1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI agree with you to point. But when one of the Triune God comes the others come with Him.
Here's the whole passage:
John, to the seven churches in Asia: grace to you and peace from him
who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits
before the throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn
of the dead and ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us
and has freed us from our sins by his blo ther[/i], the Lord God is the
one who is almighty, not Jesus, in this passage.
Nemesio
For Jesus to come is for the Almighty to come. For the Almighty to come is for Jesus to come.
They are distinct. They are not seperate.
This is why the ancient Christian brothers came up with such a term - Trinity. They didn't sit around and think "Now what funny and difficult doctrine can we invent today to get everyone confused."
They came up with the term because they needed to defend the Christian faith against attacks such as those which said "Jesus is not God incarnate."
So I do not totally disagree with your ideas. But the placing of the passage immediately after the coming of Jesus Christ with the clouds I think means God the Almighty was setting His seal to John's writing that He, the Almighty in Jesus and as Jesus, was indeed coming.
Regardless, the previous proofs still stand firm.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioEverlasting Father, Eternal Father, Father of eternity. These are the reputable translations I have seen in English.
Rabbit season.
As I observed, the Hebrew doesn't in fact say that. You can continue
to assert it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's simply
not there.
Nemesio
Please try to answer the question.
How many Eternal Father/s are there in the Bible ?
Give me a number.
Originally posted by jaywillNothing in the passage indicates that Jesus is equivalent with God.
I agree with you to point. But when one of the Triune God comes the others come with Him.
For Jesus to come is for the Almighty to come. For the Almighty to come is for Jesus to come.
They are distinct. They are not seperate.
This is why the ancient Christian brothers came up with such a term - Trinity. They didn't sit around and think "Now what ...[text shortened]... sus and as Jesus, was indeed coming.
Regardless, the previous proofs still stand firm.
Nothing in the passage excludes the idea that Jesus and God have to
come together. The fact that the author speaks about Jesus and his
God and Father indicates that the author believes them to be separate.
It's quite simple, actually.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIf it is simple then tell us how many Eternal Fathers there are in the Bible.
Nothing in the passage indicates that Jesus is equivalent with God.
Nothing in the passage excludes the idea that Jesus and God have to
come together. The fact that the author speaks about Jesus and his
God and Father indicates that the author believes them to be separate.
It's quite simple, actually.
Nemesio
Give me a NUMBER.
Originally posted by jaywillI'm sure you've seen these translations in English. Those translations
Everlasting Father, Eternal Father, Father of eternity. These are the reputable translations I have seen in English.
were made by first assuming this passage refers to Jesus and then
translating based on that a priori assumption rather than giving a
translation that is faithful to the Hebrew and seeing if it applies to Jesus.
But to answer your question, there is one 'Everlasting Father.' However,
that's not what the Hebrew says. Just like Abraham and Moses are often
labeled 'Father,' all this passage is saying is that the one who is to come
will be 'father of the future,' as in serving his people in perpetuity.
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillHold your water. You get so impatient when someone disagrees with
If it is simple then tell us how many [b]Eternal Fathers there are in the Bible.
Give me a NUMBER.[/b]
you on a theological point. It's the internet, Jaywill. It takes a while
to type.
And I realize that it's frustrating to have someone who actually knows
the content of Scripture challenge your theological framework, but that
doesn't excuse your demanding tone. I've tried to be terse and informative,
and for the most part respectful. I'd appreciate it if you didn't bark out
orders like I owe you a damned thing.
Note, I've never said that I think your Trinitarian framework was evil or
sinful. It's just Creedal and not Scriptural.
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio================================
I'm sure you've seen these translations in English. Those translations
were made by first assuming this passage refers to Jesus and then
translating based on that a priori assumption rather than giving a
translation that is faithful to the Hebrew and seeing if it applies to Jesus.
But to answer your question, there is one 'Everlasting Father.' ome
will be 'father of the future,' as in serving his people in perpetuity.
Nemesio
I'm sure you've seen these translations in English. Those translations
were made by first assuming this passage refers to Jesus and then
translating based on that a priori assumption rather than giving a
translation that is faithful to the Hebrew and seeing if it applies to Jesus.
======================================
If that is the case how come I have before me a 1901 American Standard Bible published by the Watchtower Society, the publishing arm of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
It translated Isa. 9:6 -
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
The Wachtower Socienty and the JWs reject the Trinity and follow the teaching of Arius.
By the way, they eventually came up with their own translation - The New World Transaltion. This is probably what they all use today because it re-words certain embassessing passages to suite their doctrine.
But they at one time used the 1901 American Standard. In that very translation, and it is a good translation, that Mighty God and Almighty God are BOTH names for Jehovah.
Now, did you tell me how many Eternal Fathers there were in the Bible yet ?
How long will you dance around and away from giving me an answer ?
I did not ask about "father of Israel" or "father of creation" or "father of the future" or any other father you prefer to talk about.
I asked about the Eternal Father of Isaiah 9:6.
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillhe did tell you, perhaps you were so eager to discredit his rather logical and informative posts that you missed it, he said there is only one! well one everlasting father! whether this is the same i dont think that nemiso thinks that it is.
[b]================================
I'm sure you've seen these translations in English. Those translations
were made by first assuming this passage refers to Jesus and then
translating based on that a priori assumption rather than giving a
translation that is faithful to the Hebrew and seeing if it applies to Jesus.
======================== you prefer to talk about.
I asked about the Eternal Father of [b]Isaiah 9:6.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill
Now, did you tell me how many [b]Eternal Father's there were in the Bible yet ?
How long will you dance around and away from giving me an answer ?[/b]
I answered you. When you're upset at someone for disagreeing about
matters of faith, does it make you alexic or something?
I did not ask about "father of Israel" or "father of creation" or "father of the future" or any other father you prefer to talk about.
I asked about the Eternal Father of [b]Isaiah 9:6.[/b]
There is no 'Eternal Father' in the Hebrew of Isaiah 9:6. That is a backwards
formation from Christian translators of the Hebrew text. You're starting
to sound like ThinkOfOne with the 'bad fruit.'
It doesn't matter how many thousands of Christian translations you can
show me, the Hebrew does not say it. I've explained why. Your constant
'Duck season, Duck season, Duck season' refrain doesn't change this
fact (nor does it address it).
Nemesio
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am beginning from the premise that there is something being described by Jesus that is hard to understand and that it involves the Holy Spirit and his union with the Father somehow. This much I think is indisputable , do you agree?
''But John 1:1 is only one of many places which confirm the complete divinity of Christ.'', actually Jaywill it does nothing of the sort, not according to the Sahidic Coptic text, and i thank God and the ancient writers for having preserved this parchment, which, are of importance for the following reasons
"The Proto-Alexandrian text appears not t ...[text shortened]... ink
http://members.aol.com/__121b_WYasvgbNIFAF7G6zRA4Ohiz57qoemTjN
My premise is also that whatever he is describing is not explicitly stated and requires us to make sense of it. The Trinity is an attempt to do just that.
As for whether the Trinity exists , well - the Holy Spirit exists , Jesus exists , the Father exists - there is a relationship between the three is there not?
Hi jaywill, i tried but could not find any other instance where almighty god is termed eternal father, it would seem from my knowledge that it is a descriptive title of prophetic significance and applied with regard to Christ himself, exclusively, i cannot be certain however as perhaps somewhere else the Almighty is termed eternal father, but i myself cannot locate it, perhaps you have unwittingly proved the doctrine is erroneous for yourself!
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterummm, i would much rather you read the text and comment on the post rather than discussing something that rests on an assumption from the very beginning! but yes i generally find it hard to assimilate thoughts with something that is non existent, i find i need to use my imagination and thus enter the realms of fantasy
I am beginning from the premise that there is something being described by Jesus that is hard to understand and that it involves the Holy Spirit and his union with the Father somehow. This much I think is indisputable , do you agree?
My premise is also that whatever he is describing is not explicitly stated and requires us to make sense of it. The ...[text shortened]... sts , Jesus exists , the Father exists - there is a relationship between the three is there not?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have not said anything about why you think my premise is invalid. Why is my premise not logical?
ummm, i would much rather you read the text and comment on the post rather than discussing something that rests on an assumption from the very beginning! but yes i generally find it hard to assimilate thoughts with something that is non existent, i find i need to use my imagination and thus enter the realms of fantasy
Did Jesus ever explicitly sit down and explain the whole thing clearly? Of course he didn't , even the disciples were confused. If he had been explicitly clear about who he was and what the exactly was going on with him , the father and the Holy Spirit , then this thread would die out very quickly.
In any case , my premise does not start with the assumption that the trinity is true it starts with the assumption that Jesus is explaining someting to us that is not totally clear. The fact that there is so much widespread controversy about this proves my point. No-one here disputes that Jesus said he was the Messiah because he nailed that one very clearly , but the Holy Spirit? I don't think so.
What you also fail to understand that every position anyone holds is based on some kind of intial premise (whether acknowledged or otherwise).
3 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]Do you read ancient Hebrew fluently? Where did you get your education in translation of the Hebrew language ?
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]Now, did you tell me how many [b]Eternal Father's there were in the Bible yet ?
How long will you dance around and away from giving me an answer ?[/b]
I answered you. When you're upset at someone for disagreeing about
matters of faith, does it make you alexic or something?
I did not ask about "fath season' refrain doesn't change this
fact (nor does it address it).
Nemesio
I know the John Nelson Darby read and translated fluently ancient Hebrew. And the Darby translations reads "Father of Eternity".
I know that Kerry S. Robichaux fleuntly reads and translates ancient Hebrew. And the Receovery Version reads "Eternal Father"
Bingo, here's a translation in my library that reads "Father of Futerity" with a note that it could be "Father of Progress."
Is that what you like ? That's Joseph B. Rotherham's translation in the Emphazied Bible.
Okay, I see one translation there that has it the way you like. I'll look into that. I'll look into that.
My experience is that many trinitarians do not like the thought that the Son is called the Father. Without knowing it I think they unconsciously are Tritheists.
I have seen attempts to make the Father there always some other Father besides the Father of the Godhead they say:
"Oh that is the Father of the millennium" or
"Oh, that is the Father of Israel" or
"Oh no. That is the father of the age to come" or
"Oh, you see that is the Father of creation" or
"Oh, that is the Father of Futurity."
So now. You don't want three Persons in the Trinity. But you do want TWO or MORE Divine Fathers ??
Besides the Divine and Everlasting Father of the New Testament and Old Testament, how many other Divine Fathers are there? Do not mention Abraham for he is not divine.
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterno, you stated that it started from a premise, not me, i was only agreeing with you, and no i do not accept that Christ would teach us something mysterious, on the contrary, his teaching is noted for its simplicity and use of everyday illustrations and extreme lack of verbosity, so that ultimately the listener is left in no doubt as to the point of his teaching, i do not accept that the greatest teacher that has ever lived would do anything other than leave us with a clear understanding of truths concerning God, in fact the opposite of what you are saying is true, the mere fact that Christ never mentioned the trinity not taught truths in an ambiguous way should be enough for you to realise its pre christian pagan background.
You have not said anything about why you think my premise is invalid. Why is my premise not logical?
Did Jesus ever explicitly sit down and explain the whole thing clearly? Of course he didn't , even the disciples were confused. If he had been explicitly clear about who he was and what the exactly was going on with him , the father and the Holy Spi ...[text shortened]... s the Messiah because he nailed that one very clearly , but the Holy Spirit? I don't think so.
and i will repeat myself for the very last time, if you have a comment to make with regarding the sahidic coptic text and its refutation of John 1:1 as utilised by trinitarians to support their doctrine then please do so, otherwise what is there to discuss, as i have stated many times, nowhere is christ termed the almighty, nowhere, this is self evident and utterly and completely destroys the idea of a triune god, godhead or whatever other thing the trinitarians may wish to call/ define their doctrine by.