LEARNING IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF CHRISTIAN LIFE:

View previous topic View next topic Go down

LEARNING IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF CHRISTIAN LIFE:

Post  Admin on Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:47 pm

LEARNING IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF CHRISTIAN LIFE:

Many do not realize that learning is an essential part of element of Christian life. This is made clear at Psalms 1:1-3, "1 Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the chair of pestilence: 2 But his will is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he shall meditate day and night. 3 And he shall be like a tree which is planted near the running waters, which shall bring forth its fruit, in due season. And his leaf shall not fall off: and all whatsoever he shall do shall prosper." (Douay Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB), and Jesus (Yeshua ) made this quite clear when he said at Matthew 22:29, "You are mistaken, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God." (The New English Bible; NEB). This was also made clear at Mark 12:24 by Jesus (Yeshua) when he said, "And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures nor the power of God?" (DRCB).

Yet it is important that when we study the scriptures, we have an open mind willing to accept the truth as revealed in God's (YHWH's) word. Not all that read the Bible do as Jesus (Yeshua) pointed out to the religious leaders of his day who were oppossing him when he testified at John 5:39, "You study the scriptures diligently, supposing that in having them you have eternal life; yet, althouth their testimony points to me, you refuse to come to me for that life." (NEB). Likewise, there are those today who study the scriptures diligently, but due to a closed mind, never come to know the truth. Often these types spend many years in colloges and seminaries, and yet still believe pagan doctrines such as the Trinity and that the Virgin Mary remained ever a virgin. Clearly these ones are like those Jesus (Yeshua) spoke to at John 5:39, clearly as Jesus (Yeshua) said at John 5:41-43, "41 I receive not glory from men. 42 But I know you, that you have not the love of God in you. 43 I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive." (DRCB). Clearly they do not give credit to Jesus (Yeshua) or his Father (YHWH), but to someone who comes in his own name.

They overlook what Jesus (Yeshua) said at John 14:28, "You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come unto you. If you loved me you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I." (DRCB; and at John 5:19, "Then Jesus answered and said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, the Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner." (DRCB). These two scriptures clearly show that the Trinity is false doctrine since Jesus (Yeshua) shows that his Father (YHWH) is the greater one and that the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) cannot do a single thing of his own initiative; hence, no co-equality here as required by the false pagan doctrine of the trinity.

Also, the Beble clearly says at Matthew 12:46, "He was still speaking to the crowd when his mother and brothers appeared;" (NEB). These so called learned ones will then argue that these were not actually his brothers [half brothers], but cousins. However, even history shows otherwise, Flavius Josephus, wrote, "...Albinis was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others...formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned..." [source = "The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus," translated by William Winston, AM; The John C. Winston Co., page 598].

APPENDIX;

Let us see what the NWT said about the Greek Grammar as applied by
them to John 1:1c:

These translations use such words as "a god," "divine" or "godlike"
because the Greek word #952;#949;#972;#962; (the•os´) is a singular
predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the
definite article. This is an anarthrous the•os´. The God with whom
the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek
expression #959; #952;#949;#972;#962;, that is, the•os´ preceded by
the definite article ho. This is an articular the•os´. Careful
translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun
points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous
predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone.
Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or
"divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he
was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos,
but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.

In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous
predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh
4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places
translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate
noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the
subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the
predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite
article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous #952;#949;#972;#962; in
the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The Sacred
Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.

Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John
where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate
nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote
the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns: Reference
Bible NWT 6A. (Emphasis added)

To condense this issue, the NWT is saying that John1:1c should be
translated as "Indefinite" and refers to "quality" or the
"characteristic" of the subject. The word "theos" is in the predicate
position, which tells you something about the subject and precedes
the verb. This is known as "an anathrous predicate noun, proceeding
the verb."

Let us consider whether such terms exist in Greek grammar to describe
a noun (Theos/ God) that is "anathrous", meaning it is not proceeded
by the definite article ( 'O/The) and is in the "predicate" position
(says something about the subject (Logos/Word). Can such a noun be
translated as "indefinite" such as "a man" etc.

Is this Grammatically correct?

Consider:

(2) there is no indefinite article in Greek. Thus we see that
anthropos, means "man" or "a man". It does not , however , mean "the
man" because the Greek does have a definite article.... The Greek
article is used to point out particular identity. This is called the
"articular" use of a noun or other substantive. When no definite
article is used with the noun (or other substantive), it is called
"anathrous' use. The anathrous construction is used to indicate
quality or characteristics." Essentials of New Testament Greek, Ray
Summers (student of H.E. Dana), Chairman Dept of Religion Baylor
University, Waco Texas, 1950 Pg 16. (emphasis added)

"...the article is therefore ..., the definite article....It is a pointer...
Whenever the Greek article occurs, the object is certainly definite.
When it is not used, the object may or may not be definite..." ... "But
the rule holds whoever the subject has the article and the predicate
does not. The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate
indefinite and undistributed." ... "The word may be either definite or
indefinite when the article is absent..." " in the predicate the
article is often absent. This is the rule unless the terms are
convertible or the predicate is singled out as prominent." A.T.
Robertson, A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF
HISTORICAL RESEARCH, 1934, pgs 756, 767, 794 (emphasis added)

The predicate [noun] commonly refers not to an individual or
individuals as such, but to the class to which the subject belongs,
to the nature or quality predicated of the subject; e.g. Jo I, 1 [kai
theos en ho logos], which attributes to the Word the divine
nature,-Maximilian Zerwich, S.J., Biblical Greek, Rome, Scriptua
Pontificii Instituti Biblici (Pontifical Biblical Scripture
Institute), p. 55.(emphasis added)

From this we see that the NWT has used proper terminology and has
translated in harmony with Greek Grammar. It is not "bad grammar" at
all. Nor does it ignore the basic tenets or show "intellectual
dishonesty". Nouns without the article in the predicate position can
be, and generally are, translated as indefinite and are used to
describe, the class, quality or characteristics of the subject.

This raises the question of why any of the above would say it is bad
grammar, etc? Are they that ignorant of Biblical Greek, or are they
dishonest in their representations of the facts? You decide, as we
carry this further.

Next we will examine point #2 to see if the NWT has used "Bad
Grammar" specifically in John 1:1c. Do the above statements apply to
John1;1c, indicating that the NWT has properly applied the rules.

To clarify the position of John 1:1c from the perspective of Greek
grammar, it is necessary to cover some basic rules of the Language.
In Greek nouns can be either:

1. Definite.

2. Indefinite .

3. Qualitative.

What do Jehovah's Witnesses say about this scripture and how the
translate it?

These translations use such words as "a god," "divine" or "godlike"
because the Greek word #952;#949;#972;#962; (the•os´) is a singular
predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the
definite article. This is an anarthrous the•os´. The God with whom
the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek
expression #959; #952;#949;#972;#962;, that is, the•os´ preceded by
the definite article ho. This is an articular the•os´. Careful
translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun
points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous
predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone.
Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or
"divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he
was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos,
but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.

In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous
predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh
4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places
translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate
noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the
subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the
predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite
article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous #952;#949;#972;#962; in
the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The Sacred
Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.

Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John
where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate
nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote
the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns: Refernce
Bible NWT 6A. (Emphasis added)

Note "indefinite and qualitative" In other words 2b.

The first point the is that Jehovah's Witnesses do not indicate that
Jesus is "another God". They say he is "a god," "divine" or "godlike"

Is this truly in harmony with the Greek language?

Consider:

B. F. Westcott: "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first,
as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho
theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not
identify His Person... (Your reference rejecting #1 and this is 2a.)

Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the
Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of
representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho
logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos."
"Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John
1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.
(your quote rejecting #1 and this is 2a.)

C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the
Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho
theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being
existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel
According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76. (Your quote. (Totally
rejects #1 )

There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite...In
John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun]
is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.-Philip
Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.
(Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with the WT on 2b.)

We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite
["qualitative" would have been a better word choice] sense of a
divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite
absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of
Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to "the image of God''
of Paul, Col. 1:15.-G. Lucke, "Dissertation on the Logos", quoted by
John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian
Testimonies, p. 428. (Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with the
WT on 2b.)

There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and
'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the
reference specific. In the second instance there in no article and it
is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In
effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos so
the phrase means 'The Word was divine'.-The Translator's New
Testament, p. 451. (Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with the WT
on 2b.)

It would be impossible to speak about Jesus without considering the
words of John's 'Gospel: "The Word was God". The Greek of that phrase
is Theos en ho logos. This does not mean Word was God. ... There is
noting strange about this. We do the very same in English. When in
English, or in Greek, a noun does to have the definite article, it
becomes the equivalent of an adjective. ... So then, what the Greek
really says [means] in not "The Word was God," but "The word is in
the same sphere as God; it belongs to the same kind of life
[spiritual life] and is one with God [cp. John 17:20-23 on "one"].
William Barclay, Who Is Jesus, Tidings, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A.,
1975, pp. 35-6. (basically is rejecting #1 and is unclear about 2a or
2b.)

The rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate
does not. The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate
indefinite and undistributed.-A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek
New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, fourth edition,
1934, p. 767. (Agrees with 2b and the WT)

The predicate [noun] commonly refers not to an individual or
individuals as such, but to the class to which the subject belongs,
to the nature or quality predicated of the subject; e.g. Jo I, 1 [kai
theos en ho logos], which attributes to the Word the divine
nature,-Maximilian Zerwich, S.J., Biblical Greek, Rome, Scriptua
Pontificii Instituti Biblici (Pontifical Biblical Scripture
Institute), p. 55. ( Rejects #1 and agrees with 2b as does the WT)

In John 1:1...Theos en ("was deity");...The qualitative force is
obvious and most important,-Alfred M. Perry, "Translating The Greek
Article" in Journal of Biblical Literature, 1949, Vol. l68, p.
331.(Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with the WT on 2b.)

Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [theos en ho
logos] could be rendered "the word was a god." This leads me to
affirm that one may not infer (as is often done) from [E.C. Cowell's]
rule 2b [Journal of Biblical Literature, "A Definite Rule for the Use
of the Article in the Greek New Testament", 1933, Vol. 53, pp. 17-21]
that anarthrous predicate nouns which precede the verb are usually
definite. Indeed, such nouns will usually be qualitative in
emphasis.-Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book
House, 1992, pp. 60, 312. .(Totally rejects #1 and 2a and agrees with
the WT on 2b)
"R." <ditchbilly@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Hey all! Russ here again.I just wan't to take a moment to thank
Hollis and Paul for their input on my inquirey.It was most
encouraging.Paul I can't wait to read that book.Guaranteed sale right
here.
Now in all honesty the woman that I was refering to did put up a link
to a site that had quotes from "scholars" bashing the NWT.I
have been trying to find that link but haven't as of yet.It was a
link to the blueletter bible I think.Here is one that I found just
looking around
www.hyperbible.com/articles/jw4.asp
here's another www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm If anyone
would care to comment on these sites or the individuals mentioned
within then I would love to hear it.Not that any of this bothers me
or anything.I just find it interesting.Anyone want a good idea for a
book?Write one about all of the biblical "scholars" with
their ups and downs.Sort of like a who's who.Give them all a rating
from best to worse.Stand back and watch the fur fly.THAT would be
interesting.
Anyhow,as I mentioned before I asked this woman about the hands in
pocket thing as well as about the credentials of these scholars but
never got an answer.Come to think of it I'm still waiting on answers
from her regarding several issues.Her usual excuses are "I'm
behind"or "I missed it" or usually no answer at
all.For about a month or more I have been waiting on an answer to one
simple question.How can you call Witnesses "wrong" for
refering to a bible that was written by a
"spiritist"(Greber) yet at the same time you have no
problem refering to a bible that was written by a
sadistic,homosexual,necrophilic,tyranic beastphile?(James 1st)Still
waiting! If anyone has any views on James then I would welcome those
also.
By the way just in case anyone is wondering all of this is on the
infamous "gathering" site.Bashers galore! Well thanks again
y'all!-Russ

Now to know the truth, go to:

1) http://religioustruths.forumsland.com/

2) http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/

3) http://religioustruths.lefora.com/

4) http://religioustruths.boardhost.com/

5) http://religious-truths.forums.com/

6) http://religioustruthsbyiris.createmybb3.com/

7) http://religioustruths.forumotion.com/


Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!


Admin
Admin

Posts : 2714
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum