dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Whether it was that way or not makes no difference to me. My point is that there had to have been time at that point, because there was matter. Humans or no humans, if there's matter, there's time.
-
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!
John 1:1
- Thread starter dyanaprajna2011
- Start date
Whether it was that way or not makes no difference to me. My point is that there had to have been time at that point, because there was matter. Humans or no humans, if there's matter, there's time.
Since Jesus reigns a thousand years before Jesus hands back the kingdom to his God, then how could Jesus 'return' mean time stops?
-1st Cor 15 vs24-28.
'Eternity' has always been in men's hearts and minds. -[Ecc. 3v11]
For each day we can think ahead we can also think back.
Sinless Adam was created to live forever on earth.
During Jesus millennial reign over earth, the humble meek that will inherit the earth, or earthly realm of God's kingdom, will remain forever on earth.
So, there will always be time on the earth that abides forever.- [Ecc 1v4 B]
-Psalm 37vs11,29; Proverbs 2vs20-22; Matthew 5v5.
Shermana
Heretic
The same goes for John 10:33, the Pharisees aren't accusing Jesus of making himself to be "God" but "A god".
John 1:1c's anathrous Theos shouldn't be read any differently the anarthrous Theos of Acts 12:22, "The voice of a god". And Colwell's "rule" does not apply. Part of the reason why Goodspeed and Moffatt translated 1:1c as Divine, from what I've read, is to avoid a Modalistic/Sabbellian interpretation, and any Trinitarian should render it as "Divine" unless they are fine with Modalism, the Oneness Pentacostals note this to their chagrin.
The Arians had it right. If one wants to see what kind of "Theology" John had in mind, they should turn to Philo's "Logos Theology" which was well prominent in the region where John lived. Also, see the "Wisdom of Solomon" which defines "Wisdom" (the meaning of "Logos") as an actual personified being, the first created entity and Co-creator of the world.
John 1:1c's anathrous Theos shouldn't be read any differently the anarthrous Theos of Acts 12:22, "The voice of a god". And Colwell's "rule" does not apply. Part of the reason why Goodspeed and Moffatt translated 1:1c as Divine, from what I've read, is to avoid a Modalistic/Sabbellian interpretation, and any Trinitarian should render it as "Divine" unless they are fine with Modalism, the Oneness Pentacostals note this to their chagrin.
The Arians had it right. If one wants to see what kind of "Theology" John had in mind, they should turn to Philo's "Logos Theology" which was well prominent in the region where John lived. Also, see the "Wisdom of Solomon" which defines "Wisdom" (the meaning of "Logos") as an actual personified being, the first created entity and Co-creator of the world.
Last edited:
Green Kepi
Active Member
Guess it depends whether one believes in the 1000 year reign or not. Your reference to the "1000 Year Reign of Christ" does not appear anywhere in scripture. Revelation 20:3-8 is the only passage in the entire scriptures that you probably have as the basis for the "1000 year reign of Christ."
It's not Christ that reigns 1000 years, but those who were killed for God's sake that reign with Christ 1000 years. Is it not obvious from the Scripture that every occurrence of the word "thousand," by itself, throughout scripture, is not literal but symbolic for a large number or long period of time?
Then, why is it when you go to the book of Revelation (the most symbolic book of them all), and you interpret this thousand years as literal? Especially when there is no scriptural warrant for doing so?
Green Kepi
Active Member
Please notice: Numbers 13v34 and Psalm 90v4 besides 2nd Peter 3v8
If Christ does not reign, then why is Christ king of God's kingdom?
Doesn't Revelation [20vs 4 B, 6] say reign 'with' Christ a 1000 years ?
Reigning 'with' would not be without Christ.
Jesus 'brothers' [spiritual brothers] of Matthew [25v40] and of 1st Cor [15v50]
are the 'brothers' that will reign with Christ.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I've always interpreted it as a description of the deity of Jesus.
It's obviously not clear to every interpreter, for a variety of reasons. But the Greek is quite plain - we can't criticize an interpretation or create one based on the argument that the text itself is unclear. What the text says is plain - but the meaning is anybody's guess.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Seems like John 1:1 and 1:14 (Septuagaint) would kind of contradict...John 4:24...and vice versa..(IMO)..
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Seems like John 1:1 and 1:14 (Septuagaint) would kind of contradict...John 4:24...and vice versa..(IMO)..
John isn't in the Septuagaint.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
John isn't in the Septuagaint.
Correct. My apologies. I have multiple tabs open with info and multiple thread tabs open I'm commenting on.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
No problem.
Do you have any idea what you meant to say? It looks like you were going somewhere before mentioning the LXX.
Shermana
Heretic
Sorry, Colwell's rule is completely fabricated.
The "Greek" you claim to know in this incidence was wholesale invented in the 1930s as a reaction to the many scholarly and non-church aligned translations that were saying "Word was DIvine" and "Word was a god" around that time. It is by no means a "Discovery" or "insight", it is one of the most blatant displays of total dishonesty and sheer disregard for objectivity and willfulness to distort Greek grammar to suit Trinitarian dogma in history. Whether you're a PH.D. or not, there are other PH.D.s like Dr. Jason Beduhn who call out these "Christian Scholars" for the frauds they are who push this "Colwell's rule".
Not only that, there are many examples that prove that Colwell's rule does not work. The reaction to these verses has been that "Colwell's rule is subjective and based on the usage". I.E. Trinitarian presumptions rule when it applies or not. So it only applies when the Trinitarians want it to, and it doesn't in all other cases. Even Daniel Wallace, the most Trinitarian of modern Trinitarians, doesn't accept it and prefers the "Word was Divine" translation, saying that "Word was God" only works to not confuse the audience (to his interpretation of what it means) but that it SHOULD say "Divine".
In the end, it goes to show that Trinitarians must even resort to inventing new Greek grammar rules to uphold their doctrines in the face of objective independent scholarly light.
The "Greek" you claim to know in this incidence was wholesale invented in the 1930s as a reaction to the many scholarly and non-church aligned translations that were saying "Word was DIvine" and "Word was a god" around that time. It is by no means a "Discovery" or "insight", it is one of the most blatant displays of total dishonesty and sheer disregard for objectivity and willfulness to distort Greek grammar to suit Trinitarian dogma in history. Whether you're a PH.D. or not, there are other PH.D.s like Dr. Jason Beduhn who call out these "Christian Scholars" for the frauds they are who push this "Colwell's rule".
Not only that, there are many examples that prove that Colwell's rule does not work. The reaction to these verses has been that "Colwell's rule is subjective and based on the usage". I.E. Trinitarian presumptions rule when it applies or not. So it only applies when the Trinitarians want it to, and it doesn't in all other cases. Even Daniel Wallace, the most Trinitarian of modern Trinitarians, doesn't accept it and prefers the "Word was Divine" translation, saying that "Word was God" only works to not confuse the audience (to his interpretation of what it means) but that it SHOULD say "Divine".
On a side note I'd like to see that Martin Luther quote. A major reason behind Goodspeed and Moffatt choosing "'Divine" is specifically because they believe the "Word was God" translation IS 100% Sabbelian/Modalist, along with other verses. Without that though, it's quite clear that the "Arian" interpretation is most likely what John originally intended. And yes, I'm prepared to discuss any further alleged Trinity verses that relate to it as I've done hundreds of times on other threads.
In the end, it goes to show that Trinitarians must even resort to inventing new Greek grammar rules to uphold their doctrines in the face of objective independent scholarly light.
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
Everyone's got their opinion, including the many independent non-church aligned non-Trinitarian scholars who say differently, I guess they're the biased ones?
Heck, EVEN DANIEL WALLACE says its hogwash. He's the most prominent Trinitarian scholar of this day. And the Greek Professor Emeritus of Oxford, James Moffatt, apparently didn't catch on to this "new discovery in Greek grammar" of the 1930s.
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
'Twould be an OK rebuttal if there were anything inherently wrong with being either "church aligned" or Trinitarian. Most reputable scholars are astute and honest enough to either not let their biases get in the way, or else to state that their findings are colored by bias. You're acting as if it's this huge conspiratorial cover-up with some sort of theological agenda.
It is not.
It is not.
Shermana
Heretic
You're the one who said it's "Unbiased", I'm just making it clear that this concept is not well supported by the independents. At some point, you have to ask "Why is it only pushed by Trinitarians but opposed by most independents". But yes, just because a church holds on to a view is not the issue, but.....
That is extremely debatable and would make an excellent thread topic, do I have permission to quote you for a new thread? I would imagine many Liberal scholars find the Conservative scholars quite biased if not intellectually dishonest, and indeed vice versa. However, even the most prominent Trinitarian scholars have called it out for what it is: Invented and abused.
I see no reason to believe that Colwell's rule was not invented as a reaction to the numerous scholarly editions that were saying "Word was a god" and "Word was Divine". We simply don't know if it was indeed a Conservative-scholar conspiracy or not, and I say that it is. But you're welcome to your opinion either way.
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I don't think that's a true statement.
It looks as though you're supporting a "Liberal=bad/Conservative=good" paradigm. I just don't think it breaks down so nicely along those lines. There are reputable scholars and dubious scholars on both of those "sides."
Names, plz.
As the Poster said above, I just don't think it's that big a deal. I think it says what it says, we all know what it says, and we all need to live with what it says.
Shermana
Heretic
I don't recall anything about Colwell's rule involving the "And".
Ernst Cadman Colwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So unless you have a better link than the Wiki one, please tell me where you get this part about the 'And'.
Ernst Cadman Colwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So unless you have a better link than the Wiki one, please tell me where you get this part about the 'And'.