That never happens to the elect cause they know who did the choosing.
What is the express image of God?
- Thread starter keypurr
- Start date
That never happens to the elect cause they know who did the choosing.
Hi Keypurr, I'm curious what the AENT notes might say about the use of mammonas in Matthew 6:24? The Strong's definition mentions that mammonas is of Aramaic origin:
Strong's Ref. #3126
Romanized mammonas
Pronounced mam-mo-nas'
of Aramaic origin (confidence, i.e. wealth, personified); mammonas, i.e. avarice (deified):
KJV--mammon.
If mammon is avarice deified it seems to me that this would include deified "little e" elohim, ("I have said, You are elohim, and all of you are sons of the Most High"). You see what I'm getting at? Even if Yeshua is (an) elohim he still clearly states that he himself is not equal to YHWH Elohim, (the Father) when he says, "My Father is greater than I". Modern theology seems to have relegated the meaning of mammon as only having to do with money and the love thereof, and such physical things as sometimes deified by men, but I wonder that mammon itself might have a much deeper implication and impact on our theology-understanding, (for example in the context of serving two Masters [Kuriois]). If your Aramaic Bible has any commentary-notes on this word and passage, (Matthew 6:24) I would appreciate what you might have to offer from it.
That's a really good point, daqq.....I can see that as having confidence in the flesh over the Spirit. It seems to me that this was dealt with when they thought He was the gardener and the two on the road didn't know Him until He spoke. It's plain to see there are those that would have denied Him because they couldn't hang onto His flesh. Peace
keypurr
Well-known member
Hi Keypurr, I'm curious what the AENT notes might say about the use of mammonas in Matthew 6:24? The Strong's definition mentions that mammonas is of Aramaic origin:
Strong's Ref. #3126
Romanized mammonas
Pronounced mam-mo-nas'
of Aramaic origin (confidence, i.e. wealth, personified); mammonas, i.e. avarice (deified):
KJV--mammon.
If mammon is avarice deified it seems to me that this would include deified "little e" elohim, ("I have said, You are elohim, and all of you are sons of the Most High"). You see what I'm getting at? Even if Yeshua is (an) elohim he still clearly states that he himself is not equal to YHWH Elohim, (the Father) when he says, "My Father is greater than I". Modern theology seems to have relegated the meaning of mammon as only having to do with money and the love thereof, and such physical things as sometimes deified by men, but I wonder that mammon itself might have a much deeper implication and impact on our theology-understanding, (for example in the context of serving two Masters [Kuriois]). If your Aramaic Bible has any commentary-notes on this word and passage, (Matthew 6:24) I would appreciate what you might have to offer from it.
I will look into to it for you, but give me a couple of days. I am not at home right now. Tomorrow I have been asked to drive the senior van.
:thumb: Thank you my friend!
:thumb: The man of flesh was visible, (ocular) while the Express Image is not.
keypurr
Well-known member
:thumb: Thank you my friend!
:thumb: The man of flesh was visible, (ocular) while the Express Image is not.
Most cannot see the effects of the express image. The wind blows and they know not where.
1 John 5:7 KJV - 1 John 5:8-9 KJV - 1 John 5:10 KJV - 1 John 5:11 KJV -
1 John 5:12-13 KJV and 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and hath given us understanding, that we may know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
keypurr
Well-known member
Hi Keypurr, I'm curious what the AENT notes might say about the use of mammonas in Matthew 6:24? The Strong's definition mentions that mammonas is of Aramaic origin:
Strong's Ref. #3126
Romanized mammonas
Pronounced mam-mo-nas'
of Aramaic origin (confidence, i.e. wealth, personified); mammonas, i.e. avarice (deified):
KJV--mammon.
If mammon is avarice deified it seems to me that this would include deified "little e" elohim, ("I have said, You are elohim, and all of you are sons of the Most High"). You see what I'm getting at? Even if Yeshua is (an) elohim he still clearly states that he himself is not equal to YHWH Elohim, (the Father) when he says, "My Father is greater than I". Modern theology seems to have relegated the meaning of mammon as only having to do with money and the love thereof, and such physical things as sometimes deified by men, but I wonder that mammon itself might have a much deeper implication and impact on our theology-understanding, (for example in the context of serving two Masters [Kuriois]). If your Aramaic Bible has any commentary-notes on this word and passage, (Matthew 6:24) I would appreciate what you might have to offer from it.
Matthew 6:24
No man is able to serve two masters, for either he will hate one and he will love the other, or he will honor one and he will treat the other with contempt. You are not able to serve Elohim and money. AENT
That is a uppercase E on Elohim.
Hope that answers your question for now.
keypurr
Well-known member
1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
1Jn 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
This does not say Jesus is God, it says he sent his son.
Compare friend.
Joh 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
Joh 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Joh 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
Again in his own language translation:
Yochanan 17:3
Now this is life that is eternal, that they might know You, that You are the Elohim of Truth, and he alone whom You have sent, the Mashiyach Y'shua. AENT
1 John 5:7 KJV - affirms the Trinity
:thumb: Thank you my friend!
:thumb: The man of flesh was visible, (ocular) while the Express Image is not.
Exactly. And it is this "man" that walked on the water (above the waters below the firmament) to get them to get out of their carnal wooden ship (like the ark wood that was covered in gold) and walk with Him there. And it was said that if they had not SEEN HIM, He would have passed them by. And so it is today.....Peace
Kinda-sorta as I see they simply render it as "money".
Thanks for your time in digging that up!
So when Messiah says, "He that has seen me has seen the Father", (John 14:9) he does not speak of them having seen the physical man Yeshua with their eyes of the flesh? Yes, it must be so, for no man has seen Elohim at any time, (neither the Father nor the Son).
Matthew 11:25-27
25. At that time Yeshua answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Master of the heavens and of the earth, because you have hid these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them unto babes.
26. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in your sight.
27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knows the Son, if not the Father; neither knows anyone the Father, if not the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son wills to reveal Him.
So when Messiah says, "He that has seen me has seen the Father", (John 14:9) he does not speak of them having seen the physical man Yeshua with their eyes of the flesh? Yes, it must be so, for no man has seen Elohim at any time, (neither the Father nor the Son).
Matthew 11:25-27
25. At that time Yeshua answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Master of the heavens and of the earth, because you have hid these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them unto babes.
26. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in your sight.
27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knows the Son, if not the Father; neither knows anyone the Father, if not the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son wills to reveal Him.
AMEN AND AMEN
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Kinda-sorta as I see they simply render it as "money".
Thanks for your time in digging that up!
So when Messiah says, "He that has seen me has seen the Father", (John 14:9) he does not speak of them having seen the physical man Yeshua with their eyes of the flesh? Yes, it must be so, for no man has seen Elohim at any time, (neither the Father nor the Son).
Matthew 11:25-27
25. At that time Yeshua answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Master of the heavens and of the earth, because you have hid these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them unto babes.
26. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in your sight.
27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knows the Son, if not the Father; neither knows anyone the Father, if not the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son wills to reveal Him.
Simple.
| forget yer lust | |
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
I John 5:7, an 'interpolation' ?
I John 5:7, an 'interpolation' ?
Hello pj and all following,
Lets see,....this passage known as the 'Comma Johanneum' is NOT found in any Greek witness until AD 1215. There is a history behind how it crept into mostly the Latin texts, then 'reverse translated' back into a few 'late' greek manuscripts, and may have been a 'foot-note' or 'gloss' later finding its way into the text. The KJV popularized the 'inclusion' of it from the Textus Receptus, the TR carrying over this 'addition' from some late manuscripts that had it, carried over from Latin renderings.
Scholarly concensus from what I've seen does not support the 'authenticity' of this insertion as part of the original text. Evidence from multiple angles used in textual criticism counts against it.
While anyone can have fun with the verse, as some kind of 'allusion' to the Trinity, that's fine and dandy, but it cant be held to any historical antiquity, if you respect textual criticism and historical facts.
~*~*~
Besides the comprehensive wiki article linked above, see the below:
> The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 - Danial B. Wallace
> The Johannine Comma
Brother Kel above, gives a fairly good presentation on this particular passage, and a study-resource on it here.
I John 5:7, an 'interpolation' ?
Hello pj and all following,
Lets see,....this passage known as the 'Comma Johanneum' is NOT found in any Greek witness until AD 1215. There is a history behind how it crept into mostly the Latin texts, then 'reverse translated' back into a few 'late' greek manuscripts, and may have been a 'foot-note' or 'gloss' later finding its way into the text. The KJV popularized the 'inclusion' of it from the Textus Receptus, the TR carrying over this 'addition' from some late manuscripts that had it, carried over from Latin renderings.
Scholarly concensus from what I've seen does not support the 'authenticity' of this insertion as part of the original text. Evidence from multiple angles used in textual criticism counts against it.
While anyone can have fun with the verse, as some kind of 'allusion' to the Trinity, that's fine and dandy, but it cant be held to any historical antiquity, if you respect textual criticism and historical facts.
~*~*~
Besides the comprehensive wiki article linked above, see the below:
> The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 - Danial B. Wallace
> The Johannine Comma
| 1 John 5:7 - Does it support the Trinity? | |
Brother Kel above, gives a fairly good presentation on this particular passage, and a study-resource on it here.
no need to waste time on videos or outside speculation, it's in the Original King James Version Bible I have, so that makes it fact/God's Word.
lifeisgood
New member
Some love to go outside of God's preserved word (in any language) and study man-made lexicons, commentaries, etc. instead of His preserved word (in any language).
Some waste so much time in what man says they reject what God says. Like Satan, through the serpent in the Garden of Eden, they question, "Yea, hath God said....?" rejecting what God has said; inventing their own word, which brings absolutely nothing good in the end.
Some waste so much time in what man says they reject what God says. Like Satan, through the serpent in the Garden of Eden, they question, "Yea, hath God said....?" rejecting what God has said; inventing their own word, which brings absolutely nothing good in the end.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Really?
It would seem that when John wrote his warning against altering it, he didn't figure it was a slight against God that God couldn't preserve his word.
It must be possible or else why the warning?
Yep.
Cyprian, who lived c.200-258 wrote:
The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one'; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘and these three are one.’
- Cyprian, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate 6
- Cyprian, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate 6
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
The FACTS have been shared with you..........
The FACTS have been shared with you..........
Sorry pj,....I just shared with you historical facts, valid textual criticism accepted by many biblical scholars and common sense. If you want to ignore those and choose to be 'ignorant', much like a KJV Only advocate (I didn't know you were one of those which we've exposed elsewhere), that is sad. You need to read the resource links provided and face the truth. If you cant watch videos either sharing the facts to inform yourself or at least challenge, debate and REFUTE the evidence provided,...you're not really interested in truth, but you own chosen 'version' of reality. That doesn't fly.
Now if you want to accept a passage that came later as a 'marginal note' that crept into the text (in much later manuscripts), or was put there by mistake or 'intentionally' to support the Trinity, that's fine,..but just know the historical facts that it was an 'interpolation' added later. Also note, that even if John originally wrote it (evidence does not support)...it still doesn't necessarily prove a Trinity, but only that 3 aspects of Deity are in 'agreement', (read the context of the passage). At best, its a marginal note that crept into some Late latin texts, then got 'reverse engineered' into only a few late greek texts. Most modern day bible translations don't have it for a reason.
We've exposed the KJV Only fallacy here. (also more articles/videos shared in this particular thread. - also vindicating the NKJV being a good translation, but NOT supporting the 'belief' that the KJV (using only the limited number of texts in the TR) is the best, only or most perfect translation)
In addition to the article above by Dr. Daniel B Wallace (see his bio if you're not familiar with him) this video addresses this again (8 1/2 minutes)
Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today
~*~*~
The FACTS have been shared with you..........
Sorry pj,....I just shared with you historical facts, valid textual criticism accepted by many biblical scholars and common sense. If you want to ignore those and choose to be 'ignorant', much like a KJV Only advocate (I didn't know you were one of those which we've exposed elsewhere), that is sad. You need to read the resource links provided and face the truth. If you cant watch videos either sharing the facts to inform yourself or at least challenge, debate and REFUTE the evidence provided,...you're not really interested in truth, but you own chosen 'version' of reality. That doesn't fly.
Now if you want to accept a passage that came later as a 'marginal note' that crept into the text (in much later manuscripts), or was put there by mistake or 'intentionally' to support the Trinity, that's fine,..but just know the historical facts that it was an 'interpolation' added later. Also note, that even if John originally wrote it (evidence does not support)...it still doesn't necessarily prove a Trinity, but only that 3 aspects of Deity are in 'agreement', (read the context of the passage). At best, its a marginal note that crept into some Late latin texts, then got 'reverse engineered' into only a few late greek texts. Most modern day bible translations don't have it for a reason.
We've exposed the KJV Only fallacy here. (also more articles/videos shared in this particular thread. - also vindicating the NKJV being a good translation, but NOT supporting the 'belief' that the KJV (using only the limited number of texts in the TR) is the best, only or most perfect translation)
In addition to the article above by Dr. Daniel B Wallace (see his bio if you're not familiar with him) this video addresses this again (8 1/2 minutes)
| The King James Bible | |
Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today
~*~*~
Last edited: