|
Forums118
Topics9,224
Posts196,103
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
5 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, 3 invisible),
2,645
guests, and 8
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Are we transgressing the 1st commandment or not?
#77563
09/13/06 12:36 PM
09/13/06 12:36 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Quote:
He is telling us that the Son of God has come and given us an understanding of the Father (the true one), and speaking of himself and the saints he says “we are in the Father (the true one), then he tells how it is that they are in the Father (the true one); by being in the Son of the true one. Then he reaffirms that the life they live and the true one that they are in, the Father, is the True God and the eternal life.
Let's suppose that "the true one" refers to the Father. The problem in this sentence is who is John referring to when he says "this is the true God" - to "the true one" or to "Jesus Christ"?
The pronoun “this”, hOUTOS, always refers to the immediate antecedent, and the immediate antecedent here is “Jesus Christ”. As far as I know, in Biblical Greek there is no example of hOUTOS not referring to the immediate antecedent. This is what Carl Conrad, of the B-Greek list, says:
At 11:46 PM -0500 8/27/98, Kyle Dillon wrote:
>Normally, hOUTOS refers to an immediate antecedent. Does that mean that hOUTOS in 1 John 5:20 is referring to IHSOU CRISTWi, or does it refer to TON ALHQINON?
Well, I think that grammatically hOUTOS here can only refer to IHSOU CRISTWi which immediately precedes it at the end of the preceding sentence. Of course it is also true that this sentence makes an equation between IHSOUS CRISTOS and hO ALHQINOS QEOS, so that it would be reasonable enough to see a continuity of reference in the verse. Nevertheless, I think the grammatical antecedent of hOUTOS can only be IHSOU CRISTOU.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
http://funsite.unc.edu/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1998-08/27049.html
|
|
|
Re: Are we transgressing the 1st commandment or not?
#77564
09/13/06 12:54 PM
09/13/06 12:54 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Quote:
In its place it establishes an oneness based on “substance”
Well, this is my position, and Ellen White's position, too, and the position of the SDA Church:
"With what firmness and power he uttered these words. The Jews had never before heard such words from human lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, 'I and my Father are one.' The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes. The Jews understood his meaning, there was no reason why they should misunderstand, and they took up stones to stone him." {ST, November 27, 1893 par. 5}
So we should understand that your position is that the Son is not of the same substance of the Father. In fact, how could it be otherwise? A creature cannot have the same substance of the Creator; and, to you, Jesus is just a creature.
Quote:
Your illustration of marriage is tantamount to immorality (when applied to the Father and the Son). Nowhere has either Christ or the Father intimated that the relationship between them is that of, or akin to marriage.
Only you thought of sex, John. The fundamental thought here is unity. And marriage is a symbol of the union between God, or Christ, and His people. If the comparison was immoral in relation to the members of the Godhead, it would also be immoral in relation to God and humanity.
|
|
|
Re: Are we transgressing the 1st commandment or not?
#77565
09/14/06 11:17 PM
09/14/06 11:17 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
In its place it establishes an oneness based on “substance”
Well, this is my position;
So we should understand that your position is that the Son is not of the same substance of the Father. In fact, how could it be otherwise? A creature cannot have the same substance of the Creator; and, to you, Jesus is just a creature.
The fundamental thought here is unity. And marriage is a symbol of the union between God, or Christ, and His people. If the comparison was immoral in relation to the members of the Godhead, it would also be immoral in relation to God and humanity.
You assert that which you deny, and deny that which you assert.
You assert a unity based on physics; as “flesh”; one substance; (meaning physics), establishing that the substance is unique to God and that creation cannot have it. And that it is this unique substance (physics) that makes their unity. Therefore you have established that what makes them united is physical, while you have denied and contended against the indwelling of the spirit (what I have been saying) (therefore I said to you that it is tantamount to immorality).
Then you turn it around and say that “marriage is a symbol of the union between God, or Christ, and His people”, which is a metaphor of spiritual oneness, and not physical. But you deny this spiritual oneness in God, and declare the unity upon substance, while at the same you deny the 'substance' unity in relation to man. Therefore your using marriage as a symbol would in the case of God be immorality because you assert it is physical; while in the case with man it is spiritual hence not immoral. So the two onenesses have nothing to do with each other.
It is fully understood that there is a ‘form’ of God; a ‘form’ of angel; a ‘form’ of man, and that the ‘form’ of God is vastly different than the ‘form’ of man. But the point is that it is not the ‘form’ that makes the oneness with God anymore than ‘form’ makes oneness between men. It is not “substance” that makes oneness with God anymore than the “substance” of man makes oneness between men.
The trinity doctrine concept is "exclusive"; separating man from God forever. The gospel of the Father and Son relationship is "inclusive" uniting us with God forever.
No, there is no oneness based on “substance”; it is an oneness of spirit. This same oneness of Spirit is what salvation is about and what we are called to.
I suggest that you define ‘substance’, or admit my definition.
|
|
|
Re: Are we transgressing the 1st commandment or not?
#77566
09/14/06 11:25 PM
09/14/06 11:25 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
Quote:
Let's suppose that "the true one" refers to the Father. The problem in this sentence is who is John referring to when he says "this is the true God" - to "the true one" or to "Jesus Christ"?
The pronoun “this”, hOUTOS, always refers to the immediate antecedent, and the immediate antecedent here is “Jesus Christ”. As far as I know, in Biblical Greek there is no example of hOUTOS not referring to the immediate antecedent. This is what Carl Conrad, of the B-Greek list, says:
The friends you quoted miss the mark altogether. ‘This’ (houtos) in this sentence and context is not a personal pronoun referring to an immediate antecedent. It is rather a summary reference as that in Mathew 13:19.
The sentence is a summary exclamation. “This” is a summary noun referencing all the foregoing that John has been telling us in regards to the “true God” and the “eternal life”. “This” refers to both the eternal life which he spoke of, and the true God which he spoke of. In addition, he speaks as one who has the life, and is in the true God, not as an outsider; therefore it is “this” to him and not “that”.
John begins his letter by telling us of the eternal life (which I have much referenced) being the relationship (oneness) between the Father and the Son; and we having that eternal life by being part of that oneness (relationship) that is between them. John has no confusion as to who the “only true God” is and who the Son of God; the Son of the Father is. Throughout the letter, the God that John references is the Father of the Son, and he ends by calling him “the true God”. He knows Christ as the Son of that God. And the relationship between the Father and the Son is the eternal life.
1Jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
1Jo 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jo 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. He is telling us that the Son of God has come and given us an understanding of the Father (the true one), and speaking of himself and the saints he says “we are in the Father (the true one), then he tells how it is that they are in the Father (the true one); by being in the Son of the true one. He then summarily exclaims that this (what he has been telling them in his letter) is the eternal life and the True God.
|
|
|
Re: Are we transgressing the 1st commandment or not?
#77567
09/15/06 12:26 PM
09/15/06 12:26 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Quote:
No, there is no oneness based on “substance”; it is an oneness of spirit. This same oneness of Spirit is what salvation is about and what we are called to.
I suggest that you define ‘substance’, or admit my definition.
John,
Oneness of spirit is one of the aspects of the unity between the members of the Godhead, but it clearly is not the only one, otherwise any believer could say, “I and the Father are one”.
The definition of “substance” is given in the EGW quote I provided:
“The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.”{ST, November 27, 1893 par. 5}
And these attributes, possessed exclusively by the Deity, are:
Eternity and self-existence
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Omniscience
No creature shares unity with the Godhead based on these attributes, but the members of the Godhead possess not only a spiritual unity, but also a unity based on these common attributes.
|
|
|
Re: Are we transgressing the 1st commandment or not?
#77568
09/15/06 01:36 PM
09/15/06 01:36 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Quote:
The friends you quoted miss the mark altogether. ‘This’ (houtos) in this sentence and context is not a personal pronoun referring to an immediate antecedent. It is rather a summary reference as that in Mathew 13:19.
But in Matt. 13:19 hOUTOS is a demonstrative pronoun referring to the antecedent “every one hearing the word”.
Quote:
He then summarily exclaims that this (what he has been telling them in his letter) is the eternal life and the True God.
I’m not sure I understood what you said, but a demonstrative pronoun summarizing a previously stated idea would be in the neuter gender. It would be TOUTO, not hOUTOS, which is the masculine form. HOUTOS here refers to a masculine antecedent. Besides, John is saying that this person, this masculine antecedent, is eternal life. And the person in the writings of John who is identified as being the eternal life is Christ.
|
|
|
Re: Are we transgressing the 1st commandment or not?
#77569
09/16/06 01:09 PM
09/16/06 01:09 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
Quote:
But in Matt. 13:19 hOUTOS is a demonstrative pronoun referring to the antecedent “every one hearing the word”.
But in Matthew 13:19, the most immediate antecedent is “his heart”, then “that which was sown”, next the “wicked one”, then “kingdom”, then “word” and “anyone that heareth” is the sixth one back.
In Matthew 13:19, hOUTOS refers to everything in the previous sentence: “When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart”.
All of the clauses have to be in place for “this” to be understood properly. You cannot leave anything of it out or “this” hOUTOS would not be complete or true, and would not be “he which received seed by the way side”.
And even that is incomplete for “he which received seed by the way side” is another abbreviation referencing back to the parable where the rest is told.
Quote:
I’m not sure I understood what you said, but a demonstrative pronoun summarizing a previously stated idea would be in the neuter gender. It would be TOUTO, not hOUTOS, which is the masculine form. HOUTOS here refers to a masculine antecedent. Besides, John is saying that this person, this masculine antecedent, is eternal life. And the person in the writings of John who is identified as being the eternal life is Christ.
But John is not summarizing a previous stated “idea”. He is summarizing “the Father” and “the Son”. The Father is the “true God” and the Son is “the eternal life”. But John is not stopping there either in his thought. His message of the “eternal life” is enfolded in a relationship - which is in what they are; an indwelling of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father; which indwelling (eternal life) is ours also, by being in the Son so that we may be in the Father.
So do we understand this indwelling; the eternal life; as it is in the Son of the Father? That is what John is trying to convey to us. He opens his letter with that thought and he closes it having established that thought.
1Jo 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jo 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
1Jo 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jo 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
Have we seen that life and that relationship (fellowship) in the things that they have related to us that: they have heard, looked upon, and handled of the Word of life? Have we seen that oneness which we are invited to, that is between the Father and the Son; that is “the eternal life”? Have we seen the glory that is given us in Christ that makes us one with the Father and the Son? Have we seen what it means to be a Son?
This relationship is the central theme of the gospel, and the eternal life. It is in that which the Son of God is; what it means to be a Son; for it is in (through) the Son that we know the Father.
|
|
|
Re: Are we transgressing the 1st commandment or not?
#77570
09/17/06 02:36 PM
09/17/06 02:36 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Quote:
But in Matthew 13:19, the most immediate antecedent is “his heart”, then “that which was sown”, next the “wicked one”, then “kingdom”, then “word” and “anyone that heareth” is the sixth one back.
The possible antecedents here would be “anyone hearing the word of the kingdom”, “the evil one”, and “that which is sown in his heart.” “That which is sown in his heart” is neuter, so the two options left are the first two ones. The context makes clear that “the wicked one” cannot be the antecedent of hOUTOS, therefore the antecedent can only be “anyone hearing the word”.
Quote:
In Matthew 13:19, hOUTOS refers to everything in the previous sentence
Everything in the previous sentence would be an “it”, not a “he”. HOUTOS refers to a “he”, who can only be “anyone hearing the word”. The rest is complement.
Quote:
But John is not summarizing a previous stated “idea”. He is summarizing “the Father” and “the Son”. The Father is the “true God” and the Son is “the eternal life”.
That’s the point. The same Person is, at the same time, the true God and the eternal life. The sentence cannot be translated “this is the true God and this is eternal life,” because “this” is masculine and “the eternal life” is feminine. Therefore, “the true God” and “the eternal life” are equated in the same Person in this passage. Although the Father possesses life (John 5:26), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere in the John’s writings, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6. Furthermore, if we understand 5:20 as referring to Jesus, it forms a conclusion with the prologue, which introduced in 1:2 “the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.”
So we have two points in favor of Jesus being the one referred to as the true God here: He is the closest antecedent of hOUTOS and He is specifically called the eternal life in John’s writings.
|
|
|
Re: Are we transgressing the 1st commandment or not?
#77571
09/18/06 05:28 AM
09/18/06 05:28 AM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But in Matthew 13:19, the most immediate antecedent is “his heart”, then “that which was sown”, next the “wicked one”, then “kingdom”, then “word” and “anyone that heareth” is the sixth one back.
The possible antecedents here would be “anyone hearing the word of the kingdom”, “the evil one”, and “that which is sown in his heart.” “That which is sown in his heart” is neuter, so the two options left are the first two ones. The context makes clear that “the wicked one” cannot be the antecedent of hOUTOS, therefore the antecedent can only be “anyone hearing the word”.
Quote:
In Matthew 13:19, hOUTOS refers to everything in the previous sentence
Everything in the previous sentence would be an “it”, not a “he”. HOUTOS refers to a “he”, who can only be “anyone hearing the word”. The rest is complement.
That is the way you use grammar; for all the technical rightness, you end up with error. It is good to know these things, but is also good to have understanding.
hOUTOS – “this” refers to everything in the previous sentence. The way you use “this” is destructive to what is communicated. First, in John you proposed that it has to be the immediate antecedent. I have shown here that it can easily be the sixth one back and much more. Further you are using hOUTOS – “this” to manufacture information rather than summarize, or reflect the previous. “This” is referring to what was said and not what will be said. What follows “this” is a summary or restatement of what has been said.
How much of the previous is important for hOUTOS – “this” to be true? Let us look in Matt 13:19.
How about “anyone”; would “anyone” fulfill “he which received seed by the way side”?
Or, “anyone hearing”; would that fulfill “he which received seed by the way side”?
Or, “anyone hearing the word”; would that fulfill “he which received seed by the way side”?
Or, ““anyone hearing the word of the kingdom”; would that fulfill “he which received seed by the way side”?
Please note that each time above, the meaning of “this” hOUTOS is being modified.
Or, “anyone hearing the word of the kingdom, and understands it not”; would that fulfill “he which received seed by the way side”?
Well, partly at this point, but the message is still not complete, this still does not represent “he which received seed by the way side”. Often times the disciples did not understand what Christ said to them about the kingdom; were they also by the “wayside”? So there is more to this “this” yet. To get the right meaning to “this” we have to keep going.
Or, ““anyone hearing the word of the kingdom, and understands it not, then comes the wicked one”; would that fulfill “he which received seed by the way side”?
No, still not good enough!
Or, ““anyone hearing the word of the kingdom, and understands it not, then comes the wicked one and catches away that which was sown”; would that fulfill “he which received seed by the way side”?
Well no, still not good enough!
Or, ““anyone hearing the word of the kingdom, and understands it not, then comes the wicked one and catches away that which was sown in his heart”; would that fulfill “he which received seed by the way side”?
Ok, now we see the picture. Now hOUTOS – “this” has received the proper meaning, and it did not have to change its gender or be restated in a different gender.
But even this, all of this, is in context of the parable told previously. There is absolutely no manufacture of information here; only a summary or restatement; or rather just a phrase designed to give you enough information to sort out the parable previously given. Though “this” hOUTOS is grammatically referenced only to “anyone”, and thereby gets its gender; it would be entirely manufacturing info to say that: “anyone” is “he which received seed by the way side”; or that “anyone hearing the word” is “he which received seed by the way side”. Whenever information is manufactured "this" looses its meaning.
Just as in Matt 13:19, hOUTOS gets its gender from “anyone” regardless of what more is said; nevertheless what follows (or at different times precedes) is crucial in the meaning of “this”.
So when John is making his exclamation summary; he is not giving any new information, he is simply restating the previous; because what follows “this” has to do that.
|
|
|
Re: Are we transgressing the 1st commandment or not?
#77572
09/18/06 05:59 AM
09/18/06 05:59 AM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But John is not summarizing a previous stated “idea”. He is summarizing “the Father” and “the Son”. The Father is the “true God” and the Son is “the eternal life”.
That’s the point. The same Person is, at the same time, the true God and the eternal life. The sentence cannot be translated “this is the true God and this is eternal life,” because “this” is masculine and “the eternal life” is feminine. Therefore, “the true God” and “the eternal life” are equated in the same Person in this passage. Although the Father possesses life (John 5:26), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere in the John’s writings, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6. Furthermore, if we understand 5:20 as referring to Jesus, it forms a conclusion with the prologue, which introduced in 1:2 “the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.”
So we have two points in favor of Jesus being the one referred to as the true God here: He is the closest antecedent of hOUTOS and He is specifically called the eternal life in John’s writings.
Again, you have used grammar to manufacture information; ignoring previously given information. I am pleased and grant you the significance of you going back in John’s letter to determine some of the meaning of “eternal life”, but you have done that only in part, and you have refused to accept the additional information in John’s letter, both in regards to the eternal life and in regards to God. Please note that the only person John calls God in his letter is the “Father”.
The eternal life is meaningfully associated with Christ in the context of the relationship between the Father and the Son. (This I have referenced in 1 John 1-4 in my second-last post) This relationship you deny, and therefore the concept of eternal life in your mind is not what John is talking about. This eternal life is the life which proceeds from the Father as Christ said: Joh 12:50 "And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak". So as Christ receives the word from the Father he has everlasting life. As he is the word (not as source, but as the received word made living in him) he is the eternal life. Thus Christ is the living Word; the Father’s word received and living.
It is this indwelling of the Father in the Son that makes him the Son of the Father; which enables him to be the mediator, and that by us receiving the Son we may be in the Father who is the True God. Again, the only person John calls God in his letter is the “Father”, and the only person he calls "true" is the Father. This is what John is saying:
1Jo 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, (by being) in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. This then is the true God: It is the God which the Son of God came and gave us an understanding that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true; even the Father of the Son; He is the true God.
And this is the everlasting life: It is that relationship which is: being in the Father - the true God, by being in the Son of the Father.
This is the true God, and eternal life. Nothing manufactured, only restated that which was previously stated; hence it is the true meaning of "this" hOUTOS that John was talking about. To say that Christ is the “true God” would be entirely manufacturing the info; because there is nothing that John said preceding “this” that said such a thing; and therefore cannot be true to “this” hOUTOS.
Do you understand that relationship? That true God, even the Father? That eternal life? The Son of God?
In your doctrine there is neither Son nor Father; there is no indwelling of the Father in the Son. There is no eternal life, because the word of the Father is not in the Son.
1Jo 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jo 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
It is important to have the Son of God, and not a self-existent God.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
