If the agency principle were to apply here, then we might say the Logos did it, but I cannot find any reason to here apply that, and as such, and as the one performing the action is specifically defined, I have to say that the Logos did not do it, but the one defined did. I have to deal with what the text says, not a loose interpretation.
Mondo1
JoinedPosts by Mondo1
-
396
Who is Jesus? Is he God?
by BelieverInJesus ini live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
-
-
-
137
New World Translation Brackets!!
by gold_morning infor what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.
the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".
at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.
-
-
Mondo1
The fact that there were pagan god-men has little to do with the God of the Jews and their rejection of such pagan deities.
The NT was not written by Greeks, it was written by Jews.
You err because you attempt to classify "God" as a job, comparing it to a carpenter. It is not a job, it is a position, and one does not hold that position, and more specifically, exist as a person of a single being, because one is born of another. You want to accept that Jesus is God's Son, but not accept all that is included with that thought, which is that he was produced from the Father and quite truly came to be in existence... thus meaning he is not eternal.
I know the history and the background quite well, but obviously you wish to project your own insufficient understanding of the issues on to me. Quite clearly, you have little or no grasp of the principle of agency and how it necessarily applies to the interpretation of Scripture.
-
137
New World Translation Brackets!!
by gold_morning infor what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.
the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".
at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.
-
-
Mondo1
Does this mean more than one, or only one?
Interesting question. One must understand how those in the first century understood the words "one something." For example, the NT teaches that Jesus is our "one Lord" and yet the apostle John in Revelation 7:14 had no problem addressing one of the 24 elders as his Lord. Further, in John 8, the Jews state "we have one Father, God" and yet only 2 verses prior they stated: "Abraham is our Father." If they have one Father who is God and Abraham is their Father, is Abraham God? No. The point is that the expression "one something" didn't necessarily mean that exclusively, but that completely.
There are many gods and many lords, but they are false ones.
Scripture would beg to differ. The Bible speaks of the false gods as "so-called gods" while there are many real gods, such as the angels.
Mondo
-
137
New World Translation Brackets!!
by gold_morning infor what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.
the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".
at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.
-
-
Mondo1
Auldsoul,
My argument was based upon the Biblical text. You want to expand it well outside the Bible, which has nothing to do with my argument based upon the Bible. Trinitarians want to interpret various texts in light of their preconcieved polypersonal god, to prove that he is polypersonal. This is circular.
As for me, I consider myself a monotheist. Some might call me a Henotheist, but I am certainly no more such than those at Qumran.
-
137
New World Translation Brackets!!
by gold_morning infor what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.
the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".
at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.
-
-
Mondo1
Hellrider,
If we want to understand the Bible, we must understand how those that were alive when it was wrote would look at it. I've attempted to give you a bit of insight into how they thought and how they wrote. You can call it explaining away, but it is hardly that. It is simply a fact that they looked at things as I put forth. Obviously this is not my thing or a JW thing, for I have given you a couple of sources that clearly speak of what I have put forth, and there are plenty of other sources as well.
-
396
Who is Jesus? Is he God?
by BelieverInJesus ini live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
-
-
Mondo1
As I mentioned, the semantic range of "make" is wider than "create." It says "let us make," because "make" would include the thought of "create," but it would also include a wider range of meaning as well, and so it is appropriate. It seems "make" may be used here because of how it is said that he did it per verse 24.
-
137
New World Translation Brackets!!
by gold_morning infor what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.
the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".
at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.
-
-
Mondo1
It is quite simple. Revelation 4:11 is direct address, Revelation 5:13 is not. Prayer is direct address. As Revelation 5:13 is not direct address, it is not prayer.
-
137
New World Translation Brackets!!
by gold_morning infor what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.
the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".
at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.
-
-
Mondo1
Why would I assume that God exists as some type of polypersonal being that is never once taught? I'd rather take Scripture for what it says and apply principles that are explicitly shown in Scripture to understand them.
A) Actually, it was an accepted way of writing to attribute to oneself what is said/done to ones agent, for one's agent is as himself, as the Talmud clearly defines. So if God's agent was pierced, according to understanding of the day, it would be the same thing as saying that they pierced the one that he sent.
B) Well this goes back to the principle of agency. To pierce the agent is to pierce the sender... and so the agent is indeed pierced. There is no issue.
C) Well again, agency would apply quite naturally. In case you do not understand this concept, Johnson explains it: "In Hebrew thought a patriarch’s personality extended throughout his entire household to his wives, his sons and their wives, his daughters, servants in his household and even in some sense his property. The "one" personality was present in the "many" who were with him. In a specialized sense when the patriarch as lord of his household deputized his trusted servant as his malak (i.e. his messenger or angel) the man was endowed with the authority and resources of his lord to represent him fully and transact business in his name. In Semitic thought this messenger-representative was conceived of as being personally - and in his very words - the presence of the sender."
In other words, to attribute something or do something to the agent is it attribute it or do it to the one that sent him. Buchanan brings to light this application to Jesus: "As apostle or agent he was sent with the full authority of the one who sent him. A man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has power of attorney for the one who sent him. . . He has the authority of an ambassador who speaks in behalf of a king in negotiating for his country (Ber. 5:5). Jesus said that the one who received his apostles whom he had sent received Jesus himself, and not only Jesus, but the one who had sent him. (John 13:20). . . Legally Jesus was identical with the Father, but physically the Father was greater. . . As an ambassador or apostle, the Son has authority over everything since he is given legal authority and is supported in everything he does "by the word of [God's] power." He speaks for the One who sent him."
Buchanan notes John 13:20, which tells us that he who receives the Son receives the Father, and so in a similar way, what one does to the son is what one does to the Father.
If you want to argue for a polypersonal God, you have to prove that one exists first. Otherwise, what you are doing is purely circular, expecting us to interpret Scripture in light of there being one when you have not yet demonstrated that one even exists!
Mondo
-
137
New World Translation Brackets!!
by gold_morning infor what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.
the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".
at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.
-
-
Mondo1
I already responded and noted that they were not directly addressed.
-
396
Who is Jesus? Is he God?
by BelieverInJesus ini live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
-
-
Mondo1
1:3 in part refers to it, some view 1:1 as an allusion to it too, but I don't hold to that view.