Will believers be judged by the law?

[BibleShockers]

>>>That says that in the beginning God made the earth. He made it at first empty and without form...

I would probably be a more effective teacher if I had just another gallon of patience...

So in verse one God "creates" the heaven [sky ceiling] and the earth [the dry land]... then what is all of the rest of the narrative? The six days? And then his rest-up?

[John317]

JOHN 3:17-- >>>We will devote a whole thread to the subject [the Deity of Christ] and look carefully at every relevant text, at any you choose besides.

Quote:

You have nothing. Please get real.

Don't go anywhere. Stick around, Bill. I think you'll find it interesting, to say the least.

Let me ask you here, what is the meaning of John 1: 18? First, how do you believe it should be correctly and literally translated? None of your loose paraphrases, please.

[John317]

>>>That says that in the beginning God made the earth. He made it at first empty and without form...

I would probably be a more effective teacher if I had just another gallon of patience...

So in verse one God "creates" the heaven [sky ceiling] and the earth [the dry land]... then what is all of the rest of the narrative? The six days? And then his rest-up?

I sense in your tone in writing that you have no respect or love for either the Bible or God. Am I completely wrong about that?

The verse is saying that in the beginning God made the earth. It was in an inert and watery state for an indefinite period of time before the creation week began.

The subject of the verb bara' is God, here called by the general word for God in Hebrew elohim. He is the subject of all of the verbs for creating, making, and shaping in Genesis 1. The one true God is introduced in the first sentence of the Creation account; He is the One who acts all the way through this account. No other God disputes with Him about what He creates, as in extrabiblical polytheistic creation stories. He is sovereign over Creation, and it obeys His will. It is newly organized as He orders it by His word. (Christ was actually the Word as God's agent of creation. See Hebrews 1: 1-3; John 1: 1-3; Col. 1: 16-19; Rev. 3: 14.)

In any case, the biblical Creation account is emphatic: This sovereign God is the only true Creator.

[BibleShockers]

>>>...Let me ask you here, what is the meaning of John 1: 18? First, how do you believe it should be correctly and literally translated? None of your loose paraphrases, please

>>>18 No man hath seen God at any time;

That means Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, George and Ringo.

>>>the only begotten Son,

"begotten" "son"

>>>which is [currently - post ascencion] in the bosom of the Father [GOD], he hath declared [exegeted] him.

[John317]

JOHN3:17-- >>>When did this become part of the New Covenant?

Quote:

BILL ROSS-- I have no idea of what you speak.

....As lord of the sabbath he was not beholden to any sabbath regulations. He could do whatever he pleased on any day he pleased as long as is it pleased his father.

This is the same privilege enjoyed by believers.

When did this become part of the New Covenant? (When did it become part of the New Covenant that Jesus' disciples and followers could do whatever they pleased on any day? Was that the way it was for Jesus followers before His death?)

Why then did Jesus talk about what was "lawful" to do on the Sabbath? He never said to ignore God's commandment respecting the weekly Sabbath, did He?

See again Matt. 5. Did Jesus ever violate the Sabbath commandment or encourage others to do it?

Jesus spent more time talking about the Sabbath than about almost anything else. Why didn't Jesus just tell people to ignore the Sabbath? Why did He bother to talk about it so much and to show examples of how to keep it?

Did he violate his own teachings in Matt. 5: 17-20?

[John317]

>>>...Let me ask you here, what is the meaning of John 1: 18? First, how do you believe it should be correctly and literally translated? None of your loose paraphrases, please

>>>18 No man hath seen God at any time;

That means Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, George and Ringo.

>>>the only begotten Son,

"begotten" "son"

>>>which is [currently - post ascencion] in the bosom of the Father [GOD], he hath declared [exegeted] him.

Are you aware of the evidence of the most ancient and best manuscripts?-- P66, P75, Sinaiaticus, Vaticanus, Codex C and others.

I am OK with either reading, but it looks like the original reading was "one and only God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared, or explained, Him.

In any case, if Jesus did not exist prior to coming to the earth, and if He did not personally experience being in God's presence--- if Jesus Christ breathed his very first breath as a baby, how do we know that He knows anything true about the Father? Perhaps he is only telling us what He was told by God, and maybe God is not like that at all.

This is why I see it as significant that God came here Himself and did not merely send a proxy. It proves that God is really loving and that He loves enough to come here Himself and did not simply send someone else to do the dirty work. God Himself suffered with us and lived among us. For our sakes-- for your sake-- God allowed Himself to be killed in the most horrible way. That is amazing love!!!

[BibleShockers]

>>>Are you aware of the evidence of the most ancient and best manuscripts?-- P66, P75, Sinaiaticus, Vaticanus, Codex C and others.

Yes.

>>>>I am OK with either reading, but it looks like the original reading was "one and only God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared, or explained, Him.

That is an obviously corrupt reading.

>>>In any case, if Jesus did not exist prior to coming to the earth, and if He did not personally experience being in God's presence--- if Jesus Christ breathed his very first breath as a baby, how do we know that He knows anything true about the Father? Perhaps he is only telling us what He was told by God, and maybe God is not like that at all.

I'm sorry, did someone mislead you into think that religion was evidence based???!

>>This is why I see it as significant that God came here Himself and did not merely send a proxy. It proves that God is really loving and that He loves enough to come here Himself and did not simply send someone else to do the dirty work.

Hey, everyone likes proof!

>>>God Himself suffered with us and lived among us.

No wonder he always seems to be in a bad mood!

>>For our sakes-- for your sake-- God allowed Himself to be killed in the most horrible way. That is amazing love!!!

Dead God. Thanks, Dead God.

So God was dead for three days.

Who raised him?

[BibleShockers]

>>>I sense in your tone in writing that you have no respect or love for either the Bible or God. Am I completely wrong about that?

Not completely.

>>>The verse is saying that in the beginning God made the earth. It was in an inert and watery state for an indefinite period of time before the creation week began.

Is it? Or is it merely a title (like the 4 other titles in the scroll?)

>>The subject of the verb bara' is God, here called by the general word for God in Hebrew elohim.

Sounds significant. ?

>>>He is the subject of all of the verbs for creating, making, and shaping in Genesis 1.

This kind of goes along with the subject of the text, don't you think?

>>>The one true God is introduced in the first sentence of the Creation account; He is the One who acts all the way through this account.

How do we know that he is not an imposter?

>>No other God disputes with Him about what He creates, as in extrabiblical polytheistic creation stories.

Is it your considered opinion that three persons who are one person, a man and his father and a ghost, existed inexplicably forever?

>>He is sovereign over Creation, and it obeys His will.

Actually, in the account, the snake defies his will and so does the woman... and the man... and the angels (Gen 6:1-3) and pretty much anyone who has a will!

>>>It is newly organized as He orders it by His word.

Yes!

>>>Christ was actually the Word as God's agent of creation. See Hebrews 1: 1-3; John 1: 1-3; Col. 1: 16-19; Rev. 3: 14.)

Um, no. The utterances of God and Jesus are distinct.

>>>In any case, the biblical Creation account is emphatic: This sovereign God is the only true Creator.

Well then, if a 2,000 year old religious text says it, it must be true! Especially if a Pope endorsed it!

[John317]

>>>Are you aware of the evidence of the most ancient and best manuscripts?-- P66, P75, Sinaiaticus, Vaticanus, Codex C and others.

Quote:

BILL-- Yes.

Quote:

John3:17-- >>>>I am OK with either reading, but it looks like the original reading was "one and only God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared, or explained, Him.

Quote:

BILL-- That is an obviously corrupt reading.

What is the evidence of that? Two of the earliest mss of the NT, dating to 150- 200 AD and 250-300 AD, contain the same reading.

How do you reason to your conclusion?

[John317]

JOHN3:17-- >>>The one true God is introduced in the first sentence of the Creation account; He is the One who acts all the way through this account.

Quote:

BILL ROSS-- How do we know that he is not an imposter?

You sound as if you have some considerable doubt about this.

We can know for sure that this God is not an impostor because of the rest of the 65 books of the Bible. There is objective evidence that supports the Bible, both historical and prophetic.

And for me personally, because of my personal experience in relationship with Him and with His Son, Jesus Christ.

[John317]

JOHN3:17--->>>I sense in your tone in writing that you have no respect or love for either the Bible or God. Am I completely wrong about that?

Quote:

BILL-- Not completely.

I thought so. I'd be interested in knowing why if you'd care to tell.

[John317]

JOHN3:17-- >>No other God disputes with Him about what He creates, as in extrabiblical polytheistic creation stories.

Quote:

BILL ROSS-- Is it your considered opinion that three persons who are one person, a man and his father and a ghost, existed inexplicably forever?

We really need to take some time and study what the Bible says about nature of God. I would do it now but I have to leave in fairly short time. We can do that some other time if you like.

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- >>He is sovereign over Creation, and it obeys His will.

Quote:

BILL-- Actually, in the account, the snake defies his will and so does the woman... and the man... and the angels (Gen 6:1-3) and pretty much anyone who has a will!

Do you understand how that happens? Does the record appear to you to indicate that God was helpless or powerless to do anything about these things?

He made his intelligent creation with a will to oppose Him if they chose, just as people today are free to oppose Him if they want to. God does not force people to acknowledge or obey Him. Has He ever forced you?

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- -- >>>Christ was actually the Word as God's agent of creation. See Hebrews 1: 1-3; John 1: 1-3; Col. 1: 16-19; Rev. 3: 14.)

Quote:

BILL ROSS-- Um, no. The utterances of God and Jesus are distinct.

Again we need to study the Bible teachings about nature of God. I am not saying Jesus Christ's words and God's utterances are not often distinct. However, remember that Jesus said that He only said what the Father commanded Him to say.

Quote:

JOHN-- >>>In any case, the biblical Creation account is emphatic: This sovereign God is the only true Creator.

Quote:

BILL-- Well then, if a 2,000 year old religious text says it, it must be true! Especially if a Pope endorsed it!

Yes, I believe we can believe what the Bible says. I have found it to be worthy of my trust.

It has nothing whatever to do with the pope. It existed long before the pope existed.

[BibleShockers]

Re: John 1:18

http://scripturetext.com/john/1-18.htm

[BibleShockers]

>>>You sound as if you have some considerable doubt about this.

I would think that the maker of the universe would have some idea that the world is not flat!

>>>We can know for sure that this God is not an impostor because of the rest of the 62 books of the Bible. There is objective evidence that supports the Bible, both historical and prophetic.

"No man has seen God at any time!"

>>>And for me personally, because of my personal experience in relationship with Him and with His Son, Jesus Christ.

Such experiences are not reliable. Consider all of the people who swear by Medjuorge for example.

[John317]

Re: John 1:18

http://scripturetext.com/john/1-18.htm

That is fine. I can agree with all of those.

Now check out this:

http://multilingualbible.com/john/1-1.htm

[BibleShockers]

>>>That is fine. I can agree with all of those.

By the law of non-contradition, that is irrational.

>>>Now check out this:

http://multilingualbible.com/john/1-1.htm

I can't agree with any of them. The way that they read is as if the text were speaking of identity. They also foolishly capitalize "word" - a feature not present in the original and biased and misleading.

My reading is correct as it captures the adjectival force:

"God[utterance] was the word."

[John317]

JOHN3:17-- >>>You sound as if you have some considerable doubt about this.

Quote:

BILL-- I would think that the maker of the universe would have some idea that the world is not flat!

What is your evidence that God thought the world is flat?

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- >>>We can know for sure that this God is not an impostor because of the rest of the 62 books of the Bible. There is objective evidence that supports the Bible, both historical and prophetic.

Quote:

BILL-- "No man has seen God at any time!"

But humans have seen God in human form, which is Jesus Christ. That is what that text is saying. And Jesus Christ, being One who knew the Father intimately, has explained Him.

Whether one wants to accept the earliest extant manuscripts of that verse, it still must be recognized that they say that Christ is "the one and only God" (NIV; NASB). It is the same with 1 Tim. 3: 16: "God was manifested in the flesh." Now again, whether one wants to accept that as the original reading or not is immaterial. The fact is, theos is the reading of virtually all Greek manuscripts at that verse. It simply proves that early Christians believed that Jesus was and is God.

I do not recognize the writings of the early church "Fathers" as authoritative by any means, but it is of significance that there are many references in their writings to Christ being God in human flesh. For instance, Ignatius of Antioch wrote of "Jesus Christ our God" his letter to the church at Ephesus (AD 106, 107). Notice that this is exactly parallel to 2 Peter 1: 1 and Titus 2: 13.

The NT teaches, and the early Christians believed, then, that in seeing Christ, we do, in a very real sense, see what God is like.

Apart from Christ humanity would not know what God is like. It's because Christ was with the Father before He was born as a human on this earth that we can have confidence that Christ explained God accurately and truly.

We can know that Christ is such a pure reflection of the Father that if the Father had come here instead of Christ, nothing would have been any different. Christ and the Father both love the world the same way and with the same apage-love. That's what Christ was saying when He told us that everything He did and said was owing to the commandment He received from the Father.

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- >>>And for me personally, because of my personal experience in relationship with Him and with His Son, Jesus Christ.

Quote:

BILL ROSS-- Such experiences are not reliable. Consider all of the people who swear by Medjuorge for example.

I am not saying my personal experience should be meaningful to you. I am talking about its meanings for me, not for others. Of course, you should not base your beliefs on my personal experience, and I wouldn't ask you to. Each must find God for themselves through their own study and thinking about these questions and issues.

[John317]

>>>That is fine. I can agree with all of those.

Quote:

BILL-- By the law of non-contradition, that is irrational.

All of the translations in English at John 1: 1 as given in the following link are signifying the same fundamental truth about Christ.

Which one's differ, in your judgment?

http://multilingualbible.com/john/1-1.htm

[BibleShockers]

>>>But humans have seen God in human form, which is Jesus Christ. That is what that text is saying...

Leaving aside the fact that you are misreading the Bible about Jesus being God (and that the texts themselves are corrupt, inconsistent and unreliable, as evidenced by the various readings), what evidence is there of God other than the Bible? The Bible says that he is a manlike deity living just above the sky ceiling. Is this so? No.

[BibleShockers]

>>>All of the translations in English at John 1: 1 as given in the following link are signifying the same fundamental truth about Christ...

We were discussing John 1:18.

http://multilingualbible.com/john/1-18.htm

[John317]

JOHN3:17-- >>>Now check out this:

http://multilingualbible.com/john/1-1.htm

Quote:

BILL-- I can't agree with any of them. The way that they read is as if the text were speaking of identity. They also foolishly capitalize "word" - a feature not present in the original and biased and misleading.

My reading is correct as it captures the adjectival force:

"God[utterance] was the word."

The rules of Greek grammar regarding the anarthrous construction require that the last phrase of John 1: 1 be translated as, "and the word was deity," or something with a similar meaning. In other words, the Greek construction is saying that the word is distinct from the God the word is with. The word and God are not one and the same person. But it is saying the word is of the same essential nature or essence as God. It is talking about quality, Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature.

I could give you many examples of this from basic texts used in the universities to teach Koine Greek, as well as dozens of well-known translations.

What would you think if I had to have my own personal translation most of the time and could not agree to any standard translations when it came to verses that contradicted my favorite belief?

In all due respect, you do not understand Greek well enough to make up your own translations of these verses. You simply lack the expertise to do it. What proves this is the way you translate verses so completely differently and at odds with every single translation made by the world's top translators and the Greek lexicons. Also, some of the ways you've translated-- such as thinking masculine words were neuter-- show me that you really need to depend on standard translations for your study and beliefs and not rely on your own translations.

I have no problem accept the way the Bible is translated by all the standard translations and even in most of the translations by competent translators. I have about 65 and most of the verses in those translations are well done.

Theology must be based on good translation. Our theology should not be determining how we translate.

[BibleShockers]

>>>The rules of Greek grammar regarding the anarthrous construction require that the last phrase of John 1: 1 be translated as, "and the word was deity," or something with a similar meaning.

Yet none of the "reliable" translations you sent me originally read like YOU read it. So, you can claim that they are wrong but I can't?

Do you have any doubt in your mind that John is referring to the utterance of God in Genesis 1 through whom everything (that was made) was made? Let there be xxx? Is there any question about that in your mind?

[John317]

>>>All of the translations in English at John 1: 1 as given in the following link are signifying the same fundamental truth about Christ...

We were discussing John 1:18.

http://multilingualbible.com/john/1-18.htm

OK, let's talk about that. Which of those translations do you find totally acceptable? Which do you reject outright as impossible or completely false?

[BibleShockers]

>>>OK, let's talk about that. Which of those translations do you find totally acceptable? Which do you reject outright as impossible or completely false?

"unique son." Not "only God." That would be stoopid. He is in the bosom of the father (eating supper). God is at the head of the table, he is at his side. Like this:

Joh 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

How idiotic would it be if the only God at the table was not the one sitting at the head of the table?

How desperate are you for a prooftext for what is obviously an unsubstantiated dogma?

[John317]

JOHN3:17-- >>>The rules of Greek grammar regarding the anarthrous construction require that the last phrase of John 1: 1 be translated as, "and the word was deity," or something with a similar meaning.

Quote:

BILL-- Yet none of the "reliable" translations you sent me originally read like YOU read it. So, you can claim that they are wrong but I can't?

Yes, but they do. They are simply using the word "God," just as the original uses the word theos in both instances.

The use of the word "God" does not necessarily signify that the Word is the same being as the God the Word is with.

Properly understood, it should be taken for granted that the Word and the God He is with are not identical as to person. The Father and the Word are not one and the same.

A professor of Koine Greek for many, many years, Kenneth Wuest translated 1: 1,2 this way: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity. This Word was in the beginning in fellowship with God the Father."

Here are some of the ways in which good translators have captured the meaning of the last phrase of John 1:1--

1) (Revised English Bible)-- "and what God was, the word was."

2) William Barclay-- ".. and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God."

3) Andy Gaus-- "... and God was what the Word was."

I can accept all of these as good and as reflecting the original.

They don't at all contradict the way it is translated by the New American Standard Bible or the KJV. All are saying the same thing. They are saying Jesus is Deity and of the same quality or nature as the Father.