Predestination

Sethproton

Well-known member
Jesus is not a court mediator and your suggestion that he is, diminishes his Godhood. He is THE Mediator. Past. Present, and Future.

I'm a professional teacher seth. I have taught college level classes for students struggling with the basic rules of grammar. I must tell you that your grammar skills could use improvement. Of note is your inability to understand the concept of "to be". You do this every time you try to make a distinction. regarding tenses. I detest sloppy English because it is not instructive and it is often just plain ignorant. I don't mean the word 'ignorant' as an insult, it simply means you are uninformed. "I be, She Be, They Be, You Be" are all profoundly wrong. It should be "I am, I will be, I was" All time dependent, yet you ignore this when it comes to scripture.

Now come the double negatives. I have an entire list of such errors. "I ain't got no problem" "I don't have nothing", Here are examples from Grammarly:
  • That won't do you no good.
  • I ain't got no time for supper.
  • Nobody with any sense isn't going.
  • I can't find my keys nowhere.
  • She never goes with nobody.
  • John says he has not seen neither Alice or Susan all day.
  • I didn't steal nothing.
  • He ain't never told no lies.
  • You can't see no one in this crowd.
  • There aren't no presents left to open.


Now, notice that knowing the difference between present tense, past tense, future tense matters.

I don't think you are particularly guilty about the double negatives, but there is a reason I posted them. It matters.

You are promoting the misuse of grammar in both the English and the Greek. You are allowing your own beliefs to rule over basic parts of speech communication rules.

We have people here who understand the Greek language (I'm not one of them). When they correct you with the proper tense of a Greek word, you should listen and learn.

Don't even get me started on dangling participles.

Sad that here in America we allow such displays of grammar ignorance.
one thing you said here seems like a misunderstanding on my point. it was not about verb TENSE, that was not the point at all. The point was the lack of a verb. And it seems misplaced to me to create a doctrinal position based on the tense of a verb that is not in the text.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
one thing you said here seems like a misunderstanding on my point. it was not about verb TENSE, that was not the point at all. The point was the lack of a verb. And it seems misplaced to me to create a doctrinal position based on the tense of a verb that is not in the text.

That's because you keep RUNNING AWAY from:

Heb. 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

... and you keep RUNNING AWAY from:

Heb. 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
I think I already have several times.
But remember I told you that one of your issues is vocabulary?
There is a Greek word that means a court mediator. It gets translated into English as just mediator.
It is strange that we have been talking about that over dozens of posts and you suddenly forgot our conversation
I’m talking about the present tense verb in Heb 8:6 and 1 John 4:7. I agree with those verbs that that are still present and you’ve made one past and one present . That is inconsistent. You are making a circular argument in Heb 8:6 because you presume he is no longer a mediator and are changing the meaning of the verb to agree with your idea he is no longer a mediator. I am consistent in both passage and do not have to change the meaning that Jesus is our mediator and God is love. Why are you saying it’s my vocabulary when it’s not ?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Strong's:
3316. μεσίτης mesites, mes-ee´-tace; from 3319; a go-between, i.e. (simply) an internunciator, or (by implication) a reconciler (intercessor): — mediator.

(No mention of "court mediator".)

Thayer:
3316.
μεσίτης; mesitēs, mesitou, ho (mesos), one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or to form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant: a medium of communication, arbitrator

(No mention of "court mediator".)

Louw & Nida:
[...]

BDAG:

μεσίτης
, ου, ὁ
one who mediates betw. two parties to remove a disagreement or reach a common goal, mediator, arbitrator, of Christ (Mithras as μεσίτης: Plut., Mor. 369e) w. gen. of the pers. betw. whom [...]

Ι'm sorry... I have to apologize to Seth.

I "cut and pasted" those definitions from the various lexicons in my "Accordance" Bible program. I realize that Seth is offended by "cut-and-paste", so I have to apologize, because I'd rather give the actual definitions, than come up with my own.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
I’m talking about the present tense verb in Heb 8:6 and 1 John 4:7. I agree with those verbs that that are still present and you’ve made one past and one present . That is inconsistent. You are making a circular argument in Heb 8:6 because you presume he is no longer a mediator and are changing the meaning of the verb to agree with your idea he is no longer a mediator. I am consistent in both passage and do not have to change the meaning that Jesus is our mediator and God is love. Why are you saying it’s my vocabulary when it’s not ?
Johnny. please stop misrepresenting what i am saying. or maybe you are not actually reading my answers to you? If you are not interested in my answers why are you asking me to respond and then not reading them?
There is no place in my argument that I made any verb past tense. I never said anything like that.
And there is no place i changed any verb? Why are you saying things I never did when you could be responding to what I actually said?
And if you notice, no one in the thread has brought any evidence to refute the idea that Jesus mediated one time in His blood?
Please read Heb 8:6 9:15 and 12:24, or if you are inclined read as much of that span of hebrews as you can. There is a Biblical explanation of jesus being a mediator, one time, by the shedding of His blood.
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
Johnny. please stop misrepresenting what i am saying. or maybe you are not actually reading my answers to you? If you are not interested in my answers why are you asking me to respond and then not reading them?
There is no place in my argument that I made any verb past tense. I never said anything like that.
And there is no place i changed any verb? Why are you saying things I never did when you could be responding to what I actually said?
And if you notice, no one in the thread has brought any evidence to refute the idea that Jesus mediated one time in His blood?
Please read Heb 8:6 9:15 and 12:24, or if you are inclined read as much of that span of hebrews as you can. There is a Biblical explanation of jesus being a mediator, one time, by the shedding of His blood.
But we are talking about understanding the basic meaning of a sentence not theology . You are making a theological argument and we are asking for grammar, do you see the difference?

We are not asking for your idea on a mediator we are asking what the sentence means , the grammar. Do you understand the difference between them ?

I do not know how else I can ask the question. Are you saying you do not know the difference between theology and grammar ?
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
But we are talking about understanding the basic meaning of a sentence not theology . You are making a theological argument and we are asking for grammar, do you see the difference?

We are not asking for your idea on a mediator we are asking what the sentence means , the grammar. Do you understand the difference between them ?

I do not know how else I can ask the question. Are you saying you do not know the difference between theology and grammar ?
You've asked the question well. I think you are not asking for an answer in accordance to Jurisprudence, but are asking for an answer in accordance with Biblioprudence; right?

And if he says the two notions cannot be separated; then he supports things like the Hypostatic Union, where The Logos of God and the Man Jesus Christ are eternally one. What God has United, let no Man separate; right?
 
Last edited:

ReverendRV

Well-known member
You've asked the question well. I think you are not asking for an answer in accordance to Jurisprudence, but are asking for an answer in accordance with Biblioprudence; right?

And if he says the two notions cannot be separated; then he supports things like the Hypostatic Union, where The Logos of God and the Man Jesus Christ are eternally one. What God has United, let no Man separate; right?
Hypostatic Union ~ by Reverend RV

John 1:1+14 KJV; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became 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.

This is the account of how Jesus Christ came into being. The Apostle John says that Jesus is the ‘Word’ of God and that because of this, Jesus is God. There was a moment in time where the God of creation condescended and entered into his creation to become a creature; the man Jesus of Nazareth. You ask, “But how is that possible? The Bible says that God does not change!” ~ You are correct, so since God became flesh, this had to be accomplished in such a way that it would not cause God to Change. There is a Doctrine in Theology called Monophysitism which says that God did change his Essence when he became flesh; but because God does not change we know that this Doctrine is wrong. The correct Doctrine is called the Hypostatic Union. This means that God became a Man through a ‘Union’, but this does not cause a change in the nature of God. Here is an example of a Hypostatic Union found within the pages of the Bible…

People have been marrying since the beginning. Because of this, we do not have a problem understanding that ‘the two become one’. The Bible says, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; the husband will cleave to his wife'. The man and woman do not become a new amalgamation, but their spirits do cleave to the point they become one in a mingling, which is so extensive that their souls cannot be unwound. Even if you unite yourself with a harlot, the two have become one. ~ I watched an episode of the television show ‘Mythbusters’. They put the myth to the test that if you interlace each page of two large telephone books together, you can’t pull them apart. When applying a pulling force, the pages will cleave to one another through Friction. The Mythbusters played tug-of-war and could not pull them apart. They tied the phone books between two trucks and could not pull them apart. Finally, they tore them asunder between two tanks. This is an example of a Hypostatic Union. The two phone books were essentially ‘one’ because of their cleaving to each other, even though neither phone book became the other phone book. An Atlanta phone number did not become a phone number in a Dallas phone book because of this Union; no change of Essence took place. Jesus is the Godman because of a Hypostatic Union…

Have you kept the Ten Commandments? If you have committed adultery and become united with a harlot, then you can find forgiveness for your Sins. Go to God the Father through the Godman Jesus Christ! He is our Advocate; there is no one more suited to mend the broken relationship between men and God than the Godman himself! Jesus died on the Cross for our Sins so that we will not have to die for our Sins in an Eternal Hell; what a ‘middle man’! Have Faith in the risen Christ as your Savior and you will never be put to shame, you will be Saved from Sin and Hell and you will dwell in the paradise of Heaven. Repent of your Sins, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God and read your Bible. ~ But there is a sad irony; there are some who call themselves Christians who do not believe that God became flesh. They try to separate the man from God, or God from the Man. Cleave to the Lord Jesus Christ through Faith in him…

Matthew 19:6 NKJV; "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
This is the account of how Jesus Christ came into being.​

This is poorly and incorrectly phrased. Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity with a divine nature and has never "come into being," he has existed eternally with the Father. Before Abraham was, he IS. The incarnated human nature of Jesus Christ came into being. Just a tip.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
This is poorly and incorrectly phrased. Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity with a divine nature and has never "come into being," he has existed eternally with the Father. Before Abraham was, he IS. The incarnated human nature of Jesus Christ came into being. Just a tip.
I understand...

Since it's a One-Page Gospel Tract, it is very, very difficult to say everything that should be said. I shortened my Gospel presentation to fit more in about the Hypostatic Union. But not including everything I could include, or should include, doesn't bother me; because Tracts like this are also meant to be a page in a larger book...

I'm editing my Gospel Tracts, and I haven't gotten to this one yet; but when I do, it will still only include a portion of what could be said. I plan to say things like this in my Forward to the Book, when I write that; to notify the Reader that more could be said about every Gospel Tract...
 
Last edited:

ReverendRV

Well-known member
This is poorly and incorrectly phrased. Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity with a divine nature and has never "come into being," he has existed eternally with the Father. Before Abraham was, he IS. The incarnated human nature of Jesus Christ came into being. Just a tip.
I need to be reminded from time-to-time when Christians read the Book, they will find a lot of Fault with it; but it's meant for the Lost and new Converts...

Kind of like a Primer...
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
This is poorly and incorrectly phrased. Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity with a divine nature and has never "come into being," he has existed eternally with the Father. Before Abraham was, he IS. The incarnated human nature of Jesus Christ came into being. Just a tip.
The Gospel Tract would be a page in the Daily Devotional, which also includes this Gospel Tract...

Consubstantiation ~ by Reverend RV

John 1:1-2 KJV; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

The Apostle John starts off his Gospel with a description of what God is like. John says that the Word (‘Logos’ in Greek) has been God since the beginning, and has been with God from the beginning; both the same yet distinct. You ask, “Can you explain how God can be both distinct and be ‘One’ at the same Time?” The Church calls this teaching Consubstantiation and it means ‘same substance’. Biblically speaking; because one thing has its source from another thing and is of the same substance as the other, they are the same thing. If this is hard to conceive, there are other examples of Consubstantiation in the Bible which might help us to understand. If Consubstantiation is true, God can be Tree and One…

The Prophet Daniel describes the Kingdom of God as being one Kingdom, yet it is also two. Daniel was explaining King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream to him; it was about the kingdom of Man and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of Man is a statue and the Kingdom of God is a mountain. “The head of the statue was made of fine gold. Its chest and arms were silver, its belly and thighs were bronze, its legs were iron, and its feet were a mixture of iron and baked clay. As you watched, a rock was cut from a mountain, but not by human hands. It struck the feet of iron and clay, smashing them to bits. The whole statue was crushed into small pieces of iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold. Then the wind blew them away without a trace, like chaff on a threshing floor. But the rock that tore the statue down became a great mountain that covered the whole earth.” There was one mountain but then there were two. The two mountains are the same mountain because the second mountain came from the first mountain because it is the stone from the first mountain. ~ God made Eve from the rib of Adam. Since the second mountain is Consubstantial with the first mountain, Eve was Consubstantial with Adam; God has the right to make two vessels from the same lump of clay, right? The Bible says that “God Created Man; male and female he Created them”. One Mankind consisting of two persons. The brotherhood of Man is Consubstantial…

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. The Word became flesh and dwelt amongst men. This person is Jesus Christ! He came into the world to save us from our Sins. If you have ever told a Lie or Stolen anything, if you have ever Hated anyone or Lusted after someone; then you have broken the Ten Commandments. According to Jesus, Hatred is Murder and lust is Adultery. God judges Sinners and finds them guilty, then sentences them to an eternal Hell; we are Condemned already. But the good news is that Jesus lived a life in which he never Sinned. God his Father passed judgment on Jesus and said that he was well pleased with him! Jesus will trade the good judgment he received from God his Father to you, for the guilty sentence you have received from God. He makes this trade when you trust him as your Lord God and Savior; he never turns anyone away! ~ Jesus said that he had power to lay down his own life and he had power to pick it up again. The reason he has that power is because he is God and was with God from the beginning. There are some so-called churches who do not teach the Triune Nature of God; one Consubstantial God revealed to us in the Bible as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Those churches don’t believe that Jesus is God, but the Apostle John tells us that Jesus rose from the dead and is God. Repent of your Sins, Confess that Jesus is your God; then find a Bible believing Church and become his disciple…

Matthew 17:5 GNT; While he was talking, a shining cloud came over them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my own dear Son, with whom I am pleased--listen to him!"
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
And I encourage everyone here, if it can be done better; please do it. The world needs us; and our Lord...
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
But we are talking about understanding the basic meaning of a sentence not theology . You are making a theological argument and we are asking for grammar, do you see the difference?

We are not asking for your idea on a mediator we are asking what the sentence means , the grammar. Do you understand the difference between them ?

I do not know how else I can ask the question. Are you saying you do not know the difference between theology and grammar ?
Yes. I clearly understand the difference between theology and grammar. If you were to read my post with the intention of understanding what I say, it would be apparent to you that I know the difference,
So for instance when you ask about the verb in our verse in first Timothy, and there is no verb, my response will be about the absence of the verb, That is not theology. That is grammar. Also the lexicon definitions of a word are not theology, but would be needed in a discussion of grammar

Johnny, have you ever heard of the story called "The Emperor's New Clothes"? Everyone claimed they could see the clothes the emperor was wearing except one boy who said "He is naked." In this discussion I am the one boy saying, "There is no verb."
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
So for instance when you ask about the verb in our verse in first Timothy, and there is no verb, my response will be about the absence of the verb, That is not theology. That is grammar.

But there IS a verb in 1 Timothy, it's an IMPLIED verb.
But you have identified it as "is", which means you know what the verb is, and what the verb tense is. But you refuse to admit it.

So we have redirected you to Heb. 8:6 and Heb. 9:14, where the verb is EXPLICIT, and you REFUSE to address those EXPLICIT verbs.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanentlyTherefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.[Heb. 7:23-28]

He is STILL our High Priest and His intercession for us does not cease.
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
Yes. I clearly understand the difference between theology and grammar. If you were to read my post with the intention of understanding what I say, it would be apparent to you that I know the difference,
So for instance when you ask about the verb in our verse in first Timothy, and there is no verb, my response will be about the absence of the verb, That is not theology. That is grammar. Also the lexicon definitions of a word are not theology, but would be needed in a discussion of grammar

Johnny, have you ever heard of the story called "The Emperor's New Clothes"? Everyone claimed they could see the clothes the emperor was wearing except one boy who said "He is naked." In this discussion I am the one boy saying, "There is no verb."
You just did it again and I’m not sure if it’s intentional or not but I asked you about Heb 8:6 specifically.

We can discuss the Timothy verse afterwards.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
You just did it again and I’m not sure if it’s intentional or not but I asked you about Heb 8:6 specifically.

We can discuss the Timothy verse afterwards.
Y'all are in a car, and both of you are grabbing the steering wheel while going down the road; which one of you are in the Driver's seat?
Apparently, it is him; and you keep on trying to drive the car into the ditch!
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
Y'all are in a car, and both of you are grabbing the steering wheel while going down the road; which one of you are in the Driver's seat?
Apparently, it is him; and you keep on trying to drive the car into the ditch!
No I’m trying to steer us in the right direction and he is trying to take the wheel and drive the car into the ditch .
 
Top