Apple7
New member
That demon (YOU, Apple7BS) is treating me as arrogantly and pejoratively as always... Mr. Pseudo-Wannabe-Christian.
Keep those words of love flowing..........PPSBS...
That demon (YOU, Apple7BS) is treating me as arrogantly and pejoratively as always... Mr. Pseudo-Wannabe-Christian.
Once again, you have been unable to show that the scriptures teach the Trinity, much less that the scriptures demand a person must believe in the Trinity to be a Christian.and here, we have;
Denial
Denial
Denial
You do know what denial is as you do it ALL the time, but NEVER directly answer posts that refute your POV. No use wasting anymore time on you.
Ignored!
and all through this thread you have been wrong and refuse to admit it. So be it...you will have NO excuse when the time comes, but you WILL bow you knee and confess exactly who Jesus really is.
Only people like you, who constantly say to learn what the Bible says, practise the contrary. You're like a broken record, incapable of moving on from your inculcated views.
The BIBLE says Jesus is our savior. The Bible says that God is our savior,...
... and ONE with His father and the Holy Spirit, our Triune God.
As will we all.
And that does not automatically lead everyone to " thus Jesus is our God and Savior,"
Yeshua plainly stated that there is only One that is good; that all of His authority comes from the Father; that by obeying the commands of His Father He remains in His Father's Love. He takes, even now, a position of submission and obedience to the Father and the Ruach. Oftentimes, people declaring the Trinity tend to dismiss the distinction between the Three and there is a distinction.
Indeed.
I agree, sadly not everyone can follow the "logic" if you will, in scripture, even when they read the words Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:1;
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
Of course their is a distinction, shown by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
They are different and yet ONE as the Shema shows. They are one in purpose and being, just as Jesus said.
Jesus said: I and the Father are one.
Jesus said: If you've seen me you've seen the Father.
Jesus said: If you knew me, you would know my Father also.
Jesus said: You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.
Jesus said: If you do not believe that I am He, you will indeed die in your sins.
Jesus said: You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.
Jesus said: Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
I see Peter's words as "]Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Yeshua HaMashiach, To those who through the righteousness of our God (HaShem) and Savior Jesus Christ (Yeshua HaMashiach) have received a faith as precious as ours:"
I see Yeshua as being one in purpose with HaShem but not "being," as in the same skin so to speak, and the reason is simple, His Words as found in John 15, and other places in Scripture where it's stated that Yeshua is seated at the right hand of God. Those who consider Yeshua God do not consider His divinity was given to Him along with His authority. In other words, only God the Father (HaShem) has divinity in and of Himself. By Yeshua's own Words, EVERYTHING Yeshua has comes from God the Father so when we talk about the Trinity we are not talking about three Gods but only One God with His Son and His Ruach.
So you CAN'T answer my last post?
Do you deny what John 1:18 also states?
Do you know of the Granville Sharp rules in Greek?
What is there to answer?
You agreed with me.
Absolutely not. I deny it states what some wish it to, that Yeshua is also the Father. And since you mention John 1:18, the Greek of that verse declares Yeshua as "being in the bosom of the Father." This does not mean that Yeshua has divinity in and of Himself but rather that which was imparted to Him by the Father.
Yes. Are you aware of Daniel Wallace's Sharp Redivivus? A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule?
Plenty, but you avoid or deflect as most can clearly see.
Not at all, but as your ilk tends to do, you equivocate by using Hebrew words NOT found in the NT,
and the Granville Sharp rule of Greek states that AND between two nouns indicates they are the same person. Doesn't really matter what you SEE or think, it is was the TRUTH is.
It says what it says, and quoting a bad English translation doesn't help your POV, but only confirms your dogmatic stance.
The following shows 5 of the most accurate English translations that confirm Jesus HIMSELF is God.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 1:18&version=NIV;NLT;ESV;NET;MOUNCE
In any event IF you understood the English used in the KJV in the context of its day, you would know it meant exactly what the modern versions state.
Indeed, and apparently you are as well, but you have not actually read it.nnLet me succinctly summarize for you. Wallace concludes by saying;
Winer’s opinion notwithstanding, solid linguistic reasons and plenty of phenomenological data were found to support the requirements that Sharp laid down. When substantives meet the requirements of Sharp’s canon, apposition is the result, and inviolably so in the NT. The canon even works outside the twenty-seven books and, hence, ought to be resurrected as a sound principle which has overwhelming validity in all of Greek literature. Consequently, in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 we are compelled to recognize that, on a grammatical level, a heavy burden of proof rests with the one who wishes to deny that “God and Savior” refers to one person, Jesus Christ.
I suggest you read it again;
https://bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule
and this time pay attention to what he is conveying.
I don't think so. What exactly do you want me to address head on that you don't think I have?
I'm unaware of any Hebrew word I've used to sidestep any Truth of Scripture. Enlighten me, please.
This is a "truth" that seems to be argued by varying Greek language scholars and complicated by punctuation used in the Koine.
I wasn't aware that J.P. Green or the United Bible Society were poor translators.
Always read the footnotes Stan. Check out footnote b under the ESV.
Uh huh. You do realize that there are no "J's" in the Greek, don't you? There weren't any in the 17th century English, either. Perhaps you should read the 1611? Beyond that, Stan, Scripture didn't start with the KJV.
Actually, I'd rather let Wallace do his own summarizing: "In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kai (thus, article-substantive- kai-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent." Now he doesn't go into how all of that is also governed by punctuation...which it is, but regardless he has clearly slapped a caviat to Granville Sharp's rule. I suppose you'll be stating that Wallace is a poor linguist.
The ones you avoided and deflected about. Being unaware is not something one should readily admit to in a DISCUSSION, unless it is deliberately intended to deflect.
There is no punctuation in Greek,
and what EXACTLY is being argued about, and by whom?
So you believe THEY did the KJV translation?
I believe I've been making plenty of points. I can not force you to acknowledge them. It's like bringing a horse to water....Make a point IMJ, don't avoid it.
But there IS in English, so what is your point, other than to deflect? I have the 1611 version. It's pretty much the same as the current KJV, so again, make a point. Good, I'm glad you're not KJVO, but again, WHAT is your point?
So you actually read what he said about Granville Sharp and you still equivocate by using his own words OUT of context?
That is very disingenuous IMO.
Maybe others can read the actual article and judge for themselves?
http://www.theopedia.com/articles/547aa992c68a2d535569a742
See also:
http://www.biblefood.com/articthe2.html
Note: While I am not in agreement with all the content posted at this site, the item above is worthwhile.
AMR
Yes, I love Granville Sharp's way of qualifying the existence of fact with not "that I know of" as if he were in possession of all knowledge of the ancient Greek. It's adorable...sort of like Baptist ministers; they may not be right but they're never in doubt.
Yes, I love Granville Sharp's way of qualifying the existence of fact with not "that I know of" as if he were in possession of all knowledge of the ancient Greek. It's adorable...sort of like Baptist ministers; they may not be right but they're never in doubt. (I do love Mark Lowry!)
He IS an authority on Koine Greek, not ancient Greek, and his authority has been verified by the vast majority of today's pre-eminent Greek scholars.