How to defend the trinity!

[OzSpen]

The teachers Jesus is with do not need the schools of men to have truth. The Pharisees back in Jesus day sound like you. They said its impossible for Jesus and the apostles to be spiritual teachers, they did not attend their schools of men. We all see where the schools of men got them=living in darkness. Jesus provides holy spirit to his teachers. Its all they need to have truth. Not much truth is found in the schools of men. Dogma is.

keiw1,

You can't even get your English grammar correct. "They said its impossible for Jesus...." should read, "They said it's impossible for Jesus...." Also, "its all they need to have truth" should read, "it's all they need to have truth." Please learn correct punctuation when you use an abbreviation.

Oz

 

[Free]

Of course you dont, you do not know him.

That’s a violation of the ToS. Say it again and I’ll report you.

He tells you there you need to listen to him,8:32-34) it is not God speaking, who else in the bible are we told to listen to= Jesus. Who else came to be beside God as his master worker then? Enlighten us all please, since you know its not Jesus.

It’s just the personification of Wisdom. Notice that in verse 1 wisdom is female. But we know from the NT that Jesus was not created. Among the passages that tell us are John 1:1-3. The Greek word usage and grammar in verse 1 make it clear that the Word was in existence prior to creation, that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Verse 3 supports this by stating on that “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” The only logical conclusion is that the Word was not made. That means the Word was always in existence, which is an attribute of God alone.

 

[pierac]

Why do you continue to ignore the points I made? You keep repeating this error even though I have given sufficient proof that it is false, and I could give more.

Who is Jesus? Who is the Son of God?

Perhaps... I can help

Son of God - This title for Jesus has been given meanings and attributes that were never intended. People have erroneously used the human father-son relationship to describe this title of Jesus’. They have thought that since a human son has the actual essence (made of the same matter) of his father, that therefore, this title implies that Jesus being the Son of God is of the same essence of God. This conclusion will lead you right into the Doctrine of the Trinity. This is the formula they adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD when they said:

"The Son is of the same substance as the Father."

It was at this council that Jesus was first made God. The Holy Spirit interestingly enough was not included in the formula. It was included fifty-six years later at another council. Let’s see what this title really means:

Son of God - In the Old Testament Israel is described as God’s first-born (Exodus 4:22) and is called His son. There is therefore precedence for calling the Messiah "Son of God" for he is Israel’s representative par excellence (ZEB, vol.4, pg.203-204).

"Son of God" denotes an intimate relationship with the Father. It is obvious that sonship must not be understood in a crude pagan way. This bears out Dalman’s contention that the Hebrew concept of "son" does not denote an extensive circle of relationships" (ZEB, vol.4, pg. 205). Adam was called the "son of God" (Luke 3:38), God calls King Solomon His "son" in 1 Chronicles 28:6.

For Paul, "Son of God" is essentially a Christological description expressing "the Son’s solidarity with God" (ZEB, vol.4, pg.204). Closeness to the Father is the basic meaning of "Son of God"(Ibid). This closeness was a relationship that was shared by God’s anointed kings of Israel. Since Jesus is the ideal king of Israel, he is naturally the ideal Son of God. This is how the term came to be synonymous with Messiah and king of Israel. They are all different ways of saying the same thing.

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible vol. 4 pg. 204 states:

"The last chapter of the first epistle of John makes every possible emphasis upon the principle that Sonship is the mark of Messiahship. The same is the case with the fourth gospel where the Son of God is synonymous with Messiah and occurs more frequently than any other title. Haenchen maintains that the same equation:

Messiah = Son of God = Son of Man

applies to Mark’s gospel. The same can be said of the rest of the New Testament."

Aspects of Monotheism pg.90 states:

"The notion that the Davidic king was the son of God is well established in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Samuel 7:14 and in Psalm 2:7. It was only natural then that the coming messianic king should also be regarded as the Son of God. To say that the king was the son of God, however, does not necessarily imply divinization."

This is the meaning of the title "Son of God." Messiah = Son of God = king of Israel = Son of Man. The Messiah does have the closest and most intimate relationship with the Father. Let’s take a look at some verses to confirm this.

"The kings of the earth rise up, and the princes conspire together against the LORD and His anointed (Messiah)"… "I myself have set up my king on Zion (Israel)"… "The LORD said to me, "You are my son" (Psalm 2:2,6-7).

Here we see God speaking of the Messiah using all three titles; Messiah, king of Zion, and son.

"He first found his own brother and told him, "We have found the Messiah"…"Rabbi, you are the Son of God: you are the King of Israel" (John 1:41& 49).

John cannot be clearer on this title; the Son of God is the King of Israel. This is the Jewish meaning of "Son of God." Any other definition will take away from the true meaning of the title into something that was never intended by its Jewish author.

YET..... Let's not forget the other Son of GOD!!

Luk 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Given that Jesus is the second Adam.... you have much to digest!!!

1Co 15:45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Pay attention how important this second Adam really is....

Act 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He (God) will judge the world in righteousness through a Man (Jesus... the second Adam) whom He (God) has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

Know....Jesus' place!!!
Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--

You have much to learn...
Paul

 

[pierac]

He stated "I Am" and that "before" Abraham was born. As in I existed before Abrahams birth.. I am not bringing in the God context as in I am that I Am. I am showing a I existed context and it is valid. Did I not give you enough translations? And I gave the intended context. "Before Abraham was born" I existed.

Considering all the other text that puts Jesus before all things and through whom all things were made it is consistent truth.

So your now telling us what Jesus meant, not what he said??? How do you presume to know the context?

Jewish “Ideal” Preexistence
In the English language, and certainly the way young people speak, we often speak about something that happened in the past as though it is happening in the present. For instance, a witness to a bank robbery might say, “And here I am standing in line minding my own business, when bursting through the door comes as a hooded bank robber. He tells us all to get on the floor. He waves his gun around and threatens us. Then he goes up to the teller and yells, ‘Give me the money!’” We understand the events described occurred in the past, even though the narrative is in the present. Speaking of past events in the present is a peculiarity of the English language.

Most languages have peculiarities. The Hebrew mind and language has a peculiarity that English speakers are not accustomed to. They do the opposite of what I have just described. They often use the past tense or the present tense to speak of events yet future. The reason is that the Jews believed that whatever was determined in the mind of God existed before it came to be in history. God is the God who calls the things which do not exist as (already) existing (Rom. 4:17). God promised Abraham that He would give him the promised land and that he would be the father of many descendents. So sure is the fulfillment that sometimes the predictive language is in the past tense, as though it were already accomplished: “To your descendents I “have given” this land” (Gen 15:18). It came to be a common feature of Hebrew thinking that whatever God had decreed already preexisted (in plan and purpose) before it materialized on earth. “When the Jews wished to designate something as predestined, he spoke of it as already existing in heaven".

Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ “was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times” for our sakes who believe in God's word (1Pet. 1:20). This does not mean that Jesus personally preexisted his appearance on earth, because in the same chapter we find that Christians have also been in the “foreknowledge of God the Father” (1Pet. 1:2). The words “foreknowledge” and “foreknown,” noun and verb, are exactly alike. Peter uses precisely the same idea to refer to both Christians and Jesus. Christians do not preexisted heaven before our birth on earth nor did Jesus.

Similarly, the Bible speaks of Jesus as the Lamb of God who was crucified before the world began (Rev.13:8). Every Bible reader of course knows that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate in Palestine in the first century. But God ordained his crucifixion to happen before he even created the universe. Therefore, in God's mind, and in the Hebrew understanding, that which came to be had already been. The prophetic future was spoken of in the past tense. What God has decreed, He says is as good as done.

In John 17, Jesus prays just before his arrest in the garden, “I glorify You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given me to do. And now, glorify me together with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” (v.4-5) If ever there was a statement that proved the personal preexistence of Jesus with the Father in heaven before he came to earth, surely this is it. Once again, we must caution against haste, for “In Biblical ways of speaking and thinking one may ‘have’ something which is promised in God's plan before one actually has its.” We have already seen this principle in operation, where God's plan of promises are spoken in the “prophetic past tense.” God promised Abraham, “I have given you this land.” God says to Christians, “You are seated with Christ in the heavenlies; you are already glorified (Eph. 2:6; Rom.8:30).

We have these things already in the plan and purpose of God -- even though we do not (yet) have them! Scripture tells us that we have eternal life as a present possession, even though clearly we await the day of our entrance into the life of the Age to come, whether by resurrection for those already dead, or the rapture of the living, when Christ returns. God calls the things that are not as though they already exist (Rom. 4:17). Clearly, in Hebrew thinking, the glory which Jesus had “with” God before the world was, it is the glory that it was present in God's mind and purpose from the beginning.

When we examine the rest of Jesus's prayer, it becomes quite clear that the glory Jesus claimed to have had “with the father before the world was” is a glory in prospect. Jesus is using the peculiar Hebrew way of thinking and speaking by which the past tense is employed to speak of the future. To confirm this all we need to do is follow Jesus’ prayer through. Jesus speaks as though he has already accomplished his work: he says I have “accomplished a work which you have gave me to do” (v.4). Quite obviously he has not actually finish the work because his crucifixion has not yet happened, and his cry from the cross, “It is finished,” has not yet been uttered. Next, Jesus speaks as though the disciples have already fully glorified him (through their preaching ministry) even though the resurrection has not yet happened: he prays, “I have been glorified in them” (v.10).

Jesus also says “I am no more in the world” (v.11) even though he clearly is still in the world. In his own mind, he is already, by faith in the father's promise, sitting in heaven having been resurrected. Jesus says he has already sent the disciples into the world to preach: he prays, “I have sent them into the world” (v.18), even though this did not fully happen until after the resurrection. Jesus prays for his disciples, and “for those also who[will] believed in me through their word” (v.20). That is, he prays for subsequent generations of Christians who will come to faith in Christ down the track. He prays that “the glory which You have given me I have given to them (v.22). He prays that all these believers “which you have given me” (the whole future community of faith) may behold my glory, which You have given me; for You did love [choose] me before the foundation of the world (v.24).

One day the Lord Jesus at his second coming will say to his own people, “Come, you who are blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt 25:34). In Paul’s language this hope is “laid up for you in heaven” which means it is in God’s promise and plan and is certain of fulfillment (Col. 1:5). This hope is so certain that Paul can even speak of Christians as already glorified (Romans 8:29–30, noting the past tense). Indeed, this plan hatched in God’s mind “according to His own purpose in grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity” (2 Tim 1:9). Dunn, in his book, Christology in the Making p238 adds: “The gift was purposed ‘ages ago,’ unless we are to take it that the actual giving and receiving, ‘us’ and ‘Christ Jesus’ were all alike preexistent.” This hope of Christians entering into the age to come was “promised long ages ago” (Tit 1:2). Dunn continues p238.

“Here it is even clearer that what is thought of as happening “ages ago” is God’s promise; and it is that promise of eternal life which has been manifested. Indeed, the text says it is his word that he has manifested - that is, not Christ the Logos, but the word of promise, fulfilled in Christ and offered now back in the kerygma [ message]. In other words, we are back where we started – Christ as the content of the word of preaching, the embodiment of the predetermined plan of salvation, the fulfillment of the divine purpose.”

Randy... You really need to study harder!!!
Paul

 

[Free]

Perhaps... I can help

Son of God - This title for Jesus has been given meanings and attributes that were never intended. People have erroneously used the human father-son relationship to describe this title of Jesus’. They have thought that since a human son has the actual essence (made of the same matter) of his father, that therefore, this title implies that Jesus being the Son of God is of the same essence of God. This conclusion will lead you right into the Doctrine of the Trinity. This is the formula they adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD when they said:

"The Son is of the same substance as the Father."

It was at this council that Jesus was first made God. The Holy Spirit interestingly enough was not included in the formula. It was included fifty-six years later at another council. Let’s see what this title really means:

Son of God - In the Old Testament Israel is described as God’s first-born (Exodus 4:22) and is called His son. There is therefore precedence for calling the Messiah "Son of God" for he is Israel’s representative par excellence (ZEB, vol.4, pg.203-204).

"Son of God" denotes an intimate relationship with the Father. It is obvious that sonship must not be understood in a crude pagan way. This bears out Dalman’s contention that the Hebrew concept of "son" does not denote an extensive circle of relationships" (ZEB, vol.4, pg. 205). Adam was called the "son of God" (Luke 3:38), God calls King Solomon His "son" in 1 Chronicles 28:6.

For Paul, "Son of God" is essentially a Christological description expressing "the Son’s solidarity with God" (ZEB, vol.4, pg.204). Closeness to the Father is the basic meaning of "Son of God"(Ibid). This closeness was a relationship that was shared by God’s anointed kings of Israel. Since Jesus is the ideal king of Israel, he is naturally the ideal Son of God. This is how the term came to be synonymous with Messiah and king of Israel. They are all different ways of saying the same thing.

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible vol. 4 pg. 204 states:

"The last chapter of the first epistle of John makes every possible emphasis upon the principle that Sonship is the mark of Messiahship. The same is the case with the fourth gospel where the Son of God is synonymous with Messiah and occurs more frequently than any other title. Haenchen maintains that the same equation:

Messiah = Son of God = Son of Man

applies to Mark’s gospel. The same can be said of the rest of the New Testament."

Aspects of Monotheism pg.90 states:

"The notion that the Davidic king was the son of God is well established in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Samuel 7:14 and in Psalm 2:7. It was only natural then that the coming messianic king should also be regarded as the Son of God. To say that the king was the son of God, however, does not necessarily imply divinization."

This is the meaning of the title "Son of God." Messiah = Son of God = king of Israel = Son of Man. The Messiah does have the closest and most intimate relationship with the Father. Let’s take a look at some verses to confirm this.

"The kings of the earth rise up, and the princes conspire together against the LORD and His anointed (Messiah)"… "I myself have set up my king on Zion (Israel)"… "The LORD said to me, "You are my son" (Psalm 2:2,6-7).

Here we see God speaking of the Messiah using all three titles; Messiah, king of Zion, and son.

"He first found his own brother and told him, "We have found the Messiah"…"Rabbi, you are the Son of God: you are the King of Israel" (John 1:41& 49).

John cannot be clearer on this title; the Son of God is the King of Israel. This is the Jewish meaning of "Son of God." Any other definition will take away from the true meaning of the title into something that was never intended by its Jewish author.

YET..... Let's not forget the other Son of GOD!!

Luk 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Given that Jesus is the second Adam.... you have much to digest!!!

1Co 15:45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Pay attention how important this second Adam really is....

Act 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He (God) will judge the world in righteousness through a Man (Jesus... the second Adam) whom He (God) has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

Know....Jesus' place!!!
Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--

No, this doesn't help. I was asking another user their specific beliefs about who Jesus is.

You have much to learn...

I know. We all do.

 

[pierac]

No, this doesn't help. I was asking another user their specific beliefs about who Jesus is.


I know. We all do.

Then you ignore scripture... your in good company!

How many many times... have I shown you the truth... Silly Child!

NASB Eph 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

Net Eph 1:11 In Christ28 we too have been claimed as God's own possession,29(G280) since we were predestined (G4309) according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will

29 tn Grk "we were appointed by lot." The notion of the verb κληρόω (klēroō) in the OT was to "appoint a portion by lot" (the more frequent cognate verb κληρονομέω [klēronomeō] meant "obtain a portion by lot"). In the passive, as here, the idea is that "we were appointed [as a portion] by lot" (BDAG 548 s.v. κληρόω 1). The words "God's own" have been supplied in the translation to clarify this sense of the verb. An alternative interpretation is that believers receive a portion as an inheritance: "In Christ we too have been appointed a portion of the inheritance." See H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians, 226-27, for discussion on this interpretive issue.

Word study
G2820
κληρόω
klēróō; contracted klērṓ, fut. klērṓsō, from klḗros (G2819), a lot. To cast lots, determine by lot, i.e., to determine something, choose someone. In Eph_1:11, it means, "in whom the lot has fallen upon us also, as foreordained thereto . . . to be" (a.t.). The idea expressed here is that Christians have become heirs of God due to the fact that God predestined them according to His purpose. In a manner of speaking, the "lot" fell to believers not by chance but solely because of the gracious and sovereign decision of God- Almighty to select them to be His heirs.

Deriv.: prosklēróō (G4345), to give or assign by lot.
Word study

G4309
προορίζω
proorízō; fut. proorísō, from pró (G4253), before, and horízō (G3724), to determine. To determine or decree beforehand (Act_4:28; Rom_8:29-30; 1Co_2:7; Eph_1:5, Eph_1:11). The peace of the Christian Church has been disrupted due to the misunderstanding which surrounds this word. It behooves the Church to consider the divinely intended meaning of this word by carefully examining the critical passages where it is used.

In 1Co_2:7 it has a thing as its obj., namely, the wisdom of God. The purpose was our glory, i.e., our benefits of salvation.

In Act_4:28 the verb is followed by the aor. inf. genésthai (gínomai [G1096], to be, become), to be done. The action of Herod and Pontius Pilate in crucifying Jesus Christ is said to have been predetermined or foreordained by the hand and will of God. This indicates that Christ's mission, especially His death and resurrection, was not ultimately the result of human will but originated in the eternal counsel of God which decreed the event determining all its primary and secondary causes, instruments, agents, and contingencies.

In Rom_8:29-30, predestination is used of God's actions in eternally decreeing both the objects and goal of His plan of salvation. Proorízō has a personal obj., the pl. relative pron. hoús, whom. This relative pron. refers to those previously mentioned as those whom God foreknew (proégnō [G4267]). The translation is, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate." The objects of predestination are those whom He foreknew. Predestination does not involve a predetermined plan only but also includes the individuals for whom the plan is devised. The goal of predestination is expressed in the phrase, "to be conformed to the image of his Son."

In Eph_1:5, Eph_1:11 this same purpose of foreordination is termed adoption. Adoption (huiothesía [G5206]) is the placing into sonship or legal heirship of those who are born of God. According to Eph_1:5 the basis of this prior decree is "the good pleasure of His will." The word rendered "good pleasure" is eudokía (G2107) and means pleasure or satisfaction, that which seems good. Paul is careful to add that it is the good pleasure of God's will, it is what seems good to God-not man. Similarly, in Eph_1:11 foreordination is based upon "the purpose (próthesis [G4286]) of the One who is working all things ([neut. acc. pl.] tá pánta [G3844], an idiom for the entire metaphysical and physical universe) according to the decision of His will" (a.t.). This same thinking is reflected in Rom_8:30 where foreordination is joined successively to foreknowledge. Here it is presented not as a capricious, arbitrary or whimsical exercise of raw will or unreasoned impulse, but as the expression of a deliberate and wise plan which purposes to redeem those undeserving sinners whom God freely favors as the objects of His mercy.

Because it is neither possible nor permissible for us to pry into God's secret counsel, it is not proper to be fixated with determining who the predestined are. Instead, we should contemplate the glories of what they are predestined to, i.e., salvation, adoption, or glory.

Syn.: protássō (G4384), to appoint before; procheirízō (G4400), to appoint beforehand; proetoimázō (G4282), to prepare before.

Seems... Your not Free after all... So MR... FREE have YOU been "appointed by lot"? It appears not from your post???


Paul

 

[Free]

Then you ignore scripture... your in good company!

How many many times... have I shown you the truth... Silly Child!

NASB Eph 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

Net Eph 1:11 In Christ28 we too have been claimed as God's own possession,29(G280) since we were predestined (G4309) according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will

29 tn Grk "we were appointed by lot." The notion of the verb κληρόω (klēroō) in the OT was to "appoint a portion by lot" (the more frequent cognate verb κληρονομέω [klēronomeō] meant "obtain a portion by lot"). In the passive, as here, the idea is that "we were appointed [as a portion] by lot" (BDAG 548 s.v. κληρόω 1). The words "God's own" have been supplied in the translation to clarify this sense of the verb. An alternative interpretation is that believers receive a portion as an inheritance: "In Christ we too have been appointed a portion of the inheritance." See H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians, 226-27, for discussion on this interpretive issue.

Word study
G2820
κληρόω
klēróō; contracted klērṓ, fut. klērṓsō, from klḗros (G2819), a lot. To cast lots, determine by lot, i.e., to determine something, choose someone. In Eph_1:11, it means, "in whom the lot has fallen upon us also, as foreordained thereto . . . to be" (a.t.). The idea expressed here is that Christians have become heirs of God due to the fact that God predestined them according to His purpose. In a manner of speaking, the "lot" fell to believers not by chance but solely because of the gracious and sovereign decision of God- Almighty to select them to be His heirs.

Deriv.: prosklēróō (G4345), to give or assign by lot.
Word study

G4309
προορίζω
proorízō; fut. proorísō, from pró (G4253), before, and horízō (G3724), to determine. To determine or decree beforehand (Act_4:28; Rom_8:29-30; 1Co_2:7; Eph_1:5, Eph_1:11). The peace of the Christian Church has been disrupted due to the misunderstanding which surrounds this word. It behooves the Church to consider the divinely intended meaning of this word by carefully examining the critical passages where it is used.

In 1Co_2:7 it has a thing as its obj., namely, the wisdom of God. The purpose was our glory, i.e., our benefits of salvation.

In Act_4:28 the verb is followed by the aor. inf. genésthai (gínomai [G1096], to be, become), to be done. The action of Herod and Pontius Pilate in crucifying Jesus Christ is said to have been predetermined or foreordained by the hand and will of God. This indicates that Christ's mission, especially His death and resurrection, was not ultimately the result of human will but originated in the eternal counsel of God which decreed the event determining all its primary and secondary causes, instruments, agents, and contingencies.

In Rom_8:29-30, predestination is used of God's actions in eternally decreeing both the objects and goal of His plan of salvation. Proorízō has a personal obj., the pl. relative pron. hoús, whom. This relative pron. refers to those previously mentioned as those whom God foreknew (proégnō [G4267]). The translation is, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate." The objects of predestination are those whom He foreknew. Predestination does not involve a predetermined plan only but also includes the individuals for whom the plan is devised. The goal of predestination is expressed in the phrase, "to be conformed to the image of his Son."

In Eph_1:5, Eph_1:11 this same purpose of foreordination is termed adoption. Adoption (huiothesía [G5206]) is the placing into sonship or legal heirship of those who are born of God. According to Eph_1:5 the basis of this prior decree is "the good pleasure of His will." The word rendered "good pleasure" is eudokía (G2107) and means pleasure or satisfaction, that which seems good. Paul is careful to add that it is the good pleasure of God's will, it is what seems good to God-not man. Similarly, in Eph_1:11 foreordination is based upon "the purpose (próthesis [G4286]) of the One who is working all things ([neut. acc. pl.] tá pánta [G3844], an idiom for the entire metaphysical and physical universe) according to the decision of His will" (a.t.). This same thinking is reflected in Rom_8:30 where foreordination is joined successively to foreknowledge. Here it is presented not as a capricious, arbitrary or whimsical exercise of raw will or unreasoned impulse, but as the expression of a deliberate and wise plan which purposes to redeem those undeserving sinners whom God freely favors as the objects of His mercy.

Because it is neither possible nor permissible for us to pry into God's secret counsel, it is not proper to be fixated with determining who the predestined are. Instead, we should contemplate the glories of what they are predestined to, i.e., salvation, adoption, or glory.

Syn.: protássō (G4384), to appoint before; procheirízō (G4400), to appoint beforehand; proetoimázō (G4282), to prepare before.

Seems... Your not Free after all... So MR... FREE have YOU been "appointed by lot"? It appears not from your post???


Paul

I haven't ignored anything. You stepped into the middle of a conversation, which is fine, but you completely ignored the context. You do the same with Scripture, so I suppose it's no surprise.

 

[pierac]

I haven't ignored anything. You stepped into the middle of a conversation, which is fine, but you completely ignored the context. You do the same with Scripture, so I suppose it's no surprise.

I accept your apology .... Glad you can admit when your wrong.

Paul

 

[keiw1]

keiw1,

You can't even get your English grammar correct. "They said its impossible for Jesus...." should read, "They said it's impossible for Jesus...." Also, "its all they need to have truth" should read, "it's all they need to have truth." Please learn correct punctuation when you use an abbreviation.

Oz

I dont worry about punctuation--i am in 8 sights like this. Sometimes i hurry.

 

[keiw1]

That’s a violation of the ToS. Say it again and I’ll report you.


It’s just the personification of Wisdom. Notice that in verse 1 wisdom is female. But we know from the NT that Jesus was not created. Among the passages that tell us are John 1:1-3. The Greek word usage and grammar in verse 1 make it clear that the Word was in existence prior to creation, that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Verse 3 supports this by stating on that “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” The only logical conclusion is that the Word was not made. That means the Word was always in existence, which is an attribute of God alone.

Catholicism translated what you read in your translation--You put your eternal life into their translating even though their own translating exposes them as false religion. Which means-they never had Jesus, satan started the religion that came out of Rome and has beat billions from centuries ago by them holding councils that altered Gods truth, thus they altered translation to fit those false council teachings. I showed its FACT- No trinity was ever served prior to 381 ce. Because they created it, it does not exist. It is satan posing as that false god to mislead and get worship. Trinity translations teach 2 different Gods, 2 different truths.

 

[OzSpen]

I dont worry about punctuation--i am in 8 sights like this. Sometimes i hurry.

I am concerned with grammar and punctuation as they tell me your understanding of the importance of grammar. Now I know you pay no attention to grammar because you are in such a rush on various sites. May I suggest you concern yourself also with people and their needs.

Oz

 

[Free]

Catholicism translated what you read in your translation--You put your eternal life into their translating even though their own translating exposes them as false religion.

I mostly use the ESV but often reference many others. What translation do you use?

 

[keiw1]

I am concerned with grammar and punctuation as they tell me your understanding of the importance of grammar. Now I know you pay no attention to grammar because you are in such a rush on various sites. May I suggest you concern yourself also with people and their needs.

Oz

I am somewhat confident, you understand english and i get my points across.

 

[OzSpen]

I am somewhat confident, you understand english and i get my points across.

English is spelled English and not english.

Oz

 

[keiw1]

I mostly use the ESV but often reference many others. What translation do you use?

The only translating that remained when the protestants translated( 1500,s) was Catholicism translating. All originals were gone. I use the New world translation, The only translators who had enough love and respect for Gods will to put his name back where God willed it to be. While all using Catholicisms form of translating, condemned the translators for standing up for Gods will over satans will, whose will had Gods name removed in about 7000 spots to mislead.

 

[Free]

The only translating that remained when the protestants translated( 1500,s) was Catholicism translating. All originals were gone. I use the New world translation, The only translators who had enough love and respect for Gods will to put his name back where God willed it to be. While all using Catholicisms form of translating, condemned the translators for standing up for Gods will over satans will, whose will had Gods name removed in about 7000 spots to mislead.

Ah. That explains everything. The translation that added words in places to change the original meanings. A translation that was not based so much on the manuscript evidence, but on the (erroneous) theological biases of the translation committee. It is a very poor translation.

 

[Randy]

Then you ignore scripture... your in good company!

How many many times... have I shown you the truth... Silly Child!

NASB Eph 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

Net Eph 1:11 In Christ28 we too have been claimed as God's own possession,29(G280) since we were predestined (G4309) according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will

29 tn Grk "we were appointed by lot." The notion of the verb κληρόω (klēroō) in the OT was to "appoint a portion by lot" (the more frequent cognate verb κληρονομέω [klēronomeō] meant "obtain a portion by lot"). In the passive, as here, the idea is that "we were appointed [as a portion] by lot" (BDAG 548 s.v. κληρόω 1). The words "God's own" have been supplied in the translation to clarify this sense of the verb. An alternative interpretation is that believers receive a portion as an inheritance: "In Christ we too have been appointed a portion of the inheritance." See H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians, 226-27, for discussion on this interpretive issue.

Word study
G2820
κληρόω
klēróō; contracted klērṓ, fut. klērṓsō, from klḗros (G2819), a lot. To cast lots, determine by lot, i.e., to determine something, choose someone. In Eph_1:11, it means, "in whom the lot has fallen upon us also, as foreordained thereto . . . to be" (a.t.). The idea expressed here is that Christians have become heirs of God due to the fact that God predestined them according to His purpose. In a manner of speaking, the "lot" fell to believers not by chance but solely because of the gracious and sovereign decision of God- Almighty to select them to be His heirs.

Deriv.: prosklēróō (G4345), to give or assign by lot.
Word study

G4309
προορίζω
proorízō; fut. proorísō, from pró (G4253), before, and horízō (G3724), to determine. To determine or decree beforehand (Act_4:28; Rom_8:29-30; 1Co_2:7; Eph_1:5, Eph_1:11). The peace of the Christian Church has been disrupted due to the misunderstanding which surrounds this word. It behooves the Church to consider the divinely intended meaning of this word by carefully examining the critical passages where it is used.

In 1Co_2:7 it has a thing as its obj., namely, the wisdom of God. The purpose was our glory, i.e., our benefits of salvation.

In Act_4:28 the verb is followed by the aor. inf. genésthai (gínomai [G1096], to be, become), to be done. The action of Herod and Pontius Pilate in crucifying Jesus Christ is said to have been predetermined or foreordained by the hand and will of God. This indicates that Christ's mission, especially His death and resurrection, was not ultimately the result of human will but originated in the eternal counsel of God which decreed the event determining all its primary and secondary causes, instruments, agents, and contingencies.

In Rom_8:29-30, predestination is used of God's actions in eternally decreeing both the objects and goal of His plan of salvation. Proorízō has a personal obj., the pl. relative pron. hoús, whom. This relative pron. refers to those previously mentioned as those whom God foreknew (proégnō [G4267]). The translation is, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate." The objects of predestination are those whom He foreknew. Predestination does not involve a predetermined plan only but also includes the individuals for whom the plan is devised. The goal of predestination is expressed in the phrase, "to be conformed to the image of his Son."

In Eph_1:5, Eph_1:11 this same purpose of foreordination is termed adoption. Adoption (huiothesía [G5206]) is the placing into sonship or legal heirship of those who are born of God. According to Eph_1:5 the basis of this prior decree is "the good pleasure of His will." The word rendered "good pleasure" is eudokía (G2107) and means pleasure or satisfaction, that which seems good. Paul is careful to add that it is the good pleasure of God's will, it is what seems good to God-not man. Similarly, in Eph_1:11 foreordination is based upon "the purpose (próthesis [G4286]) of the One who is working all things ([neut. acc. pl.] tá pánta [G3844], an idiom for the entire metaphysical and physical universe) according to the decision of His will" (a.t.). This same thinking is reflected in Rom_8:30 where foreordination is joined successively to foreknowledge. Here it is presented not as a capricious, arbitrary or whimsical exercise of raw will or unreasoned impulse, but as the expression of a deliberate and wise plan which purposes to redeem those undeserving sinners whom God freely favors as the objects of His mercy.

Because it is neither possible nor permissible for us to pry into God's secret counsel, it is not proper to be fixated with determining who the predestined are. Instead, we should contemplate the glories of what they are predestined to, i.e., salvation, adoption, or glory.

Syn.: protássō (G4384), to appoint before; procheirízō (G4400), to appoint beforehand; proetoimázō (G4282), to prepare before.

Seems... Your not Free after all... So MR... FREE have YOU been "appointed by lot"? It appears not from your post???


Paul

The context is given in Jesus's reply to His accusers.
Its not now nor have I changed nor have I added or taken away from what Jesus stated. He stated BEFORE Abraham was born I am. He is not stating He is God. He is stating He existed before Abraham was born. His accusers stated to Him out of their unbelief you are not yet 50 years old and you have seen Abraham.

You don't believe in a Jesus who was before the world began. It must take quite alot of unique study to swallow that camel. No I don't need to study more as I see quite well.

 

[keiw1]

Ah. That explains everything. The translation that added words in places to change the original meanings. A translation that was not based so much on the manuscript evidence, but on the (erroneous) theological biases of the translation committee. It is a very poor translation.

Thats what the darkness tells you. The ones supporting satans will by not putting Gods name back where he willed it. Then turning and condemning the ones who supported Gods will over satans will--that is the reality of it. Take a better look.

 

[Free]

Thats what the darkness tells you. The ones supporting satans will by not putting Gods name back where he willed it. Then turning and condemning the ones who supported Gods will over satans will--that is the reality of it. Take a better look.

Where is his name supposedly missing?

Let's look at a few passages from the ESV and compare them with the NWT. From the ESV:

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

1Co 8:6 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.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Now the NWT:

Joh 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

1 Cor 8:6 there is actually to us one God,d the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.

Col 1:16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,

Don't you find it interesting that the NWT agrees with the ESV in John 1:3 and 1 Cor 8:6 but then suddenly contradicts itself in Col 1:16-17, where "other" was added into the text. Why do you think the NWT contradicts itself? Why do you think "other" was added to Col 1:16-17, especially since "other" doesn't appear in the Greek manuscripts?

But, more than that, even using the NWT in John 1:3, we see that "apart from him not even one thing came into existence." The only logical conclusion then, is that the Word cannot be something that came into existence. Notice that this contradicts the NWT in John 1:1, since the Word is eternal and, therefore, cannot be "a god." Only God is eternal. Of course, as I have previously pointed out, the NT writers were strict monotheists, so from that alone we know it cannot be "a god."

And, it is worth pointing out that the NWT doesn't consistently translate Theos. You previously said: "Only the Father is called Ho Theos in the NT." That might be the case, but then why does the NWT also translate Theos for the Father? Right in John 1:18, it translates Theos as both "God" and "god." As I pointed out before, there are well over 200 instances of Theos translated as "God," not "a god."

The NWT is a bad translation that has led you astray.

 

[keiw1]

Where is his name supposedly missing?

Let's look at a few passages from the ESV and compare them with the NWT. From the ESV:

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

1Co 8:6 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.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Now the NWT:

Joh 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

1 Cor 8:6 there is actually to us one God,d the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.

Col 1:16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,

Don't you find it interesting that the NWT agrees with the ESV in John 1:3 and 1 Cor 8:6 but then suddenly contradicts itself in Col 1:16-17, where "other" was added into the text. Why do you think the NWT contradicts itself? Why do you think "other" was added to Col 1:16-17, especially since "other" doesn't appear in the Greek manuscripts?

But, more than that, even using the NWT in John 1:3, we see that "apart from him not even one thing came into existence." The only logical conclusion then, is that the Word cannot be something that came into existence. Notice that this contradicts the NWT in John 1:1, since the Word is eternal and, therefore, cannot be "a god." Only God is eternal. Of course, as I have previously pointed out, the NT writers were strict monotheists, so from that alone we know it cannot be "a god."

And, it is worth pointing out that the NWT doesn't consistently translate Theos. You previously said: "Only the Father is called Ho Theos in the NT." That might be the case, but then why does the NWT also translate Theos for the Father? Right in John 1:18, it translates Theos as both "God" and "god." As I pointed out before, there are well over 200 instances of Theos translated as "God," not "a god."

The NWT is a bad translation that has led you astray.

Every single spot in OT where-GOD or LORD all capitols, nearly 6800 places, every spot in NT where the OT is quoted and the name belongs in the OT.
Yes when God is mentioned alone he can be called Theos-But when another Theos( god) is mentioned in the same paragraph-HoTheos always to the true God. Your John 1:3 is a mistranslation as well. There are many of them to fit the error of a capitol G God in the last line at John 1:1. To fit the false council teaching that God is a trinity. No true follower ever served a trinity prior to 381 CE.