was moving over the surface of the waters." Then you have Jesus Christ being identified as the creator at John 1:1-3. I could also through in Colossians 1:16.

How about God being recognized by His titles. Called God or Lord, called king, savior and redeemer, bread of life, and many others.

What I am saying is the each person of the trinity receives some combination of the 5 means of identifying and distinguishing God that I listed above. Does this make sense to you?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Hi many thanks for yoru resposne, please see response to williamjordan which also replies to yoru comments #359

The Trinity.

evyaniy

Guest

Active member

evyaniy

Guest

Active member

evyaniy

Guest

Senior Member

Well-known member

evyaniy

Guest

evyaniy

Guest

Well-known member

Active member

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Active member

Active member