John 1:1

[yellowbird]

It is truly a one way street and it is very difficult, if not next to impossible to convert a JW.

With God, all things are possible. I say that from personal experience.

 

[teachccd]

Perhaps you should rephrase the question. At first I was asked why I should accept the gospel of John as inspired. After I responded with the facts that the councils merely acknowledged (not established) that John was inspired the question was switched to the book of Revelation.

The fact remains that Revelation was considered inspired until some cast doubt on it because they were anti-millennialist. The doubts were cast well after Revelation was included in the lists of books considered inspired, such as the Muratonian Fragment. As far as I am concerned if someone wants to prove a council canonized the book of Revelation they need to do more than make that claim. Let’s see the proof.

I have already proven early acceptance of the book.

The question remains: WHO established the canon (27 NT books) that we have today? You keep alluding to early acceptance. BY WHO???

WHO established the canon that we have TODAY???

Can I make my question any more clear??

 

[Dan_Parker]

The question remains: WHO established the canon (27 NT books) that we have today? You keep alluding to early acceptance. BY WHO???

WHO established the canon that we have TODAY???

Can I make my question any more clear??

The short answer is that God inspired the books and he also established the canon, in spite of efforts of some to cast doubt on legitimate books.

 

[teachccd]

The short answer is that God inspired the books and he also established the canon, in spite of efforts of some to cast doubt on legitimate books.

And so God used no humans to discern canonicity??

 

[Don_Schneider]

Dear Dan,

Thank you for your answer on the other thread. As you noted that you have unsubscribed to that thread in order to concentrate here, I am forced to pose my question to you here.

Within your answer to my query regarding the NWT translation of “This is my body,” which the NWT renders as: “This means my body,” are you indicating that when the Greek of that time period was written that the verb to be could mean either “is” or “means” and it was up to the reader to discern which the author intended from context? There was/is no separate word for “means?” I’m not educated in classical languages, so your answer is appreciated. There are indeed English words which can have radically different meanings that can be easily interpreted from context, though in some cases poor usage renders the meaning ambiguous.

Thanks much again.

Best regards,

Don

P.S. You have a website? If so, may I have the link, please?

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dear Dan,

Thank you for your answer on the other thread. As you noted that you have unsubscribed to that thread in order to concentrate here, I am forced to pose my question to you here.

**
Dan:**
Thanks for joining me here where discussion of Scripture should be given priority over other forms of debate.

Within your answer to my query regarding the NWT translation of “This is my body,” which the NWT renders as: “This means my body,” are you indicating that when the Greek of that time period was written that the verb to be could mean either “is” or “means” and it was up to the reader to discern which the author intended from context? There was/is no separate word for “means?” I’m not educated in classical languages, so your answer is appreciated. There are indeed English words which can have radically different meanings that can be easily interpreted from context, though in some cases poor usage renders the meaning ambiguous

Dan:
I can’t represent the entire corpus of NT Greek, but I did take the liberty of doing some searches this morning:

Here is the New Jerusalem bible which used hO ESTIN followed by the participle which means “translated.”
NJB Matthew 1:23 Look! the virgin is with child and will give birth to a son whom they will call Immanuel, a name **which means hO ESTIN **‘God-is-with-us’.

The word ESTIN is the third person form of EINAI (to be) and the same word as in our target verse. Note that BDAG says this would literally be "which means (hO ESTIN) when translated (MEQERMHNEUO)

BDAG MEQERMNEUW - Mostly in the formula** hO ESTIN MEQERMHNEUO which means (when translated)** (Theophilus: 296 fgm. 3 Jac.)Mt 1:23; Mk 5:41; 15:22, 34; J 1:41; Ac 4:36.

Let’s look at another where there is no participle to cloud the interpretation. :
NJB Matthew 9:13 Go and learn the meaning = TI ESTIN of the words: Mercy is what pleases me, not sacrifice. And indeed I came to call not the upright, but sinners.’

Note what BDAG says on this form:** BDAG ESTIN **- a. to show how someth. is to be understood is a representation of, is the equivalent of; eivmi, here, too, serves as copula; we usually translate mean, so in the formula TOUT ESTIN this or that means, that is to say

This is very similar:
NAB Matthew 127: with the particile TI = 7 If you knew what this meant TI ESTIN, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned these innocent men.

Here is one with no particle:
NJB Luke 20:17 But he looked hard at them and said, 'Then what does this text in the scriptures mean = ESTIN: The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone?

This one uses the infinitive form:
NAB Acts 17:20 For you bring some strange notions to our ears; we should like to know what these things mean. = EINAI"

Another with just ESTIN:
NJB Luke 8:11 'This, then, is what the parable** means = ESTIN**: the seed is the word of God.

Dan:
I would suspect that Greek being a very advanced and flexible language would have multiple ways to represent that something “means” something else, including the simple EINAI in the examples we have seen.

Thanks much again.

Best regards,

Don

P.S. You have a website? If so, may I have the link, please?

Dan:
Glad to do it. No, I don’t have a website.

 

[teachccd]

Why would the King James Version whereby mostly Protestants who do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist render the translation wiith the word “is” ? Are all of these scholars mistaken?

 

[teachccd]

With God, all things are possible. I say that from personal experience.

Oh boy, do I know that. I was just commenting on the difficulty level which one must deal…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

The short answer is that God inspired the books and he also established the canon, in spite of efforts of some to cast doubt on legitimate books.

Yes, He did. He did it through the councils of the Church that Christ founded. How else would you be able to hold those books in your hands. They didn’t fall form the sky as you seem to indicate…teachccd

 

[GottaGo12345678]

I make this post in another thread as a reply to a request to explain how I view John 1:1. Since it is really a different subject from the original thread I will use it to start a new one.

Originally Posted by tobinatorstark
Exactly why do you feel that way?? Assuming that you have an NWT, compare it to the KJV and Douay-Rheims John 1:1. See what you come up with. Two totally different doctrines

**
Dan:**
Perhaps you don’t understand how Jehovah’s Witnesses view John 1:1. We view the Word in John 1:1 as being presented as the spokesman of God in a similar manner to how Moses was the spokesman for God.

If one accepts a translation of “the Word was God” then I would view this as similar to how the NWT renders Ex 7:1

NWT Exodus 7:1 Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: "See, I have made you** God to Pharaoh**, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.

The KJV renders this verse:
KJV Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

In John 1:1 the Son existed in heaven with his Father before he became a human being. He was the Word or spokesman for his Father. He was not the Father nor was he a second God alongside his Father. The former would be modalism, the latter polytheism.

Interestingly, the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon financed by the Lutheran Missouri Synod says to compare Exodus 7:1 (LXX) to John 1:1.

The matter of John 1:1 is more a matter of interpretation than it is a matter of translation. That being said, I do believe that the Greek QEOS HN hO LOGOS (lit a god was the Word) is the best translation for the verse. Discussing that is beyond the scope of this short post.

You have not shared how you view John 1:1. Even amongst Trinitarians there is a large difference.

For example Catholic John L McKenzie, S.J.

Note that McKenzie is a Trinitarian and a Catholic who interprets John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 as examples where he feels the Son is called God with the definite article. But he agrees with Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus was “a divine being” and not “God” in John 1:1.

Dan

Hi Dan - nice to meet you

Why did the people want to stone Jesus? What was He claiming to be?

On the great commission at the end of Matthew; is the word “Name” singular or plural; as in “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”? Why do you think it is this way?

John 8:56-59 - 56 “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw {it} and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

John 10:29-33 29"My Father, who has given {them} to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch {them} out of the Father’s hand. 30 “I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, ***“For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out {to be} God.” ***

You have heard and seen it all before and unless you have extra Biblical revelation; then there is no way anyone can deny the deity of Jesus without condemning themselves.

 

[Dan_Parker]

GottaGo12345678
Hi Dan - nice to meet you

Dan:
You seem familiar. Do you have another nick on this board?

GottaGo12345678
Why did the people want to stone Jesus? What was He claiming to be?

Dan:
DRA John 19:7 The Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

GottaGo12345678
On the great commission at the end of Matthew; is the word “Name” singular or plural; as in “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”? Why do you think it is this way?

Dan:
It is distributive. It is not necessary to repeat the noun in this sort of construction. It is the same thing as in the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the holy spirit. I have recently posted on someone who claimed that it was the same name for all three. That is the argument used by Oneness Pentecostals who point to the half-dozen or so accounts in Acts where Christians baptized in the name (singular) of Jesus. Therefore they say the name of all three is Jesus, hence they are called Jesus-only by some. I don’t think you believe all three to be the same person, Jesus, do you?

GottaGo12345678
John 8:56-59 - 56 “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw {it} and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

Dan:
I have also recently posted on this in detail. I will get you the link. However you just posted a verse. What is your argument?

GottaGo12345678
John 10:29-33 29"My Father, who has given {them} to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch {them} out of the Father’s hand. 30 “I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, ***“For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out {to be} God.” ***

You have heard and seen it all before and unless you have extra Biblical revelation; then there is no way anyone can deny the deity of Jesus without condemning themselves.

**
Dan:**
You just posted another verse. What is your argument?

If it is that he was said to have called himself QEOS, please read my post in my .signature on monotheism. Men have been called QEOS/elohim as the representative of God (cp Ex 7:1 with John 1:1) but only the Father is called the one-God or only-God of Jewish/Christian monotheism.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Yes, He did. He did it through the councils of the Church that Christ founded. How else would you be able to hold those books in your hands. They didn’t fall form the sky as you seem to indicate…teachccd

That was not my point, of course. It was that no matter who was used, the actual canon was selected by God. He made it happen. Men did not decide that for themselves. He made sure of that. Paul said the Jews were used for the Hebrew Scriptures. They are no longer the true religion, are they?

 

[teachccd]

That was not my point, of course. It was that no matter who was used, the actual canon was selected by God. He made it happen. Men did not decide that for themselves. He made sure of that. Paul said the Jews were used for the Hebrew Scriptures. They are no longer the true religion, are they?

Fair enough. Then tell me by what means did God use to allow us to know which books were inspired text? Yes, God selected the canon but the first century Church did not have a blble. The Word of God was preached. Then the apostles and many others started to write many things down. Yes, God knew which writings were truly His word. But now I ask you, How did humans know which books were inspired? Who did God tell? There had to be unity in this decision since all Christians hold to the same NT canon. Who did God tell so that we know??

 

[teachccd]

GottaGo12345678
Hi Dan - nice to meet you

Dan:
You seem familiar. Do you have another nick on this board?

GottaGo12345678
Why did the people want to stone Jesus? What was He claiming to be?

Dan:
DRA John 19:7 The Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

GottaGo12345678
On the great commission at the end of Matthew; is the word “Name” singular or plural; as in “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”? Why do you think it is this way?

Dan:
It is distributive. It is not necessary to repeat the noun in this sort of construction. It is the same thing as in the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the holy spirit. I have recently posted on someone who claimed that it was the same name for all three. That is the argument used by Oneness Pentecostals who point to the half-dozen or so accounts in Acts where Christians baptized in the name (singular) of Jesus. Therefore they say the name of all three is Jesus, hence they are called Jesus-only by some. I don’t think you believe all three to be the same person, Jesus, do you?

GottaGo12345678
John 8:56-59 - 56 “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw {it} and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

Dan:
I have also recently posted on this in detail. I will get you the link. However you just posted a verse. What is your argument?

GottaGo12345678
John 10:29-33 29"My Father, who has given {them} to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch {them} out of the Father’s hand. 30 “I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, ***“For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out {to be} God.” ***

You have heard and seen it all before and unless you have extra Biblical revelation; then there is no way anyone can deny the deity of Jesus without condemning themselves.

Dan:
You just posted another verse. What is your argument?

If it is that he was said to have called himself QEOS, please read my post in my .signature on monotheism. Men have been called QEOS/elohim as the representative of God (cp Ex 7:1 with John 1:1) but only the Father is called the one-God or only-God of Jewish/Christian monotheism.

Dan,

You continue to quote from a bible given to you by the Catholic Church,. You have not shown me otherwise. On page 303 of “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial” it shows all of the Catholic Fathers’ catalogs of the Christian Greek Scriptures. ALL of these men wrote of CATHOLIC doctrine and many wrote on the Blessed Trinity. How can your organization use the resource when you do not believe the same way as the men who acknowledged the canonicity of the very bible that you claim? Have you READ St. Augustine? You accept his canon all while denying everything else he taught. He definitely accepts Jesus as true God.

Please, for the sake of everyone here, do not continue to copy and paste from all of the literature given to you and think for yourself. Who settled the canon of Scripture? So far your publications show me that it is the Catholic Church. If that is true then you must abide by Catholic teachings. And we teach that Jesus is true God and true Man. Jesus is consubstaintial with the Father. That comes from an early creed of the 4th century which was very needed to abolish the same denials that I see here.

Please, Dan, answer my question. Who settled the canon of the NT so that all Christians (unlike the disputed doctrines) have the same inspired text???

 

[GottaGo12345678]

GottaGo12345678
Hi Dan - nice to meet you

Dan:
You seem familiar. Do you have another nick on this board?

GottaGo12345678
Why did the people want to stone Jesus? What was He claiming to be?

Dan:
DRA John 19:7 The Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

GottaGo12345678
On the great commission at the end of Matthew; is the word “Name” singular or plural; as in “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”? Why do you think it is this way?

Dan:
It is distributive. It is not necessary to repeat the noun in this sort of construction. It is the same thing as in the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the holy spirit. I have recently posted on someone who claimed that it was the same name for all three. That is the argument used by Oneness Pentecostals who point to the half-dozen or so accounts in Acts where Christians baptized in the name (singular) of Jesus. Therefore they say the name of all three is Jesus, hence they are called Jesus-only by some. I don’t think you believe all three to be the same person, Jesus, do you?

GottaGo12345678
John 8:56-59 - 56 “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw {it} and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

Dan:
I have also recently posted on this in detail. I will get you the link. However you just posted a verse. What is your argument?

GottaGo12345678
John 10:29-33 29"My Father, who has given {them} to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch {them} out of the Father’s hand. 30 “I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, ***“For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out {to be} God.” ***

You have heard and seen it all before and unless you have extra Biblical revelation; then there is no way anyone can deny the deity of Jesus without condemning themselves.

**
Dan:**
You just posted another verse. What is your argument?

If it is that he was said to have called himself QEOS, please read my post in my .signature on monotheism. Men have been called QEOS/elohim as the representative of God (cp Ex 7:1 with John 1:1) but only the Father is called the one-God or only-God of Jewish/Christian monotheism.

Is Jesus Christ God?

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Fair enough. Then tell me by what means did God use to allow us to know which books were inspired text? Yes, God selected the canon but the first century Church did not have a blble. The Word of God was preached. Then the apostles and many others started to write many things down. Yes, God knew which writings were truly His word. But now I ask you, How did humans know which books were inspired? Who did God tell? There had to be unity in this decision since all Christians hold to the same NT canon. Who did God tell so that we know??

Hello

Where is pure unity? Only one place and one source and it is not a physical structure.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

You continue to quote from a bible given to you by the Catholic Church,. You have not shown me otherwise. On page 303 of “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial” it shows all of the Catholic Fathers’ catalogs of the Christian Greek Scriptures. ALL of these men wrote of CATHOLIC doctrine and many wrote on the Blessed Trinity. How can your organization use the resource when you do not believe the same way as the men who acknowledged the canonicity of the very bible that you claim? Have you READ St. Augustine? You accept his canon all while denying everything else he taught. He definitely accepts Jesus as true God.

Please, for the sake of everyone here, do not continue to copy and paste from all of the literature given to you and think for yourself. Who settled the canon of Scripture? So far your publications show me that it is the Catholic Church. If that is true then you must abide by Catholic teachings. And we teach that Jesus is true God and true Man. Jesus is consubstaintial with the Father. That comes from an early creed of the 4th century which was very needed to abolish the same denials that I see here.

Please, Dan, answer my question. Who settled the canon of the NT so that all Christians (unlike the disputed doctrines) have the same inspired text???

Dan:
God inspired the bible and settled the canon of the NT and made sure the men he entrusted did his will. (2Ti 3:16; Ro 3:2) That is my answer and I am sticking to it

As for Augustine, it is ironic you credit him with establishing a canon which includes verses like John 17:3 while doing his best to twist that verse to mean the Son is also true God. Murray J Harris exposes his eisegesis in his book Jesus is God, pages 258-259 in my edition. Harris is a Trinitarian who gives every advantage to verses where Jesus could be called God but he soundly refutes Augustine’s attempt as highly improbable and considers the text to be an Johannine idiom of Paul’s distinction between one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ (1Co 8:6).

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Dan_Parker:
You know, I do loathe quoting your words since they’re always within other people’s quotes and so do not show up easily. Since I’m rushing this off at the airport, I shan’t bother to copy and paste your words in.

“being” and “person” in everyday English are not exactly identical, even in common, everyday English. But since we’re discussing within a theological-philosophical paradigm, all the more we should be looking at the terms from this paradigm, where the terms are not synomous.

There was a homoiousian party at Nicea. However, the Fathers of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decided that only the term homousian correctly embodies the holy and apostolic faith. It may be only an iota, but the meaning is vastly different.

 

[teachccd]

Hello

Where is pure unity? Only one place and one source and it is not a physical structure.

Hello to you!

Obviously, but I was referring to unity in the esablishment of the New Testament canon, All Christians agree on the 27 books as being the complete inspired text.

 

[teachccd]

Dan:
God inspired the bible and settled the canon of the NT and made sure the men he entrusted did his will. (2Ti 3:16; Ro 3:2) That is my answer and I am sticking to it

That’s what the Mormons say about the Book of Mormon and the Muslems say about the Koran. Do you follow those as well? You follow a book because it says it’s inspired? Well then I’m here to tell you that the Caholic faith is the true faith and you need do nothing else but believe me since I said so…

You really showed everyone here your lack of knowledge regarding the canon of Scripture. It is because it says so is absolutely ridiculous and holds nothing. The Catholic Church settled the canon through councils that were guided by the Holy Spirit and maintained those books throughout the centuries of time. Sorry Dan but your forced fed theology falls apart here…teachccd