In article , basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>>No, what is evident is that you do not understand Hebrew.
>
>Obviously I understand it better than you

No, that is not 'obvious' at all. After all, you deny the perpetual Qere. So how
could you understand Hebrew?

>>Rather, as I'm sure your rote teachers have indoctrinated you against
>
>I don't think my teachers- the holy spirit and the Bible- are "rote"
>perhaps your cultic references would say so

It was not the Holy Spirit who taught you to deny the Divinity of Christ.

>>the anarthrous denotes essence.
>
>Certain scholars have pointed out that anarthrous predicate nouns that
>precede the verb in Greek may have a qualitative significance.

MAY, a key word here: MAY.

> That is,
>they may describe the nature or status of the subject.

Again, MAY. And not all agree with them.

> Thus some
>translators render John 1:1: "The Logos was divine," (Moffatt);
>"the Word was divine," (Goodspeed); "the nature of the Word was
>the same as the nature of God," (Barclay); "the Word was with God
>and shared his nature," (The Translator's New Testament).

All neo-Arian translations.

>Does being "divine" or godlike mean that Jesus Christ is himself
>almighty and coeternal with God the Father?

Yes.

>It is true that trinitarians attach special significance to the divine
>status of Jesus. They even employ a special non-Biblical Greek term,
>homoousios ("of one substance," or "of one essence"), in this
>regard.

Yes, 'homoousios' is non-biblical. But so what? It became _necessary_ to use
this new, non-biblical word when shameless equivocators -- like your teachers --
insisted on re-interpreting the Biblical words in a way _clearly_ contrary to
the Biblical meaning. For this is _exactly_ what the hypocrites did with the
Biblical word 'homoiousios'.

> The New Catholic Encyclopedia explains under the heading
>"Consubstantiality," which is an English rendering of homoousios:
>"The consubstantiality defined by [the Council] Nicaea I [325 C.E.],
>then, . . . affirms essentially that the Son is equal to the Father, as
>divine as the Father, being from His substance and of the same
>substance with Him; it follows necessarily that the Son cannot belong
>to the created . . . Because of the absolute unicity, unity, and
>simplicity of God, the identity of the substance is not merely specific
>[as in the case of humans having human nature in common] but absolute,
>or numerical."

And right they were.

>Where, though, in the Scriptures does one encounter such reasoning?

In many places. John 1:1, 5:23, Titus 2:13...

> The
>answer is simple: Nowhere.

A wrong answer often seems 'simple', as here.

>>"through" as in "agent."  This is in perfect
keeping with John's use
>of
>>"logos."  "No man has seen God at anytime."
>
>The Bible is filled with countless examples of personages- Chrsit-
>angels- men- speaking as God's agent-

Take a closer look at the examples. Then you will see the difference.

> thus for all intensive purposes
>they were "God speaking" and even were addressed as God but that does
>not make them part of a ludicrous trinity.
>
>>Also, the offices of the Trinity reflect personhood.  The Father
>"will", the Son's "wisdom" and the Spirits
"(e)motion."
>
>unBiblical human philosophy- and sophistry. God (YHWH) and Jesus have a
>separate "wills" thus they cannot be part of a trinity. (see Luke
>22:42)

We have seen Lk 22:42 often. We do _not_ see it as implying 'separate wills'.
QELHMA here does NOT mean "the faculty of will", it only means
"the thing
willed". For all the persons of the Trinity have one faculty of will, the divine
will. But one person of the Trinity, Christ, has both a human will and a divine
will.

[snip]


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/15/05 12:57:06 PM ---