Re: John 1;1-4 Who besides God is it speaking abot?

[r m]

On May 20, 1:41 pm, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:
> Really, who is it speaking about, if anyone.
>
> I have been doing research on this, thought I had come to an understanding
> albeit a bit hard to explain in anything other then ethereal terms. ...

If it is a matter of historical record, then it should be self
explanatory.

> ... But
> some of it seemed to be in error or should I say left me with questions.
>
> Please, no unfounded church doctrine. If you haven't a clue just admit it.

I would have thought that the 2nd person singular [i.e. he, him etc]
refers to the Person that the Baptist bore witness to.

r

[r m]

On May 20, 3:44 pm, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

> Did you even read it? Sounds like you're confusing something.

Maybe I've misread the subject line. Thought it was asking Whom "he"
is.

It's often said that these verses draw some parallel with the
beginning of Genesis regards Creation, life, and light.


>
> --
> Peter
> A living Stone
> A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
> Joh 13:34-35 KJV

["".]

The 2nd person pronouns speak of Christ. It is of the incarnation and of
the equality of father and son who have been so from all times.

[Sam Taylor]

"." wrote in message news:519a114f$0$2661$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

The 2nd person pronouns speak of Christ. It is of the incarnation and of
the equality of father and son who have been so from all times.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How can that be? , It is conjuring three (3) time frames Prebeggeton , the
Begetting , and the Post Beggetal Times

In Original was the saying

(and) the saying was Towards the G-D

Also G-D was the saying

Its an allegory, not in Chronological Order.

In English it would be translated as
"In the Beginning WAS the Word"
This is past tense, also saying it
is not now, a fact, but it was a
Prior fact......WAS

ALSO The word WAS the G-D
This again is a past tense, and
a Prior fact, that is changed.

Also the Word WAS WITH the G-D
now folks You cannot be whom You
are With, and the ONE with You can
Also not Be You, but with you, even though
the same WAS in the Beginning WITH You.
Sam
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

[r]

On May 21, 1:55 am, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:36:37 -0700 (PDT), r m <roym...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 20, 3:44 pm, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 May 2013 22:12:15 -0700 (PDT), r m <roym...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On May 20, 1:41 pm, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:
> >>>> Really, who is it speaking about, if anyone.
>
> >>>> I have been doing research on this, thought I had come to an understanding
> >>>> albeit a bit hard to explain in anything other then ethereal terms. ...
>
> >>> If it is a matter of historical record, then it should be self
> >>> explanatory.
>
> >>>> ... But
> >>>> some of it seemed to be in error or should I say left me with questions.
>
> >>>> Please, no unfounded church doctrine. If you haven't a clue just admit it.
>
> >>> I would have thought that the 2nd person singular [i.e. he, him etc]
> >>> refers to the Person that the Baptist bore witness to.
>
> >>> r
>
> >> Did you even read it? Sounds like you're confusing something.
>
> > Maybe I've misread the subject line.  Thought it was asking Whom "he"
> > is.
>

> It was only the first 4 verses I was using and asking who besides God it is
> speaking about, and I should have added if anyone.

In that case then: "he" Who was "with God" and "was God".

> > It's often said that these verses draw some parallel with the
> > beginning of Genesis regards Creation, life, and light.
>

> I think you are speaking about the verses after four, but I might be
> mistaken, if so please elaborate.

Creation: v.3 cf Gen 1:1
Life: v.4 cf Gen 1:20
Light: v.4 cf Gen 1:3

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

John 1:1 and the new world translation:
what do the Greek scholars really say?
http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/New_World_Translation/john_11.htm



A. T. Robertson: "So in Jo. 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to
be the Logos was God, not God was the Logos." A New Short Grammar of
the Greek Testament, by A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker
Book House, 1977), p. 279.

E. M. Sidebottom: "...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for
theos en ho logos springs from a reticence to attribute the full
Christian position to John." The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S. P. C.
K., 1961), p. 461.

E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be
regarded as indefinite or qualitative simply because they lack the
article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if
this is demanded by the context and in the case of John 1:1c this is
not so." "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New
Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.

C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is
God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had
been written it would have implied that no divine being existed
outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St.
John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76.

C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be
that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly
denominated theos...That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal
God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene
homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase. "New Testament
Translation Problems II," The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), p.
104.

Randolph O. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to
translate '...and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows
that logos is the subject of the verb en and the fact that theos is
without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The
emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word
was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of
teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely
the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance
Press, 1980), p.4.

James Moffatt: "'The Word was God...And the Word became flesh,' simply
means "The word was divine...And the Word became human.' The Nicene
faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of
these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly
God and truly man..." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury,
1945), p.61.

Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word
had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing
John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less
than ho theos, had the nature of theos." "Qualitative Anarthrous
Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical
Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.

Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance
and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It does not =
theios, nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx
expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite
act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en
arche:--that He was very God. So that this first verse might be
connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the
Father),--and was Himself God." Alford's Greek Testament: An
Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II (Guardian Press,
1975; originally published 1871), p. 681.

Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some
into thinking that the correct understanding of the statement would be
that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically
indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology
(InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.

Bruce Metzger: "It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's
Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists... As
a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful
mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology
Today (April 1953), p. 75.

Julius R. Mantey: "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL,
especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to
translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete
and incorrect such a rendering... In view of the preceding facts,
especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith
request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to
the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading
Translation... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word
and the Word was with God and the Word was God.' is shockingly
mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian
Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices of Jehovah's
Witnesses." Statement by J. R. Mantey, published in various sources.

B. F. Westcott: "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in
v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos)
inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify
His Person... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the
form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word."
The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3.

Who are these scholars? Many of them are world-renowned Greek scholars
whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves have quoted in their
publications, notably Robertson, Harner, and Mantey, in defense of
their "a god" translation of John 1:1! Westcott is the Greek scholar
who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the
Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil
of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the
textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this
caliber who insist that the words of John 1:1 cannot be taken to mean
anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.



CRI, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Phone (949) 858-6100 and Fax (949) 858-6111

[./"".]

>> The 2nd person pronouns speak of Christ. It is of the incarnation and of
>> the equality of father and son who have been so from all times.
>

>How do you arrive at that? What 2nd person pronoun?

From the language of the text, just as has been the meaning drawn for 2000
years and as used to inspire the creed of the church on the matter.

[.."".]

2nd


Here is the language:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God;

If the above "unique" claim is to be shown of events begun and stopped then
the exact greek verb tense used will have to be presented. In greek there
are different tenses for an event that started and has stopped and another
for an event that began and continues. English has ambiguity often in this
regard. Those who translated the greek knew what tenses were used. If one
to say began and stopped then they would have used english forms to
indicate the same.

It appears this is wishful thinking born of doctrines by which to make the
language agree with it.

[r]

On May 21, 2:08 am, "Sam Taylor" <cyg...@cncnet.com> wrote:
> "." wrote in messagenews:519a114f$0$2661$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

>
> The 2nd person pronouns speak of Christ.  It is of the incarnation and of
> the equality of father and son who have been so from all times.
>
>
>
> How can that be? , It is conjuring three (3) time frames Prebeggeton , the
> Begetting , and the Post Beggetal Times
>
> In Original was the saying
>
> (and) the saying was Towards the G-D
>
> Also G-D was the saying
>
> Its an allegory, not in Chronological Order.
>
> In English it would be translated as
> "In the Beginning WAS the Word"
> This is past tense, also saying it
> is not now, a fact, but it was a
> Prior fact......WAS

the same could be said of και θεος ην ο λογος where God Himself is
also a "was" i.e. θεος ην

> ALSO The word WAS the G-D
> This again is a past tense, and
> a Prior fact, that is changed.
>
> Also the Word WAS WITH the G-D
> now folks You cannot be whom You
> are With, and the ONE with You can
> Also not Be You, but with you, even though
> the same WAS in the Beginning WITH You.
> Sam

I've always understood that in και θεος ην ο λογος, both θεος and
λογος are both nominative case to the verb ην.

I.e. since λογος is not in the accusative form (λογον), θεος and λογος
are one and the same.

In English grammar terms, 'God' and 'word' are both subject case to
the verb 'was'. 'Word', here, is not in predicate case.


> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

[r]

fixing some type thingys

On May 21, 7:42 am, r <roym...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 2:08 am, "Sam Taylor" <cyg...@cncnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "." wrote in messagenews:519a114f$0$2661$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
>
> > The 2nd person pronouns speak of Christ.  It is of the incarnation and of
> > the equality of father and son who have been so from all times.
>
> > How can that be? , It is conjuring three (3) time frames Prebeggeton , the
> > Begetting , and the Post Beggetal Times
>
> > In Original was the saying
>
> > (and) the saying was Towards the G-D
>
> > Also G-D was the saying
>
> > Its an allegory, not in Chronological Order.
>
> > In English it would be translated as
> > "In the Beginning WAS the Word"
> > This is past tense, also saying it
> > is not now, a fact, but it was a
> > Prior fact......WAS
>

> the same could be said of kai theos en ho logos where God Himself is
> also a "was" i.e. theos en

>
> > ALSO The word WAS the G-D
> > This again is a past tense, and
> > a Prior fact, that is changed.
>
> > Also the Word WAS WITH the G-D
> > now folks You cannot be whom You
> > are With, and the ONE with You can
> > Also not Be You, but with you, even though
> > the same WAS in the Beginning WITH You.
> > Sam
>

> I've always understood that in kai theos en ho logos, both theos and
> logos are both nominative case to the verb en.
>
> I.e. since logos is not in the accusative form (logon), theos and logos

[Sam Taylor]

"r" wrote in message
news:a3e12e99-41d3-492d...@yb1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

***********************************************************************
en archE en ho logos kia ho logos En
pros ton theon kia theos

in Original WAS THE saying ALSO THE saying WAS TOWARDS THE
G-D ALSO G-D

begining word word

En ho logos

WAS THE saying

word



houtos En en archE pros ton theon

this WAS IN Original TOWARD THE G-D

beginning

Sam
*******************************************************************








>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

[Up from the Abyss]

"Pete" wrote:
> r <roy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Pete wrote:
> >>
> >> It was only the first 4 verses I was using and asking
> >> who besides God it is speaking about, and I should
> >> have added if anyone.
> >
> > In that case then: "he" Who was "with God" and "was God".
>

> Who is the "He". as I see no one other than God mentioned.
> There is a Him, but it appears to be pointed at God.

Alright, I'll throw a monkey wrench in:


En arche en ho logos
kai ho logos en pros ton Theon
kai theos en ho logos.

In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was by the God,
and divine was the Word.

*This one*, was in the beginning with the God.

All things were made through him; and without him was
not anything made that hath been made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.


"This one", being the very one whom was the light of creation
by the very Word of ton Theon. "This one", not necessarily
being the "logos" itself, but that one who was with ton Theon
en arche, who was the result of the Word, the firstborn over
all creation.


Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn over all creation.

How can Jesus be the "firstborn" over all creation?


2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of
darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the
light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ
[a reference to Gen 1:3].

[anon...@nowhere.you.know]

>>>In English it would be translated as
>>>"In the Beginning WAS the Word"
>>>This is past tense, also saying it
>>>is not now, a fact, but it was a
>>>Prior fact......WAS
>>>

>>>ALSO The word WAS the G-D
>>>This again is a past tense, and
>>>a Prior fact, that is changed.
>>>
>>>Also the Word WAS WITH the G-D
>>>now folks You cannot be whom You
>>>are With, and the ONE with You can
>>>Also not Be You, but with you, even though
>>>the same WAS in the Beginning WITH You.
>>>Sam
>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>> 2nd
>>
>> Here is the language:
>>
>> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
>> was God;
>>
>> If the above "unique" claim is to be shown of events begun and stopped then
>> the exact greek verb tense used will have to be presented. In greek there
>> are different tenses for an event that started and has stopped and another
>> for an event that began and continues. English has ambiguity often in this
>> regard. Those who translated the greek knew what tenses were used. If one
>> to say began and stopped then they would have used english forms to
>> indicate the same.
>>
>> It appears this is wishful thinking born of doctrines by which to make the
>> language agree with it.
>

>You have provided nothing to back up your claims.

Of what, the complexity of verb tenses in greek and consequent ambiguity in
english translation?

[./"".]

All is answered below as about whom the "word" and the various use of
pronouns refers:

John.1

=1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.
=2] He was in the beginning with God;
=3] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything
made that was made.
=4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
=5] The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not
overcome it.
=6]

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
=7] He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all
might believe through him.
=8] He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.
=9]

The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.
=10] He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the
world knew him not.

['"".]

>>>>>In English it would be translated as
>>>>>"In the Beginning WAS the Word"
>>>>>This is past tense, also saying it
>>>>>is not now, a fact, but it was a
>>>>>Prior fact......WAS
>>>>>
>>>>>ALSO The word WAS the G-D
>>>>>This again is a past tense, and
>>>>>a Prior fact, that is changed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Also the Word WAS WITH the G-D
>>>>>now folks You cannot be whom You
>>>>>are With, and the ONE with You can
>>>>>Also not Be You, but with you, even though
>>>>>the same WAS in the Beginning WITH You.
>>>>>Sam
>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>> 2nd
>>>>
>>>> Here is the language:
>>>>

>>>> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word

>>>> was God;
>>>>
>>>> If the above "unique" claim is to be shown of events begun and stopped then
>>>> the exact greek verb tense used will have to be presented. In greek there
>>>> are different tenses for an event that started and has stopped and another
>>>> for an event that began and continues. English has ambiguity often in this
>>>> regard. Those who translated the greek knew what tenses were used. If one
>>>> to say began and stopped then they would have used english forms to
>>>> indicate the same.
>>>>
>>>> It appears this is wishful thinking born of doctrines by which to make the
>>>> language agree with it.
>>>
>>>You have provided nothing to back up your claims.
>>
>> Of what, the complexity of verb tenses in greek and consequent ambiguity in
>> english translation?
>

>The wishful thinking born of doctrines. Your assumption. No proof.

No, of observation as we see an individual before our very eyes invent new
doctrine on the fly. Even though it is unstated, the doctrine of Christ as
a created being is being pushed as hard as possible by foolishly relying on
english translation of complex greek verb forms and making of it what is
not there. That is observation not assumption.

[r]

Absolutely. The prologue reveals that He [the word] was that 'light'
Whom the Baptist witnessed to.

r

[Sam Taylor]

"'." wrote in message news:519bc7f3$0$2662$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

******************************************************************
WRONG!!!
I am just reading it in BOTH English & Greek of
"What it is saying" not what you think it says.
for your decieved by your Doctrines Made by men,
and not the simple plain words of G-D
Sam

[Sam Taylor]

Evil Sam top posting again,

This is the Greek, how you derive Your screwed up trinity garbage is beyond
even,
the Stupidity you concieve of me

***********************************************************************
en archE en ho logos kia ho logos En

in Original WAS THE saying ALSO THE saying WAS TOWARDS THE

begining word word

pros ton theon kia theos

G-D ALSO G-D

En ho logos

WAS THE saying

word



houtos En en archE pros ton theon

this WAS IN Original TOWARD THE G-D

beginning

Sam
*******************************************************************

"'." wrote in message news:519bc7f3$0$2662$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

[/."".]

Then you should be able to provide the greek verb forms being used and
explain in detail what meaning they convey, saying past tense is not
enough. The words are those of John, he did not take dictation from God.

[//"".]

>> All is answered below as about whom the "word" and the various use of
>> pronouns refers:
>>
>> John.1
>>
>> =1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
>> Word was God.
>> =2] He was in the beginning with God;
>> =3] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything
>> made that was made.
>> =4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
>> =5] The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not
>> overcome it.
>> =6]
>>
>> There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
>> =7] He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all
>> might believe through him.
>> =8] He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.
>> =9]
>>
>> The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.
>> =10] He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the
>> world knew him not.
>

>You just got through stating that logos was word and nothing more, it was
>just a word.
>
>Part of Speech: noun masculine
>
>Not a pronoun.

The "word", ie "logos" in greek is followed by pronouns. From what follows
there is no other possible meaning then the "word" and the various pronouns
are Christ. If one uses a noun and then follows it in direct context with a
series of pronouns knowing the latter refers to the former is clear.

One thinks that that old language perception problem is at hand again.

[../"".]

>>>The wishful thinking born of doctrines. Your assumption. No proof.
>>
>> No, of observation as we see an individual before our very eyes invent new
>> doctrine on the fly. Even though it is unstated, the doctrine of Christ as
>> a created being is being pushed as hard as possible by foolishly relying on
>> english translation of complex greek verb forms and making of it what is
>> not there. That is observation not assumption.
>

>Just who are you speaking of. If me you are lying through your teeth on
>every point here. Just more accusations without foundation. If this is the
>best you can do it still then it is back into the bin box for you.

The original was not your post, it ain't about you except to the degree you
agree with the forced meaning poured into the scripture born of confusing
english translation with complex greek verb forms. That's up to you to
decide. The jw and mormon and muslim and oneness pentecostal among other
cults would say amen to the Christ as created being , so if you agree go
for it and join with them.

[Sam Taylor]

"../." wrote in message
news:519cce49$0$2660$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

************************************************************************
You are overly simplifying the Beliefs.
The J.W's indeed believe Him to be a created being, Michael the Archangel.
the Mormons believe He is Begotten not Created, BUT with the Aid of G-D's
Wife, the Ancient Queen of Heaven bit.
The Pentecostal's Believe EXACTLY the same as the RCC Trinitarian's do
hut explain it differently,
it is the One G-D concept both have enduring problems with.
Is it One G-D, with Three (3) Names (Authorities), or Three (3) G-D's
with One (1) Name (Body)
If You would delve deeply into both beliefs You will find that niether
actually believe He was begotten at all, that He existed always, from
all times, until time ends.
BUT....IF he is indeed BEGOTTEN NOT CREATED, that must have occurred.
and if it did INDEED happen it must have happened in Time, if Time
begins with the father. or did time begin when G-D begat the Holy Ghost,
but We know Messiah was the first Born, and to be the First Born,
he had to be begotten in Time, a thing both Trinitarians, and the
Pentecostals both actually deny in their explanations.
Yet keep mumbling Begotten not created.
My question is how do You believe He was begotten, or
do You really actually believe He was Beotten at all?
Sam
**************************************************************

[.."".]

>
>The original was not your post, it ain't about you except to the degree you
>agree with the forced meaning poured into the scripture born of confusing
>english translation with complex greek verb forms. That's up to you to
>decide. The jw and mormon and muslim and oneness pentecostal among other
>cults would say amen to the Christ as created being , so if you agree go
>for it and join with them.
>************************************************************************
>You are overly simplifying the Beliefs.
>The J.W's indeed believe Him to be a created being, Michael the Archangel.
>the Mormons believe He is Begotten not Created, BUT with the Aid of G-D's
>Wife, the Ancient Queen of Heaven bit.
>The Pentecostal's Believe EXACTLY the same as the RCC Trinitarian's do

The oneness pentecostal do not accept the Trinity. When the movement was
started 100 years ago this difference in doctrine split the movement right
down the middle. Today they are very different churches.

>hut explain it differently,
>it is the One G-D concept both have enduring problems with.
>Is it One G-D, with Three (3) Names (Authorities), or Three (3) G-D's
>with One (1) Name (Body)
>If You would delve deeply into both beliefs You will find that niether
>actually believe He was begotten at all, that He existed always, from
>all times, until time ends.
>BUT....IF he is indeed BEGOTTEN NOT CREATED, that must have occurred.
>and if it did INDEED happen it must have happened in Time, if Time
>begins with the father. or did time begin when G-D begat the Holy Ghost,
>but We know Messiah was the first Born, and to be the First Born,
>he had to be begotten in Time, a thing both Trinitarians, and the
>Pentecostals both actually deny in their explanations.
>Yet keep mumbling Begotten not created.
>My question is how do You believe He was begotten, or
>do You really actually believe He was Beotten at all?

Begot has also the meaning and usage of stating a relationship of a parent
to a child. This word was chosen to indicate relationship of the father to
the son. To use the word begot to indicate an event does not follow in
scripture as time began only at the creation, God is outside of time and
place.

The nature of the Trinity is beyond human understanding, as are almost
everything about God. Scripture indicates the father is God, as is the
son, and also the HS. Christ said He was God. All three appeared at
Christ's baptism. The drive in some individuals to make sense of what can
not be fully known has been the source of much heresy, including those of
the jw and mormon and muslim and oneness penetecostal and many others. All
heresy begins in attacking the person of Christ as the 2nd person of the
Trinity it has been suggested. So individuals invent stories to succor
their own understandings.

This is the creed phrase by phrase with scripture illustrations:

I believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
One God (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Creator of heaven and earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible; (Colossians 1: 15-16) and in
one Lord, Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God (Matthew 14: 33; 16: 16)
begotten (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
begotten of the Father before all ages; (John 1: 2)
Light of Light (Psalm 27: I; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
true God of true God, (John 17: 1-5)
of one essence with the Father, (John 10: 30)
through Whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us and for our salvation (I Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from the heavens ((John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
Crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; I Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 1: 14)
He suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried; (Luke 23: 53; I Corinthians 15: 4)
Rising on the third day according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1; 1
Cor. 15: 4)
And ascending into the heavens, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
He is seated at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7:
55)
And coming again in glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and dead, (Acts 10: 42; 2 I Timothy 4: 1)
His kingodom shall have no end; (2 Peter 1: 11)
And in the holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord (Acts 5: 3-4)
the Giver of life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father, (John 15: 26)
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified,
(Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets; (I Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5, 13)
In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (I Peter 2: 5, 9)
catholic (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church; (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; (Ephesians 4: 5)
I expect the resurrection of the dead; (John 11: 24; I Cor. 15: 12-49)
And the life of the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)
Amen. (Psalm 106:48)

[Sam Taylor]

"..." wrote in message news:519ce187$0$2660$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yet You seem to Understand it, as You are the One doing "The splainin"
You seem to have a Moral delema, You greatly fear......IF G-D did give
Birth to His "Only Begotten Son" then G-D would have to have a Wife,
or more feared be Both Male and Female in one Spiritual being.
that would be an affront to male Supremacy, just to think maybe scripture is
true
after all and Adam was Created First as both Male and Female in one being
"Male and female Created He him, and Male and Female created He them"
then before He seperated them from Him Commanded He him to Multiply,
and fill the earth and Subdue it"
So Mr Splainer Did G-D give birth or not? s He, or is He not "the Only
Begotten Son of G-D, or not?
Just your plain ol simple fool
Sam

[duke]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:41:26 -0700, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

>Really, who is it speaking about, if anyone.
>
>I have been doing research on this, thought I had come to an understanding
>albeit a bit hard to explain in anything other then ethereal terms. But
>some of it seemed to be in error or should I say left me with questions.
>
>Please, no unfounded church doctrine. If you haven't a clue just admit it.

John 1:1-4 (New International Version)
John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made;
without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that
life was the light of all mankind

Truth was with God from the very beginning. "Word" for "Jesus" comes form the
Greek meaning "a man's word", or "something that is truth only". Thru him all
thing were made qualifies him as the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity. He alone
gives spiritual life, and no one comes to the Father except thru him

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[Sam Taylor]

"Sam Taylor" wrote in message news:Wx5nt.8639$kF....@newsfe30.iad...

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
***********************************************************************
We now have a bigger problem, that Salvation comes from Belief,
and not from Grace through faith.
a Belief you say is beyond Human understanding, so
Salvation comes from Works of Knowledge and assent
not from Grace through faith alone.
that G-D judges us by a Standard that We cannot fully know,
nor understand and those not in full agreement with our
Misunderstanding are lost.
So G-D now judges by the seeing of the Eyes, and Hearing of
the Ears, will wholly burn them up in His Holy Bar-Be-Que
for Misunderstanding that which beyond understanding.
Instead of Simple Biblical childlike Dogmas of G-D we
must completely be in agreement with foolish Creeds of Men.
Sam
************************************************************************

[/."".]

>The nature of the Trinity is beyond human understanding, as are almost
>everything about God. Scripture indicates the father is God, as is the
>son, and also the HS. Christ said He was God. All three appeared at
>Christ's baptism. The drive in some individuals to make sense of what can
>not be fully known has been the source of much heresy, including those of
>the jw and mormon and muslim and oneness penetecostal and many others. All
>heresy begins in attacking the person of Christ as the 2nd person of the
>Trinity it has been suggested. So individuals invent stories to succor
>their own understandings.
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Yet You seem to Understand it, as You are the One doing "The splainin"

No, I'm only repeating what scripture holds about the nature of God as
given in scripture, however limited. That God in three persons as revealed
in scripture.

>You seem to have a Moral delema, You greatly fear......IF G-D did give
>Birth to His "Only Begotten Son" then G-D would have to have a Wife,
>or more feared be Both Male and Female in one Spiritual being.
>that would be an affront to male Supremacy, just to think maybe scripture is
>true
>after all and Adam was Created First as both Male and Female in one being
>"Male and female Created He him, and Male and Female created He them"
>then before He seperated them from Him Commanded He him to Multiply,
>and fill the earth and Subdue it"
>So Mr Splainer Did G-D give birth or not? s He, or is He not "the Only
>Begotten Son of G-D, or not?
>Just your plain ol simple fool

No, the scripture does not indicate that begot is referring to an event of
birth, only of relationship of father and son. This it appears is the take
off point for the mormon doctrine that God had a wife and Christ was their
child; leading to all that nonsense about people populating other planets
when they become gods themselves.

You have the "create" scripture distorted, here is what it says:

[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created
him; male and female he created them.

Another confusion of language. "man" as human species and "them" male and
female of the form human.

[Sam Taylor]

"Sam Taylor" wrote in message news:...

The nature of the Trinity is beyond human understanding, as are almost
everything about God. Scripture indicates the father is God, as is the
son, and also the HS. Christ said He was God. All three appeared at
Christ's baptism. The drive in some individuals to make sense of what can
not be fully known has been the source of much heresy, including those of
the jw and mormon and muslim and oneness penetecostal and many others. All
heresy begins in attacking the person of Christ as the 2nd person of the
Trinity it has been suggested. So individuals invent stories to succor
their own understandings.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yet You seem to Understand it, as You are the One doing "The splainin"

You seem to have a Moral delema, You greatly fear......IF G-D did give
Birth to His "Only Begotten Son" then G-D would have to have a Wife,
or more feared be Both Male and Female in one Spiritual being.
that would be an affront to male Supremacy, just to think maybe scripture is
true
after all and Adam was Created First as both Male and Female in one being
"Male and female Created He him, and Male and Female created He them"
then before He seperated them from Him Commanded He him to Multiply,
and fill the earth and Subdue it"
So Mr Splainer Did G-D give birth or not? s He, or is He not "the Only
Begotten Son of G-D, or not?
Just your plain ol simple fool

Sam
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
***********************************************************************
We now have a bigger problem, that Salvation comes from Belief,
and not from Grace through faith.
a Belief you say is beyond Human understanding, so
Salvation comes from Works of Knowledge and assent
not from Grace through faith alone.
that G-D judges us by a Standard that We cannot fully know,
nor understand and those not in full agreement with our
Misunderstanding are lost.
So G-D now judges by the seeing of the Eyes, and Hearing of
the Ears, will wholly burn them up in His Holy Bar-Be-Que
for Misunderstanding that which beyond understanding.
Instead of Simple Biblical childlike Dogmas of G-D we
must completely be in agreement with foolish Creeds of Men.
Sam
************************************************************************
This is the creed phrase by phrase with scripture illustrations:

I believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
One God (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually you believe in three (3) that comprise a trilateral G-D
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Creator of heaven and earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible; (Colossians 1: 15-16) and in
one Lord, Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God (Matthew 14: 33; 16: 16)
begotten (John 1: 18; 3: 16)

#######################################################
you just intimated You do not believe G-D gave birth to a separate
entity besides G-D, and it was just an alligory .
#######################################################

begotten of the Father before all ages; (John 1: 2)
Light of Light (Psalm 27: I; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
true God of true God, (John 17: 1-5)

**********************************************************
actually if You read John 17 You will find this "That men may know
You the ONLY TRUE G-D, and Yashua Messiah Whom You Sent forth"
so it would be Untrue G-D of True G-D
***********************************************************

of one essence with the Father, (John 10: 30)

_______________________________________________
Does that Mean Smells like the father?
_____________________________________________________

through Whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us and for our salvation (I Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from the heavens ((John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1: 35)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He became meat by the Holy Spirit, and the Young girl Mary?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and became man. (John 1: 14)

===================================================================
then why the half Man half G-D garbage?
=====================================================================

______________________________________________________________________
You Mean the ressurection of the living, as You believe in the Immortality
of the Soul
_______________________________________________________________________________

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 22, 12:13 pm, "Sam Taylor" <cyg...@cncnet.com> wrote:

"Did G-D give birth or not? s He, or is He not "the Only

Begotten Son of G-D, or not? ":


Arius�s error was to define "begetting" as a creaturely function (as
human creatures beget sons). But since God is not a creature, he
begets in accordance with his own uncreated, eternal nature. Hence,
the begetting of the Son is as eternal as the existence of God the
Father himself. And so the orthodox church has affirmed that the Son
of God is eternally begotten of the Father (i.e., has been eternally
begotten, is being eternally begotten, shall be eternally begotten).

Athanasius wrote an important book (On the Incarnation of the Word) in
which he explained the biblical doctrine of the deity of the Son. The
eternal Word (Logos) became man (incarnate) in order to bring men and
women to God (cf. John 1:14). Athanasius realized that the question
"Who is Jesus?" is intimately related to the question "How shall we be
saved?" If the Son of God is a creature (as Arius maintained),
salvation would be impossible. A creature cannot save a creature. To
be rightly related (or united) to God would take God rightly related
(or united) to human nature. Hence, the Incarnation for Athanasius was
a paradigm of mankind�s salvation: God and man united. If the Savior
is not God incarnate, there can be no salvation. Athanasius was
persistent in defending the essential or consubstantial deity of the
Son of God because he deemed this truth essential to the salvation of
sinners.


http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH02/12e.html

[Sam Taylor]

wrote in message
news:9fe51d99-5df4-4947...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

On May 22, 12:13 pm, "Sam Taylor" <cyg...@cncnet.com> wrote:

"Did G-D give birth or not? s He, or is He not "the Only
Begotten Son of G-D, or not? ":


Arius�s error was to define "begetting" as a creaturely function (as
human creatures beget sons). But since God is not a creature, he
begets in accordance with his own uncreated, eternal nature. Hence,
the begetting of the Son is as eternal as the existence of God the
Father himself. And so the orthodox church has affirmed that the Son
of God is eternally begotten of the Father (i.e., has been eternally
begotten, is being eternally begotten, shall be eternally begotten).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So He is now also being begotten, and the begettal continues on eternally?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Athanasius wrote an important book (On the Incarnation of the Word) in
which he explained the biblical doctrine of the deity of the Son. The
eternal Word (Logos) became man (incarnate) in order to bring men and
women to God (cf. John 1:14). Athanasius realized that the question
"Who is Jesus?" is intimately related to the question "How shall we be
saved?" If the Son of God is a creature (as Arius maintained),
salvation would be impossible. A creature cannot save a creature. To
be rightly related (or united) to God would take God rightly related
(or united) to human nature. Hence, the Incarnation for Athanasius was
a paradigm of mankind�s salvation: God and man united. If the Savior
is not God incarnate, there can be no salvation. Athanasius was
persistent in defending the essential or consubstantial deity of the
Son of God because he deemed this truth essential to the salvation of
sinners.

=========================================================
Why?
=========================================================
G-D says he is equal, and His Standard is an Eye, for an eye, a Life
for a life, a limb for a limb, and a tooth for a tooth.
Shouldn't Adams Life be redeemed by a second Adam, just like
the first Adam before he sinned.
Not Half Adam, half G-D, hut fully Adam to be equal?
the Trouble with the major Creeds, none written by
Apostles btw.
Is Forcing others to agree with Your Misunderstandings for
Salvation.
the early Messianic believers DID NOT hold to your Creeds
Paul starts each of His writings with "Grace and Peace from G-D our Father
And
From the Lord (king, prince, and or Judge) Yashua Messiah.
Showing by Creed Standard he too would be damned.
then in 1 cor 8:5&6 says "though there be those called G-D,
as there are g-ds many, and lords Many but to us there
is but One G-D the Father, and One lord yashua messiah.
So who gave them authority to change the facts as put forth
in scripture.
They gave that Authority to themselves, and VOTED on
that which the chose to believe, iregardless to what
the scriptures simply truthfully put forth.
Love
Sam
=========================================================


http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH02/12e.html

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 22, 1:33 pm, "Sam Taylor" <cyg...@cncnet.com> wrote:

"Shouldn't Adams Life be redeemed by a second Adam, just like
the first Adam before he sinned. "

No,Adam by sinning dishonored God, so only
God can honor God,and since Adam was a
man, only the God-man in the one Person
of Christ can do it.


The Argument of Cur Deus Homo?
http://www.quodlibet.net/anselm.shtml

Anthropolgy: The Role of Rational Nature

Anselm made quite significant contributions to the medieval church's
understanding of Christian anthropology through such works as De
conordia praescientiae, and Monologian. In Cur Deus Homo?, Anselm
confines his discussion of anthropology to the discussion of the
purpose of man's existence, and the role which man must ultimately
play in the divine plan of God.

Anselm sees divine purpose in the fact that God has bestowed man with
the faculty of reason. This reason or rational nature was "created
just by God, so that it might be blessed in the enjoyment of him" (II.
1). The purpose of the reason is to enable man to distinguish between
the just and unjust, between good and evil. But this rational nature
is not to be seen as a neutral faculty through which either good or
evil may be chosen. Instead, the reason was originally disposed toward
the good, or as Anselm puts it, "the rational nature was created to
love and choose the supreme good above all things," (Ibid.). Anselm
cites the perfection of all of God's designs as proof that reception
of such a faculty points to the fact that man was intended to attain
that which he sought, namely, the supreme good, that is, God. In other
words, God granted rational nature to Adam with the intent that in the
fulness of time, Adam would be blessed with an eternal enjoyment of
God.

According to Anselm, the achievement of this eternal enjoyment was to
play a grander part in God's overall design. "When man was created in
paradise without sin, he was set, as it were, by God between God and
the devil, in order to overcome the devil by not consenting to his
persuasions to sin. This would have vindicated and honored God and
confounded the devil, since man, though the weaker, would have refused
to sin on earth at the instance of that very devil who, though the
stronger, sinned in heaven without persuasion." (II.22)

Man was to be the means through which God demonstrated the devil's
weakness and man's superior ability to obey. But this was not realized
in Eden, due to Adam's fall from grace. Does this then leave the
divine plan of God thwarted? Anselm does not believe so. Since God so
purposed such a destiny for man from the beginning, such a destiny
must still exist. Somehow man must achieve both perfect obedience to
God while demonstrating his superiority of obedience over the devil.
The answer to how this can be achieved will be postponed until
Anselm's Christology is discussed.

Brief mention should be made regarding Anselm's epistemology. Anselm
views the particulars and phenomena as dependent upon universals
grounded in the mind of God. An example of this is seen above in the
fact that Anselm bases upon the fact that men possess rational natures
that God must indeed have a divine purpose from which this possession
is derived (namely, to eternally enjoy God's presence). In addition,
this purpose, being grounded in the perfect will of God, is
unchangeable, enabling Anselm to confidently assert that men must
necessarily achieve this purpose, even if it means that God Himself
must accomplish it for man (through the work of a Man-God). This
epistemology (referred to a "Realism", though differentiated from that
of modern discussions) provides the structural backbone to Anselm's
reasoning.

Hamartiology

Central to Anselm's argument is his understanding of sin. Anselm sees
the duty of every rational creature as subjecting every inclination to
the will of God. Of this Anselm writes, "This is the debt which angels
and men owe to God. No one who pays it sins; everyone who does not pay
it sins. This is the sole and entire honor which we owe to God, and
God requires from us. One who does not render this honor to God takes
away from God what belongs to him, and dishonors God, and to do this
is to sin. Moreover, as long as he does not repay what he has stolen,
he remains at fault." (I.11)

Anselm's belief that all sin stems from a violation of God's inherent
honor forms the backbone of his theory of atonement. Much has been
written on the subject of where Anselm derived his understanding of
sin. Many explain Anselm's unique perspective as a result of medieval
society's shift in its understanding of justice from that of Roman law
to a feudal system. Erickson writes, "...The feudal system was the
most powerful force in the structuring of society. Justice and law had
become more of a personal matter; violations of the law were now
thought of as offenses against the person of the feudal overlord... In
matters of private offense, various forms of satisfaction could be
substituted for punishment. By Anselm's time the concept of
satisfaction had become an integral part of the feudal structure...
Anselm pictures God as a feudal overlord who, to maintain his honor,
insists that there be adequate satisfaction for any encroachment on
it," (797; emphasis mine).

But Anselm's understanding may go much deeper than a mere transference
of theology onto fuedal justice theory. For in his insistence that sin
is a violation of God's honor, Anselm, in effect, grounds the reality
of sin to the character of God. Such a structure automatically
disallows the possibility that "sin" is merely a governmental or
arbitrary standard imposed by God on mankind. Anselm then uses this
understanding of sin's utter reality as the foundation for his entire
soteriology. If sin is indeed a reality in relation to the character
of God, then God will be moved to respond to man's guilt of sin.

Soteriology

Anselm deliberately refutes the predominant atonement theory of his
day, the Ransom theory developed by Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. The
Ransom theory proposed that prior to the atonement, the devil had the
"right of possession" over men due to their falleness. The death of
Christ then served as a ransom for our rescue, with the devil
believing that he had swapped mankind for the crucified second Person
of the Trinity. But Satan was ultimately deceived by assuming that
Christ could be held by death.

In chapter seven of Book One, Anselm refutes the claim of the ransom
theorists that God owed the devil anything. He writes, "I cannot see
what force this argument has. If the devil or man belonged to himself
or to anyone but God, or remained in some power other than God's,
perhaps it would be a sound argument. But the devil and man belong to
God alone, and neither one stands outside God's power; what case,
then, did God have to plead with his own creature, concerning his own
creature, in his own affair, unless it was in order to punish his
servant, who had persuaded his fellow servant to desert their common
master?"

Instead of the ransom theory, Anselm sets forth what has come to be
known as the Satisfaction or Commercial Theory. As stated earlier,
Anselm's soteriology rests upon his understanding of sin, namely, that
sin is a violation of the honor of God. What then is to be done to
vindicate such a violation? Anslem claims that God has two choices:
punishment and satisfaction. Punishment would restore honor to God
through the removal of freedom or ability from the individual, and
through demonstrating God's sovereignty. Satisfaction restores God's
honor through the individual's payment to God, first, in full, and
then above and beyond the debt incurred. The fact that sin is rooted
in a violation of God's character necessitates a response by God in
either of these two methods of vindication. Anselm writes, It does not
belong to [God's] freedom or kindness or will to forgive unpunished
the sinner who does not repay to God what he took away," (I.12).

It should be remembered that the purpose of Anselm's treatise is to
demonstrate the necessity of Christ's death on the cross. Therefore,
the punishment option must be shown to be not possible, since God
ultimately chose the mode of ssatisfaction. Anselm does this by
adopting an argument proposed by Augustine which claims since some of
the angels had fallen from grace, there must then be at least as many
men who are restored, since the original appointed number of
individuals who will occupy the "heavenly city" must not waver. "We
cannot doubt that the rational nature, which either is or is going to
be blessed in the contemplation of God, was foreseen by God as
existing in a particular reasonable and perfect number, so that its
number cannot be greater or smaller... Either [the fallen angels']
number must necessarily be made up, or else the rational nature will
remain incomplete in number, although it was foreseen in a perfect
number; but this cannot be." (I.16) (The reader may again take note of
the fact that (Augustine and) Anselm's argument here employs
[medieval] Realism.)

The only reasonable choice left for God (based on his will to have the
perfect number of rational natures) between punishment and
satisfaction is that of satisfaction. As stated above, satisfaction
consists of both the full payment of the debt and a gift whereby the
debt is exceeded. The debt in this instance which must be repaid in
full is that honor which was taken from God when man failed to obey
God fully and thereby shame the devil by demonstrating that the weaker
creature could persevere in obedience to a greater degree than the
stronger.

But now that man has fallen into disobedience, how may he ever regain
his original state of innocence within which he was called to
persevere. Indeed this in itself is an impossible task!. Regarding a
payment in excess of the debt, who has possession of that which
exceeds the tremendous debt incurred? Since all of creation has now
fallen, that which must be given must exceed all of creation in
greatness. Anselm writes, "If he is to give something of his own to
God, which surpasses everything that is beneath God, it is also
necessary for him to be greater than everything that is not God. But
there is nothing above everything that it not God, save God himself...
Then no one but God can make this satisfaction," (II.6).

Christology

It is clear from Anselm's argument (and any reasonable consideration)
that man has no hope of satisfying the vindication required by the
violation of God's honor. But all is not lost for mankind, for this
leaves open only one possible solution: "If then, that celestial city
[i.e., the perfect number of rational natures] must be completed from
among men, and this cannot happen unless the aforementioned
satisfaction is made, while no one save God can make it and no one
save man ought to make it, it is necessary for a God-Man to make
it." (Ibid.) Anselm concludes that the dire predicament of man
necessitates the work of a God-Man who alone is able to achieve the
task which is being required of man.

In his following description of this necessary God-Man, Anselm
maintains a Chalceonian christology through emphasizing the need of
two natures within one person: "If these two complete natures are said
to be united in some way, but still man is one person and God another,
so that the same person is not both God and man, the two natures
cannot do what needs to be done. For God will not do it, because he
does not owe it, and man will not do it, because he cannot. Therefore,
for the God-Man to do this, the person who is to make the satisfaction
must be both perfect God and perfect man, because none but true God
can make it, and none but true man owes it." (II.7) Anselm then goes
on to describe the fittingness whereby this perfect God should be the
second Person of the Trinity (II.9), and that the perfect man should
be born of a virgin woman (II.8).

This God-Man then proceeds to live a perfect life upon earth despite
the persuasions of the devil, just as Adam was originally intended. To
live thus is the duty of all men, and therefore, in the case of the
God-Man, secures no special grace from God. Rather it is payment of
the first portion of the satisfaction, namely, payment in full of the
debt incurred: "If we say that he will give himself to obey God, so
that in steadfastly maintaining justice he submits himself to his
will, this will not be to give what God does not require of him as an
obligation. For very rational creature owes this obedience to
God." (II.11).

The question is then raised regarding what this God-Man might give in
order to pay the full satisfaction. Anselm begins his answer by
pointing out that since "mortality belongs to the corrupt, not to the
pure nature of man," (Ibid.), it follows that this sinless God-Man
"will not be obliged to die," (II.10). As to whether or not it will
even be possible for the God-Man to die, Anselm writes, "As he will be
God, he will also be almighty. Then if he wills it he will be able to
lay down his life and take it again... If he wills to permit it, it
will be possible for him to be killed, and if he does not will it, it
will not be possible," (II.11).

This freedom to lay down his life and take it up again, based on his
willing it, opens the door to a possible way to fully pay the
satisfaction. Anselm continues, "Nothing that man can suffer for God's
honor, freely and not as an obligation, is more bitter or harder than
death. Nor can a man give himself more fully to God than he does when
he surrenders himself to death for His honor. Then he who wishes to
make satisfaction for man's sin must be able to die if he wills
it," (II.11). The greatest act of honor which a man can do for God is
to lay down his own life in order to protect that honor. Since death
is not an obligation upon sinless men, this act, when performed by the
sinless God-Man, would suffice to exceed in payment the original debt.

This then, being the only feasible method whereby mankind may be
relieved of its debt and restored to its intended purpose, becomes, in
Anselm's argument, proof of its reasonableness, necessity and truth.
In this way Anselm presents the necessity of Christ having to die upon
the cross for the sake of mankind.

How can this act secure the forgiveness of such a great multitude of
sins? The answer lies in the fact that this evil is committed against
the very Person of God. [Boso:] "A sin committed against [the God-
Man's] person is incommensurate with every conceivable sin that does
not touch his person. [Anselm:] We see, then, that no greatness or
multitude of sins apart from God's person can be compared to an injury
done to the bodily life of this Man." (II.14) The fact that such an
experience as the God-Man underwent is unparalleled in its gravity due
to the Person against whom it is being committed results in a likewise
unparalleled merit toward the willing and unobliged participant. It is
through this willing obedience that the act of the God-Man secures
infinite merit in the sight of God.

What then, did the God-Man objectively achieve through a willing
death? The answer is two-fold. Firstly, he demonstrated to all men the
degree to which obedience is owed God. "Do you not understand that by
enduring with gentle patience the injuries and insults and death on
the cross with thieves, all brought on him by his obedience in
maintaining justice, he gave an example to men, to teach them not to
turn away from the justice they owe to God on account of any trials
they can experience?" (II.18) This owed obedience which resulted for
the God-Man in suffering and humiliation is to be a sign to men that
obedience should and must be maintained despite seemingly adverse
consequences.

The fact that this owed obedience resulted in a death which the God-
Man was not obliged to undergo (due to his sinlessness), provides men
with an example of willfull surrender of their own lives which they
know are obliged to suffer death. "This Man freely offered to the
father what he would never have lost by any necessity, and paid for
sinners what he did not owe for himself. Therefore he gave us a more
striking example, to the effect that each man should not hesitate to
surrender to God for himself, when reason demands it, what he is going
to lose very soon." (Ibid.)

Secondly, the fact that the God-Man willingly underwent such grave
injustice in order to pay in full the satisfaction results in the
necessity that God reward the Son. But the Son, being God himself, is
in need of no thing nor lacks anything. "What then, will be given him
as a reward, when he is in need of nothing and there is nothing that
can be given or forgiven him?" (II.19) The hope of man lies in the
fact that the Son is free to give the reward to whomever he pleases
and the Father will be obliged to give it since it is the Son's to do
with as he pleases. Anselm concludes, "To whom would it be more
fitting for him to assign the fruit and recompense of his death than
to those for whose salvation (as truthful reason has taught us) he
made himself man, and to whom (as we have said) by dying he gave an
example of dying for the sake of justice?... Or whom will he more
justly make heirs of the debt which he does not need, and the
abundance of his own fullness, than his kinsmen and brethren, whom he
sees bound by so many great debts, languishing in poverty and deepest
misery, so that what they owe for their sins may be forgiven them, and
what they need, on account of their sins, may be given them?" (II.19)

In Anselm's view, Christ passes on to mankind the infinite merit which
he accomplished in his work on the cross. This merit then restores
mankind in the sight of God, enabling the original purpose of God to
be fulfilled, namely, that man as a rational creature may eternally
enjoy contemplation of God's presence.

Some scholars criticize Anselm on several grounds which we can only
briefly mention here. First, as mentioned above, many see an over-
dependence by Anselm upon medieval justice theory. Secondly, Anselm
makes no mention of any "penalty" for sin. Berkhof writes, "This
theort really has no place for the idea that Christ by suffering
endured the penalty of sin, and that His suffering was strictly
vicarious. The death of Christ is merely a tribute offered voluntarily
to the honor of the Father," (Theology, 386). A third criticism is
aimed at Anselm's lack of discussion regarding in what manner Christ's
infinite merit is passed on to man. "[Anselm's Satisfaction theory]
represents the application of the merits of Christ to the sinner as a
merely external transaction. There is no hint of the mystical union Of
Christ and believers." (Berkhof, History, 174) "There is no hint of
the mystical..., nor of faith as accepting the righteousness of
Christ. Since the whole transaction appears to be rather commercial,
the theory is often called the commercial theory." (Theology, 386)

A final problem which may face contemporary readers of Anselm may well
be the entire epistemology under which the author constructs his
argument. It is true that most readers have not consciously chosen
under which epistemology they will operate. Often an eclecticism is
probably employed. But in reading Cur Deus Homo?, one cannot help but
become aware of a foreignness to a reasoning which claims the
necessity of a certain number of rational natures to occupy heaven,
and for man to necessary possess rational contemplation of God due to
the fact that Edenic Adam was given a chance.

I must admit that I question this epistemology, and yet am the first
to admit that Anselm would surely be appalled at the degree of
relativism which he would find in my own reasoning, as a mere by-
product of my existence within contemporary American culture. To me,
this is the major issue facing Anselm's relevance to today's world.
And yet, the author of this paper is in no way prepared to construct
any conclusion on this matter. Let it merely be said that Anselm
presents a very viable demonstration of the necessity for the gospels'
account of Christ's work, and that contemporary students would do well
to learn from both its content and methodology.

Bibliography

Anselm of Canterbury. Cur Deus Homo? In A Scholastic Miscellany:
Anselm to Ockham.

Fairweather, Eugene R. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminter Press; 1956):
100-183.

Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House;

1937)

........Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmens Publ.; 1941)

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House; 1985)

Horne, Charles M. The Doctrine of Salvation. (Chicago: Moody Press;
1984)

[Linda Lee]

On May 20, 11:57 am, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:
> On 20 May 2013 12:04:31 GMT, ;;  wrote:
>
> > The 2nd person pronouns speak of Christ.  It is of the incarnation and of
> > the equality of father and son who have been so from all times.
>
> How do you arrive at that?


Who was "the only begotten of the Father"; who was made flesh, Pete?

John 1:14 And THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, AND DWELT AMONG US, (and we
beheld his glory, the glory as of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER,)
full of grace and truth.


You've been listening to that serpent "Abyss" too long.

>
> What 2nd person pronoun?

"him"

>
> --
> Peter
> A living Stone
> A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
> Joh 13:34-35 KJV

[Linda Lee]

On May 19, 11:41 pm, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:
> Really, who is it speaking about, if anyone.
>
> I have been doing research on this, thought I had come to an understanding
> albeit a bit hard to explain in anything other then ethereal terms. But
> some of it seemed to be in error or should I say left me with questions.
>
> Please, no unfounded church doctrine. If you haven't a clue just admit it.

You sound like all church doctrine is unfounded in your view.

These three verses all refer to the Son of God/Christ as "the Word" or
"the Word of God":

1Jn 1:1, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our
hands have handled, of the Word of life".


1Jn 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."


Rev. 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his
NAME is called The Word of God.
...
Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written,
KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

[Linda Lee]

On May 23, 1:36 am, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:05:09 -0700 (PDT), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 11:57 am, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:
> >> On 20 May 2013 12:04:31 GMT, ;;  wrote:
>
> >>> The 2nd person pronouns speak of Christ.  It is of the incarnation and of
> >>> the equality of father and son who have been so from all times.
>
> >> How do you arrive at that?
>
> > Who was "the only begotten of the Father"; who was made flesh, Pete?
>
> > John 1:14  And THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, AND DWELT AMONG US, (and we
> > beheld his glory, the glory as of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER,)
> > full of grace and truth.
>
> > You've been listening to that serpent "Abyss" too long.
>
> >> What 2nd person pronoun?
>
> > "him"
>

> I was addressing verses 1 to 4. where was any personal pronoun there?


The pronoun in verses 1-4 is "him".


pro·noun
[proh-noun]
noun Grammar .
any member of a small class of words found in many languages that are
used as replacements or substitutes for nouns and noun phrases, and
that have very general reference, as I, you, he, this, who, what.
Pronouns are sometimes formally distinguished from nouns, as in
English by the existence of special objective forms, as him for he
or me for I, and by nonoccurrence with an article or adjective.
Origin:
1520–30; < Middle French pronom < Latin prōnōmen (stem prōnōmin- ).
See pro-1 , noun




him
[him]
pronoun
1.
the objective case of he, used as a direct or indirect object: I'll
see him tomorrow. Give him the message.
2.
Informal. (used instead of the pronoun he in the predicate after the
verb to be ): It's him. It isn't him.
3.
Informal. (used instead of the pronoun his before a gerund): We were
surprised by him wanting to leave.
noun
4.
Informal. a male: Is the new baby a her or a him?
Origin:
before 900; Middle English, Old English, dative of hē he1


>
> This has nothing to do with ABYSS

So the confusion is all your own...

>
> It has to do with these four verses or
> should I limit it to the first three.

Why would you question who is being referenced there? Christ is called
the Word of God elsewhere - here:

Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many
crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
Rev. 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and HIS
NAME IS CALLED THE WORD OF GOD.

[Sam Taylor]

Sorry, about making you mad, But I actually do believe
Him to be the only begotten Son of G-D,and then get
accused I believe therefore he was created, and not
begotten, While you trinitarians, and oneness folks
who do not believe he was begotten, but also not
created, but is eternally being begotten, so he therefore
has not been completely begotten, but is still in the process.
Some believe he is Eternally prexistent with the father,
So they must be waiting for G-D and his son to Exist.
that is why this Mystery nobody can understand is
the confusing explanations that come forth.
So I do apologize but I will continue to believe
he does in fact exist, and is "The only begotten Son of G-D"
Period.
and will not go beyond what the scriptures say.
Love
Sam

[duke]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 00:08:33 -0700, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:39:04 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:41:26 -0700, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:
>>
>>>Really, who is it speaking about, if anyone.
>>>
>>>I have been doing research on this, thought I had come to an understanding
>>>albeit a bit hard to explain in anything other then ethereal terms. But
>>>some of it seemed to be in error or should I say left me with questions.
>>>
>>>Please, no unfounded church doctrine. If you haven't a clue just admit it.
>>
>> John 1:1-4 (New International Version)
>> John 1
>> The Word Became Flesh
>> 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
>> God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made;
>> without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that
>> life was the light of all mankind

>You were/are wrong for using a title here without evidence of that action.

Well, you continue to stand outside the circle of Christians in the world who
disagree with you.

>Just what does it state.
>1 - In the beginning was the word.
>Meaning before anything was formed
>2 - the word was with God. meaning right there.
>3 - God was the word.
>4 - The same (word) was in the beginning with God.
>5 - All things were made by it. What is the "it".
>6 - and without it was nothing made. What is the "it".
>7 - In it was life. It in what?
>8 - and the life was the light of men. How is that?

Christians know, you don't.

>> Truth was with God from the very beginning. "Word" for "Jesus" comes form the
>> Greek meaning "a man's word", or "something that is truth only". Thru him all
>> thing were made qualifies him as the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity. He alone
>> gives spiritual life, and no one comes to the Father except thru him

>Again, there is no second place your creeds clearly state that.

You're a failure at understanding that scripture is written in the handwriting
of the author as inspired by God. The key is "word", or unquestioned truth in
Jesus.

>Not that
>they are correct. Through "it" was everything made. What is it? Your
>confusing statement about a mans word in Greek etc. Is totally false in
>this instance.
>
>The rest you jump to conclusions about and it is not mentioned in the first
>four verses.

[duke]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 00:08:33 -0700, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:39:04 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>

>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:41:26 -0700, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:
>>
>>>Really, who is it speaking about, if anyone.
>>>
>>>I have been doing research on this, thought I had come to an understanding
>>>albeit a bit hard to explain in anything other then ethereal terms. But
>>>some of it seemed to be in error or should I say left me with questions.
>>>
>>>Please, no unfounded church doctrine. If you haven't a clue just admit it.
>>
>> John 1:1-4 (New International Version)
>> John 1
>> The Word Became Flesh
>> 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
>> God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made;
>> without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that
>> life was the light of all mankind
>>
>

>You were/are wrong for using a title here without evidence of that action.
>

>Just what does it state.
>1 - In the beginning was the word.
>Meaning before anything was formed
>2 - the word was with God. meaning right there.
>3 - God was the word.
>4 - The same (word) was in the beginning with God.
>5 - All things were made by it. What is the "it".
>6 - and without it was nothing made. What is the "it".
>7 - In it was life. It in what?

>8 - and the life was the light of men. How is that?

>
>> Truth was with God from the very beginning. "Word" for "Jesus" comes form the
>> Greek meaning "a man's word", or "something that is truth only". Thru him all
>> thing were made qualifies him as the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity. He alone
>> gives spiritual life, and no one comes to the Father except thru him

>Again, there is no second place your creeds clearly state that. Not that

>they are correct. Through "it" was everything made. What is it? Your
>confusing statement about a mans word in Greek etc. Is totally false in
>this instance.

Well, maybe if you understood "thru" him, you might understand better. "By it"
leaves one guessing, nothing new for the lousy language kjv.

>The rest you jump to conclusions about and it is not mentioned in the first
>four verses.

[Linda Lee]

On May 23, 3:08 am, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:39:04 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:41:26 -0700, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:
>
> >>Really, who is it speaking about, if anyone.
>
> >>I have been doing research on this, thought I had come to an understanding
> >>albeit a bit hard to explain in anything other then ethereal terms. But
> >>some of it seemed to be in error or should I say left me with questions.
>
> >>Please, no unfounded church doctrine. If you haven't a clue just admit it.
>
> > John 1:1-4 (New International Version)
> > John 1
> > The Word Became Flesh
> >  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
> > God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made;
> > without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that
> > life was the light of all mankind
>

> You were/are wrong for using a title here without evidence of that action.
>
> Just what does it state.
> 1 - In the beginning was the word.
> Meaning before anything was formed
> 2 - the word was with God. meaning right there.
> 3 - God was the word.
> 4 - The same (word) was in the beginning with God.
> 5 - All things were made by it. What is the "it".

It does not say "it"; it says "him", with "him" referring to The Word.

> 6 - and without it was made. What is the "it".

It does not say "it"; it says "him", with "him" referring to The Word.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any

thing made that was made.

Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

> 7 - In it was life. It in what?

In him, not in "it".

[r]

On May 26, 1:31 pm, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

> "It" referred to the word.
>
> Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God: and the
> word was God.

> Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God.

> Joh 1:3  All things were made by it, and without it was made no thing, that
> was made.
> Joh 1:4  In it was life; And the life was the light of men;
>
> Tyndale/Cloverdale Bible.
>
> When I looked at the Greek it appeared to match this translations of others
> like it from the same source.
>
> Joh 1:14  And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw the
> glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten son of the father, which
> word was full of grace, and verity.
> Joh 1:15  John bare witness of him and cried, saying, "This was he of whom
> I spake, which though he came after me, went before me: for he was before
> me."
> Joh 1:16  And of his fullness have all we received, even grace for grace.
>
> The Glory of "it", that is the glory of the word of God became flesh,
> manifested as Jesus Christ, the son of God.

doxan autou = glory his (his glory)

[r]

On May 26, 5:27 pm, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

> Tell that to tyndale and many others.

Look up autou in Strongs G846.
e,g, http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G846

It can taken either way. Context will clarify if it is "it" or "his".

[Sam Taylor]

"Sam Taylor" wrote in message news:43znt.5204$ZU7....@newsfe28.iad...

[duke]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

Pete is reduced to outright foolishness on that one.

>Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
>the Word was God.
>Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
>Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any
>thing made that was made.
>Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

>> 7 - In it was life. It in what?
>In him, not in "it".

Poor guy.

[duke]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 20:31:11 -0700, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

>Tyndale/Cloverdale Bible.

>When I looked at the Greek it appeared to match this translations of others
>like it from the same source.
>
>Joh 1:14 And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw the
>glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten son of the father, which
>word was full of grace, and verity.
>Joh 1:15 John bare witness of him and cried, saying, "This was he of whom
>I spake, which though he came after me, went before me: for he was before
>me."
>Joh 1:16 And of his fullness have all we received, even grace for grace.

>The Glory of "it", that is the glory of the word of God became flesh,
>manifested as Jesus Christ, the son of God.

You are demanding satan take over your life, aren't you.

[r]

On May 27, 12:40 am, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

> > e,g,http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G846

>
> > It can taken either way.  Context will clarify if it is "it" or "his".
>

> δοξανG1391 N-ASF  αυτουG846 P-GSM
> doxa              autos
>
> G846
> αὐτός
> autos
> ow-tos'
> From the particle αὖ au (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the
> idea of a baffling wind; backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone
> or in the compound of G1438) of the third person, and (with the proper
> personal pronoun) of the other persons: - her, it (-self), one, the other,
> (mine) own, said, ([self-], the) same, ([him-, my-, thy-]) self, [your-]
> selves, she, that, their (-s), them ([-selves]), there [-at, -by, -in,
> -into, -of, -on, -with], they, (these) things, this (man), those, together,
> very, which. Compare G848.

Yea, verily.

In English, our personal pronouns are specific to persons e.g. he,
she, or non-person specific e.g. it, and that. But Koine autos isn't,
so, English translators use that which befits the context.

r

[r]

On May 27, 7:58 am, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:

> Actually it is the same contextually for both languages.
>
> Ships - her
> Autos - she or her

lol :-)

[/"".]

>Tyndale/Cloverdale Bible.
>
>When I looked at the Greek it appeared to match this translations of others
>like it from the same source.
>
>Joh 1:14 And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw the
>glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten son of the father, which
>word was full of grace, and verity.
>Joh 1:15 John bare witness of him and cried, saying, "This was he of whom
>I spake, which though he came after me, went before me: for he was before
>me."
>Joh 1:16 And of his fullness have all we received, even grace for grace.
>
>
>The Glory of "it", that is the glory of the word of God became flesh,
>manifested as Jesus Christ, the son of God.

Ah, now we go translation shopping to find the one which seems to best
produce the desired interpretation do we?

Recalling all along the poster has no greek nor any means by which to
evaluate the claims made.

We see before our very eyes the action of the lone ranger bible reader, an
authority unto self, not seeking the wise counsel of those who guide away
from error and self deception.

Thus were born the jw and mormon and oneness penetecostal and a host of
other groups also started by individual lone ranger bible readers.

[/"".]

>> I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; (Ephesians 4: 5)
>

>Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
>
>There is no baptism for the remission of sins. That woman (Fool) keeps
>insisting on falsehoods and a pretend group of mens dogmas. She can find
>very little in the word that supports her dogma and keeps post garbage.
>
>Like a good JW she repeats her mantra while holding her hand over her ears.

Smile, in past the several scripturesrelating to baptism were given. The
Romans is right to the point. In baptism we are joined to Christ unto
eternal life.

Romans 6:

=3] Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death?
=4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that
as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too
might walk in newness of life.
=5]

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall
certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

And then the great commission, "go ye into all the world baptizing them in
the name of the father and the son and the Holy Spirit.

As for the jw bit, I see our mirror held up presents a very striking image.

[///"".]

>>>There is no baptism for the remission of sins. That woman (Fool) keeps
>>>insisting on falsehoods and a pretend group of mens dogmas. She can find
>>>very little in the word that supports her dogma and keeps post garbage.
>>>
>>>Like a good JW she repeats her mantra while holding her hand over her ears.
>>
>> Smile, in past the several scripturesrelating to baptism were given. The
>> Romans is right to the point. In baptism we are joined to Christ unto
>> eternal life.
>>
>> Romans 6:
>>
>> =3] Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ
>> Jesus were baptized into his death?
>> =4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that
>> as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too
>> might walk in newness of life.
>> =5]

>You actually save and paste bad snips like the above? ^^^^^^^^^
>No where is water mentioned. When one is born again the old man is dead and
>the new made alive by God through Jesus Christ. It is by Faith that one
>receives Christ and Salvation, faith only....
>
>For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is
>the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his
>workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before
>ordained that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:8-10 KJV)
>
>No man is saved on his own, either by his will or his faith, God draws and
>Gives us the tools to believe "have the faith of God".

Nope, it is a fresh cut and paste this very morning from bible text.

"No water"? What a lame excuse. The rest not applicable to the question
of baptism in salvation, only the product of baptism.

>> For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall
>> certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
>>
>> And then the great commission, "go ye into all the world baptizing them in
>> the name of the father and the son and the Holy Spirit.
>>

>No water mentioned there. In fact John the Baptist specified the
>differences between Judaism and Believers in Christ Jesus when he stated...
>Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water,
>the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and
>remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Then the baptism in water of the ethiopian was false? Lame, baptism is in
water, as Christ himself showed us.

>What is the way of Jesus? ^^^^^^ Read and believe to be saved.

Read, that is not in scripture. Believe, of course, baptism to join
ourselves to Christ unto eternal life, you bet.

>> As for the jw bit, I see our mirror held up presents a very striking image.
>

>You are admitting to be tied in with the JW's now?

Smile, that crack shows us exactly what it means to you. The jw and you
have too many things in common as to new doctrines and how they were
invented and when. Do you have the address of your local "kingdon hall"?
Might as well check out the local mormon church while you are at it, and
the oneness penetecostal are worth a look too' more upon request.

It has been interesting to see your evolution as each new doctrine is
invented and tried out in the ng. The lone ranger bible reader rides
again.

["".]

> Re: John 1;1-4 Who besides God is it speaking abot?
>
> From: Pete <n...@nya.biz>
> Reply to: Pete
> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 08:18:47 -0700
> Organization: TeraNews.com
> Newsgroups:
> alt.christnet.christianlife,
> alt.messianic
> Followup to: newsgroups
> References:
> <7mfot.4450$EM6....@newsfe04.iad>
> <51a34e45$0$2653$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>

>On 27 May 2013 12:15:01 GMT, ;;/ wrote:
>>>Tyndale/Cloverdale Bible.
>>>
>>>When I looked at the Greek it appeared to match this translations of others
>>>like it from the same source.
>>>
>>>Joh 1:14 And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw the
>>>glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten son of the father, which
>>>word was full of grace, and verity.
>>>Joh 1:15 John bare witness of him and cried, saying, "This was he of whom
>>>I spake, which though he came after me, went before me: for he was before
>>>me."
>>>Joh 1:16 And of his fullness have all we received, even grace for grace.
>>>
>>>
>>>The Glory of "it", that is the glory of the word of God became flesh,
>>>manifested as Jesus Christ, the son of God.
>>
>> Ah, now we go translation shopping to find the one which seems to best
>> produce the desired interpretation do we?
>>

>You might very well do that, and I have seen you do so. Your accusation is
>false, and that is called "bearing false witness".

Then why mention one source to support the end you wanted? As for
translation source, any of the greek line is fine, I'm rather agnostic on
the whole topic of translation because prooftexting and language mining is
not my thing.

>> Recalling all along the poster has no greek nor any means by which to
>> evaluate the claims made.
>>
>

>Again, "bearing false witness".

Oh, then what are your academic experiences to make such conclusions about
the greek? Having a strong's doesn't serve, nor does going definition
shopping in it or other greek dictionary either.

>> We see before our very eyes the action of the lone ranger bible reader, an
>> authority unto self, not seeking the wise counsel of those who guide away
>> from error and self deception.

>Again "bearing false witness". I seek the highest counsel available. I
>showed backup to my understanding of the Greek by showing the written
>translations of other who were in agreement over 600 years ago. The
>language itself written over 2000 years ago is born out by lexicons of its
>day.

Oh, you mean the self invented method of divination to know the meaning of
scripture? "Understanding of greek" comes after years of study. Finding
some dictionary entry and making entire stories of it of thin air does not
serve. "Others" can not agree with such as this produces. What we see is
that the words of the real sources have your understanding poured into
them, just as your practice with english translation of scripture.

So what we have here is a lone ranger bible and greek scholar, who is an
authority unto himself.

>> Thus were born the jw and mormon and oneness penetecostal and a host of
>> other groups also started by individual lone ranger bible readers.
>

>Also include the Orthodox, especially the Greek, Russian and Eastern
>versions of it as well as the RCC. There was corruption in those churches
>from their beginnings which Paul warned about. All of those churches
>worship men, and exalt men daily over God as you also do.

Hmmm, what individual man invented those you mention? It is the individual
man inventing long long after the time of Christ new doctrines and new
churches that is the hallmark that joins the jw and mormon and oneness
pentecostal and a host of similar. It is remarkable that such a range of
them come to similar doctrines about Trinity, being the "true" church long
long after Christ etc. etc. that defines them.

Now just who best fits the warnings of those to come who will distort and
decieve?

[Sam Taylor]

"." wrote in message news:51a387a5$0$2659$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

************************************************************************
Sam asks,
Have you ever read the scriptures?
or did You read only the scriptures approved for You to read?
in the scriptures there are Five (5) Scriptures that hint in your
Concept of the g-ds, while 6,874 Scriptures emphaticlly
State there is but ONE G-D (YHWH) ALONE
2657 Scriptures talk about the One (1) G-D and
reference another NOT G-D as Messiah.
of those five (2) are not even in the Original text,
and the Other is a mistranslation of a Hebrew name
Hebrew names have a multiplicity of meanings, up
to Seven Unique Meanings, as long as one
does not read it backwords.
Does fear of Questioning G-D, or Doctrine scare You?
when G-D ask You to put Him to the test to see if
He alone is G-D
Sam

[//]

>Have you ever read the scriptures?
>or did You read only the scriptures approved for You to read?

I have read them, no restriction in sight.

>in the scriptures there are Five (5) Scriptures that hint in your
>Concept of the g-ds, while 6,874 Scriptures emphaticlly
>State there is but ONE G-D (YHWH) ALONE
>2657 Scriptures talk about the One (1) G-D and
>reference another NOT G-D as Messiah.
>of those five (2) are not even in the Original text,
>and the Other is a mistranslation of a Hebrew name
>Hebrew names have a multiplicity of meanings, up
>to Seven Unique Meanings, as long as one
>does not read it backwords.

And therefore ..?

>Does fear of Questioning G-D, or Doctrine scare You?
>when G-D ask You to put Him to the test to see if
>He alone is G-D

No, no fear involved.

[duke]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 08:18:47 -0700, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

>On 27 May 2013 12:15:01 GMT, ;;/ wrote:
>

>>>Tyndale/Cloverdale Bible.
>>>
>>>When I looked at the Greek it appeared to match this translations of others
>>>like it from the same source.
>>>
>>>Joh 1:14 And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw the
>>>glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten son of the father, which
>>>word was full of grace, and verity.
>>>Joh 1:15 John bare witness of him and cried, saying, "This was he of whom
>>>I spake, which though he came after me, went before me: for he was before
>>>me."
>>>Joh 1:16 And of his fullness have all we received, even grace for grace.
>>>
>>>
>>>The Glory of "it", that is the glory of the word of God became flesh,
>>>manifested as Jesus Christ, the son of God.
>>
>> Ah, now we go translation shopping to find the one which seems to best
>> produce the desired interpretation do we?

>You might very well do that, and I have seen you do so. Your accusation is
>false, and that is called "bearing false witness".

Your using some whacked out bible version shows that in you.

>
>> Recalling all along the poster has no greek nor any means by which to
>> evaluate the claims made.
>>
>

>Again, "bearing false witness".
>

>> We see before our very eyes the action of the lone ranger bible reader, an
>> authority unto self, not seeking the wise counsel of those who guide away
>> from error and self deception.
>>
>

>Again "bearing false witness". I seek the highest counsel available. I
>showed backup to my understanding of the Greek by showing the written
>translations of other who were in agreement over 600 years ago. The
>language itself written over 2000 years ago is born out by lexicons of its
>day.
>

>> Thus were born the jw and mormon and oneness penetecostal and a host of
>> other groups also started by individual lone ranger bible readers.
>

>Also include the Orthodox, especially the Greek, Russian and Eastern
>versions of it as well as the RCC. There was corruption in those churches
>from their beginnings which Paul warned about. All of those churches
>worship men, and exalt men daily over God as you also do.

[duke]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 08:29:53 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:

>On 27 May 2013 12:30:07 GMT, ;;/ wrote:
>
>>>> I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; (Ephesians 4: 5)
>>>
>>>Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
>>>
>>>There is no baptism for the remission of sins. That woman (Fool) keeps
>>>insisting on falsehoods and a pretend group of mens dogmas. She can find
>>>very little in the word that supports her dogma and keeps post garbage.
>>>
>>>Like a good JW she repeats her mantra while holding her hand over her ears.
>>
>> Smile, in past the several scripturesrelating to baptism were given. The
>> Romans is right to the point. In baptism we are joined to Christ unto
>> eternal life.
>>
>> Romans 6:
>>
>> =3] Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ
>> Jesus were baptized into his death?
>> =4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that
>> as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too
>> might walk in newness of life.
>> =5]
>>

>You actually save and paste bad snips like the above? ^^^^^^^^^
>No where is water mentioned. When one is born again the old man is dead and
>the new made alive by God through Jesus Christ. It is by Faith that one
>receives Christ and Salvation, faith only....
>
>For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is
>the gift of God:

God gave us the gift of water baptism. Have faith in that.

Hebrews 9:15 (New International Version)
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are
called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a
ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

And if you sin after water baptism, it's a new ballgame. And Heb 4:15 says
you're a virtual lock to do that because only Jesus succeeded in avoiding all
sin.

Note that water baptism only cleanses you for sins committed under the old
covenant.

[Sam Taylor]

"Pete" wrote in message news:7Avot.10437$kj3....@newsfe16.iad...

On Sun, 26 May 2013 14:31:16 -0700 (PDT), r wrote:

Actually it is the same contextually for both languages.

Ships - her
Autos - she or her

--------------------------------------
ACTUALLY IT IS PROPER
Autos-She
it is improper in all forms
of the English Language to
use Autos=He
That is why it would be
not proper to the Holy Ghost,
and or the Holy Spirit, as a He
in English/Latin/Greek as He.
Properly it would be either
"She", and or "It"
Lovingly
Sam
-------------------------------
Sam

[Sam Taylor]

"duke" wrote in message news:gko9q8dosakpvm69d...@4ax.com...

On Mon, 27 May 2013 08:29:53 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:

>On 27 May 2013 12:30:07 GMT, ;;/ wrote:
>
>>>> I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; (Ephesians 4: 5)
>>>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then what do You do with "not laying again the Doctrines of Baptisms"
in the Plural?
Johns baptism, was truly a worthy Baptism,
then you have the Baptism, of NOT In of
the Holy Spirit, then Later the baptism OF
the Holy spirit, then Comes the baptism,
of Fire, which is of being set apart from
the World. in Sanctification.
Nobody ever Mentions Sanctification
Lovingly
Sam
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Leviticus 17:11

For the life of the flesh is in the blood:
and I have given it to you upon the altar
to make an atonement for your souls:
for it is the blood
that maketh an atonement for the soul.

[Sam Taylor]

"Pete" wrote in message news:0Mrpt.59770$pU6....@newsfe10.iad...

On Wed, 29 May 2013 10:51:02 -0700, Sam Taylor wrote:

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Then what do You do with "not laying again the Doctrines of Baptisms"
> in the Plural?
> Johns baptism, was truly a worthy Baptism,
> then you have the Baptism, of NOT In of
> the Holy Spirit, then Later the baptism OF
> the Holy spirit, then Comes the baptism,
> of Fire, which is of being set apart from
> the World. in Sanctification.
> Nobody ever Mentions Sanctification
> Lovingly
> Sam
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sam, you bring up a good point here, "Sanctification".
How did/do you tie in "fire" with Sanctification?
*********************************************************************
Welll Theree lil Pilgrim dya remember when Youse gott Santct Efied?
*********************************************************************

For Duke...
Act 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and
from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of
sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in
me.

"Faith in Jesus", He does it all, by faith. No water. Nothing but faith,
and even that not of yourself, no one can generate that kind of faith. It
comes from God only.

[Sam Taylor]

"Pete" wrote in message news:0Mrpt.59770$pU6....@newsfe10.iad...

On Wed, 29 May 2013 10:51:02 -0700, Sam Taylor wrote:

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Then what do You do with "not laying again the Doctrines of Baptisms"
> in the Plural?
> Johns baptism, was truly a worthy Baptism,
> then you have the Baptism, of NOT In of
> the Holy Spirit, then Later the baptism OF
> the Holy spirit, then Comes the baptism,
> of Fire, which is of being set apart from
> the World. in Sanctification.
> Nobody ever Mentions Sanctification
> Lovingly
> Sam
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sam, you bring up a good point here, "Sanctification".
How did/do you tie in "fire" with Sanctification?
*********************************************************

Well Sees Ya Here Lil Pilgrim Dya Doose Ya Remember
Whens Youse gott Sanctified?

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 29, 3:01 pm, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:

> Joh 1:29  The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold
> the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Good point!

Hebrews 7:27
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests,
to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins,
and then for the people's:
for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

[r]

On May 30, 5:52 am, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:33:43 -0700, Sam Taylor wrote:
> > "Pete"  wrote in messagenews:0Mrpt.59770$pU6....@newsfe10.iad...

>
> > On Wed, 29 May 2013 10:51:02 -0700, Sam Taylor wrote:
>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Then what do You do with "not laying again the Doctrines of Baptisms"
> >> in the Plural?
> >> Johns baptism, was truly a worthy Baptism,
> >> then you have the Baptism, of NOT In of
> >> the Holy Spirit, then Later the baptism OF
> >> the Holy spirit, then Comes the baptism,
> >> of Fire, which is of being set apart from
> >> the World. in Sanctification.
> >> Nobody ever Mentions Sanctification
> >> Lovingly
> >> Sam
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Sam, you bring up a good point here, "Sanctification".
> > How did/do you tie in "fire" with Sanctification?
> > *********************************************************************
> > Welll Theree lil Pilgrim dya remember when Youse gott Santct Efied?
>

> Yes, but the one verse does say with the Holy Ghost and Fire. I have always
> been curious about the "and". Seems that the Pentecost saw licks of flames
> on their heads.

"like as of fire" is a simile IMHO

Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven_ tongues like as of
fire_, and it sat upon each of them.

The 'and' conjunction begins all 4 verses from the beginning of that
chapter in accounting the events.

> Sanctified, set apart.

absolutely

[r]

On May 30, 10:08 am, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:

> Could be.

>
> > Act 2:3  And there appeared unto them cloven_ tongues like as of
> > fire_, and it sat upon each of them.
>
> > The 'and' conjunction begins all 4 verses from the beginning of that
> > chapter in accounting the events.
>

> I was thinking of...
> Luk 3:16  John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with
> water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not
> worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

The next verse describes the Holy Ghost judging as though fire to
chaff.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Sanctified, set apart.
>
> > absolutely

[r]

On May 30, 11:10 am, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:

> You are correct. That seems to correspond with the house cleaning He does
> at the end of the Great tribulation.

Aye. it's judgement language.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> Sanctified, set apart.
>
> >>> absolutely

[duke]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 17:08:42 -0700, Pete <m...@ham.mer> wrote:

>On Wed, 29 May 2013 14:29:38 -0700 (PDT), r wrote:
>

>Could be.

>
>> Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven_ tongues like as of
>> fire_, and it sat upon each of them.
>>
>> The 'and' conjunction begins all 4 verses from the beginning of that
>> chapter in accounting the events.
>>
>

>I was thinking of...
>Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with
>water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not

>worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

You just figured that out??

[duke]

Luke 3:16-17 (New International Version)
16 John answered them all, �I baptize you with[a] water. But one who is more
powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.
He will baptize you with[b] the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 His winnowing fork is
in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn,
but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.�

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah and the thief on the cross were baptized
with fire.

[Sam Taylor]

***************************************************************************************
Sam Confesses,
Here is a secret, don't squeal on Me
"in the beginning WAS the Saying"
why because the saying NO LONGER
Exists.
The Saying Gave it all up to become Flesh,
to Redeem Us.
This is Actually When G-D REALLY GAVE His Son,
Not at the Cross.
G-D Didn't kill Him!
Who Killed him the Jews?, the Romans?
NOPE I DID!, for He Died for Me, so I
Could return the Compliment.
and Die for Me, and live For Him,
and allow Him to live through Me
Sam
******************************************************************************************

"Sam Taylor" wrote in message news:RMspt.8368$u_4....@newsfe09.iad...

[r]

On May 31, 2:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

Unless I've misread the text, it's judgement that is in view than
baptism.