Even in John 1, Jesus is not God

[TibiasDad]

to all especially @civic
where do the Name JESUS, or YESHUA come from. it is the Strong's #(H3442), look this Strong’s number up. it is written Yod-Shin-Vav-Ayin, it is a masculine noun that means, "He is salvation" or "He saves”. for only God SAVES. H3442 יֵשׁוַּע Yeshuwa` (yay-shoo'-ah) n/l.
1. he will save.
2. Jeshua, the name of ten Israelites, also of a place in Israel.
[for H3091]
KJV: Jeshua.
Root(s): H3091

in the Greek, it's G2424 Ἰησοῦς Iesous (ee-ay-sous`) n/p.
1.Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua) of Hebrew origin (H3091)
2.KJV: Jesus
Root(s): H3091
now lets trace the roots, from H3091, which gets its origins from H3068 which originates from H1961 הָיָה hayah, or “I AM”.
H3068 יְהוֹוָה Yhovah (yeh-ho-vaw') n/p.
1. (the) self-Existent or Eternal
2. Jehovah, Jewish national name of God
3. (anglicized) Jehovah.
4. (as a name prefix) Yeho-.
5. (As expressed in Hebraic Koine Greek) ἐγώ εἰμί, I AM (literally: I myself, I am).
[from H1961]
KJV: Jehovah, the Lord.

is this enough exegesis for you..... (smile)..... ... LOL, LOL, LOL, ... Oh dear

101G.

Definitions are not, in themselves, exegesis. A component thereof, yes, but not the whole.

Doug

 

[101G]

Definitions are not, in themselves, exegesis. A component thereof, yes, but not the whole.

Doug

the word of God Drives definitions. but as said, if 101G is INCORRECT in what he posted, then it is your duty to correct 101G..... that's if 101G is wrong in the assessment given by him.

101G.

 

[synergy]

I don't know how common it is known but if it is a revealed fact for the nature of one man, there is no reason to suppose it does not apply to all men.

You just trashed your theory of pre-existence of spirits by not offering any support for it for "all men". Well done!

Consider this

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you
Jeremiah 1:5

Excellent verse showing that God is not confined by time as we are. Keep those Bible verses coming!

 

[TibiasDad]

the word of God Drives definitions.

Let’s put this in terms 101G can understand- INCORRECT! Definitions are what gives meaning to a word in a particular context of scripture. In other words, Love doesn’t mean what it means because of scripture or has a meaning in scripture that it doesn’t have elsewhere simply because it’s scripture.

but as said, if 101G is INCORRECT in what he posted, then it is your duty to correct 101G..... that's if 101G is wrong in the assessment given by him.

101G.

Yes, you are INCORRECT and you have been corrected (whether you accept it or not)!

Doug

 

[101G]

Let’s put this in terms 101G can understand- INCORRECT! Definitions are what gives meaning to a word in a particular context of scripture.

this what "drives" means. know what the speaker is saying in context.

In other words, Love doesn’t mean what it means because of scripture or has a meaning in scripture that it doesn’t have elsewhere simply because it’s scripture.

my point is made. thank you.

101G

 

[101G]

to all,
this is why we have dictionaries ..... ect. so we may KNOW what words mean, and how they are used. yes, in context.
but the bottom line is let the HELPER help us in the correct understanding of the words and their usages.

where there is KNOWLEDGE, stay not IGNORANT.

101G.

 

[TibiasDad]

this what "drives" means. know what the speaker is saying in context.


my point is made. thank you.

101G

You said, “the word of God Drives definitions” which is a rather odd phrasing, but nevertheless, to parse your words, “the word of God” is the subject of the clause, and is doing the action, namely ‘driving’, the verb of the clause.

The direct object of the ‘driving’ is “definitions”. So you have essentially posited that “the word of God” is causing the “definitions” of the meanings of the words used.

This is nonsense! Writers use words because they all ready have established meanings. That’s why good lexical resources show the pre-scriptural or extra biblical history of the word being referenced. Scripture doesn’t “drive” anything it communicates a thought based on the words used, the order of those words, and the dynamics of the words in relation to time, action, and syntax used by the author.

My point is that the “definition” of Yeshua” doesn’t exegete what scripture says about Yeshua in any particular context of scripture.


Doug

 

[GeneZ]

You said, “the word of God Drives definitions” which is a rather odd phrasing, but nevertheless, to parse your words, “the word of God” is the subject of the clause, and is doing the action, namely ‘driving’, the verb of the clause.

The direct object of the ‘driving’ is “definitions”. So you have essentially posited that “the word of God” is causing the “definitions” of the meanings of the words used.

This is nonsense! Writers use words because they all ready have established meanings. That’s why good lexical resources show the pre-scriptural or extra biblical history of the word being referenced. Scripture doesn’t “drive” anything it communicates a thought based on the words used, the order of those words, and the dynamics of the words in relation to time, action, and syntax used by the author.

My point is that the “definition” of Yeshua” doesn’t exegete what scripture says about Yeshua in any particular context of scripture.


Doug

Actually, its knowing the Greek grammar and syntax that drives an "interpretation" of a passage.

Too many in forums play games using translations that in English. They have no way to show how a verb is the target of a specific word only in the passage.

I have been blessed to find Bible exegesis done on a regular basis. I have seen fog lifted revealing that some here have no idea what they are doing.

Some try to impress others by using word studies as if it is the last answer. Those studies only help better define a word ... but, can still leave the defined word subject to theological spin just the same. It may give an impression of the one posting of being more informed, but too many times its not what the verse is speaking about. I have been thinking about uploading one lesson to show how what we normally get is not able to convey what the believer needs to properly understand some very deep truths we often fail to see....

 

[101G]

You said, “the word of God Drives definitions” which is a rather odd phrasing, but nevertheless, to parse your words, “the word of God” is the subject of the clause, and is doing the action, namely ‘driving’, the verb of the clause.

The direct object of the ‘driving’ is “definitions”. So you have essentially posited that “the word of God” is causing the “definitions” of the meanings of the words used.

This is nonsense! Writers use words because they all ready have established meanings. That’s why good lexical resources show the pre-scriptural or extra biblical history of the word being referenced. Scripture doesn’t “drive” anything it communicates a thought based on the words used, the order of those words, and the dynamics of the words in relation to time, action, and syntax used by the author.

My point is that the “definition” of Yeshua” doesn’t exegete what scripture says about Yeshua in any particular context of scripture.


Doug

Actually, its knowing the Greek grammar and syntax that drives an "interpretation" of a passage.

or Hebrew


@TibiasDad,
Example. What is the difference between "Who" a Name is vs "What" a name is in context,
A. do you KNOW, and

B. how do you know.

101G.

 

[TibiasDad]

or Hebrew


@TibiasDad,
Example. What is the difference between "Who" a Name is vs "What" a name is in context,
A. do you KNOW, and

B. how do you know.

101G.

Do you have a specific example to discuss?

Doug

 

[101G]

To all,
Let's examine John 1:1 in the name of the Lord Jesus. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

#1. "In the beginning was the Word". the tern "beginning" means,
G746 ἀρχή arche (ar-chee') n.
1. (properly abstract) a commencement.
2. (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank).
[from G756]
KJV: beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule

Genesis 1:1 "Beginning",
H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218
Note definition #2. (concretely) Chief, or FIRST. how is this difference from the beginning in Genesis 1:1. answer in Genesis 1:1 the First was "ABSTRACT", or Spirit, vs here the First in the NEW BEGINNING is "CONCRETE', or Flesh bone and blood, (man).

but both are determined by order, time, place, or rank. this is the Key in understanding the Godhead. order, time, place, or rank. if one could understand the order, time, place, or rank. of both Beginnings, then would get a basic understanding of the "ECHAD".

101G.

 

[101G]

Do you have a specific example to discuss?

Doug

no need to discuss, but to KNOW.
do you know the difference? and How do you know the difference?

101G.

 

[GeneZ]

or Hebrew


@TibiasDad,
Example. What is the difference between "Who" a Name is vs "What" a name is in context,
A. do you KNOW, and

B. how do you know.

101G.

Have you ever been in a service where the lesson was applied to a passage?

 

[TibiasDad]

no need to discuss, but to KNOW.
do you know the difference? and How do you know the difference?

101G.

Know what? You’ve given me nothing to know!

Doug

 

[GeneZ]

Know what? You’ve given me nothing to know!

Doug

Plato once said, “wise man talk because they have something to say; ​

fools, because they have to say something.” ​

​

​

grace and peace ............​

 

[101G]

Have you ever been in a service where the lesson was applied to a passage?

both...... (smile). for the TRUTH will not change, no matter if it is a Lesson applied, or a passage.....

101G

 

[GeneZ]

both...... (smile). for the TRUTH will not change, no matter if it is a Lesson applied, or a passage.....

101G

Truth will not change. That much is true.

 

[101G]

Truth will not change. That much is true.

Gene, if you just want to Jack your Jaws, that's what Facebook and twitter, (X), are for. now if you don't have a scripture to discuss you're on your own.

101G.

 

[GeneZ]

Gene, if you just want to Jack your Jaws, that's what Facebook and twitter, (X), are for. now if you don't have a scripture to discuss you're on your own.

101G.

Did you say that? Or, was it 101G?

 

[Johann]

Did you say that? Or, was it 101G?

We are dealing with a female here.
J.