sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Hmmn...As far as I'm aware, the "im" suffix applied to the "el" root is a plural suffix. So "elohim" could be correctly interpreted as "the gods.":yes:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus Is NOT GOD (my rant)
- Thread starter goraya15
- Start date
Hmmn...As far as I'm aware, the "im" suffix applied to the "el" root is a plural suffix. So "elohim" could be correctly interpreted as "the gods.":yes:
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Christianity is a monotheistic religion, right? Then the trinity is one! Just as it is hinduism.
Booko
Deviled Hen
If you posit there is some Infinite God that exists, then it might be difficult to imagine that something Infinite could become something Finite.
It would be considerably easier to believe that occasionally a very tuned-into-God teacher shows up to educate humanity to move on to the next level.
Well, that all assumes one believes there is a God in the first place. Without that premise, it would be difficult to believe either of the situations above, of course.
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
Wouldn't the omnipotence card handle that little hurdle?
Not that goraya15 said this, of course, but I inferred it into his Muslim beliefs.But I should've realized that ease of certain beliefs varies widely among people. My question just sort of popped out before I reigned it in.
Booko
Deviled Hen
Wouldn't the omnipotence card handle that little hurdle?
Seems a rather cheap way out, doesn't it?
I suppose God could break the very laws of Physics as well, but why bother?
[qutoe]But I should've realized that ease of certain beliefs varies widely among people. My question just sort of popped out before I reigned it in.[/quote]
Why, and not give us the chance to show that approaches to belief as individual as people are? That's much more fun to look at.
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
Agreed. I've always had this suspicion about the concept of omnipotence.Seems a rather cheap way out, doesn't it?
Glad to be of service, then! :angel2:
Steven Avery
New Member
Hi Folks,
There is a lot of misinformation about the Johannine Comma. James clears some of it up, however I would like to add a bit more and ask a question. I cannot post the URL's in hot form directly yet (15 posts) so I fudge that a bit.
Interestingly my understanding is that the Johannine Comma is also included in the modern Greek Orthodox text, indicating a historical acceptance of the verse as scripture even if omitted in most extant middle ages Byzantine manuscripts. This is something that I would like to learn more about, the Greek Orthodox view of the verse.
Here is a bit on the Cyprian reference from Marty Shue
geocities.com/avdefense1611/1John5-7.html
Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7
by Martin A. Shue
“Dicit dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus (John x. 30), et iterum de
Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est,
Et tres unum sunt.”
(The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written:
"And the three are One.").
This Latin reading is important when you compare it to the
Old Latin reading of 1 John 5:7;
“Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo:
Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.”
Cyprian clearly says that it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost -- ”And the three are One.” His Latin matches the Old Latin reading identically with the exception of ‘hi’. Again, it is important to note that Cyprian said “it is written” when making his remarks ... If Cyprian was not quoting 1 John 5:7 the question must be asked and answered: What was he quoting?
Amazingly, some 'modern scholarship', such as the Daniel Wallace article to which Marty was responding, denies that Cyprian was referencing the Johannine Comma !
Other early references are also incredibly significant (although technically not before the Priscillian reference). These include Eugenius at the Council of Carthage in North Africa in the 5th century with hundreds of bishops in attendance and the direct reference in the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles in the Latin Vulgate. In that latter case some 'scholars' have tried to tag the Prologue as a later forgery, not from Jerome, mostly because it references the Comma! However when the Prologue was discovered in the late 19th century in the Codex Fuldensis manuscript from the 6th century the forgery accusation should have been simply discarded as a canard. (Note, we do not know for sure whether the original Vulgate actually included the Johannine Comma in the text.)
The question of other early allusions is complex, fascinating and the list is long. An article in the 19th century by Charles Forster is a good starting point for those interested in the issue. Although other references can be added to those of Forster he really hits the conceptual, language issue nicely (whatever your doctrinal viewpoints, the language of the early church writers shows a consistent influence from the Johannine Comma).
A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses
By Charles Forster (available to read in full free on Google books)
And the indication is much earlier, since it is in Old Latin texts that are an ancient textline and we have the Jerome Vulgate Prologue reference.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
[email protected]
There is a lot of misinformation about the Johannine Comma. James clears some of it up, however I would like to add a bit more and ask a question. I cannot post the URL's in hot form directly yet (15 posts) so I fudge that a bit.
The Johannine Comma has good support throughout the Latin lines, both the Old Latin and the Vulgate. Within the Greek and Syriac lines however it is very true to say a tiny minority of extant manuscripts, until the Textus Receptus work of the Reformation. Where the Greek text was purified (this included the three verses largely dropped, Acts 8:37 is another)the Latin lines and the early church writers and internal evidences were used to make the modifications to the Byzantine Greek text to develop the Reformation Greek (Textus Receptus) text.James the Persian said:
Interestingly my understanding is that the Johannine Comma is also included in the modern Greek Orthodox text, indicating a historical acceptance of the verse as scripture even if omitted in most extant middle ages Byzantine manuscripts. This is something that I would like to learn more about, the Greek Orthodox view of the verse.
This passes by the oft-discussed Cyprian reference as well as the question of a number of allusions. This is a bit after 200 AD.James the Persian said:
Here is a bit on the Cyprian reference from Marty Shue
geocities.com/avdefense1611/1John5-7.html
Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7
by Martin A. Shue
“Dicit dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus (John x. 30), et iterum de
Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est,
Et tres unum sunt.”
(The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written:
"And the three are One.").
This Latin reading is important when you compare it to the
Old Latin reading of 1 John 5:7;
“Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo:
Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.”
Cyprian clearly says that it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost -- ”And the three are One.” His Latin matches the Old Latin reading identically with the exception of ‘hi’. Again, it is important to note that Cyprian said “it is written” when making his remarks ... If Cyprian was not quoting 1 John 5:7 the question must be asked and answered: What was he quoting?
Amazingly, some 'modern scholarship', such as the Daniel Wallace article to which Marty was responding, denies that Cyprian was referencing the Johannine Comma !
Other early references are also incredibly significant (although technically not before the Priscillian reference). These include Eugenius at the Council of Carthage in North Africa in the 5th century with hundreds of bishops in attendance and the direct reference in the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles in the Latin Vulgate. In that latter case some 'scholars' have tried to tag the Prologue as a later forgery, not from Jerome, mostly because it references the Comma! However when the Prologue was discovered in the late 19th century in the Codex Fuldensis manuscript from the 6th century the forgery accusation should have been simply discarded as a canard. (Note, we do not know for sure whether the original Vulgate actually included the Johannine Comma in the text.)
The question of other early allusions is complex, fascinating and the list is long. An article in the 19th century by Charles Forster is a good starting point for those interested in the issue. Although other references can be added to those of Forster he really hits the conceptual, language issue nicely (whatever your doctrinal viewpoints, the language of the early church writers shows a consistent influence from the Johannine Comma).
A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses
By Charles Forster (available to read in full free on Google books)
James, I would much appreciate any help in tracking down any John Cassian references to the Johannine Comma. Whether critical, supportive or whatever. Your assistance in this would be appreciated, even just pointing me in the right direction.James the Persian said:
Amen.James the Persian said:
And the indication is much earlier, since it is in Old Latin texts that are an ancient textline and we have the Jerome Vulgate Prologue reference.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
[email protected]
blueman
God's Warrior
God has also taught us in His Word that "My ways are not your ways and My thoughts are not your thoughts". There is only one God, but God is so great, his essence and attributes are revealed through 3 spiritual beings, God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit". The idea that Paul created the Trinity is unfounded. There is pre-Pauline creeds that were pass down to Paul that make reference to Jesus as the living God in the flesh.
joeboonda
Well-Known Member
Jesus is indeed, God, but it is pointless to argue for the Trinity or any other Christian doctrine with anyone who does not hold the Bible, all of it, as supreme authority. For folks who believe the Bible, we know it says God is one, there is was and will be no other besides Him, Jesus is called Emmanuel meaning God with us, Jesus calls Himself I AM, a term reserved only for God, He accepts worship, forgives sins, is prayed to, etc, which only God can do, declares He is one with the Father, we are to baptise in the NAME (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and these three are one. Christians believe the doctrine of the Trinity, it is a central doctrine of Christianity, just as believing the Bible is God's Word is and that (II Tim. 3:17) "By using Scripture, a man of God can be completely prepared to do every good thing." If a person does not believe the Bible is God's Word or thinks God did not preserve it and picks and chooses what they want to believe is not "corrupted", they should not call themselves Christian, they can call themselves anything else, but Christians believe God's Word is God's Word.
Jesus IS the WORD, DUH!!! And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, here read it for yourselves: (digest it slowly this is some of the most awesome, life-changing scripture you may ever read, although it is all equally awesome)
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
22Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
23He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
24And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
25And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
26John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
28These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
Jesus IS the WORD, DUH!!! And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, here read it for yourselves: (digest it slowly this is some of the most awesome, life-changing scripture you may ever read, although it is all equally awesome
)John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
22Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
23He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
24And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
25And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
26John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
28These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
very true indeed, Psalm 83;18 and this one God said that we should listen to Jesus his son .
(Luke 9:35) And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: "This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him."
Christendom believe the manmade doctrine of the trinity , christians believe the bible . and yes the word was made flesh and dwelt among us , and it was Jesus father that sent him to the earth John 3;16, and Jesus who was sent to the earth was Jehovahs spokesman. Jesus most certainly was the word , and he was with God in the beginning of creation ,. and this first-born was the only one or thing created by Jehovah alone , everything else was created though Jesus .Christians believe the doctrine of the Trinity, it is a central doctrine of Christianity,
Jesus IS the WORD, DUH!!! And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, here read it for yourselves: (digest it slowly this is some of the most awesome, life-changing scripture you may ever read, although it is all equally awesome
Prehuman
Existence. The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life. (Joh 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58) John 1:1, 2 gives the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus, saying: "In the beginning the Word [Gr., Lo´gos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god ["was divine," AT; Mo; or "of divine being," Böhmer; Stage (both German)]. This one was in the beginning with God." Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re 15:3), the Words being with God from "the beginning" must here refer to the beginning of Jehovahs creative works. This is confirmed by other texts identifying Jesus as "the firstborn of all creation," "the beginning of the creation by God." (Col 1:15; Re 1:1; 3:14) Thus the Scriptures identify the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) as Gods first creation, his firstborn Son.
That Jehovah was truly the Father or Life-Giver to this firstborn Son and, hence, that this Son was actually a creature of God is evident from Jesus own statements. He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, "I live because of the Father." According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus ransom sacrifice.Joh 6:56, 57.
If the estimates of modern-day scientists as to the age of the physical universe are anywhere near correct, Jesus existence as a spirit creature began thousands of millions of years prior to the creation of the first human. (Compare Mic 5:2.) This firstborn spirit Son was used by his Father in the creation of all other things. (Joh 1:3; Col 1:16, 17) This would include the millions of other spirit sons of Jehovah Gods heavenly family (Da 7:9, 10; Re 5:11), as well as the physical universe and the creatures originally produced within it. Logically, it was to this firstborn Son that Jehovah said: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness." (Ge 1:26) All these other created things were not only created "through him" but also "for him," as Gods Firstborn and the "heir of all things."Col 1:16; Heb 1:2...........................................................................................................................................................................
sorry if this is large print my computor is on the blink
That Jehovah was truly the Father or Life-Giver to this firstborn Son and, hence, that this Son was actually a creature of God is evident from Jesus own statements. He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, "I live because of the Father." According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus ransom sacrifice.Joh 6:56, 57.
If the estimates of modern-day scientists as to the age of the physical universe are anywhere near correct, Jesus existence as a spirit creature began thousands of millions of years prior to the creation of the first human. (Compare Mic 5:2.) This firstborn spirit Son was used by his Father in the creation of all other things. (Joh 1:3; Col 1:16, 17) This would include the millions of other spirit sons of Jehovah Gods heavenly family (Da 7:9, 10; Re 5:11), as well as the physical universe and the creatures originally produced within it. Logically, it was to this firstborn Son that Jehovah said: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness." (Ge 1:26) All these other created things were not only created "through him" but also "for him," as Gods Firstborn and the "heir of all things."Col 1:16; Heb 1:2...........................................................................................................................................................................
sorry if this is large print my computor is on the blink
joeboonda
Well-Known Member
Jesus was not created, He is the only begotten Son of God, begotten, not made. Changing John 1 to say that the Word was 'a' god, which only Russel translated it that way and is not at all in the Greek, is a huge error. For one thing, God is one God so Jesus cannot be 'a' god, for that would mean God lied when He said there is one God, which you just admitted in your last post. Jesus IS God, not 'a' god. Also, God did not have "many other spirit sons", He had ONE ONLY begotten Son, Jesus Christ. God CREATED angels, God CREATED man, and gave MAN the ability to reproduce, that's it.
Steven Avery
New Member
Hi Folks,
And I will 'bump' this again for James. James seems to be very well-versed on these matters and any help would be appreciated. Even a "I'm not sure of where is the reference" would be very helpful.
"when he found that they used it in Gaul"
It appears that Aland credits John Cassian with a Johannine Comma reference in the footnotes of the revised Greek New Testament, the interesting thing is that it is very hard to find any exact references and needs a John Cassian expert .
Thanks for any help you can give on this.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
And I will 'bump' this again for James. James seems to be very well-versed on these matters and any help would be appreciated. Even a "I'm not sure of where is the reference" would be very helpful.
And on other forums you have given a bit more detail like:Steven Avery said:
"when he found that they used it in Gaul"
It appears that Aland credits John Cassian with a Johannine Comma reference in the footnotes of the revised Greek New Testament, the interesting thing is that it is very hard to find any exact references and needs a John Cassian expert
.Thanks for any help you can give on this.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven Avery
New Member
Hi Folks,
Another 'bump' for JamesthePersian on the Johannine Comma referenced by John Cassian issue.
The irony is that I like what James said and I just hoped to get a bit more backdrop, but I haven't been able to get a response .. not even a dunno, or I'll check into it. Whether or not John Cassian quoted or referenced the Comma seems to be a fascinating question, even the UBS apparatus made a change from UBS-3 to UBS-4.
My question is back uphill on #67 and #74.
Any help appreciated.
Shalom,
Steven
Another 'bump' for JamesthePersian on the Johannine Comma referenced by John Cassian issue.
The irony is that I like what James said and I just hoped to get a bit more backdrop, but I haven't been able to get a response .. not even a dunno, or I'll check into it. Whether or not John Cassian quoted or referenced the Comma seems to be a fascinating question, even the UBS apparatus made a change from UBS-3 to UBS-4.
My question is back uphill on #67 and #74.
Any help appreciated.
Shalom,
Steven
Steven Avery
New Member
Anyway, to rebumpSteven Avery said:
for James, here is the closest I have been able to find, a reference to "heavenly witnesses", not enough for a solid reference.The Seven Books on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius
And He surely came and did not keep silence, who before that He in His own person uttered anything after His birth, made known His advent by both earthly and heavenly witnesses alike, while the star points Him out, the magi adore Him, and angels declare Him.
So the issue is very curious. The UBS-3 does have John Cassian referenced but not UBS-4. Lots of recent web-writer references however I think they are following UBS-3 and one another. He doesn't appear to be referenced in the 1800's debates on the Johannine Comma.
James, you seem to have some familiarity with the John Cassian material (some of which may be untranslated into English) as well as with the Johannine Comma. Can you assist as to whether you know of any specific John Cassian - Johannine Comma references, as implied some in the earlier posts ? Any assistance at all appreciated, even a "dunno" would help !
Thanks.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
