Arianism

Though i am by no means a trinitarian,
if the time were available, the answer could be given.

Care must be taken in response to this whoever it is. Are they Jehovah's Witness or Unitarian???

If you look on previous probably two pages of discussions in doctrine and general topics, you might find the stance here regarding the non-existence of the trinity, i.e. re:the Holy Spirit being a distinct and seperate person yet united -vs actually being the spirit of Christ, representing our Father through proclaimation of/about Jesus.

Those verses must be considered in context of earth's timeframe and not eternity, yet they can be easily proven false re: economy and ontology.

There are quantitative and qualitative nouns, definite and indefinite, personal and impersonal. Qualitative usually implies an adjective or definite article involved...and that is why it is asked if this is a Jehovah's Witness or a Unitarian.

I do not have time right now, but if you provide better spec's and answer could be more fully taylored towards your concern...later.

This is just a 'fly-by' checking through the forum and messages for now.

If you want a more direct answer later: are there other unsettled issues that you can provide?

Gotta' go.
CIAO!
g
Acts 20:32

One of the great passages that always strikes me very deeply is the Messianic prophecy of Christ found in Zachariah 12.
I love it personally because;

1. All Old Testament foreshadowing's of Christ are always of the highest interest to me personally, and

2. This is an excellent chapter to show to people who would challenge the full deity and position of Christ, no matter what their specific learning is, (i.e. Arianism, JW's, etc.)

Now the chapter in the first verse is prefaced by this;

Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. Thus declares the LORD who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him,

Now, in the very beginning we already have it stated, "Thus declares the LORD". In the translation I'm using (NASB) LORD is YHWH, The Name, the same one who spoke to Moses from the bush. He is the one speaking now, and through the rest of the chapter.

Following that train of thought we come to verse 10

Zechariah 12:10 "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

"they will look on ME whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for HIM, as one mourns for an only son" *capitalization added to show the key point*

Now I used the NASB however all the versions say it the exact same way, "look apon Me.... mourn for Him..."

This chapter is well accepted to be a messianic prophecy, not only by Christians but by unbelieving Jewish Rabbis as well. I honestly don't need to expound on this much, because it honestly speaks for itself.

A fantastic portion of scripture that not only points to the deity of Christ but also helps reiterate some of the beginnings of Old Testament Tri-Unity revelation.

Hope that was of some use. -Grant

No problem. So I understand what you're asking, but I'm just curious, do you have a friend or an acquaintance who has adopted the Arianist way of thinking? I never doubted your stance, just was more curious about how the questions came up.

Here's the reason, the Bible stands as a whole. I wish I could direct you to one of Tozer's sermons on this issue, but I've forgotten the title of it. Anyway, what he said is that the basis for all "bible based" cults, is that they refuse to look at the Bible as a whole, and instead take a few unclear verses and use them as the lens to view the rest of Scripture, instead of doing the reverse. Then they'll take a few verses from one chapter or one book and say, "look here, look here, I have revealed truths on these cloudy parts of Scripture." If they people you're conversing with do not view the Word of God as a whole, it's best not to just scripture duel with them.

In relation to your question about John 1:1, it's seems almost universally agreed upon by all Greek scholars that the translation is correct in rendering "the Word was God".
If you were to use the indefinite form "a God" you would be forced to use that throughout the rest of the chapter, and book, lest you set up a double standard. You would end up with verses being rendered like this;

John 1:6 There came a man sent from a God, whose name was John.

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of a God, even to those who believe in His name,

I'm sure you can see the difficulty right off the bat. I mean, to follow this pattern of thinking, how many potential gods are we going to end up with by the time this book is over?

In a sense I'm still so surprised that people in some groups will go along with these thoughts, when taken to their full conclusion would honestly challenge what they believe as well. Then again, double standards have always been the trademark of cults and heresies.

The real issue is not in translation and verses that aren't as crystal clear as we'd like them to be. The issue is the same issue that all of the world faces, simply that wicked men refuse to put themselves under the Lordship of Christ. They just find different faces to present it with.

EDIT PS. The other two verses you mentioned in John are actually not difficult to understand, when you read through the second chapter of Phillipians and begin to get a grasp on the purpose and attitude of Christ. However, if the person you're talking to about these things refuses to look to other books, then it's honestly best just to pray for them and not participate in their rigged game.

That question goes much more in depth than I can give a ready answer to academically, I've read the explanation to this inquiry before, however I myself cannot personally read or speak Greek, I can only remember being guided through it and the rational conclusion that it points toward.

There are some on this site who are much more versed in classical grammar, and can probably provide a clearer answer to what you're looking for.

Sorry I couldn't help more. -Grant

In discussing ontology, economy comes parceled to it.

Of neccessity, before any ontological discussion begins, it need be first asked just exactly who, how, what, where, when and why God is.

The best way to understand how Jesus is God is to 'know' our Father's attributes and see how Jesus is the exact representation of these things.

John 1:1 is a fools game, because most start out debating without definition of terms.

Regarding the noun being qualitative:

Logos is the greek word for "initial generative force" from which the synonyms 'testimony' or 'message' result, -and is not what we now consider to mean 'word'.
Prov. 8 / Col. 2:3
From this understanding the question should be asked, "who created the world?" Gen. 1:1,3; Jn. 1:10; Col. 1:16

The following verses are towards arguements you find in the verses you qoute from John:
I Jn. 1:1,2; Rev. 19:13; Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:15,16,17
(if exegesis is needed regarding any words in any passages mentioned herein this post, according to questions they can be answered-
(however, currently i am up against a few work deadlines and response may be slow in coming...we'll see though; because, often when work gets hectic, something else puts a wrench in the works, (failed material deliveries, rain, etc.)

Anyway, in answer to your questions:

jn. 1:1c understanding the mechanics of greek grammar, it is not uncommon for an article to be left out when the structure of the syntax clearly indicates what is meant. This phrase is merely one instance of such, where 'ho' would not be there. Because the predicate 'theos', precedes both the noun 'logos' and verb, it does not have an article, such as 'a' or 'the'.

Anybody who says otherwise does not understand greek, much less read any classical (koine) texts.

Jn. 5:26
The word 'give' is not like giving to someone who does not have. A better word would be 'grant', but it still misses the point. It does not mean to give to someone who does not have so much as giving as in 'because of being one in purpose and power, the 'recipient' willingly subjects oneself to fulfill this -(what is their assignment on the agenda)- out of obligation towards that purpose'.

Jn. 6:57

The word 'by' here, in both occurances, means "of a certain designated place and time, this occurs through".

If there are other questions, first consider all the verses provided, especially Col. 1:15 where the word image is used. It expresses modality and oneness together as one thing:
εἰκών---> The picture image, seeing that this interests you could be compared to a coin... let's say a silver dollar.

A silver dollar made in the same year is the same as every other silver dollar made that year.
A silver dollar is a silver dollar, right?

Two of such are of the same substance inside and out. They bear the exact same image front and back as well as the edges. They are two seperate and distinct silver dollars but each bears the exact same (purchasing) power because they are exactly the same.

________________________________________________________________________

If anything was missed, please carry on.

It's hoped that this helps towards being ready to give every man an answer for the hope that is within us.

Glorify God!

living dead man,
g
Acts 20:32

"The kingdom then is not for weaklings, waverers, and compromisers... It is not for Balaam, the rich young ruler, Pilate, and Demas... It is not won by means of deferred prayers, unfulfilled promises, broken resolutions and hesitant testimonies. It is for strong and sturdy men like Joseph, Nathan, Elijah, Daniel, Mordecai, and Peter... Stephen... and Paul. And let us not forget such valiant women as Ruth, Deborah, Esther, and Lydia"
~William Hendrickson~

p.s. are you speaking at all of polytheism, or is the question simply more along the lines of heirarchy and authority structure?

detide: dyslexia is setting in

Phanetheus
Thanks for your post and when I have more time I'll look at it closer and reflect upon the things you have pointed out (working all day). Real quick from something that stuck out to me and am curious about. The greek word "eikon" that is used in col. 1:15 and the greek word "charakter" in Heb. 1:3 Do you see any distinguishment between these words? KJV both uses the word "image", "express image". Literal greek seems to be "representation" for Heb 1:3. They seem very similar and curious if you could offer any insight as to whether there is any distinction between the two words. Thanks for taking the time with your post!

In Him
---------------------------------------------------------

Hebrews more than anything is telling why Jeusus Christ is sup[erior to the old covenant Mosaic System. As such, CHrist is represented from a human down to earth perspective,i.e., why he came.

Charackter used in Hebrews 1:3 in reference to Christ's designated purpose -and this was the passage given intended to clarify Jn. 5.26.

It's root comes from a word meaning a tool administered for engraving.

The image of God on earth is Jesus and what he does.

The word charakter
-consider the context of the above mentioned reference- means a stamped impression. The word does mean a representation,just as if a seal were made in sealing wax, as the image made bears the image of the ring which made the impression.

This concept of charakter carried out in fuller detail can be seen from Phil. 2:4,5,6,7 where morphe and homoioma are used for form and likeness, which comprise this word charakter.

Eikon means what is expressed though manifestation and not a mere likeness. Recall the 2 silver dollars. They are one and the same, yet two individual things.

OK?

justanuthabrutha,
g
Acts 20:32