The soul of man

[OzSpen]

Ah, so you're not going to address the fact that Spirit is neuter.

This again demonstrates that you don't seem to understand the nature of gender in ALL Greek nouns. Mostly it does not refer to the sex of an individual.

As J W Wenham states in the introductory Greek text I use for students:

Gender. In English we distinguish four genders: masculine (to denote males), feminine (to denote females), neuter (to denote things), common (for words which can denote either males or females, e.g. "child"). Sometimes the feminine may be formed from a masculine stem by inflection, e.g. "priestess" from "priest".
In Greek, gender has to do with the form of the words and has little to do with sex. There are masculine, feminine and neuter forms, but "bread" is masculine, "head" is feminine, and "child" is neuter": J W Wenham 1965. The Elements of New Testament Greek. London: Cambridge University Press, p. 8.​

What you fail to point out is that with a language of declension and conjugation, like Greek, neuter gender, such as with pneuma (Spirit) is not the equivalent to English neuter gender. Why? Because every noun in Greek is either masculine, feminine or neuter gender. EVERY noun!

These differentiations must be pointed out so that English readers do not automatically equate Greek masculine nouns = male; Greek feminine nouns = female; Greek neuter nouns = thing.

In Greek, gender applies to other than nouns, including the definite article, adjectives, substantives and participles.

I do wish you would understand the nature of gender in the Greek language.

Oz

 

[Butch5]

I'd have to disagree with this thought process.
"The word was God..."
"The word became flesh"

"...All authority in Heaven and Earth has been given unto me"

"Hear oh Israel, The Lord, The Lord God is One."

"...Scripture cannot be broken..."

how you define the word God makes the difference.

 

[Butch5]

Same old same pld

This again demonstrates that you don't seem to understand the nature of gender in ALL Greek nouns. Mostly it does not refer to the sex of an individual.

As J W Wenham states in the introductory Greek text I use for students:

Gender. In English we distinguish four genders: masculine (to denote males), feminine (to denote females), neuter (to denote things), common (for words which can denote either males or females, e.g. "child"). Sometimes the feminine may be formed from a masculine stem by inflection, e.g. "priestess" from "priest".
In Greek, gender has to do with the form of the words and has little to do with sex. There are masculine, feminine and neuter forms, but "bread" is masculine, "head" is feminine, and "child" is neuter": J W Wenham 1965. The Elements of New Testament Greek. London: Cambridge University Press, p. 8.​

What you fail to point out is that with a language of declension and conjugation, like Greek, neuter gender, such as with pneuma (Spirit) is not the equivalent to English neuter gender. Why? Because every noun in Greek is either masculine, feminine or neuter gender. EVERY noun!

These differentiations must be pointed out so that English readers do not automatically equate Greek masculine nouns = male; Greek feminine nouns = female; Greek neuter nouns = thing.

In Greek, gender applies to other than nouns, including the definite article, adjectives, substantives and participles.

I do wish you would understand the nature of gender in the Greek language.

Oz

Same old same old.. You try to argue against what I said rather than the point of the statement. the point of the statement was that you emphasized the Holy Spirit was "He" by show the English "He" to infer that thr Spirit is a person. Nowhere in the Greek text is the Spirit referred to as "He".So, where is your evidence? in your article it seemed to me that you were mocking the questioner. Yet I don't see any evidence that what you said is valid

 

[OzSpen]

Same old same pld

Same old same old.. You try to argue against what I said rather than the point of the statement. the point of the statement was that you emphasized the Holy Spirit was "He" by show the English "He" to infer that thr (sic) Spirit is a person. Nowhere in the Greek text is the Spirit referred to as "He". So, where is your evidence? in your article it seemed to me that you were mocking the questioner. Yet I don't see any evidence that what you said is valid

This is what happens when you don't know Greek. What does John 16:13 in the Greek text state? 13 ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ, οὐ γὰρ λαλήσει ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ’ ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει, καὶ τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν.

Take the first clause, ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, transliterated as hotan de althe ekeinos, to pneuma tes aletheias. What's the meaning? 'when and/but comes he the spirit of truth'. So right here in this verse the pronoun 'he', ekeinos (masculine) is used to refer to the neuter noun with a definite article, 'the Spirit'. The NASB translates this clause as, 'But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes'.

You have the audacity to say: 'Nowhere in the Greek text is the Spirit referred to as "He". So, where is your evidence?' This is a false statement and I have here provided the evidence to demonstrate that the person, 'he', is used to refer to the neuter noun, pneuma, Spirit.

So, the fact is that a neuter noun (pneuma) in Greek is designated by the personal pronoun, he, i.e. ekeinos.

Learn to know Greek and then you will not make an incorrect statement like you have done here. The fact is: The Holy Spirit is referred to by the personal pronoun, 'he'.
Factual evidence provided!

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

how you define the word God makes the difference.

What is wrong with this definition and explanation of God?

Dictionaries - Smith's Bible Dictionary - God
God [N] [T] http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/god.html [E]
(good ). Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures two chief names are used for the one true divine Being--ELOHIM, commonly translated God in our version, and JEHOVAH, translated Lord . Elohim is the plural of Eloah (in Arabic Allah ); it is often used in the short form EL (a word signifying strength , as in EL-SHADDAI, God Almighty, the name by which God was specially known to the patriarchs. ( Genesis 17:1 ; 28:3 ; Exodus 6:3 ) The etymology is uncertain, but it is generally agreed that the primary idea is that of strength, power of effect , and that it properly describes God in that character in which he is exhibited to all men in his works, as the creator, sustainer and supreme governor of the world. The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty , or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God. Jehovah denotes specifically the one true God, whose people the Jews were, and who made them the guardians of his truth. The name is never applied to a false god, nor to any other being except one, the ANGEL-JEHOVAH who is thereby marked as one with God, and who appears again in the New Covenant as "God manifested in the flesh." Thus much is clear; but all else is beset with difficulties. At a time too early to be traced, the Jews abstained from pronouncing the name, for fear of its irreverent use. The custom is said to have been founded on a strained interpretation of ( Leviticus 24:16 ) and the phrase there used, "THE NAME" (Shema ), is substituted by the rabbis for the unutterable word. In reading the Scriptures they substituted for it the word ADONAI (Lord ), from the translation of which by Kurios in the LXX., followed by the Vulgate, which uses Dominus , we have the LORD of our version. The substitution of the word Lord is most unhappy, for it in no way represents the meaning of the sacred name. The key to the meaning of the name is unquestionably given in Gods revelation of himself to Moses by the phrase "I AM THAT I AM," ( Exodus 3:14 ; 6:3 ) We must connect the name Jehovah with the Hebrew substantive verb to be , with the inference that it expresses the essential, eternal, unchangeable being of Jehovah. But more, it is not the expression only, or chiefly, of an absolute truth: it is a practical revelation of God, in his essential, unchangeable relation to this chosen people, the basis of his covenant.

[N] indicates this entry was also found in Nave's Topical Bible
[T] indicates this entry was also found in Torrey's Topical Textbook
indicates this entry was also found in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
[E] indicates this entry was also found in Easton's Bible Dictionary (source, BibleStudyTools).

 

[jasonc]

 

[OzSpen]

What are you enjoying with your popcorn? A biblical definition of God?

How would you define God beyond what is in Scripture and what was summarised in that article?

Do you have a quick summary of who God is?

Oz

 

[jasonc]

What are you enjoying with your popcorn? A biblical definition of God?

How would you define God beyond what is in Scripture and what was summarised in that article?

Do you have a quick summary of who God is?

Oz

I was anti Trinitarian. your arguments are correct but if she wont see it, she wont.

 

[Jim Parker]

It's not polytheism.

If the two different beings are not the same God (deity) then they are two different Gods.
That is polytheism (more than one God) The prefix "poly" means "many."
Christianity is now and has always been monotheistic. The prefix "mono" means "one."
There was never a time when any orthodox Christian taught that Jesus and the Father were two different Gods.
If you believe that Jesus and the Father are two different Gods than your belief is outside the realm of Christianity.

Instead of just repeating the argument why don't you guys start addressing some of the problems I've presented to you?

The biggest problems you have presented are your profound confusion and your inadequate command of the English language.
We are not able to effectively address those issues.

 

[Butch5]

If the two different beings are not the same God (deity) then they are two different Gods.
That is polytheism (more than one God) The prefix "poly" means "many."
Christianity is now and has always been monotheistic. The prefix "mono" means "one."
There was never a time when any orthodox Christian taught that Jesus and the Father were two different Gods.
If you believe that Jesus and the Father are two different Gods than your belief is outside the realm of Christianity.

The biggest problems you have presented are your profound confusion and your inadequate command of the English language.
We are not able to effectively address those issues.

That's a pretty bold statement coming from someone who argues that one being consists of three other beings. You wanna talk about profound confusion? I have asked you guys repeatedly to prove this and no one has been able to do so. Posting a passage that refers to Jesus as God doesn't prove that He and the Father are one being. I can't even believe we're having such a discussion. That idea defies the laws of logic I've pointed out repeatedly that the argument you guys are making is "Begging the Question". The reason you guys think posting a passage that refers to Jesus as God is evidence to prove your point is because you already come to the text believing that Jesus and God are the same being. That's "Begging the question".

So, we have a fallacious argument that draw a conclusion that is a logical contradiction. And you saying I'm profoundly confused? Really? Everything I've said can be seen in both the Scriptures and in the earliest Christian writings. It all makes sense and it all fits with the Scriptures.

Regarding Polytheism, if you read the creed it say theos from theos. Being of one substance or essence with the Father. Two being of the same essence, theos.

It's you guys that have to worry about polytheism. Apparently you guys have four Gods. You have the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the composite God. I know, I know, they are one God. Let's be real, that's just playing word games. If the Father is God and Jesus is God you have two Gods. If the Holy Spirit is God, you have three Gods. You can say they are one God until the cows come home, but the bottom line is that 1+1+1=3. It "NEVER" equals one, never.

Let me ask you a question that has thus far gone unanswered. If Jesus is God Almighty, how can He have a God?

 

[Butch5]

What is wrong with this definition and explanation of God?

That's a fine definition and explanation of the God of Israel. However, it doesn't fit for the gods of the Heathen. The definition of the word theos, god, has to fit every use of the word.

 

[Butch5]

This is what happens when you don't know Greek. What does John 16:13 in the Greek text state? 13 ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ, οὐ γὰρ λαλήσει ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ’ ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει, καὶ τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν.

Take the first clause, ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, transliterated as hotan de althe ekeinos, to pneuma tes aletheias. What's the meaning? 'when and/but comes he the spirit of truth'. So right here in this verse the pronoun 'he', ekeinos (masculine) is used to refer to the neuter noun with a definite article, 'the Spirit'. The NASB translates this clause as, 'But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes'.

You have the audacity to say: 'Nowhere in the Greek text is the Spirit referred to as "He". So, where is your evidence?' This is a false statement and I have here provided the evidence to demonstrate that the person, 'he', is used to refer to the neuter noun, pneuma, Spirit.

So, the fact is that a neuter noun (pneuma) in Greek is designated by the personal pronoun, he, i.e. ekeinos.

Learn to know Greek and then you will not make an incorrect statement like you have done here. The fact is: The Holy Spirit is referred to by the personal pronoun, 'he'.
Factual evidence provided!

Oz

I could post other passages that speak of the Spirit as He. However, that doesn't mean the translation is correct. All you've done here is post a translation. That's why in the other post I said in the Greek text. You've given no valid reason why the passage should be translated as He instead of it.

 

[Free]

I have asked you guys repeatedly to prove this and no one has been able to do so. Posting a passage that refers to Jesus as God doesn't prove that He and the Father are one being. I can't even believe we're having such a discussion. That idea defies the laws of logic I've pointed out repeatedly that the argument you guys are making is "Begging the Question". The reason you guys think posting a passage that refers to Jesus as God is evidence to prove your point is because you already come to the text believing that Jesus and God are the same being. That's "Begging the question".

We point to passages that show Jesus is God precisely because that is what those very passages show. I posted much on this and you dismissed it all without even addressing it.

Scripture is abundantly clear that there is only one being that is God. That is completely without question. Scripture is also very clear that Jesus shares the same attributes and titles, hence we have no choice but to understand that he is also the one God, as only the one true God has the attributes of God.

So, no, it isn't begging the question. We could lay the same charge against you but it gets us nowhere.

So, we have a fallacious argument that draw a conclusion that is a logical contradiction. And you saying I'm profoundly confused? Really? Everything I've said can be seen in both the Scriptures and in the earliest Christian writings. It all makes sense and it all fits with the Scriptures.

As has been pointed out, you are continually ignoring context. And has been pointed out, yet you fail to understand, is that you continually post a straw man definition of the Trinity. This does make it easier for you to dismiss it but if you want to talk fallacies, that is a blatant one. There is no contradiction in the way that the doctrine is stated. I said it was worded specifically and you agreed. But that specific wording is made to avoid the very wording you are intent on changing it to, which would indeed make it contradictory.

If you want to debate the Trinity, then you must debate the Christian Trinity as revealed in Scripture, not the one you are intent on making up.

Regarding Polytheism, if you read the creed it say theos from theos. Being of one substance or essence with the Father. Two being of the same essence, theos.

Do you believe that there are two distinct Gods?

It's you guys that have to worry about polytheism. Apparently you guys have four Gods. You have the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the composite God. I know, I know, they are one God. Let's be real, that's just playing word games. If the Father is God and Jesus is God you have two Gods. If the Holy Spirit is God, you have three Gods. You can say they are one God until the cows come home, but the bottom line is that 1+1+1=3. It "NEVER" equals one, never.

Firstly, you are here again ignoring the specific wording of the doctrine of the Trinity. Secondly, 1*1*1=1. Adding 1s presumes each is a separate God, which is wrong.

Let me ask you a question that has thus far gone unanswered. If Jesus is God Almighty, how can He have a God?

How about providing me with some answers? I have given much that you have not responded to. Don't complain no one is answering you when you are doing the very same. You ask this question because you fail to understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Free]

I could post other passages that speak of the Spirit as He. However, that doesn't mean the translation is correct. All you've done here is post a translation. That's why in the other post I said in the Greek text. You've given no valid reason why the passage should be translated as He instead of it.

He clearly gave a valid reason. I see a pattern emerging with you. Whenever a strong argument against your position is given, you dismiss it without actually addressing it. That's not good.

 

[Jim Parker]

That's a pretty bold statement coming from someone who argues that one being consists of three other beings.

I didn't say that.
I said God has revealed Himself in three hypostases; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
That is not three separate beings as our word for "being" is commonly used.

I can't even believe we're having such a discussion.

Neither can I as it is obviously way beyond your capacity to comprehend.
As the trinity is beyond mine.
It is what the Church has always taught and believed (though it took a while to come up with the word "trinity.")
I have no interest in debating with someone who wants to argue with 2000 years of Christian teaching.
I have no interest in debating with someone who imagines he is more intelligent than Athanasius, the Capadocians, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and a host of other giants of theology.

You reject the trinitarian teaching of the Church and that places your beliefs (as sketchy as you have presented them) outside the realm of Christianity. The church has already dealt with all the heresies you employ. The records of those conflicts are available on line for your perusal. I see no reason to rehash heresies that have been dead and buried for over a thousand years because you think you're smarter than all of Christendom for the past 2000 years.

You have a nice day.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's a pretty bold statement coming from someone who argues that one being consists of three other beings. You wanna talk about profound confusion? I have asked you guys repeatedly to prove this and no one has been able to do so. Posting a passage that refers to Jesus as God doesn't prove that He and the Father are one being. I can't even believe we're having such a discussion. That idea defies the laws of logic I've pointed out repeatedly that the argument you guys are making is "Begging the Question". The reason you guys think posting a passage that refers to Jesus as God is evidence to prove your point is because you already come to the text believing that Jesus and God are the same being. That's "Begging the question".

So, we have a fallacious argument that draw a conclusion that is a logical contradiction. And you saying I'm profoundly confused? Really? Everything I've said can be seen in both the Scriptures and in the earliest Christian writings. It all makes sense and it all fits with the Scriptures.

Regarding Polytheism, if you read the creed it say theos from theos. Being of one substance or essence with the Father. Two being of the same essence, theos.

It's you guys that have to worry about polytheism. Apparently you guys have four Gods. You have the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the composite God. I know, I know, they are one God. Let's be real, that's just playing word games. If the Father is God and Jesus is God you have two Gods. If the Holy Spirit is God, you have three Gods. You can say they are one God until the cows come home, but the bottom line is that 1+1+1=3. It "NEVER" equals one, never.

Let me ask you a question that has thus far gone unanswered. If Jesus is God Almighty, how can He have a God?

Hi Butch,
I'm sorry I don't have more time.

You say no one has answered your question. You say we don't use logic.
How do you use logic when it comes to God? Why, you think you understand everything about Him?
Ecclesiastes 11:5

Ephesians 1:17 goes directly to what you're discussing here.
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.
Ephesians 1:17 | NIV

It states that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ may give to the saints of Ephesus the spirit of Wisdom.
As we know, when Jesus was on earth he prayed to the Father. So how could God be praying to God?

Jesus did not exist as Jesus before He was born of Mary. Jesus came into existence about 2,000 years ago.
However, Jesus, as the Word of God, as the thought of God, as the 2nd person of the Trinity, existed from the beginning of time.

In this way, Jesus can be both God, who existed forever and from the beginning, and he can also be our Lord, small L, and our Master - which is what Lord means, as you well know.

The very creeds which you use for support state that the 2nd person of the Trinity, was present from the very beginning.

First Council of Nicea (325)
..."And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
begotten of the Father, Light of Light, VERY GOD of very God,
begotten, NOT MADE, being of ONE SUBSTANCE with the Father.
BY WHOM ALL THINGS WERE MADE.

Did God Father not make all things? Then how could the begotten also have made all things?
Because Jesus is the thought of God and was always present with God, as a "part" of God, from the very beginning of time. HE WAS NOT CREATED, as some cults believe. Jesus was born. The WORD of God existed from all time.

Was Jesus the Word of God, the 2nd person of the Trinity?
John 1:1
John, an Apostle of Jesus and the most spiritual of all and the one who understood Jesus the best, claims that Jesus IS the WORD of God - this makes Jesus the 2nd person of the Trinity and it makes Him GOD.

If you check the Creed of the First Council of Constantinople (381) it says the same.
The Apostle's Creed states that Jesus is the only Son of God, as does the English text used at in the Roman Rite since 2011.

In a different post you had compared for me God and Jesus as to a King being of royal blood and his son being of royal blood. THIS IS NOT THE SAME.

The son of the King is a different person. He is not PART of the King. Jesus cannot be used in this analogy. JESUS IS GOD FROM GOD. He is of the ESSENCE of God.

Please study what the unique Son of God means. Please study what Begotten means.
Perhaps the other posters would be willing to get into this.

These, in any case, are words that we use to try to understand this being called God.

I repeat that Thomas called Jesus God and he knew the ramifications of what he was saying.

I also put forth Titus 2:13
"Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us" NASB

Is Paul not speaking of Jesus here?? Who gave Himself for us? Who will be appearing?

If you have decided to become a member of a cult, since you believe in polytheism, that is your privilege, but you cannot call yourself a Christian just because you say that Jesus is God.

In Christianity there is but ONE God.
Not two, or three.

(if you wish to reply, please explain what the Word means in John 1:1 if not the Word within God - also please explain Titus 2:13 - your understanding of it)

Wondering

 

[Mike]

I regret that there was not a willingness to consider biblical evidence in an antagonistic approach to disparage a core tenet of the Christian faith. This is an integral point in the Statement of Faith of CFnet. Honest discussion could have been fruitful. When there is no attempt to discuss with honesty, it is disruptive. There will be no more of this in this thread.

 

[OzSpen]

That's a fine definition and explanation of the God of Israel. However, it doesn't fit for the gods of the Heathen. The definition of the word theos, god, has to fit every use of the word.

You asked for a definition of God - not the gods of the heathen.

Will you make up your mind?2

 

[OzSpen]

I could post other passages that speak of the Spirit as He. However, that doesn't mean the translation is correct. All you've done here is post a translation. That's why in the other post I said in the Greek text. You've given no valid reason why the passage should be translated as He instead of it.

You are again demonstrating that you don't know and understand koine Greek of the NT.

What have you to post from the Greek NT into English? Can you do that without making a translation?

ekeinos is the masculine for 'he'. When will you get it?

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

What Butch is peddling:

By checking his profile, I found that Butch is peddling the teachings of the “Oasis Christian Church”,
8303 Jackson Springs Rd., Tampa, Florida 33615
http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/beliefs.html

I have cut and pasted what they teach from their website. It is in bold italics.

The Son of God: The Father brought forth (begat) a Son from His own essence, being 'The Beginning' of God's works,

That is the Arian heresy which makes Jesus a creature rather than God. Arius attempted to define Jesus according to the neo-Platonist teaching of being an “emanation from the monad.” It is one of the concepts which was encompassed in the teachings of Gnosticism in the 2nd century AD.

At the appointed time, He was baptized by John and was immediately anointed with a full measure of the holy Breath to empower Him to do miracles and accomplish the work the Father had appointed Him.

The Holy Breath of God: The holy Breath (Spirit) is a limited manifestation of God's power and presence within the creation, observing and hearing everything and extending His ability to manipulate nature. God's Breath is the "Anointing" which we have received from Christ, through which the Father and Son have a presence both in and among God's people.

This is another ancient heresy that the Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7th Day Adventist profess today. It denies the person of the Holy Spirit.

Conditional Immortality: God alone possesses immortality. All creatures are continuously dependent on Him for life itself. Man does not have an "immortal soul"; he IS "a living soul" -- a body animated by the breath of God -- a physical creature.

This heresy, that the soul is the body, is taught by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists.

The Total Destruction of the Wicked: ".

The annihilation of the wicked dead is another heresy taught by the JWs and 7thDAs

The nonsense that the council of Nicaea changed the original Christian teaching and "invented" the Trinity is also what you get from Jehovah's Witnesses.

So, now you know where Butch is coming from but wouldn't tell you you in so many words.

He, in accordance with the teachings of his church, denies the trinity. Therefore, his beliefs, as taught by the Oasis Christian Church of Tampa, Florida, are outside of orthodox Christian doctrine. They are simply a rehash of the teachings of the JWs.

jim