-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Jesus say he was God???
- Thread starter Muffled
- Start date
Tranquil Servant
Was M.I.A for a while
I wanted to provide some Scripture verses so we could make the distinction between physical and spiritual life (or death).
Genesis 2:7 (AMP)
7 Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath or spirit of life, and man became a living being.
Genesis 2:7 (CEB)
7 the LORD God formed the human from the topsoil of the fertile land and blew lifes breath into his nostrils. The human came to life.
Genesis 2:7 (CJB)
7 Then ADONAI,God, formed a person from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, so that he became a living being.
Genesis 2:7 (CEV)
7 The LORD God took a handful of soil and made a man. God breathed life into the man, and the man started breathing.
Genesis 2:7 (NIV)
7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Genesis 6:3 (AMP)
3 Then the Lord said, My Spirit shall not forever dwell and strive with man, for he also is flesh; but his days shall yet be 120 years.
Genesis 6:3 (CEB)
3 The LORD said, My breath will not remain in humans forever, because they are flesh. They will live one hundred twenty years.
Genesis 6:3 (CJB)
3 ADONAI said, My Spirit will not live in human beings forever, for they too are flesh; therefore their life span is to be 120 years.
Genesis 6:3 (CEV)
3 Then the LORD said, I wont let my life-giving breath remain in anyone forever. No one will live for more than one hundred twenty years.
Genesis 6:3 (NIV)
3 Then the LORD said, My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 (AMP)
7 Then shall the dust [out of which God made mans body] return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God Who gave it.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 (CEB)
7 before dust returns to the earth as it was before and the life-breath returns to God who gave it.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 (CJB)
7 the dust returns to earth, as it was, and the spirit returns to God, who gave it!
Ecclesiastes 12:7 (CEV)
7 So our bodies return to the earth, and the life-giving breath returns to God.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 (NIV)
7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Job 12:10 (NIV)
In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.
Job 27:3 (NIV)
as long as I have life within me, the breath of God in my nostrils,
Job 33:4 (NIV)
The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life.
Job 34:14 (NIV)
If it were his intention and he withdrew his spirit and breath,
Ezekiel 37:7-9 (NIV)
7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.
9 Then he said to me, Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Come, breath, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may live.
Revelation 13:15 (NIV)
The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
Breath and spirit translate into basically the same thing. The spirit is the spiritual connection between God and humans. One can be a living soul but be spiritually dead. At the same time, in a literal sense, it is because of God that everything that breathes, lives and if a person ceases to breath they cease to live. For example,
Genesis 6:3 (CEV)
3 Then the LORD said, I wont let my life-giving breath remain in anyone forever. No one will live for more than one hundred twenty years.
Genesis 6:3 (NIV)
3 Then the LORD said, My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.
Notice how one version says "life-giving breath" and the other says "spirit." Also one version says "contend" which means to struggle and the other says "remain;" this is because God is referring to not just a physical death but a spiritual death. When God made this declaration, the entire world was consumed and condemned by evil with the exclusion of Noah and his family. The world no longer called upon God; instead they contended against him.
Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
Also if we believe Christ is God and Christ is the way the truth and the life, then we are spiritually alive and have the spiritual relationship with God Adam and Eve had with God before their fall. In addition, our souls will have eternal life the way God intended from the beginning.
“a god” you just added the letter “a” in front of the word “God” and lower case the word “God” to “god” and assumed that it is “a god” and not “God”.
If you read very carefully, the reason why the Jews wanted to stone the Lord Jesus Christ is because, -from the scriptures- “being a man, makest thyself God.” Blasphemy
Why would the Jews wanted to stone the Lord Jesus Christ if they thought he was just another “a god“?
Joh10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
“Is it not written in your law? Where do we find this law?
Exodus22:28 _ Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.
“The gods” here are the judges and magistrates.
Joh10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
If, then, these terms can be applied to ordinary mortals or even angels, how could the Lord Jesus Christ be accused of blasphemy when He applied them to Himself, the One whom the Father set apart and sent into the world? The Lord Jesus Christ was not offering a false claim nor denying that He is God; He was merely asserting what He was by right, the Son of God.
Peter was right when he said something about Paul’s writings. Note: I’m not saying Hebrews is Paul’s.
2Pe3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Mat4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
Mat4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
You see here how satan misquoted or twisted the word of God for his own purposes. Satan omitted “to keep thee in all thy ways.”
Psa91:11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
How did satan misquoted it? The promise is, “to keep thee in all thy ways.” how? In all thy ways; not otherwise; if Christ went out of God’s “ways”, God can not protect Christ had He jumped.
Mat4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
“The Trinity Delusion; John 10:33”
How did you see the Trinity in John10:33?
John10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
I see the Son of God.
1Pe1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Here I see the Triune God: the God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son of God..
Please read the bible.
Last edited:
Joh1:1 IN the beginning was the[definite article] Word, and the[definite article] Word was with God, and the[definite article] Word was God.
NOTE: the Word was with God, and the Word was God. OR Joh10:30 I and my Father are one.
And the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy,
Joh10:33 blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Joh10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Joh17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
NOTE: John10:33 the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world and John17:3 the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Who did God sent into the world?
The ONLY Son of God, or the Word who was with God, or,
John1:14 And the[definite article] 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.
Christ was the Shekinah glory of God in open manifestation.
The Word is the Son of God and was with God, and the Word was God or I and my Father are one.
Joh1:18 No man hath seen[eye to eye] God at any time; the only begotten Son[only Christ seen God eye to eye], which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Joh1:2 The[definite article] same was in the beginning with God.
Joh17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Before the creation or before time and space the Word -the Son of God- was there with God already, that is why the Lord Jesus Christ said, I and my Father are one.
Joh1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
How does one explain this verse -John1:3?
Ephesians 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
Ephesians 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
Ephesians 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
Ephesians 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
How can one fully understand the love of Christ, but yet not totally understood, and still be filled with the knowledge of God?
The creation spoke by itself. Gods creation is the expression of the love of Christ. Until today scientists can not explain the vastness of the universe. They can not fathom the breath, and length, and depth, and height of the universe. Who made all of these and why? What was the purpose of God when He made all these things?
Christ, His only begotten Son.
Heb1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Why did God called His Son -Jesus Christ- God, if Christ is not God?
Phi2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phi2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Please read the bible.
John Martin
Active Member
The question whether Jesus is God cannot be resolved with arguments. The questions is what is your theological system? I divide into two main systems: Prophetic Monotheism and Hindu Monotheism.
According to Prophetic Monotheism there is only one God and this one God is the Creator. Creation and human beings are creatures of God and there will be always a gulf between God and human beings. Even in heaven human beings be different and separate from God.
According to Hindu Monotheism there is only one God( ekam say vipra bahuthi vedanti, Self-existing being is one but sages call it by many names). This God is not a creator. So they have give different views on the origin of creation.
As regards creation and human beings there are different opinions:
According to Dvaita Systesm, there is only one God, creation and human beings are completely and essentially different from God. There are not created but they are there with God from the beginning.
According to Visistadvaita system: there is only one God. Creation and human beings is not created by God but there are emanation from God, there are the body of God and in separable from God. But there are not one with God there is subtle and essential difference from God. Human souls cannot merge with God but keep certain identity after death in heaven.
According to advaita system there is only one God. Creation and human souls are ultimately one with God. Human souls can merge with God and can say 'God and I are one'.
Christianity has two visions one for Christ another for human beings. Human beings are creatures of God. This is the dualistic view. Jesus Christ is one with God:this is non-dualistic view. The statements which Jesus made are perfectly valid in the non-dualistic system.Anyone can say, 'the Father and I are one?.
The statement 'I am in the Father and Father in me' is perfectly valid in visistadviata system. In the dualistic system a person can only say, God is greater than I'.
Those who believe in the dualistic vision cannot accept Jesus as the Son of God or one with God.
For those who believe in the non-dualistic vision the statements of Jesus are perfectly valid but they are not limited to Jesus alone. Christians hold that they are valid only to Jesus.
Hence the debate whether Jesus was God depends on the system we believe. Jesus was born in the dualistic system but had the experience of non-dualistic system. So his spiritual tradition had difficulty to understand and called his statements blasphemous. The Hindu sages would have accepted him without any difficulty. It is for this reason it is very useful for many Christians to read the Upanishadic teachings which will help to understand Jesus^ teachings.
What bible versions do you use? The reason why I asked you is, there are groups of people that uses different versions of the bible to answer different questions or verses in the bible.
A cart before the horse. Let’s find an answer before we ask the question.
For example, in KJV it says,
Act20:28 _ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
“The church of God”, The Anarthrous noun here is not present, because the word “God” is presume as “The God” with the definite article, and the word “Jesus Christ” is nowhere near this sentence or verse.
Now, there is a group of people and they claimed to be Christians because they read the bible also. The name of their group is “church of Christ, or Iglesia ni kristo”
So, what did they do to establish their name -church of Christ- in the bible? They find an answer first before the question naturally.
Where did they find this answer?
Lamsa version of the bible.
In the Lamsa version it says,
Acts20:28 Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed your overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood -*
From KJV “the church of God”; from Lamsa version “the church of Christ”; from the Greek translation, “ekklesian tou theou”
My point is, people will distort the word of God for their own purposes, to make their theology work..
Another example is, and I think you are very familiar with this since you have said, it has been threading in this forum with hundreds of pages already, is the New World Translation where the controversy -on your part- about the Anarthrous noun. Prior to this controversy, the anarthrous noun, they, the WT, agreed that there is no such thing as anarthrous noun in John1:1, Hebrews1:8 and so on, but later they change their thinking about this. So, what did they do to change this thinking? They find the answer first before the question. The birth of the New World Translation. Well, it pleases their minds, or should I say the flesh.
Again what version do you use?
Please read the bible.
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
Acts 20:28 has Tou Theou = Of THE god. The Tou has an implied Definite. It's important to remember that Theou should not be compared to the anarthrous Theos. So did you not notice the Tou or do you think the "Tou" simply means "of" and not "of the"? If so, you're mistaking Modern Greek grammar for Koine.
Also, as Dirty Penguin has spent many passages showing, the Lamsa bible should not be used.
It doesn't really matter what version or translation I use, it's about what the individual Scholars themselves say. Even some (more honest) Trinitarian scholars have agreed that Phil 2:5-6 implies a divine being rather than God himself. With that said, why should it read "Form of a slave" instead of "Form of slave"?
I said that Hebrew has no Vocative, and that the Psalm and the verse should read "The God is thy throne" or otherwise meaning "God has given thee thy throne" as the JPS puts it.
Indeed, Trinitarians are the world's best historical proof of that.
Also, as Dirty Penguin has spent many passages showing, the Lamsa bible should not be used.
It doesn't really matter what version or translation I use, it's about what the individual Scholars themselves say. Even some (more honest) Trinitarian scholars have agreed that Phil 2:5-6 implies a divine being rather than God himself. With that said, why should it read "Form of a slave" instead of "Form of slave"?
I said that Hebrew has no Vocative, and that the Psalm and the verse should read "The God is thy throne" or otherwise meaning "God has given thee thy throne" as the JPS puts it.
Indeed, Trinitarians are the world's best historical proof of that.
Last edited:
BTW are you a Jew or a Gentile?
Shermana
Heretic
I am ethnically Ashkenazi, now what does that have to do with the facts in question?
Shermana
Heretic
Edit: I misunderstood what you were saying and am now more confused about what your point was. You do acknowledge that Acts 20:28 has a definite article before God, so what's your point? There's really no use in trying to use the Eastern Pe****ta's "Church of Christ" version as if that somehow correlates to "Church of God". All it proves is that it's a textual variant, and in no way demonstrates that they equated "God" with "Christ". If anything it correlates to the Greek variants in that the Church of Christ would also be God's Church, since Christ is the messenger of such.
If anything, the Eastern Pe****ta version of "Church of Christ" may be the original, and if anything would demonstrate that the Western texts that use "Church of God" were flat out distorted. A possible example of how Trinitarians would change the text to suit their Theology, or just a scribal or communication error. If the Pe****ta translated "Christ" from "God", then that simply would show that this text was more about Theological preference than a direct translation. It's a good example for a future debate though.
If anything, the Eastern Pe****ta version of "Church of Christ" may be the original, and if anything would demonstrate that the Western texts that use "Church of God" were flat out distorted. A possible example of how Trinitarians would change the text to suit their Theology, or just a scribal or communication error. If the Pe****ta translated "Christ" from "God", then that simply would show that this text was more about Theological preference than a direct translation. It's a good example for a future debate though.
Last edited:
Right from your very lips, If so, you're mistaking Modern Greek grammar for Koine.
The New Testament was written in common Greek, the everyday business language used throughout the Greek-speaking part of the Roman Empire. This common Greek, which also is known as Koine or Hellenistic Greek, was a simplified version of classical Greek and was spread by Alexander the Great throughout the Mediterranean world.
Attic Greek was one the major achievements of the human mind. The richness and subtlety of its syntax, its flexibility, the delicacy of its particles--these and other linguistic features make Attic the most expressive medium ever developed for human thought. The dialect passed with the passing of the city states and with the unification of Greece, and were followed by a basic Greek that developed in the form of a simplified Attic. This, spread by Alexanders conquest throughout the eastern end of the Mediterranean, and was called the KOINE or common dialect. It was the speech of the LXX and the NT, the global gospel of Paul of Tarsus, the Christian church, and modern Europe.
The Septuagint was in popular use in Jesus time and is often quoted by New Teatament writers. It is a translation of Hebrew into Greek by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. The Pentateuch was translated about 250 B.C. and the entire OT completed 100 years later. The term septuangint is the latin word for 70, representing the 72 rabbis who did the translating under the orders of Ptolemy Philadelphus. The Greek used was not the classical idiom but rather anticipated that of the NT, the KOINE. It was designed to preserve the old religion among the dipersed Jews in a language they commonly used.
Ac 20:28 prosechete heautois kai panti tö poimniö, en hö humas [to/modern Greek or to assist in English] pneuma to hagion etheto episkopous poimainein tën ekklësian [tou/modern Greek, or to assist in English] theou, hën periepoiësato dia [tou/modern Greek, or to assist in English] haimatos [tou/modern Greek, or to assist in English] idiou.
Ac 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church [of, to assist in English via modern Greek] God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
We see here the original KOINE Greek or the simplified Attic Greek to the modern Greek just to please the English language.
From KOINE Greek ekklesian theou to the English language, church of God or if I can steal your very words an implied Definite then translated to the Modern Greek, ekklesian tou theou.
Anarthrous does not exist in the Modern Greek language at all. If it does not, then how did your so-called scholars did translated the original KOINE Greek to the Modern Greek with the anarthrous if it was not translated first from the English language? Your so called scholars first translated the KOINE Greek to the adulterated English language first, then translated it to Modern adulterated Greek so you could use this anarthrous with a noun, like a god
From your very lips again, It's important to remember that Theou should not be compared to the anarthrous Theos.
Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phil 2:6 hos/who en/in morphë/form theou/God huparchön/being ouch/not harpagmon/prize hëgësato/count to einai isa/equal theö/God
Who in form God being not prize count equal God.
I dont see anarthrous here, do you? This is as good koine Greek as you can get, unadulterated.
You know why?
Because God the almighty designed verses like this to be foolproof.
Phil 2:7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;
Why should the a servant be like the servant or of servant when the writer was just making a comparrison to a or any servant?
You totally misunderstood me.
The church of Christ in the Philippines or Iglesia ni Kristo is the one Im talking about. This is the name of their group or cult. They do no not believe also that Christ is God. Now, for them to establish the name, Iglesia ni Kristo or in English the church of Christ in the bible, they found this bible version, the Lamsa bible. In the Lamsa version it says in Acts 20:28 the church of Christ or Iglesia ni Kristo. Now, by establishing this name Iglesia ni Kristo, in the bible, they could tell their congregation that their church name is in the bible, that they exist in the bible, or their church is the only church of Christ because they are written in the bible. They were telling people that outside that church one can not be save,
My point is; people will distort the word of God just to make their theology work. The irony here is, they change the ekklesian Theou to ekklesian Christou and since they do not believe that Christ is God, they change the God to Christ who is God. No matter how people twisted the word of God for their own benefits, it will come back to them as if they were admitting what they were denying. One cannot re-write the whole bible and foolproof it.
Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phil 2:6 hos/who en/in morphë/form theou/God huparchön/being ouch/not harpagmon/prize hëgësato/count to einai isa/equal theö/God
Who in form God being not prize count equal God.
I dont see anarthrous here, do you?
But I see Jesus in form God
Can you prove otherwise?
What are the scholars has to say about this verse?
Please show me in Greek the anarthrous in this verse and I will believe you.
Sometimes it is right in front of you, or staring at you, but still denying it.
You said something about Trinitarian Dellusion.
For what I know the meaning of dellusion is, a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with the actual fact.
The actual fact is written here, Who in form God being not prize count equal God. Koine Greek, and not modern Greek, to English, word for word.
Please, dont you have a mind of your own that you always include third parties to this debate. If you have knowledge, or a written theory about this particular verse, from your own mind, please write it and dont hide from these scholars. The scholars says this, scholars says that.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Hello, Born again. I do not think the question of the Trinity can be resolved but you make very scholarly and well thought out attempts at it. I lean towards the truth of the Trinity but have never seen a need to resolve it absolutely. However as C.S. Lewis said: Christ was either a madman or divine but the claim he was merely a Razul (good teacher) is an option history has not left open.
With your permission I will PM you in the future for information or input in other debates. It is rare to see another Christian with orthodox views in these forums. I am a born again Christian and my views are traditional protestant but for some reason it is rare to find another traditional Christian in these debates.
My core values are:
1. We must be spiritually born again to get to heaven.
2. This is a matter of pure grace and merit plays no role in salvation its self.
3. This salvation is permanent and irrevocable (outside the possibility of some absolute rejection of Christ, intentionally). Salvation gained by Christ's merits is not maintained by my own. It is Christ from start to finish.
4. Scripture alone is allowed to decide matters of faith and tradition never supersedes it.
For future reference do you adhere to these core doctrines or do you disagree with any of them. My apologies for a departure from the threads context.
Jn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
I can see the Trinity here.
Jn 14:16 kagö erötësö ton patera kai allon paraklëton dösei humin, hina meth' humön eis ton aiöna ë,
Koine Greek was a simplified form of classical Greek and unfortunately many of the subtleties of classical Greek were lost.
The word another here has two meanings in Classical Greek,
For example, in classical Greek a[llo"//allos meant other of the same kind while e{tero"/heteros meant other of a different kind. If you had an apple and you asked for a[llo"//allos, you would receive another apple. But if you asked for e{tero"/heteros, you would be given perhaps an orange.
Some of these classical Greek subtleties come through in Scripture but not often.
When the Lord Jesus Christ said, I pray the Father and ANOTHER/ALLOS Comforter/Parakleton give you to with you forever be.
Christ made a tremendous claim both for Himself and for the Holy Spirit, for ALLOS here implies the personalaity of the Holy Spirit, and equality of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit with the Father.
Trinity! Can not deny it here.
The Greek language has a long and rich history stretching all the way from the thirteenth century B.C. to the present. The earliest form of the language is called Linear B (13th century B.C.). The form of Greek used by writers from Homer (8th century B.C.) through Plato (4th century B.C.) is called Classical Greek.
It was a marvelous form of the language, capable of exact expression and subtle nuances. Its alphabet was derived from the Phoenicians as was Hebrews. Classical Greek existed in three major families of dialects: Doric, Aeolic, and Ionic (of which Attic was a branch).
Athens was conquered in the fourth century B.C. by King Philip of Macedonia. Alexander the Great, Philips son, who was tutored by the Greek philosopher Aristotle, set out to conquer the world and spread Greek culture and language. Because Alexander spoke Attic Greek, it was this dialect that was spread. It was also the dialect spoken by the famous Athenian writers. This was the beginning of the Hellenistic Age.
As the Classical Greek language spread across the world and met other languages, it was altered (which is true of any language especially today). The dialects also interacted with each other. Eventually this adaptation resulted in what today we call Koine Greek.
This is the reason why the New Testament was written in Koine Greek with some classical Greek intact like, Jn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Today, from Koine Greek, to Latin, to English language, to Modern Greek, and back to English language again, we will see, or seen already, adulteration/alteration of the word of God just to please everyones theology.
I can see the Trinity here.
Jn 14:16 kagö erötësö ton patera kai allon paraklëton dösei humin, hina meth' humön eis ton aiöna ë,
Koine Greek was a simplified form of classical Greek and unfortunately many of the subtleties of classical Greek were lost.
The word another here has two meanings in Classical Greek,
For example, in classical Greek a[llo"//allos meant other of the same kind while e{tero"/heteros meant other of a different kind. If you had an apple and you asked for a[llo"//allos, you would receive another apple. But if you asked for e{tero"/heteros, you would be given perhaps an orange.
Some of these classical Greek subtleties come through in Scripture but not often.
When the Lord Jesus Christ said, I pray the Father and ANOTHER/ALLOS Comforter/Parakleton give you to with you forever be.
Christ made a tremendous claim both for Himself and for the Holy Spirit, for ALLOS here implies the personalaity of the Holy Spirit, and equality of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit with the Father.
Trinity! Can not deny it here.
The Greek language has a long and rich history stretching all the way from the thirteenth century B.C. to the present. The earliest form of the language is called Linear B (13th century B.C.). The form of Greek used by writers from Homer (8th century B.C.) through Plato (4th century B.C.) is called Classical Greek.
It was a marvelous form of the language, capable of exact expression and subtle nuances. Its alphabet was derived from the Phoenicians as was Hebrews. Classical Greek existed in three major families of dialects: Doric, Aeolic, and Ionic (of which Attic was a branch).
Athens was conquered in the fourth century B.C. by King Philip of Macedonia. Alexander the Great, Philips son, who was tutored by the Greek philosopher Aristotle, set out to conquer the world and spread Greek culture and language. Because Alexander spoke Attic Greek, it was this dialect that was spread. It was also the dialect spoken by the famous Athenian writers. This was the beginning of the Hellenistic Age.
As the Classical Greek language spread across the world and met other languages, it was altered (which is true of any language especially today). The dialects also interacted with each other. Eventually this adaptation resulted in what today we call Koine Greek.
This is the reason why the New Testament was written in Koine Greek with some classical Greek intact like, Jn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Today, from Koine Greek, to Latin, to English language, to Modern Greek, and back to English language again, we will see, or seen already, adulteration/alteration of the word of God just to please everyones theology.
Trinatarian English translation?
What are you saying?
Phil2:6 Who in form God being not prize count equal God.
Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phil 2:6
hos/who
en/in
morphë/form
theou/God
huparchön/being
ouch/not
harpagmon/prize
hëgësato/count
to einai isa/equal
theö/God
What is it that you did not understand here?
This Koine Greek translation is from any Christian bible.
This is the same bible you people are trying to adulterate.
Remember I asked you what kind of bible you use. The reason for that is maybe we can read it from there and still prove you wrong.
Translate the very word of God in English language base on human/mortal opinions.
Since when your opinion, a mere human, a mortal man became relevant to the mind of the immortal God?
You want to be a teacher of the law? You want to translate koine Greek to English language. The question is, how are going to do it? You can not even understand the difference between Modern Greek to Classic Greek to Koine Greek. One minute you were saying oh its modern Greek then no its koine Greek
This is what you wrote; So did you not notice the Tou or do you think the "Tou" simply means "of" and not "of the"? If so, you're mistaking Modern Greek grammar for Koine.
Now your are contradicting your statement. Tell me which one are we talking here, the modern Greek, or the koine Greek, or the Attic Greek, or the classic Greek?
You asked what was the point of the Greek language history that I posted?
This is the point.
If you read Acts20:28 in modern Greek you will see what you wanted to see, and this is what you wrote, So did you not notice the Tou or do you think the "Tou" simply means "of" and not "of the"?
ekklësian tou theou or the church of the God this is the modern Greek version that you wanted to see.
Now, if you read it in Koine Greek, Acts20:28 this is how it should be from the original Koine Greek, ekklësian theou or church God they use the words of and the only to assist in English language.
In other words, the words of and the are not in the original Koine Greek language.
Every time you people see two God in a verse, right away you panic and what do you do? You say, theres gotta be ANARTHROUS here
Lets see if that is true.
Phil2:6 Who in form God being not prize count equal God.
I asked you this before but you refuse to answer with written theories or anything just to disprove this verse.
You will never, never see anarthrous in this verse.
This was your pervious statement
And this was my answer.
Phil 2:7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;
Why should the a servant be like the servant or of servant when the writer was just making a comparrison to a or any servant?
I did answer that already. Why do you insist on putting A in front of the God when it is not in the original KOINE Greek language? Why you cannot understand that all I was doing is translating from the Original KOINE Greek language to English language, or I am not doing this base on my own OPINION because I know where to find the answers. I did not fabricate any of these. They were all written in the bible and all you have to do is read it.
You know why the Greeks called Paul a babbler/spermologos when he went to Athens?
Spermolog is a Greek word for a babbler.
A babbler is a crow, or some other bird, picking up seeds. Then it seems to have been used of a man accustomed to hang about the streets, and markets, picking up scraps which fall from loads; hence a parasite, who lives at the expense of others, a hanger on.
Methaphorically it became used of a man who picks us scraps of information and retails them secondhand, a plagiarist, or of those who make a show, in unscientific style, of knowledge obtained from MISUNDERSTANDING LECTURES.
They have these scraps of limited informations that they kept in a box, once gone or empty, they stop, unlike the unlimited source of truth from the bible that can never be exhausted. That is the reason why we have the bible, the source of the way, the life, and the truth about the eternal God.
The Greeks thought Paul was just a babbler of limited information about the resurrected Christ, -WITH NO FOUNDATION AT ALL- but it turned out, them Greeks, the philosophers of the Epicureans, and the Stoics, were the babblers instead about the resurrected Christ. Like the Pharisees, those Greeks dont have any ideas about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Read the bible