What is the Oneness of God as taught by Oneness Pentecostals?

[Andreas]

I didn't say it was a translation. So, why do you think this question is meaningful? I can quote countless commentaries, grammars and the like all agreeing with me. Practically everyone agrees. Even apostate agnostics like Bart D. Ehrman agree that's what is being expressed here. So, why do you doubt all of Greek Grammar on this one?

BTW, Why do all Bible Translations Capitalize Word? Oh yeah, because they all see it as a title for Jesus before he got that name.

Your Greek breakdown:

4314 prós (a preposition) – properly, motion towards to "interface with" (literally, moving toward a goal or destination).​

​

4314 /prós ("towards, with") indicates "extension toward a goal, with implied interaction or reciprocity (L & N, 1, 84.18), with "presumed contact and reaction" (L & N, 1, 84.23). 4314 (prós) naturally suggests the cycle of initiation and response(L-N, 1,90.25, 90.33).​

​

[4314 (prós) can mean "in view of," or "in light of, but never "against," except where the context indicates an active exchange (interface) done in opposition.]​

So, what here expresses the idea of God having something with him? Oh yeah, not one of these uses applies to your understanding. The Word had motion towards to "interface with" God? The Word had extension toward a goal, with implied interaction or reciprocity God? The Word was "in view of," or "in light of, but never "against," God? None of these help your case, some don't fit at all, but all of them express that the Word was a person in some relationship with God.

FYI, try using BDAG. That is the recognized academic lexicon. It will even break down how to distinguish between the various uses grammatically.



And yet, you just admitted "Jesus the man looks back on his former glory with the Father and by the Father as the Father's Word." That means this distinction is experiential/relational before the world was. You don't like the term person, then don't use it. That doesn't change the fact that one self could distinguish between itself and another while both were recognized as the one true God, aka Trinitarianism.

BTW, I didn't say "his humanity introduced no distinction". And, analogies like "There is a distinction between your Word and yourself, but not as another person." might show something is possible, but they will never prove a perspective is correct. Besides, my word will never look back on anything because there is no self to experience something or look back to remember that something, but the Word "looks back on his former glory with the Father" which means your analogy fails to even parallel what your trying to express by using said analogy.



I don't know anyone who would say that. God the Son is a title modern English Trinitarians use to parse out who they are talking about. We would all use it as a title of the 2nd person in the Godhead at any point in time.



Because, Jesus is the first in relationship to being the creator, and he is second only in how we talk about the Trinity.

God Bless

The definitions from Strongs #4314 (per the link I shared with you) show that what you are doing is finding a shade of meaning within the many slightly different ways the word can be used. I can just as easily find a meaning that clearly doesn't refer to another person. For example, Mark 14:54 says Peter "warmed himself PROS the fire". Is the fire Peter warmed himself by another person face to face with Peter? Of course not. Another example that is very helpful is 1 JOHN 1:2. The same sentence structure is used by John as in John 1:1 to say that "eternal life was PROS the Father". Is "eternal life" yet another person in the Godhead? Of course not.

Was eternal life another person face to face with the Father? If so, was the Father then without his own "eternal life" but dependent on this other person called "eternal life" to have life? Or, did the Father have his own eternal life and then there was another person called eternal life that had it too? If the Father had his own eternal life in addition to the person face to face with him called eternal life, could it be said that the Father's own eternal life was with him or are you saying that PROS must refer to at least one other person?

However, wouldn't it be more straightforward to understand that "eternal life" in 1 John 1:2 was just a functional distinction to show that God was giving forth and expressing his life to us? Here again, as in John 1:1, we understand that the transcendent Father makes Himself known by self revelation and shares His life with us?

I've said it a hundred times if not more... we can distinguish between you and your word but your word is not another person than you. Your "life" is not another person than you. Using the word "person" creates and implies way too much distinction. I've never said, no distinction but I've been consistent when explaining that the distinction is not that of two persons.

---

Jesus is "THE First" without any qualifications that this means such and such with a narrow context of creator. That the Godhead is in Jesus bodily and He is the First doesn't fit with the Trinty of Jesus in the Godhead and the 2nd person distinct from the 1st person they call the Father. Square peg/round hole.

 

[Truther]

Correct, but you were clearly trolling.

I can give you a paragraph spanking if you wish?

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Many? You mean fringe? It truly fun watching them do back flips trying to twist Scripture as to not admit what Scripture clearly teaches. BTW, I don't know Hunting, but Buzzard is a laughing stock.

There are many folks here in the forums that take the same position as outlined in the book. Many here say the same thing regarding the twisting of scripture with your position on the trinity as well and think your position is rather laughable too.

Once again, when shown evidence that an honest reading can show a different reading and understanding than yours, you fluff it off. This has been common play for you and not very honest, DOGB.

BTW, do you have a theological degree of some sort? Not that it matters, I'm just curious.

Here is the difference, there are a greater ratio of Messianic Jews believing in the Trinity compared to all Jews around the world, than there is Socinian Unitarians like Buzzard compared to just Trinitarians. That makes it all very, very fringe. Besides bringing up that other people agree with you, what's your point? Oh yeah, you don't have one.

And, I've done far more than "fluff it off." But, you would need to actual read my comments as to understand them to see the difference. If you don't read as to understand, how can you ever assess if someone is just fluffing off other positions or actually dealing with them in devastating ways that completely undermine their relevance?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And, rising again changes everything.

No, at best it shows that your god died and decomposed as all bodies do after death. Then you have the evidence of the Talpiot tomb. James Tabor has a good site on the subject of Talpiot, https://jamestabor.com/category/talpiot-jesus-family-tomb/.

Talpiot is as much evidence against the resurrection as any relic found in a RCC church is evidence for the Roman Church. And, I'm not RCC. You are literally embarrassing yourself by bring up Talpiot.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Again, any argument that doesn't take into consideration our actual position, duel natures, proves nothing.

I believe you mean dual, and not duel. God is eternal and doesn't die or bleed. That doesn't bode well for your position.

And, you didn't take into consideration our position, dual natures, so your argument proves nothing.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Here is the difference, there are a greater ratio of Messianic Jews believing in the Trinity compared to all Jews around the world,

Please state your source. I think you're fudging here.

than there is Socinian Unitarians like Buzzard compared to just Trinitarians. That makes it all very, very fringe.

State your source.

Besides bringing up that other people agree with you, what's your point? Oh yeah, you don't have one.

The point was that you were implying I was isolated in my opinion, and I'm not. Just man up when you're proven wrong.

Just more evidence of your dishonesty when you bring up a point, get debunked, then you just want to dismiss it.

And, I've done far more than "fluff it off." But, you would need to actual read my comments as to understand them to see the difference. If you don't read as to understand, how can you ever assess if someone is just fluffing off other positions or actually dealing with them in devastating ways that completely undermine their relevance?

Done. You've been fluffing.

Talpiot is as much evidence against the resurrection as any relic found in a RCC church is evidence for the Roman Church. And, I'm not RCC. You are literally embarrassing yourself by bring up Talpiot.

Rotfl... go read up about Talpiot.

And, you didn't take into consideration our position, dual natures, so your argument proves nothing.

Of course I did. You just don't like it.

God Bless

Yep.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

I didn't say it was a translation. So, why do you think this question is meaningful? I can quote countless commentaries, grammars and the like all agreeing with me. Practically everyone agrees. Even apostate agnostics like Bart D. Ehrman agree that's what is being expressed here. So, why do you doubt all of Greek Grammar on this one?
...
Because, Jesus is the first in relationship to being the creator, and he is second only in how we talk about the Trinit

The definitions from Strongs #4314 (per the link I shared with you) show that what you are doing is finding a shade of meaning within the many slightly different ways the word can be used.

Stongs is not used by anyone who knows Greek. It's simply not good enough.

I can just as easily find a meaning that clearly doesn't refer to another person. For example, Mark 14:54 says Peter "warmed himself PROS the fire". Is the fire Peter warmed himself by another person face to face with Peter? Of course not. Another example that is very helpful is 1 JOHN 1:2. The same sentence structure is used by John as in John 1:1 to say that "eternal life was PROS the Father". Is "eternal life" yet another person in the Godhead? Of course not.

Are you taking into consideration the syntactical use of πρὸς? Or, are you just throwing out anything you can to dodge the fact that my understanding makes sense in the syntax of John 1:1 while your understanding doesn't work with πρὸς at all.

FYI, the eternal life in 1 John 1:2 is referencing Jesus pre-incarnate again. "That which was from the beginning (the Word/Jesus), which we have heard (The Word/Jesus), which we have seen with our eyes (the Word/Jesus), which we looked upon (the Word/Jesus) and have touched with our hands (the Word/Jesus), concerning the word of life (the Word/Jesus)—the life was made manifest (the Word/Jesus), and we have seen it (the Word/Jesus), and testify to it (the Word/Jesus) and proclaim to you the eternal life (the Word/Jesus), which was with the Father and was made manifestto us—" Wow, it sounds like John is repeating all the themes from his Gospel's prolog in the prolog to this letter. I don't think this helps your case. It seems like more evidence that Jesus was a distinct self, with the Father, and the same God as the Father before the world was.

Was eternal life another person face to face with the Father? If so, was the Father then without his own "eternal life" but dependent on this other person called "eternal life" to have life? Or, did the Father have his own eternal life and then there was another person called eternal life that had it too? If the Father had his own eternal life in addition to the person face to face with him called eternal life, could it be said that the Father's own eternal life was with him or are you saying that PROS must refer to at least one other person?

Eternal life in this context is another title for the preincarnate Jesus. See above.

FYI, you are massively overthinking things. It's all quite easy if you see it as another title for Jesus like everything else around it.

However, wouldn't it be more straightforward to understand that "eternal life" in 1 John 1:2 was just a functional distinction to show that God was giving forth and expressing his life to us? Here again, as in John 1:1, we understand that the transcendent Father makes Himself known by self revelation and shares His life with us?

No, because that's not what πρὸς can mean in τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. It seems like you don't care what the text actual says in comparison to the narrative you want to present. The eternal life was with God. Those words in that order do not mean "'eternal life' in 1 John 1:2 was just a functional distinction to show that God was giving forth and expressing his life to us." I care what John wrote, I do not care about your understanding of theology in general, and at this point, you just telling theology stories and ignoring the actual wording of Scripture.

I've said it a hundred times if not more... we can distinguish between you and your word but your word is not another person than you. Your "life" is not another person than you. Using the word "person" creates and implies way too much distinction. I've never said, no distinction but I've been consistent when explaining that the distinction is not that of two persons.

And yet, my word can't look back and reference experiencing something with me. The Word of John 1:1; 17:5 can. Your analogy fails. My word isn't πρὸς me. Again, your analogy fails. Why repeat an analogy that doesn't parallel what is being discussed in Scripture?

Jesus is "THE First" without any qualifications that this means such and such with a narrow context of creator. That the Godhead is in Jesus bodily and He is the First doesn't fit with the Trinty of Jesus in the Godhead and the 2nd person distinct from the 1st person they call the Father. Square peg/round hole.

Sounds like a great response except for the fact that it's all rhetorical fluff. Was "the First" used in an unqualified way in Scripture? Nope, it was used to define who Jesus was as in being before all other things, aka creation. Why would anyone think this should apply to category terms Trinitarians use? Jesus in the same verse is called the last; does that mean Jesus should be called 3rd person in the Trinity because he is the Last? If that sounds silly to you, and it should, then all of this is silly.

God Bless

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Here is the difference, there are a greater ratio of Messianic Jews believing in the Trinity compared to all Jews around the world,

Please state your source. I think you're fudging here.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
than there is Socinian Unitarians like Buzzard compared to just Trinitarians. That makes it all very, very fringe.

State your source.

If you doubt me, go look it up. I doubt you can even find a number given how few Socinian Unitarians there are in the world. But let's think a bit, lets say there is 1 million Socinian Unitarians, and I think I'm exaggerating their numbers a bit. FYI, that's a large denomination in America. There are 2.2 billion Christians most of which are clearly Trinitarian. That's a ratio of 1:2200. How many Jews are their in the world? 14.8 million is what I found on google. 14.8 million divided by 2200 is 6,727. I can find that many Messianic Jews in California. Supposedly, google says, in 2012, there are 175,000 and 250,000 messianic Jews in the United States, between 10,000 and 20,000 members in Israel. So taking the low number, 185K:14.8 mill = 1:80. There would have to be more than 27 million Socinian Unitarians for me to be wrong. That's the size of the Southern Baptist Church. Do you really think there are that many Socinian Unitarians in the world?

#Math.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Besides bringing up that other people agree with you, what's your point? Oh yeah, you don't have one.

The point was that you were implying I was isolated in my opinion, and I'm not. Just man up when you're proven wrong.

Just more evidence of your dishonesty when you bring up a point, get debunked, then you just want to dismiss it.

You are isolated because the Jews don't agree with your interpretations of the NT, and the Socinian Unitarians don't agree with your rejection of the NT. You are quite the odd duck.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Talpiot is as much evidence against the resurrection as any relic found in a RCC church is evidence for the Roman Church. And, I'm not RCC. You are literally embarrassing yourself by bring up Talpiot.

Rotfl... go read up about Talpiot.

Go read about the Shroud of Turin.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And, you didn't take into consideration our position, dual natures, so your argument proves nothing.

Of course I did. You just don't like it.

As long as you are talking about God bleeding, you didn't take into consideration our position.

God Bless

 

[Andreas]

Stongs is not used by anyone who knows Greek. It's simply not good enough.

Strong's is a highly respected source and has been used for generations. But here is another project for you... In addition to writing all the dozens of English Bible publishers to correct them on how they printed John 1:1, you should produce a better, more respected exhaustive concordance with a Greek lexicon better than Strong's. You can just simplify the Greek PROS and define it as "face-to-face" and remove all the other silly clutter that Strong's included.

Are you taking into consideration the syntactical use of πρὸς? Or, are you just throwing out anything you can to dodge the fact that my understanding makes sense in the syntax of John 1:1 while your understanding doesn't work with πρὸς at all.

I'm not looking to support a narrative, but just taking the plain reading that ALL English Bible translators have done. PROS is used at times to refer to a couple or more people together, but it doesn't have to. Like, the word "Echad/one", Trinitarians are forcing their narrative upon the text rather than letting the text lead.

FYI, the eternal life in 1 John 1:2 is referencing Jesus pre-incarnate again. "That which was from the beginning (the Word/Jesus), which we have heard (The Word/Jesus), which we have seen with our eyes (the Word/Jesus), which we looked upon (the Word/Jesus) and have touched with our hands (the Word/Jesus), concerning the word of life (the Word/Jesus)—the life was made manifest (the Word/Jesus), and we have seen it (the Word/Jesus), and testify to it (the Word/Jesus) and proclaim to you the eternal life (the Word/Jesus), which was with the Father and was made manifestto us—" Wow, it sounds like John is repeating all the themes from his Gospel's prolog in the prolog to this letter. I don't think this helps your case. It seems like more evidence that Jesus was a distinct self, with the Father, and the same God as the Father before the world was.

It certainly is referring to Jesus because Jesus is God, not because he's a second person eyeballing the Father. If you are forcing the text to mean that two literal faces are looking at each other then there is no difference in practice between your view and polytheism.


If the second person that is looking the Father in the face is "eternal life", is the Father dependent on the Son for life? In your logic the Father seems to be lacking not only in his own Logos (John 1:1), but in having his own life (1 John 1:2). By turning the Logos and eternal life into a second person who is not the Father, you have stripped the Father of his deity.

Sounds like a great response except for the fact that it's all rhetorical fluff. Was "the First" used in an unqualified way in Scripture? Nope, it was used to define who Jesus was as in being before all other things, aka creation. Why would anyone think this should apply to category terms Trinitarians use? Jesus in the same verse is called the last; does that mean Jesus should be called 3rd person in the Trinity because he is the Last? If that sounds silly to you, and it should, then all of this is silly.

Using your logic you would probably have lots of fights and conflicts when you get in line a McDonalds since you believe that several people can be first and last.

In reality, only one person can be the first (and the same applies to "the last"). By definition, a "person" is a fundamental unit and only one person can be the first. Since I believe in only one God, who is one person there is no conflict as to who is first or last, but you have three and that makes no sense in the context of who is the first or the last. The Trinitarian Triangle puts the Father on top, so even that recognizes a priority .

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Stongs is not used by anyone who knows Greek. It's simply not good enough.

Strong's is a highly respected source and has been used for generations.

Dude, it's over 100 years old, and it's only highly respected by those who don't know Greek. It's only popular now because it is open source. I've taken a year in Graduate level Greek. If I ever used Strongs as a resource, I would have gotten an F on that assignment. There isn't a school in existence that uses Strongs as their lexicon when learning Greek. Schools use Thayer or BDAG, but they never, ever use Strongs because it wasn't written as an academic resource.

But here is another project for you... In addition to writing all the dozens of English Bible publishers to correct them on how they printed John 1:1, you should produce a better, more respected exhaustive concordance with a Greek lexicon better than Strong's. You can just simplify the Greek PROS and define it as "face-to-face" and remove all the other silly clutter that Strong's included.

These challenges are juvenile, and you know it. It's a lowbrow way to mock me. I never said John 1:1 should be translated differently. Yet, you play this game. I told you what respected resources are (BDAG), yet you think I'm claiming to be able to write one. Come on. Your better than this. This rhetorical nonsense is beneath anyone wishing to please God by their words and actions.

Are you taking into consideration the syntactical use of πρὸς? Or, are you just throwing out anything you can to dodge the fact that my understanding makes sense in the syntax of John 1:1 while your understanding doesn't work with πρὸς at all.

I'm not looking to support a narrative, but just taking the plain reading that ALL English Bible translators have done. PROS is used at times to refer to a couple or more people together, but it doesn't have to. Like, the word "Echad/one", Trinitarians are forcing their narrative upon the text rather than letting the text lead.

Interpreting "The Word was with God" as God having his word with him isn't common language. You are literally reading it backwards. Why are you interpreting it so that God is the subject of the sentence when God is the direct object of the sentence?

FYI, the eternal life in 1 John 1:2 is referencing Jesus pre-incarnate again. "That which was from the beginning (the Word/Jesus), which we have heard (The Word/Jesus), which we have seen with our eyes (the Word/Jesus), which we looked upon (the Word/Jesus) and have touched with our hands (the Word/Jesus), concerning the word of life (the Word/Jesus)—the life was made manifest (the Word/Jesus), and we have seen it (the Word/Jesus), and testify to it (the Word/Jesus) and proclaim to you the eternal life (the Word/Jesus), which was with the Father and was made manifestto us—" Wow, it sounds like John is repeating all the themes from his Gospel's prolog in the prolog to this letter. I don't think this helps your case. It seems like more evidence that Jesus was a distinct self, with the Father, and the same God as the Father before the world was.

It certainly is referring to Jesus because Jesus is God, not because he's a second person eyeballing the Father. If you are forcing the text to mean that two literal faces are looking at each other then there is no difference in practice between your view and polytheism.

If the eternal life is a reference to Jesus, then 1 John 1:1-2 says Jesus "was from the beginning...was with the Father and was made manifest to us." That's Trinitarianism 101: someone who was from the begging, with the Father and was made manifest.

Your assessment that we are polytheistic is your logical flaw. You have no biblical or logical reason to assert said connection, but that's the real reason why you won't just accept the Word as a title for someone.

If the second person that is looking the Father in the face is "eternal life", is the Father dependent on the Son for life? In your logic the Father seems to be lacking not only in his own Logos (John 1:1), but in having his own life (1 John 1:2). By turning the Logos and eternal life into a second person who is not the Father, you have stripped the Father of his deity.

No, none of these question are reasonable at all to ask in light of what I said above. Stop jumping to conclusions unjustified by my statements.

Sounds like a great response except for the fact that it's all rhetorical fluff. Was "the First" used in an unqualified way in Scripture? Nope, it was used to define who Jesus was as in being before all other things, aka creation. Why would anyone think this should apply to category terms Trinitarians use? Jesus in the same verse is called the last; does that mean Jesus should be called 3rd person in the Trinity because he is the Last? If that sounds silly to you, and it should, then all of this is silly.

Using your logic you would probably have lots of fights and conflicts when you get in line a McDonalds since you believe that several people can be first and last.

In reality, only one person can be the first (and the same applies to "the last"). By definition, a "person" is a fundamental unit and only one person can be the first. Since I believe in only one God, who is one person there is no conflict as to who is first or last, but you have three and that makes no sense in the context of who is the first or the last. The Trinitarian Triangle puts the Father on top, so even that recognizes a priority .

Your definition of person isn't a definition. These paragraphs are just rhetorical expressions of your disgust of Trinitarianism. The sad reality is they simply express a fundamental ignorance of Trinitarianism. Remember, assertion and doubling down isn't evidence.

God Bless

 

[Andreas]

Dude, it's over 100 years old, and it's only highly respected by those who don't know Greek. It's only popular now because it is open source. I've taken a year in Graduate level Greek. If I ever used Strongs as a resource, I would have gotten an F on that assignment. There isn't a school in existence that uses Strongs as their lexicon when learning Greek. Schools use Thayer or BDAG, but they never, ever use Strongs because it wasn't written as an academic resource.



These challenges are juvenile, and you know it. It's a lowbrow way to mock me. I never said John 1:1 should be translated differently. Yet, you play this game. I told you what respected resources are (BDAG), yet you think I'm claiming to be able to write one. Come on. Your better than this. This rhetorical nonsense is beneath anyone wishing to please God by their words and actions.



Interpreting "The Word was with God" as God having his word with him isn't common language. You are literally reading it backwards. Why are you interpreting it so that God is the subject of the sentence when God is the direct object of the sentence?



If the eternal life is a reference to Jesus, then 1 John 1:1-2 says Jesus "was from the beginning...was with the Father and was made manifest to us." That's Trinitarianism 101: someone who was from the begging, with the Father and was made manifest.

Your assessment that we are polytheistic is your logical flaw. You have no biblical or logical reason to assert said connection, but that's the real reason why you won't just accept the Word as a title for someone.



No, none of these question are reasonable at all to ask in light of what I said above. Stop jumping to conclusions unjustified by my statements.



Your definition of person isn't a definition. These paragraphs are just rhetorical expressions of your disgust of Trinitarianism. The sad reality is they simply express a fundamental ignorance of Trinitarianism. Remember, assertion and doubling down isn't evidence.

God Bless

Disparaging Strong's Greek lexicon over a rather simple word "PROS" and using other "superior" sources only to support your narrative is the way false doctrine rolls. You're implying that the words we read in scripture have to be interpreted using your BDAG or Thayer source because the poor huddled masses of ignorant Bible readers shouldn't believe what they see with their own eyes when the read an English Bible. This is sort of an elitism your promoting.

God is not "common" but unique and so we must be careful not to force the scripture to conform to narrative but let it speak to us and let scripture interpret scripture. While God sometimes speaks in parables, it is not style of the Bible or in how God speaks to make up new words and change the definitions of others as Trinitarians have done for generations. God speaks to us using ordinary language. We just can't play fast and loose with Biblical words.

God is transcendent and invisible, yet He also created the earth and heavens and was firmly engaged with the material earth and people. To teach us how He did this, the term "Logos" was used to show us that the one who in immanent is the same one who is transcendent. Many in the days of the Apostle John had a hard time with this idea that a transcendent God could be immanent. There is a long history of how the Greek apologists in the 2nd century began to view the Logos differently than John, and how later Trinitarians eventually equated the logos with an eternal Son in later centuries.

You are not transcendent, but you still have your own logos. While it is not the common way that we would speak about our own logos it is technically true. However, since God is transcendent, using the term logos becomes an important teaching point in order to show that God is both transcendent and immanent and ultimately even when He became man, this man was God.

You've split God up into different persons. It's a radical concept. That God is simply one and he is the I AM is plain from scripture. You've made God into a they and them, then in a schizophrenic way say that God is He and Him. That goes back to your pronoun problem. No, the one singular God, who is the Father, was manifested in the flesh. This man is called the Son of God and has a real relationship with God the Father because he was a real man. Scripture uses the terms Father and Son for important reasons, the most important being that it is necessary to distinguish the genuine humanity of the Son from the transcendence of God the Father. The term "Son" ALWAYS relates to humanity and NEVER to deity alone without this connection to his humanity.

 

[Truther]

The Problem With Using Strong’s Concordance Dictionary.

(08/25/2017) (The last Endnote, number #5; lists what Bible resources use which Greek New Testament, with colored fonts and a star grading system (the higher the blue star, the…

faithbibleministriesblog.com

 

[Andreas]

The Problem With Using Strong’s Concordance Dictionary.

(08/25/2017) (The last Endnote, number #5; lists what Bible resources use which Greek New Testament, with colored fonts and a star grading system (the higher the blue star, the…

faithbibleministriesblog.com

Thanks for the feedback. Like any tool, Strong's can be misused. So can the other Bible tools. The tools I use mostly are on Biblehub.com and this gives the root definition (from Strong's), and then gives the Word study helps underneath the root word using Thayer's. For example, for the word PROS, it breaks out several shades of meaning in word studies. When I use Biblehub.com, it combines the Strong's root definition with the Thayer's word studies and it was from this that I commented back on the word PROS.

Another thing I like about Biblehub is that it allows me to look at the interlinear Greek translation with the Greek and also dozens of English translations. I know Biblehubs limitations and there are better and more expensive tools like LOGOS software, but for things like knowing the meaning of PROS in John 1:1, the Biblehub tools is more than sufficient. DoctrinesofGraceBapt doesn't have a leg to stand on here regarding PROS since he says to use Thayers and then even disparages the word studies from that.

The bottom line is that I always come back to how the Bible translation scholars have rendered it into English, so when a fella on the internet says he has a grasp on a word better than 36 English bible translations, call me very skeptical.

Another great example of how Trinitarians shamelessly twist scripture is the Hebrew word Echad and Deuteronomy 6:4. Trinitarians are not interested in word studies here but in twisting the scripture. They take a shade of meaning or an alternate use of the word and then force it upon the text. For example, since the word "one" can mean many in unity (like a grape cluster), they then force Deuteronomy 6:4 to mean that God is three in unity as one. They ignore the fact that usually the word simply means the lowest cardinal number and that meaning is derived from the context. So, they totally ignore the context of Deuteronomy 6:4 and push their narrative by forcing echad to mean three in unity. In other words, they take the definition of a word they like and fits their narrative and then force it on the text while pretending they have some elite knowledge that the ignorant unwashed masses are incapable of grasping. This is what they do with PROS in John 1:1.

 

[Jewjitzu]

If you doubt me, go look it up. I doubt you can even find a number given how few Socinian Unitarians there are in the world. But let's think a bit, lets say there is 1 million Socinian Unitarians, and I think I'm exaggerating their numbers a bit. FYI, that's a large denomination in America. There are 2.2 billion Christians most of which are clearly Trinitarian. That's a ratio of 1:2200. How many Jews are their in the world? 14.8 million is what I found on google. 14.8 million divided by 2200 is 6,727. I can find that many Messianic Jews in California. Supposedly, google says, in 2012, there are 175,000 and 250,000 messianic Jews in the United States, between 10,000 and 20,000 members in Israel. So taking the low number, 185K:14.8 mill = 1:80. There would have to be more than 27 million Socinian Unitarians for me to be wrong. That's the size of the Southern Baptist Church. Do you really think there are that many Socinian Unitarians in the world?

#Math.

My point was Messianic Jews compared to other Jews. The messianics are in the minority.

I understand that Unitarians would be smaller than Trinitarians.

You are isolated because the Jews don't agree with your interpretations of the NT, and the Socinian Unitarians don't agree with your rejection of the NT. You are quite the odd duck.

Give me your evidence. Most Jews could care less about the non-authoritative NT. And as evidenced above, messianic are in the minority. As to Unitarians, they agree Jesus isn't the God.

Man up, DOGB.

Again, the point is I'm not isolated in my thinking.

Go read about the Shroud of Turin.

Yep. What does carbon dating tell you? Have they done a blood sample to see if their is genetic DNA pointing to a human father?

As long as you are talking about God bleeding, you didn't take into consideration our position.

I have. Yours is a false god. You've already admitted God isn't physical, but he added a physical nature. That's laughable. Sorry. And then your son person doesn't do what his Father does. Such contradictions.

God Bless

Always

 

[Truther]

Thanks for the feedback. Like any tool, Strong's can be misused. So can the other Bible tools. The tools I use mostly are on Biblehub.com and this gives the root definition (from Strong's), and then gives the Word study helps underneath the root word using Thayer's. For example, for the word PROS, it breaks out several shades of meaning in word studies. When I use Biblehub.com, it combines the Strong's root definition with the Thayer's word studies and it was from this that I commented back on the word PROS.

Another thing I like about Biblehub is that it allows me to look at the interlinear Greek translation with the Greek and also dozens of English translations. I know Biblehubs limitations and there are better and more expensive tools like LOGOS software, but for things like knowing the meaning of PROS in John 1:1, the Biblehub tools is more than sufficient. DoctrinesofGraceBapt doesn't have a leg to stand on here regarding PROS since he says to use Thayers and then even disparages the word studies from that.

The bottom line is that I always come back to how the Bible translation scholars have rendered it into English, so when a fella on the internet says he has a grasp on a word better than 36 English bible translations, call me very skeptical.

Another great example of how Trinitarians shamelessly twist scripture is the Hebrew word Echad and Deuteronomy 6:4. Trinitarians are not interested in word studies here but in twisting the scripture. They take a shade of meaning or an alternate use of the word and then force it upon the text. For example, since the word "one" can mean many in unity (like a grape cluster), they then force Deuteronomy 6:4 to mean that God is three in unity as one. They ignore the fact that usually the word simply means the lowest cardinal number and that meaning is derived from the context. So, they totally ignore the context of Deuteronomy 6:4 and push their narrative by forcing echad to mean three in unity. In other words, they take the definition of a word they like and fits their narrative and then force it on the text while pretending they have some elite knowledge that the ignorant unwashed masses are incapable of grasping. This is what they do with PROS in John 1:1.

You're welcome. My experience with Strong's is that it made me doubt the accuracy of the KJV as I used an interlinear etc. I had to choose one or the other, because they contradicted each other. I chose my KJV and abandoned all "Greek" redefinitions altogether.

I don't trust modern translations, redefinitionists or translators.

Also, the KJV was not "translated by trinitarians, therfore we oneness need to make our own translation" as someone once said and I also used to think.

The KJV is perfectly non-biased and the true oneness(non incarnationist) doctrine of the Apostles is clear for all to see in it.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

If you doubt me, go look it up. I doubt you can even find a number given how few Socinian Unitarians there are in the world. But let's think a bit, lets say there is 1 million Socinian Unitarians, and I think I'm exaggerating their numbers a bit. FYI, that's a large denomination in America. There are 2.2 billion Christians most of which are clearly Trinitarian. That's a ratio of 1:2200. How many Jews are their in the world? 14.8 million is what I found on google. 14.8 million divided by 2200 is 6,727. I can find that many Messianic Jews in California. Supposedly, google says, in 2012, there are 175,000 and 250,000 messianic Jews in the United States, between 10,000 and 20,000 members in Israel. So taking the low number, 185K:14.8 mill = 1:80. There would have to be more than 27 million Socinian Unitarians for me to be wrong. That's the size of the Southern Baptist Church. Do you really think there are that many Socinian Unitarians in the world?

#Math.

My point was Messianic Jews compared to other Jews. The messianics are in the minority.

I understand that Unitarians would be smaller than Trinitarians.

Yes, the Messianic Jews are about 1-2% of the Jewish population. Unitarians of all sorts, are far less than 1% of Christians. That's my point.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You are isolated because the Jews don't agree with your interpretations of the NT, and the Socinian Unitarians don't agree with your rejection of the NT. You are quite the odd duck.

Give me your evidence. Most Jews could care less about the non-authoritative NT. And as evidenced above, messianic are in the minority. As to Unitarians, they agree Jesus isn't the God.
Man up, DOGB.
Again, the point is I'm not isolated in my thinking.

Really, I've remember countless times where I told you your 'interpretations" don't line up with most Jews. You are mixing up all sorts of positions in your polemic against Trinitarianism, and they don't all match. By the standard you are using for "not isolated" in thinking, no one could be isolated in their thinking. As long as someone somewhere agreed with each one of your positions, no matter the mixture of desperate opinions, your not isolated. Take a little bit of Arianism, Socinian Unitarianism, Greek polytheism, and a bunch of Judaism. How does this not make you an odd duck?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Go read about the Shroud of Turin.

Yep. What does carbon dating tell you? Have they done a blood sample to see if their is genetic DNA pointing to a human father?

Yeah, the carbon dating that was thrown off due to them testing a patch instead of a section from the original Shroud only.

Seriously, the Shroud of Turin has 100x the evidence backing up it's Authenticity as compared to Talpiot. And, I don't think that's compelling. Why should anyone think Talpoit is authentic given its pedigree?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
As long as you are talking about God bleeding, you didn't take into consideration our position.

I have. Yours is a false god. You've already admitted God isn't physical, but he added a physical nature. That's laughable. Sorry. And then your son person doesn't do what his Father does. Such contradictions.

"That's laughable" proves that you haven't seriously interacted with anything I've ever said. To bad that implies all of your arguments are likewise not serious.

God Bless

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Dude, it's over 100 years old, and it's only highly respected by those who don't know Greek. It's only popular now because it is open source. I've taken a year in Graduate level Greek. If I ever used Strongs as a resource, I would have gotten an F on that assignment. There isn't a school in existence that uses Strongs as their lexicon when learning Greek. Schools use Thayer or BDAG, but they never, ever use Strongs because it wasn't written as an academic resource.

These challenges are juvenile, and you know it. It's a lowbrow way to mock me. I never said John 1:1 should be translated differently. Yet, you play this game. I told you what respected resources are (BDAG), yet you think I'm claiming to be able to write one. Come on. Your better than this. This rhetorical nonsense is beneath anyone wishing to please God by their words and actions.

Interpreting "The Word was with God" as God having his word with him isn't common language. You are literally reading it backwards. Why are you interpreting it so that God is the subject of the sentence when God is the direct object of the sentence?

If the eternal life is a reference to Jesus, then 1 John 1:1-2 says Jesus "was from the beginning...was with the Father and was made manifest to us." That's Trinitarianism 101: someone who was from the begging, with the Father and was made manifest.
Your assessment that we are polytheistic is your logical flaw. You have no biblical or logical reason to assert said connection, but that's the real reason why you won't just accept the Word as a title for someone.

No, none of these question are reasonable at all to ask in light of what I said above. Stop jumping to conclusions unjustified by my statements.

Your definition of person isn't a definition. These paragraphs are just rhetorical expressions of your disgust of Trinitarianism. The sad reality is they simply express a fundamental ignorance of Trinitarianism. Remember, assertion and doubling down isn't evidence.

Disparaging Strong's Greek lexicon over a rather simple word "PROS" and using other "superior" sources only to support your narrative is the way false doctrine rolls. You're implying that the words we read in scripture have to be interpreted using your BDAG or Thayer source because the poor huddled masses of ignorant Bible readers shouldn't believe what they see with their own eyes when the read an English Bible. This is sort of an elitism your promoting.

You really, really need to stop jumping to conclusions about my position I did not say: "the words we read in scripture have to be interpreted using your BDAG or Thayer source". Strongs is an abridged lexicon for lay people written at the turn of the 20th century. BDAG is a modern(2001), exhaustive lexicon that not only includes all Greek words used in the NT, but under each word it includes all uses in the NT. The difference between the two are night and day. It's like the difference between using a picture Bible designed for 4 year olds and stepping up to the full KJV, or whatever translation you like.

Besides, reading "the Word" as a title for Jesus is 100% natural to how John wrote his Gospel. Jesus is the Door, the Resurrection, the Way, the Truth, the Life, etc. etc. etc. Why would anyone doubt that "the Word" is another title used by John for Jesus. Especially when, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." Therefore, when Scripture says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.", Trinitarians naturally take this to mean that Jesus, being the Word, always existed, was with the Father, aka not the Father, and was God. That's a perfectly straightforward reading of the text, as compared to the fanciful storytelling you love to employ as to ignore the declaration of John 1:1b.

God is not "common" but unique and so we must be careful not to force the scripture to conform to narrative but let it speak to us and let scripture interpret scripture. While God sometimes speaks in parables, it is not style of the Bible or in how God speaks to make up new words and change the definitions of others as Trinitarians have done for generations. God speaks to us using ordinary language. We just can't play fast and loose with Biblical words.

God is transcendent and invisible, yet He also created the earth and heavens and was firmly engaged with the material earth and people. To teach us how He did this, the term "Logos" was used to show us that the one who in immanent is the same one who is transcendent. Many in the days of the Apostle John had a hard time with this idea that a transcendent God could be immanent. There is a long history of how the Greek apologists in the 2nd century began to view the Logos differently than John, and how later Trinitarians eventually equated the logos with an eternal Son in later centuries.

You are not transcendent, but you still have your own logos. While it is not the common way that we would speak about our own logos it is technically true. However, since God is transcendent, using the term logos becomes an important teaching point in order to show that God is both transcendent and immanent and ultimately even when He became man, this man was God.

You've split God up into different persons. It's a radical concept. That God is simply one and he is the I AM is plain from scripture. You've made God into a they and them, then in a schizophrenic way say that God is He and Him. That goes back to your pronoun problem. No, the one singular God, who is the Father, was manifested in the flesh. This man is called the Son of God and has a real relationship with God the Father because he was a real man. Scripture uses the terms Father and Son for important reasons, the most important being that it is necessary to distinguish the genuine humanity of the Son from the transcendence of God the Father. The term "Son" ALWAYS relates to humanity and NEVER to deity alone without this connection to his humanity.

There is nothing but storytelling above. No evidence, no Scripture, nothing but the opinion, the narrative, the story, Andreas likes to tell himself, and others. He does this to shield himself from the arguments of Trinitarians, and Scripture itself.

God Bless

 

[Andreas]

You really, really need to stop jumping to conclusions about my position I did not say: "the words we read in scripture have to be interpreted using your BDAG or Thayer source". Strongs is an abridged lexicon for lay people written at the turn of the 20th century. BDAG is a modern(2001), exhaustive lexicon that not only includes all Greek words used in the NT, but under each word it includes all uses in the NT. The difference between the two are night and day. It's like the difference between using a picture Bible designed for 4 year olds and stepping up to the full KJV, or whatever translation you like.


I quoted you from Thayers word study. I quoted from Strongs for the definition, but Thayers for PROS in John 1:1. It appears you are just looking to find whatever agrees with you. Can you provide the complete word study of PROS from John 1:1 from BDAG? I suspect you are probably exaggerating things.

Besides, reading "the Word" as a title for Jesus is 100% natural to how John wrote his Gospel. Jesus is the Door, the Resurrection, the Way, the Truth, the Life, etc. etc. etc. Why would anyone doubt that "the Word" is another title used by John for Jesus. Especially when, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." Therefore, when Scripture says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.", Trinitarians naturally take this to mean that Jesus, being the Word, always existed, was with the Father, aka not the Father, and was God. That's a perfectly straightforward reading of the text, as compared to the fanciful storytelling you love to employ as to ignore the declaration of John 1:1b.

Except John 1:1 doesn't mention "the Father" or "the Son". The Logos is God. John and the rest of the early church didn't view God as Trinitarian or Bitinarian. John simply says God, because in his view God is not divided into persons. Does He mean the Father? Certainly. John could not conceive of God as someone other than the Father. The Logos he is talking about here is the Father's Logos. His Word. John 1:1 is not making a distinction of persons otherwise we would clearly see the terms "Son" and "Father" in that verse. Trinitarians are reading into it. The onus really is on you then. The Logos is God's self-expression in distinction to God's transcendence. Have you bothered to do a word study from BDAG on what the term LOGOS means, or is Logos just a name like Bob and Sam to you? Do you suppose that the term LOGOS was used for a reason, or John just like the sound of word? This is how you view the name "Holy Spirit", wherein you've expressed before in that is it just a name and not really descriptive. You'll do anything to stick to your narrative.

There is nothing but storytelling above. No evidence, no Scripture, nothing but the opinion, the narrative, the story, Andreas likes to tell himself, and others. He does this to shield himself from the arguments of Trinitarians, and Scripture itself.

I assumed you knew the scriptures. We can begin with 1 Timothy 3:16. Who was manifested in the flesh?

 

[Andreas]

You're welcome. My experience with Strong's is that it made me doubt the accuracy of the KJV as I used an interlinear etc. I had to choose one or the other, because they contradicted each other. I chose my KJV and abandoned all "Greek" redefinitions altogether.

I don't trust modern translations, redefinitionists or translators.

Also, the KJV was not "translated by trinitarians, therfore we oneness need to make our own translation" as someone once said and I also used to think.

The KJV is perfectly non-biased and the true oneness(non incarnationist) doctrine of the Apostles is clear for all to see in it.

I think you should realize that some of the modern translations actually make a stronger case for the deity of Christ where the KJV can be ambiguous enough to open to door to unitarians. Good example is 1 John 5:20. I like the KJV, but I'm not KJV only. The translators and editors of Acts 12:4 in the KJV really blew it. No other English translation blows this verse that badly. It is a shameful translation of that verse and borders on Satanic if one is not gracious in accepting that the translators made an innocent but totally ignorant error.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Yes, the Messianic Jews are about 1-2% of the Jewish population. Unitarians of all sorts, are far less than 1% of Christians. That's my point.

And my point, going back to the beginning of your uneducated comment about me, is that I'm not alone in my thinking. You really need to man up and admit your dishonesty.

Really, I've remember countless times where I told you your 'interpretations" don't line up with most Jews.

Rotfl... and it was shown you don't know most Jews. It's best for you to be quiet about what you don't know.

You are mixing up all sorts of positions in your polemic against Trinitarianism, and they don't all match. By the standard you are using for "not isolated" in thinking, no one could be isolated in their thinking. As long as someone somewhere agreed with each one of your positions, no matter the mixture of desperate opinions, your not isolated. Take a little bit of Arianism, Socinian Unitarianism, Greek polytheism, and a bunch of Judaism. How does this not make you an odd duck?

98% of Jews don't think like you based on your own numbers above.

Yeah, the carbon dating that was thrown off due to them testing a patch instead of a section from the original Shroud only.

Most dating shows the 1200s?

Seriously, the Shroud of Turin has 100x the evidence backing up it's Authenticity as compared to Talpiot.

See above. The ossuaries are much older.

And, I don't think that's compelling. Why should anyone think Talpoit is authentic given its pedigree?

Well of course Christians won't because it's in contrast to Paul's statement that if Jesus isn't risen your faith is dead.

But, the statistics are clusters of names are too good to ignore.

"That's laughable" proves that you haven't seriously interacted with anything I've ever said. To bad that implies all of your arguments are likewise not serious.

No, it's just that your dual nature god is laughable and contradictory. Again, you've admitted God isn't physical. Follow that train ?.

God Bless

Absolutely

 

[Truther]

I think you should realize that some of the modern translations actually make a stronger case for the deity of Christ where the KJV can be ambiguous enough to open to door to unitarians. Good example is 1 John 5:20. I like the KJV, but I'm not KJV only. The translators and editors of Acts 12:4 in the KJV really blew it. No other English translation blows this verse that badly. It is a shameful translation of that verse and borders on Satanic if one is not gracious in accepting that the translators made an innocent but totally ignorant error.

Acts 12:4 is about a pascha feast of the church. It was specifically called 'Easter" in 1611 , referring to the church's pascha feast of 1 Cor 11.

It had nothing to do with paganism. They duped you.


4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people....

The Easter feast...
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

 

[Truther]

The "easter" (pascha/passover) feast of the 1st century church was held simultaneously with the Jews pascha feast.

How can Christendom not know this?

Right, reading silly commentary.