View Poll Results: would you call him/her a Christian

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes: Christian

    34 72.34%
  • no: not a Christian

    13 27.66%
Page 7 of 61 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141757 ... LastLast
Results 79 to 91 of 786
  1. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Quote Originally Posted by sysint View Post
    "They are exactly alike in nature"--

    Actually, I'd say not. The Holy Ghost has never existed as a person. The Father has never existed as a person. They are ontologically different. You would have to agree with that as you stated that Jesus could be away from the presence of where God the father was located. That also means God isn't omnipresent to you.
    You're sorta repeating what I said about Christ's uniqueness.

    They are each separate identities but still one God...the Triune God.

    I'm sure at this point that you want a fleshly explanation of how this is possible. Sorry to disappoint you. There is none. You see, He is God. God in 3 Persons but still one God. He defies fleshly, worldly explanation. If you cannot understand that, I cannot help you.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  2. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Eastern Washington
    Posts
    2,990
    Jesus' eternal nature means He had no beginning, and no end. He died both spiritually and physically, but he didn't cease to exist, His body did not see decay, and His spirit was rejoined with it 3 days later. Similarily, we too will die, but we will not cease to exist, we will all spend eternity somewhere.
    TB
    Everyone knows something I don't.

    2 Chronicles 7:14
    14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

  3. #81
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    Jesus was begotten. That means he had a beginning. The scriptures state begotten.

    Definition beget \Be*get"\, v. t. [imp. Begot, (Archaic) Begat; p. p.
    Begot, Begotten; p. pr. & vb. n. Begetting.] [OE.
    bigiten, bigeten, to get, beget, AS. begitan to get; pref.
    be- + gitan. See Get, v. t. ]
    1. To procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; --
    commonly said of the father.
    [1913 Webster]

    Yet they a beauteous offspring shall beget.
    --Milton.
    [1913 Webster]

    2. To get (with child.) [Obs.] --Shak.
    [1913 Webster]

    3. To produce as an effect; to cause to exist.
    [1913 Webster]


    "Similarily, we too will die, but we will not cease to exist, we will all spend eternity somewhere."So the ransom of Christ is for what purpose?

    Boot, an "explanation" of the dilemma of the nature of Christ in the Trinity is something you admitted having trouble with. The Catholics struggled with this early and came up with another doctrine to supplement the Trinity regarding called the hypostatic union. Let me know if you agree with that or not.

  4. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Quote Originally Posted by sysint View Post
    Jesus was begotten. That means he had a beginning. The scriptures state begotten.

    Definition beget \Be*get"\, v. t. [imp. Begot, (Archaic) Begat; p. p.
    Begot, Begotten; p. pr. & vb. n. Begetting.] [OE.
    bigiten, bigeten, to get, beget, AS. begitan to get; pref.
    be- + gitan. See Get, v. t. ]
    1. To procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; --
    commonly said of the father.
    [1913 Webster]

    Yet they a beauteous offspring shall beget.
    --Milton.
    [1913 Webster]

    2. To get (with child.) [Obs.] --Shak.
    [1913 Webster]

    3. To produce as an effect; to cause to exist.
    [1913 Webster]


    "Similarily, we too will die, but we will not cease to exist, we will all spend eternity somewhere."So the ransom of Christ is for what purpose?

    Boot, an "explanation" of the dilemma of the nature of Christ in the Trinity is something you admitted having trouble with. The Catholics struggled with this early and came up with another doctrine to supplement the Trinity regarding called the hypostatic union. Let me know if you agree with that or not.

    Yes. Begotten is correct when you speak of water birth. Christ was God water-born to a human. That was God's choice to do it that way so we cannot say, "Jesus does not understand. He has never been there." Well, Jesus is God and has experienced everything we have experienced (in the general sense...not the specific sense) and never sinned so we are without excuse.

    The ransom Christ paid was so we can spend eternity WITH the Father, rather than WITHOUT the Father.

    No, I have absolutley NO trouble with the Trinity. Can I explain it in fleshly terms? No. But you don't have to be able to explain in ANY terms how an escalator works to ride one, now do you?

    I am not Catholic. Naver have been. I am unfamiliar with the "hypostatic union". But I'll Google and get back.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  5. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Quote Originally Posted by sysint View Post
    Boot, an "explanation" of the dilemma of the nature of Christ in the Trinity is something you admitted having trouble with. The Catholics struggled with this early and came up with another doctrine to supplement the Trinity regarding called the hypostatic union. Let me know if you agree with that or not.
    Ah. Okay. "Hypostasis". A word used to "explain" the 3 in 1. I think it takes a good shot at the target but still misses.

    What difference does it make whether there is another word for Trinity? Either one believes or does not believe.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  6. #84
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    "Yes. Begotten is correct when you speak of water birth. Christ was God water-born to a human. That was God's choice to do it that way so we cannot say, "Jesus does not understand. He has never been there." Well, Jesus is God and has experienced everything we have experienced (in the general sense...not the specific sense) and never sinned so we are without excuse.

    The ransom Christ paid was so we can spend eternity WITH the Father, rather than WITHOUT the Father."


    The scriptures state Jesus is the firstborn of creation, God's only begotten son. He calls Jesus his only-begotten son. This makes sense because 1 Cor 8:6 says that every other thing is created through Jesus.

    On the doctrine of the hypostatic union it really has to do with the attempted explanation of how Jesus could be god and man. Again, have you looked at it and do you agree with it?

  7. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Quote Originally Posted by sysint View Post
    "Yes. Begotten is correct when you speak of water birth. Christ was God water-born to a human. That was God's choice to do it that way so we cannot say, "Jesus does not understand. He has never been there." Well, Jesus is God and has experienced everything we have experienced (in the general sense...not the specific sense) and never sinned so we are without excuse.

    The ransom Christ paid was so we can spend eternity WITH the Father, rather than WITHOUT the Father."


    The scriptures state Jesus is the firstborn of creation, God's only begotten son. He calls Jesus his only-begotten son. This makes sense because 1 Cor 8:6 says that every other thing is created through Jesus.

    On the doctrine of the hypostatic union it really has to do with the attempted explanation of how Jesus could be god and man. Again, have you looked at it and do you agree with it?
    John 1

    "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and God was the Word."

    "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."


    Whether I agree with Catholic doctrine is not the issue. The issue is,"Do you or I agree with God? Do you or I believe His Word?"

    Eternal life does hinge on Catholic doctrine. Therefore, it means absolutely nothing to me. You might as well ask if I agree with Paula Abdul's assessment of that guy named Hung. It means nothing to me.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  8. #86
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    Quote Originally Posted by bootlen View Post
    John 1

    "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and God was the Word."

    "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."


    Whether I agree with Catholic doctrine is not the issue. The issue is,"Do you or I agree with God? Do you or I believe His Word?"

    Eternal life does hinge on Catholic doctrine. Therefore, it means absolutely nothing to me. ...
    Catholic doctrine explains your position better than you can. What I'm saying is you really don't have an explanation.

    So, your basic Trinity scripture is John 1:1 of which you really have no understanding grammatically.

    Moffatt says "and the Word was divine" as there is the realization of not being able to call the Word god as the Father is definitively named god in the first part of the verse.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

    The literal Greek text reads: ďIn beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word.Ē There are no capitals, and thus the translator must supply them. It is clearly proper to capitalize ďGodĒ in translating the phrase ďthe god,Ē since this must identify the Almighty God with whom the Word, or Logos, was. However, capitalizing the second instance of the word ďgodĒ cannot be justified in the same way.[citation needed] As noted below, some translations say "the Word was God", while others say "the Word was a god". While it is true that there is no indefinite article ('a', or 'an') in the original Greek text, this is because Koine Greek had no indefinite article in the language. Thus, translators are required to use the indefinite article, or not, based on their understanding of the text.

    There is good reason for utilizing the indefinite article in translation of this text.[citation needed] Note first that the Word was "with" God, and hence could not "be" Almighty God, although this could be describing the often unclear relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son, and their equality. Additionally, the word for "god' in it's second occurrence is significantly without the definite article "the". Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6), stated: ď[the∑os′] and [ho the∑os′] (Ďgod, divineí and Ďthe Godí) were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was ĎGodí ([ho the∑os′]; cf. 17:3); Ďthe Soní was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities.ĒóJohn 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110. This may , however, contradict the assertion in many parts of both the New and Old Testament that there is only one God. In Christianity, the concept of the Trinity is used to describe a God of three Persons. The Gospel of John can be seen to confirm that God can be a God of multiple Persons while remaining at the same time One God.

    After giving as a translation of John 1:1c ďand divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,Ē Haenchen goes on to state: ďIn this instance, the verb Ďwasí ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the∑os′] is not the same thing as [ho the∑os′] (Ďdivineí is not the same thing as ĎGodí).Ē Other scholars, such as Philip B. Harner elaborate on the grammatical construction found here. (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87)

  9. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    In the original transcripts, there is NO article in the places you claim them to be. God is used as a name rather than a title.

    "Moffatt produced his translation of the New Testament while he was serving as Professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Oxford, and its reception was so favorable (in the more liberal churches) that he undertook the Old Testament in order to produce a complete Bible. The version is highly colloquial, and allows the reader to quickly follow the progress of thought in many passages (especially in the Epistles) where a more literal rendering makes for difficult going. But Moffatt's version was controversial in several respects. His preface put forth skeptical views concerning the truthfulness of the Bible. In the Old Testament he indicated by the use of different type fonts the hypothetical source documents of the Pentateuch (J, E, P, D), and frequently rearranged passages according to his idea of how they might have originally stood. For the New Testament he used the Greek text of Hermann von Soden, which was generally regarded as an eccentric text, and he often substituted conjectural emendations for the text of both Testaments. In the New Testament alone he adopts some thirty conjectures which have no support at all in the manuscripts. The translation throughout was highly readable, but often embodied interpretations that were objectionable to some. Roman Catholics and Lutherans were especially offended with Matthew 26:26, "Take and eat this, it means my body." Moffatt later served as executive secretary of the committee of translators for the Revised Standard Version."

    F.F. Bruce, The English Bible, A History of Translations (Oxord, 1961), chapter 13.
    Last edited by bootlen; 11-09-2007 at 01:25 PM.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  10. #88
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    "In the original transcripts, there is NO article in the places you claim them to be. God is used as a name rather than a title."

    You don't get it. I'm not claiming, but people with degrees who study this are telling you the following:

    There is a definite article, the word "THE" for the first theos mentioned. That is quite literally, "THE GOD". Where the word is called god, there is no definite article. Therefore, it is the opposite or indefinite. In english, the indefinite article would be "a" or "an". Concerning definite articles in english pronunciation, people may say something like "get a book over there". You may inquire "which book?" However, you could say get "the book over there". Definite vs indefinite. Further people may even say it different. Instead of "the book" they say it like "THEE book" for emphasis, making it even more definite.

    Greek didn't have an indefinite article. So, if it wasn't declared definite, it is indefinite. So the word was indefinitely named "a" god as the word wasn't specifcally "THEEEE God".

    Besides the grammar issues, the scripture states the Word was WITH "THE GOD". Just another point why he isn't Almighty God.

  11. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by sysint View Post
    "In the original transcripts, there is NO article in the places you claim them to be. God is used as a name rather than a title."

    You don't get it. I'm not claiming, but people with degrees who study this are telling you the following:

    There is a definite article, the word "THE" for the first theos mentioned. That is quite literally, "THE GOD". Where the word is called god, there is no definite article. Therefore, it is the opposite or indefinite. In english, the indefinite article would be "a" or "an". Concerning definite articles in english pronunciation, people may say something like "get a book over there". You may inquire "which book?" However, you could say get "the book over there". Definite vs indefinite. Further people may even say it different. Instead of "the book" they say it like "THEE book" for emphasis, making it even more definite.

    Greek didn't have an indefinite article. So, if it wasn't declared definite, it is indefinite. So the word was indefinitely named "a" god as the word wasn't specifcally "THEEEE God".

    Besides the grammar issues, the scripture states the Word was WITH "THE GOD". Just another point why he isn't Almighty God.
    John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

  12. #90
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Quote Originally Posted by sysint View Post
    "In the original transcripts, there is NO article in the places you claim them to be. God is used as a name rather than a title."

    You don't get it. I'm not claiming, but people with degrees who study this are telling you the following:

    There is a definite article, the word "THE" for the first theos mentioned. That is quite literally, "THE GOD". Where the word is called god, there is no definite article. Therefore, it is the opposite or indefinite. In english, the indefinite article would be "a" or "an". Concerning definite articles in english pronunciation, people may say something like "get a book over there". You may inquire "which book?" However, you could say get "the book over there". Definite vs indefinite. Further people may even say it different. Instead of "the book" they say it like "THEE book" for emphasis, making it even more definite.

    Greek didn't have an indefinite article. So, if it wasn't declared definite, it is indefinite. So the word was indefinitely named "a" god as the word wasn't specifcally "THEEEE God".

    Besides the grammar issues, the scripture states the Word was WITH "THE GOD". Just another point why he isn't Almighty God.
    And those who say this to be true are either mistaken or they are liars.

    The article "the" is not there. Never has been. Never will be...except in versions that were hatched in the fires of hell.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  13. #91
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Dallas,Texas
    Posts
    4,985
    Quote Originally Posted by bootlen View Post
    And those who say this to be true are either mistaken or they are liars.

    The article "the" is not there. Never has been. Never will be...except in versions that were hatched in the fires of hell.

    Another astounding rebuttal. Your logic is, well, entertaining.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by wolfdog; 11-11-2007 at 01:32 AM. Reason: spelling corrected

Page 7 of 61 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141757 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event