Hot answers tagged

20

No, John 14:16 cannot be used to "cancel" the Trinity and posit a Quaternity (or whatever), and specifically not "Spirits" of past and present. In the understanding of later Christian tradition, the Christian Bible depicts God as outside time in any case: see, e.g. Psalm 90:2 or 1 Timothy 1:17. That is why the "past" and "present" Spirits are nonsensical. ...


6

Short Answer: The word is best translated "one-of-a-kind" or simply "unique". ("Only" would also work, though it could be misunderstood more easily.) The old translation "only-begotten" was based on an honest mistake in parsing the Greek word. Background on "only-begotten" The Greek word in question is μονογενη. It is pretty clearly a compound word formed ...


6

It is worth noting that in the Greek on both occasions this phrase is in fact two phrases both of which are governed by the preposition 'ἐν' the conjunction that links them seems to suggest that they should be juxtaposed that is these phrase are being deliberately placed together in this fashion for comparison or contrast. The comparison is the the ...


6

And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: [1 Thessalonians 1:6 KJV] The joy with which the followers received the word was joy 'of the Holy Spirit'. Therefore the Holy Spirit himself knows joy. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should ...


5

The NET bible renders it as "of his own Son" as well, and adds in note 114 at https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Acts+20:28: 114 tn Or “with his own blood”; Grk “with the blood of his own.” The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning “his own blood”; or (2) as a possessive ...


5

This is a great question. It's great because it's quasi-paradoxical for more than just one or two so-called 'high Christology' theologies. This is because the Gospel of John is so clearly intended to be, for lack of a better word, a Gospel in which the Apostle puts to rest any 'adoptionist' or other such 'low Christology' ideas—not the least of which ideas ...


5

Well I got some good news for you Mr.Ross since you quoted John 5:26. John 1:4, "In Him/Jesus Christ was life, and life was the light of men." The Apostle John is telling us that Jesus had life in Himself "BEFORE" His incarnation. And as a side note John 1:4 comes before John 5:26. This power was given back to Him AFTER His resurrection, after He ...


4

The video referenced by the question does a decent job of presenting the basics of the Jewish wedding customs and how it relates to Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32. However, I feel it lacks background, detail and also skips an important relevant piece. Groundwork I'll give a quick summary of the wedding custom as I have researched. The basic order of the ...


4

What does Jesus' being the χαρακτὴρ of the substance of God mean for Paul and his readership? St. Paul is making what is an obvious (somewhat praphrastic) reference to, and development upon, the familiar personification of Wisdom in the Old Testament: namely, that 'theology' of Wisdom contained in the book of Wisdom of Solomon. This book falls into the ...


4

The Bible also says in Revelation that Yeshua has a name known only to him (Revelation 19:12). Does the Father lack omniscience because he doesn't know the true name of Yeshua? I submit that the answer can easily be found other parts of the Bible. Taking two examples: In the OT, Yeshua wrestles with Jacob and Jacbob wins the wrestling match (Genesis 32:25). ...


4

The passage is in Aramaic and is more accurately translated as the plural, "gods:" He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.” (Daniel 3:25) [ESV] The majority of translations have either the plural, gods, or a divine being. The ...


4

You raise some interesting points that I will separate. 1. TR vs Critical Text and Trinitarianism In my (informal) experience, I agree that there are a group of Trinitarians who enthusiastically support the Textus Receptus (TR). However, for each Trinitarian TR enthusiast, I am sure I can fin two or three Trinitarians who do not support the TR. In fact, ...


4

In the "scholarly" theological literature (which need not delay us here) there is much debate about whether Paul as "unitarian", "binitarian", or, "trinitarian". There is a huge amount of evidence for all three positions and so this cannot decided on the basis of a single text. This age-old problem will not be ...


3

Definition The Greek word χαρακτηρ denotes "an engraving" (source). Translation The modern day translation "imprint" of ESV perfectly corresponds to this meaning. The translation "exact likeness" is actually not a literal translation but a dynamic equivalence. Exegesis The Lord Jesus is a copy of God's being. It means that Jesus ...


3

I would render Hebrews 1:3 as: Who, not only while being a distinctive brightness of his glory and a perfect expression of the depth of his steadfastness, but also while upholding everything there is by the word of his power, having made a purification of sin, sat down at right hand of the Majesty on high. The reasoning for this is shown below: Notes:...


3

The One God is the Father. The One Lord is Jesus Christ. This language is being used to differentiate between the two. Paul was a monotheist, moreover the expectation of explicit trinitarian terminology would be an anachronism in the New Testament. This is however a controversial passage even among scholars. James Dunn writes in "Did the First Christians ...


3

Heiser's statement (from the document you link) is: The Greek word μονογενής (monogenēs) doesn’t actually mean “only begotten.” It presents a problem neither with respect to Jesus having a beginning, nor with respect to divine “sons of God” who are called gods (אֱלֹהִים , elohim) in the Old Testament. The confusion extends from a misunderstanding of the ...


3

“God is untempted by evil,”1 yet “they tempted Yahveh.”2 The solution to the conundrum exists in the recognition of there being two types of temptation: subjective and objective. Hallie wrote,3 ...you will see that temptation has two major aspects: let us call them “objective temptation” and “subjective temptation.” Objective temptation is what it is that ...


3

It is important to first define "the WORD" Yeshua (the WORD) frequently referenced the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22;40, Luke 16:16, 24:44) The Law (the Book of the Law) is the Torah. The Torah is the WORD of Yahweh. The Torah (the WORD of Yahweh) contains the Law of Moses (the Levitical Law) and the Ten Commandments. The Ten ...


3

We know that the Son is not aware of the timing of the end of time. It is not revealed to him, for he says so himself, Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32. The Person of the Father is aware of something but the Son is not. Whether, or not, the Spirit (who searcheth the deep things of God, 1 Corinthians 2:10) knows from the Father but does not reveal to the Son ; ...


3

The following is what I wrote about 2 months ago on this very subject. The angel of the Lord first appears as the angel of the Lord at Genesis 16:7. And he says in the following verses that he will multiply Hagar's descendants at verse 10. At verse 13 Hagar says, "Thou art a God who sees; Have I even remained alive after seeing Him." At Genesis 17:1-2 you ...


3

Seems like you are reading the phrase “sat on the right side of God” purely as visual. A location At the right side δεξιων is understood also as a position of authority and/or honor. Take “the right hand of fellowship” Gal2:9 they were offering Paul and Barnabas the position of authority or honor within the community. They were not saying that Paul and ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible