Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why doesn't the NT Greek use plural words for G-d?
#21
A Happy Christmas Day to all!!!

Nachshon ~ I like that you referred to 1 Timothy 1:17 in your last post - but ...

1 Tim 1:1-17
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Note that the command or charge come from BOTH ‘God our Savior AND Christ Jesus’ – note that ‘grace, mercy and peace come from BOTH ‘God the Father AND Christ Jesus’ who is ‘our Lord’ – it is clear that in the mind of Paul ‘God the Father’ AND ‘Christ Jesus the LORD of us’ are equals in that they are equally the source of his ‘charge’ AND ‘grace, mercy and peace’.

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

I often times feel as though I am here engaged in the sort of discussions spoken against in the above. Note that the mission (aim) of the Christian when discussing matters of the Faith is to issue forth LOVE (not LAW) from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere Faith.

Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Although Paul is here referring to ‘vain discussions’ concerning those who would be teachers of the LAW, it is noteworthy that the Christian is not to be thought of as LAWLESS for the LAW is good IF it is used according to ‘sound doctrine’, when used according to the ‘gospel of glory of the blessed God’.

I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

This segment is a ‘prayer’ – it begins with ‘thanksgiving’ and ends with a ‘doxology’ and ‘amen’. The ‘Person’ being addressed from beginning to end is ‘Christ Jesus our Lord’. In the mind of Paul ‘Christ Jesus IS ‘the only God’.

2 Tim 1:1-2 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise of the life that is in Christ Jesus, To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Notice the similarity between the salutation of these letters.

2 Tim 1:8-10 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel

Who does Paul identify as ‘our Lord’ AND ‘our Savior’ – ‘Christ Jesus’.

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior; To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

Notice the similarity between the salutation of these letters but here there is another insight into the mind of Paul as to the true identity of ‘God the Father’ and ‘Christ Jesus our Lord’ – here BOTH ‘God (the Father)’ AND ‘Christ Jesus’ are identified as ‘our Savior’. It is clear that in the mind of Paul ‘the Father’ ‘the Son’ (and ‘the Holy Spirit’) are the one and only God and Savior.
#22
(12-25-2013, 08:53 AM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: Nachshon ~ I like that you referred to 1 Timothy 1:17 in your last post - but ...

1 Tim 1:1-17
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
The way I read it, there are two separate and different people, G-d and J-sus. It is clear that G-d is immortal and not physical (invisible), while J-sus is the opposite.

What is the word choice in the Greek for the word god in these passages? Singular? You don't have much of a defense. If J-sus was considered part of the godhead the word usage would be plural.

You keep avoiding the obvious. And for that matter, the NT is riddled with holes and inconsistencies. That's why it's not authoritative, besides preaching a false message.
#23
(12-25-2013, 09:49 AM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-25-2013, 08:53 AM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: Nachshon ~ I like that you referred to 1 Timothy 1:17 in your last post - but ...

1 Tim 1:1-17
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
The way I read it, there are two separate and different people, G-d and J-sus. It is clear that G-d is immortal and not physical (invisible), while J-sus is the opposite.

What is the word choice in the Greek for the word god in these passages? Singular? You don't have much of a defense. If J-sus was considered part of the godhead the word usage would be plural.

You keep avoiding the obvious. And for that matter, the NT is riddled with holes and inconsistencies. That's why it's not authoritative, besides preaching a false message.

This is but another 'vain discussion' - I do not need to defend my position because my position is that there is only one true God - the God Paul was writing about was pleased to indwell the body of the man called Jesus that God IS 'the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God' - you are correct in perceiving that there are two 'Persons' mentioned in these verses BUT there is only one 'personality' whereby the command and the blessings are derived from the one and only God - who is YHVH 'the LORD'.
#24
(12-26-2013, 08:34 AM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: This is but another 'vain discussion' - I do not need to defend my position because my position is that there is only one true God - the God Paul was writing about was pleased to indwell the body of the man called Jesus that God IS 'the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God' - you are correct in perceiving that there are two 'Persons' mentioned in these verses BUT there is only one 'personality' whereby the command and the blessings are derived from the one and only God - who is YHVH 'the LORD'.
The point is you can't defend your position. Your position is polytheism.

Let me ask you some simple questions. You believe three gods in one, but yet your own NT does not support this notion in the Greek word usage for god. Why?

If your gods always existed as a package of three, and we know that two preceeds three, and one preceeds two, which one of yours gods was first? Logic, basic math, dictates that three can never come into existence without something preceeding it.

By the way, the Tanakh defines what is vain: 2 Kings 17:15 not following Torah is vanitiy; Psalms 108:12 depending on man for salvation is vanity; Jer 10:3 decorating trees (x-mas) is vanity.
#25
Nachshon Wrote:
HumblePetitioner Wrote:This is but another 'vain discussion' - I do not need to defend my position because my position is that there is only one true God - the God Paul was writing about was pleased to indwell the body of the man called Jesus that God IS 'the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God' - you are correct in perceiving that there are two 'Persons' mentioned in these verses BUT there is only one 'Personality' whereby the command and the blessings are derived from the one and only God - who is YHVH 'the LORD'.

The point is you can't defend your position. Your position is polytheism.

No ~ my position is monotheism.

Mark 12:29 Jesus answered, The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.’
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
John 5:44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

Nachshon Wrote:Let me ask you some simple questions. You believe three gods in one, but yet your own NT does not support this notion in the Greek word usage for god. Why?

1 Cor 8:4-6 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one." For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"— 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.

Nachshon Wrote:If your gods always existed as a package of three, and we know that two precedes three, and one precedes two, which one of yours gods was first? Logic, basic math, dictates that three can never come into existence without something preceding it.

There is a radio talk show host that I respect, who is a practicing Jew, who’s method of discussion stresses ‘clarity’ over ‘agreement’ ~ I do not expect you to agree with me or the NT but I do expect that you will seek some clarity of what I am saying ~ to begin with the one God did not ‘come into existence’ as in some sort or a mathematical process – He always was, is now and always will be ~ secondly it is not my language that refers to the one God as ‘gods’ ~ finally His ways are above our ways and His thoughts are above our thoughts therefore He is not subject to our puny attempts to understand Him.

Nachshon Wrote:By the way, the Tanakh defines what is vain: 2 Kings 17:15 not following Torah is vanity; Psalms 108:12 depending on man for salvation is vanity; Jer 10:3 decorating trees (x-mas) is vanity.

Personally I’ll stick with Solomon’s understanding of vanity …
Ecc 1:2 Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
#26
(12-27-2013, 08:55 AM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: No ~ my position is monotheism.

Mark 12:29 Jesus answered, The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.’
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
John 5:44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God
Which Greek word is used for G-d in these verses? If you don't understand G-d as exclusively, and absolutely one, your preaching polytheism.

(12-27-2013, 08:55 AM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: 1 Cor 8:4-6 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that [b]"there is no God but one." For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"— 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.
Doesn't this show exclusively one G-d, alone, not a triunity? Check out the Greek words for god.

(12-27-2013, 08:55 AM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: There is a radio talk show host that I respect, who is a practicing Jew, who’s method of discussion stresses ‘clarity’ over ‘agreement’ ~ I do not expect you to agree with me or the NT but I do expect that you will seek some clarity of what I am saying ~ to begin with the one God did not ‘come into existence’ as in some sort or a mathematical process – He always was, is now and always will be ~ secondly it is not my language that refers to the one God as ‘gods’ ~ finally His ways are above our ways and His thoughts are above our thoughts therefore He is not subject to our puny attempts to understand Him.
Talk to the points please, HumblePetioner. Please explain how three can exist without one of them coming before the other? Since you believe in separate and distinct personalities with distinct roles and distinct locations, then you have three physical gods confined to space and time. And since they are physical, that makes them created, with something else being their Creator.

(12-27-2013, 08:55 AM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: Personally I’ll stick with Solomon’s understanding of vanity …
Ecc 1:2 Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
So, you shifted from an NT understanding to a Tanakh understanding of vanity. At least this is a move in the right direction.
Do you know why all is vanity? Because it is a pursuit of everything except G-d, Eccl 12:13-14.
#27
In John 14 Jesus is explaining how He will manifest Himself to His disciples yet the world will not see this manifestation. Here is the question that leads to Christ's explanation.

"Judas, not Iscariot, said to Him, Lord, and what has happened that You are to manifest Yourself to us and not to the world ?" (John 14:22)

How will Jesus manifest Himself to the disciples yet not to the world?
Answer: He will come into them with the Father and make a living dwelling place with them.

"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)

Nachshron's basic response to this passage is that the New Testament has no authority for him.
In other words, he simply doesn't believe it nor does he hold it as the authoritative word of God.
Any other Nachshronian logic beyond that is really not necessary to argue about.
He simply doesn't take John's Gospel or anything in the New Testament.

For us who take it as the word of God we can go on to see the "We" of verse 23 is indeed God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

So let's examine the "We" of John 14:23.
Some points:

1.) The Father lives in the Son and the Son lives in the Father -

"Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me ..." (John 14:11)

The Father and the Son are distinct but they are not separate. And it is indeed very mysterious.

2.) When Phillip requests to be shown the Father Jesus reminds Philip that Jesus, the "Me" is virtually the Father with them for them to SEE.

"Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us. Jesus said to him, Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip ?

He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show is the Father ? (vs.8,9)


The request is concerning the Father. The answer is that they have seen "Me". Jesus has been with them for a long time. How then can they say "Show us the Father"?

So the Father living in the Son and the Son living in the Father are both the "Me" of verse 9 and the "We" of verse 23.

What about the Holy Spirit as the Third of the Triune God?

3.) The coming of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Reality is the very coming of Jesus to the disciples. This is how He and the Father will make an abode with them.

"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever, Even the Spirit of reality, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him; but you know Him, because He abides with you and shall be in you.

I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you." (vs.16-18)


The "He" of verse 17 who is going to abide in the disciples suddenly switches to the "I" in verse 18 who is coming to the disciples, not leaving them as orphans.

So far then in this chapter we have the Father and the Son coming to make an inward abode with the disciples as the Divine "We" (v.23) and the Holy Spirit coming to be in the disciples as Jesus coming to them, not leaving them as orphans.

The Father - Son - Holy Spirit dispenses God into the followers of Jesus.

4.) It is also noted that this "another Comforter" is WITH the disciples as to the present moment of the speaking of verse 17 but will be IN the disciples as to a future time (after Christ's resurrection).

This Person abides with them and shall be in them.

"Even the Spirit of reality ... you know Him, because He abides with you and shall be in you." (v.17)

They knew Jesus of Nazareth because He has been with them for at least three years.
This One was going to be in them after His resurrection.
The One they knew as being with them was shortly going to be in them.

This is all related to Jesus manifesting Himself to His believers from within while the world no longer beholds Jesus upon the earth.

" ... the Spirit of reality, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him; but you know Him because He abides with you and shall be in you." (v.17)

A major point of John 14 is that God in Jesus Christ as the Holy Spirit is the Triune God who will manifest Christ from within the innermost spiritual beings of the believers in Christ.

"He who has My commandments and keps them, he is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him." (v.21)

If we are rejected by Nachshron for loving Jesus Christ it is quite alright because we are loved by the Father. And Christ will manifest Himself to us.

I do not mean to sound rude in speaking of Nachshron in the third person in this discussion. But as he frankly admits that he desires to turn some believers away from the Christian faith, I intend to encourage them to remain in the faith.

Once Christ begins to manifest Himself and the Father from within our spirit it certainly is not that easy to be dissuaded that we are not experiencing what we are experiencing. And the pages of the New Testament begin to shine brighter and brighter confirming the truth.
#28
(12-30-2013, 06:33 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: "Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)
Understanding the context, J-sus is speaking about the commandments here. If you keep the commandments, then J-sus words and the Father's abides in a person. That's all this means. I've explained this before.

(12-30-2013, 06:33 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: Nachshron's basic response to this passage is that the New Testament has no authority for him.
In other words, he simply doesn't believe it nor does he hold it as the authoritative word of God.
Any other Nachshronian logic beyond that is really not necessary to argue about.
Why don't you mention that the Greek language doesn't support your claim of a plurality in G-d? Is it because you can't argue against it? Maybe you haven't been on the forum long enough or seen all of my reponses. But where the NT agrees with Torah, I can accept the truth. Where it doesn't, which is 90% of the time, I disregard it. So as a whole, the NT is not authoritative or the word of G-d.

(12-30-2013, 06:33 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: The Father and the Son are distinct but they are not separate. And it is indeed very mysterious.
You contradict yourself - distinct is separate. And after the resurrection, J-sus is forever more separate from the Father in a physical body. This is not G-d.

(12-30-2013, 06:33 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: So the Father living in the Son and the Son living in the Father are both the "Me" of verse 9 and the "We" of verse 23.
Psalms 83:18 there is only one Hashem, and He shares His name with no one. No plurality.

(12-30-2013, 06:33 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: What about the Holy Spirit as the Third of the Triune God?

3.) The coming of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Reality is the very coming of Jesus to the disciples. This is how He and the Father will make an abode with them.
Unfortunately, the spirit the Tanakh discusses is not something you have, Ezek 36:26-27, Zech 7:12. The spirit leads to submission and obedience to Torah, which is what I believe J-sus taught too, Matthew 5:17-20. So, you're truly not J-sus disciple.

(12-30-2013, 06:33 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: The Father - Son - Holy Spirit dispenses God into the followers of Jesus.
John 14:15, commandments. John 14:17, spirit of truth (Psalms 119:142).
This agrees with the Tanakh verses above. Your spirit is different.

(12-30-2013, 06:33 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: " ... the Spirit of reality, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him; but you know Him because He abides with you and shall be in you." (v.17)
The reality is you don't have the spirit, and you don't follow J-sus own words, Matthew 7:23.

(12-30-2013, 06:33 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: "He who has My commandments and keps them, he is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him." (v.21)
Do you keep the commandments and thereby show your love for your J-sus?

(12-30-2013, 06:33 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: I do not mean to sound rude in speaking of Nachshron in the third person in this discussion. But as he frankly admits that he desires to turn some believers away from the Christian faith, I intend to encourage them to remain in the faith.
I don't take it personally. Just like Jews for J-sus turns Jews away from Torah, I've tried to return them to the truth of Torah, and all that will listen. There is one Torah for all, Numbers 15:15, Isa 56:6-7.
#29
Nachshon Wrote:Understanding the context, J-sus is speaking about the commandments here. If you keep the commandments, then J-sus words and the Father's abides in a person. That's all this means. I've explained this before.

First of all, you say in no uncertain terms that you do not believe the New Testament holds any authority. So with that as your initial objection, it is rather irrelevant for you to begin teaching me about the context of New Testament passages.

You reject it outright. Right ?
Any detailed discussion with me about right or wrong "context" is therefore a completely moot point.

You do not reject the teaching because of anyone's mistaken exegesis with wrong context. You fight against it because it is the New Testament - PERIOD.

So let's not kid ourselves. Your supposed better grasp of "context" is not the reason for your rejection of Christian belief.
#30
(12-30-2013, 09:01 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: First of all, you say in no uncertain terms that you do not believe the New Testament holds any authority. So with that as your initial objection, it is rather irrelevant for you to begin teaching me about the context of New Testament passages.
Then why are you replying to me?

(12-30-2013, 09:01 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: You reject it outright. Right ?
Any detailed discussion with me about right or wrong "context" is therefore a completely moot point.
I've shown the contradictions. The Tankah shows what is right and the truth, Psalms 119:142.

(12-30-2013, 09:01 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: You do not reject the teaching because of anyone's mistaken exegesis with wrong context. You fight against it because it is the New Testament - PERIOD.
I reject it because it contradicts the Tanakh. PERIOD.

(12-30-2013, 09:01 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: So let's not kid ourselves. Your supposed better grasp of "context" is not the reason for your rejection of Christian belief.
No, it's the contradictions and rejection of Torah. Also, the belief that G-d can die, as you espouse. You know that personally.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)