1 Timothy 3:16

[Salamander]

Jesus (not God)???? Does your statement contradict with this verse?

Yes it does, Askjo, that is what I had responded to to point that out.

It's really all so silly to try and separate any verse containing the name above all others as if you could separate Jesus from God.

That's where I will continue to stand ahving done all to stand: Jesus is God!

Besides, it was the Holy Ghost who impressed this truth upon my heart as I read the Scriptures for the first time as a child of God. So if anyone disagrees with that, go fault the Holy Ghost fo it!:sleeping_2:

 

[Salamander]

Let me say- "Salamander, I watched Bozo: I know Bozo; Bozo is a friend of mine. Salamander, you're no Bozo."

:laugh:

Dang! There goes my night job!

 

[Bro. Williams]

I have been away from this thread for some time, but since I was asked to come back, I have tried to do some catching up on it.

I do have one question, and since I am no Greek scholar (not by any stretch), I was wondering.... is there were in any cases in the KJV where theos is translated as "he" (or in any other masculine form) without a preceeding verse or context verse to verify who "he" is?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Jesus (not God)???? Does your statement contradict with this verse?

Perhaps you stopped reading after the parenthesis following "God", but "Jesus (not God)" is not the full quote. If you insist upon editing citations you should at least show readers the courtesy of an ellipsis for missing words.

When what was written was --

Jesus (not God) is the "mediator"​

Why did you portray it differently? Are you being charged by the letter? You have skewed the meaning by not including such direct context. It makes a difference.

Sir, if this was an accident, then you owe me an apology; if it was deliberate, then you owe God an apology.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Well, Brother,even though I doubt you'll be expedient to admit this, but we both discussing the verses and haven't mentioned "KJVO" yet as others want to try and insert.

I don't understand why you would doubt me, seeing that it was I that was first to confirm it. Jesus is God.

I respect what you have said concerning this verse. I just know how wrong you are to say I Tim 2:5 doesn't strengthen the fact that Jesus is God.

I don't believe that 1 Timothy 2:5 explicitly teaches the Deity of Christ, but I do believe that it strengthens the Deity of Christ implicitly (but I haven't had opportunity to explain how it strengthens it yet. Clue: it's not what you think). BTW, Jesus is God!

I only addressed you specific words that DID state the adverse. You also stated your belief to concur that Jesus is God. I concur as well.

"Specific words" when adversely taken out of context are not truly the author's statements. The Bible does proclaim that Jesus is God,
in perhaps dozens of places; but not hundreds, and not thousands. The Bible has other doctrines to teach, also. Did I mention that Jesus is God? Well, Jesus is God! I just can't say it enough: Jesus is God! One more time: Jesus is God!

 

[franklinmonroe]

Actually, if you spoke directly to me instead of a sort of condemning way: in the third person, that would become possible...

There is an explanation for that: It wasn't written to you; at the time I didn't think you were coming back. Remember this? --

I will simply back away from this malignity of this discussion imposed by those who are in your agreement to repetively slander the salamander...

I misunderstood "backing away" for leaving the thread (although, I had hopes you would return).

 

[EdSutton]

I do have one question, and since I am no Greek scholar (not by any stretch), I was wondering.... is there were in any cases in the KJV where theos is translated as "he" (or in any other masculine form) without a preceeding verse or context verse to verify who "he" is?

I make absolutely no claim to being a Greek scholar, either,

(Who do I look like here, TCGreek or TCassidy??) :laugh: :laugh:,

and certainly do not have the time to look up each and every time the word "theos" appears in the Greek to find this out.

However, Strong's concordance gives the words that the Greek, Hebrew , and Chaldee/Aramaic are translated to. According to what I find there, at a quick look, the answer is "No!".

Never does the KJV, RV, or ASV (except for one time, and the AMP, NKLJV, NLT, NKJV, ESV, NLV, and HCSB all render the word(s) in a much better manner, in that instance, and the NIV and TNIV render it fairly well in a footnote. Even the Wyclif which precede the KJV by well over two centuries, got it.) render any form of a word containing "theos" as anything other than "God", "god" or some form of the same.

The lone exception is found in Acts 7:20 where the KJV renders "και ην αστειος τω θεω" as "and was exceeding fair,". Since the word for God is used in the Greek (even in Scrivener's reverse engineered text), where is it here in the KJV??

A much better rendering is found in the NASB, for ecample: "and he was lovely in the sight of God,".

But as to any rendering of "theos" as "he"?? None that I see anywhere.

Hope that helps. :thumbs:

I'm about to "go to sleep at the wheel". G' nite, all.

Ed

 

[franklinmonroe]

I wonder why you didn't realize what I did to agree with MH when I read the verse as in the statement above in bold? But then you omit the prior expalantion by MH of where he states that the "Mediator" could be no one other than God the Son due to whose blood it was that could atone for sin for every man?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what is being said here. Does any one know what this means?

Second, I don't know how it is possible to "omit" something when the complete quotation was given.

Next, Sal's quote ends with a question mark, but I can't find a question in the latter statement. The words "God the Son", "blood", and "atone" are nowhere to be found in the Matthew Henry citation, so I cannot identify the MH statement to which he may be referring. Most of his statements are numbered: which one?

Finally, the identity of the "Mediator" has not been at issue. We have only been discussing whether "the man Christ Jesus" can refer back to the "one God", so I don't follow the relevance of bringing up of the Mediator.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Apology accepted, but I do hope you saw, by your same reasoning, that is what you meant for me and anyone else, to have thought.
...

No perfect analogy exists to accurately represent the complex relationship of the Persons in the Trinity, but I wanted to offer a non-biblical illustration in which you would be disinclined to put the last phrase together with first clause; so it was necessary in order to make it as effective as possible --

For there is one Sal, and one arbitrator between Sal and clowns, the clown Bozo.​

You want to force "one Sal" to also be "the clown Bozo", but I do not. I comprehend Bozo as the "arbitrator", and Sal as "Sal" here (just as it is literally in the text). There is no precedent of me referring to you as "Bozo" and I have consistently called you Sal; just as I assert that Paul consistently uses "God" to mean God the Father.

The way I read the example, it is impossible to determine if Sal is also Bozo (in some way, shape, or form). Just as in 1 Timothy 2:5 there is not enough information internally to draw the conclusion that Christ Jesus is also God; we explicitly get that information elsewhere in scripture (John 10:30, Philippians 2, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1:8, John 1:1, etc.). In my illustration, external evidence that is known to the reader must also exist for that contsruction to even imply that "Sal" might be a psuedonym for Bozo.

I was only sorry that you took offense, and that is why I apologized.

 

[Salamander]

Perhaps you stopped reading after the parenthesis following "God", but "Jesus (not God)" is not the full quote. If you insist upon editing citations you should at least show readers the courtesy of an ellipsis for missing words.


When what was written was --

Jesus (not God) is the "mediator"​

Why did you portray it differently? Are you being charged by the letter? You have skewed the meaning by not including such direct context. It makes a difference.

Sir, if this was an accident, then you owe me an apology; if it was deliberate, then you owe God an apology.

I owe no one any apology, Brother.

I will apologize only due to Christian character when one asks me of my coat to offer him my cloak also.

Besides, Brother, even in your example of context it is also too easily construed that you are separating Jesus as The Mediator from being God who is The Mediator.

That is all I have repeatedly pointed out and there is no room for arguement, nor is there any need to address it any further.

God Bless, and I hope to have gained a brother and a friend in Jesus!

Alan

 

[Salamander]

There is an explanation for that: It wasn't written to you; at the time I didn't think you were coming back. Remember this? --

I misunderstood "backing away" for leaving the thread (although, I had hopes you would return).

Ah, my Brother, look at the context, I said I will simply back away from the malignity:wavey:

 

[Salamander]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what is being said here. Does any one know what this means?

Yes. Matthew Henry, in the first portion of his dealing with I Tim 2:5 states he agrees that The Mediator is God/ is Jesus.

Second, I don't know how it is possible to "omit" something when the complete quotation was given.

Your example showed only the "II" portion from His Commentary dealing with I Tim 2

Sal's quote ends with a question mark, but I can't find a question in the latter statement. The words "God the Son", "blood", and "atone" are nowhere to be found in the Matthew Henry citation, so I cannot identify the MH statement to which he may be referring. Most of his statements are numbered: which one?

The entire post was a question/ a common practise incorporated in English literature.

Finally, the identity of the "Mediator" has not been at issue. We have only been discussing whether "the man Christ Jesus" can refer back to the "one God", so I don't follow the relevance of bringing up of the Mediator.

The line of thought, according to context, and to reamin in harmony, declares both to be one in the same.

If that were not the case, there would have been, in the English translation of the intent of the Greek, a semicolon to distinguish the entities as being separate.

:laugh: Now I'm speaking like my Star Trek alter-ego.

 

[Salamander]

No perfect analogy exists to accurately represent the complex relationship of the Persons in the Trinity, but I wanted to offer a non-biblical illustration in which you would be disinclined to put the last phrase together with first clause; so it was necessary in order to make it as effective as possible --

For there is one Sal, and one arbitrator between Sal and clowns, the clown Bozo.​

You want to force "one Sal" to also be "the clown Bozo", but I do not. I comprehend Bozo as the "arbitrator", and Sal as "Sal" here (just as it is literally in the text). There is no precedent of me referring to you as "Bozo" and I have consistently called you Sal; just as I assert that Paul consistently uses "God" to mean God the Father.

The way I read the example, it is impossible to determine if Sal is also Bozo (in some way, shape, or form). Just as in 1 Timothy 2:5 there is not enough information internally to draw the conclusion that Christ Jesus is also God; we explicitly get that information elsewhere in scripture (John 10:30, Philippians 2, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1:8, John 1:1, etc.). In my illustration, external evidence that is known to the reader must also exist for that contsruction to even imply that "Sal" might be a psuedonym for Bozo.

I was only sorry that you took offense, and that is why I apologized.

Since it is understood that Jesus is God, and we both agree, your point is "moot"/ non-sequitor.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I owe no one any apology, Brother...

My post #164 which quotes Askjo, was not directed at you.

 

[Salamander]

Let me say- "Salamander, I watched Bozo: I know Bozo; Bozo is a friend of mine. Salamander, you're no Bozo."

:laugh:

Thank you, "friend", or is that friend? No, not according to what you just said. Oh, well, you loss I suppose.:sleeping_2:

 

[Salamander]

My post #164 which quotes Askjo, was not directed at you.

I know, it's just I pointed out the same contradiction he did, he just asked you if it did.

But I am willing to go forward. You?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Yes. Matthew Henry, in the first portion of his dealing with I Tim 2:5 states he agrees that The Mediator is God/ is Jesus.

Your example showed only the "II" portion from His Commentary dealing with I Tim 2

Here is the first portion-

1. One reason why all men are to be prayed for is because there is one God, and that God bears a good will to all mankind. There is one God (1Ti 2:5), and one only, there is no other, there can be no other, for there can be but one infinite. This one God will have all men to be saved; he desires not the death and destruction of any (Eze 33:11), but the welfare and salvation of all. Not that he has decreed the salvation of all, for then all men would be saved; but he has a good will to the salvation of all, and none perish but by their own fault, Mt 23:37. He will have all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth, to be saved in the way that he has appointed and not otherwise. It concerns us to get the knowledge of the truth, because that is the way to be saved; Christ is the way and the truth, and so he is the life.

Please show us where MH "agrees that The Mediator is God/ is Jesus."

 

[Salamander]

I have no burden of proof, except try not using the MH Concise Commentary.

Your idea seems also to deny Jesus is God/Mediator.

Now either Jesus is, or isn't. You choose. I've already made my choice, "Friend".raying:

 

[franklinmonroe]

Yes. Matthew Henry, in the first portion of his dealing with I Tim 2:5 states he agrees that The Mediator is God/ is Jesus.

Your example showed only the "II" portion from His Commentary dealing with I Tim 2 [/QUOTE]
The citation was the entire Part II covering verses 4-7, which included the verse under discussion (v.5). I had skimmed Part I and didn't think it was germane. We'll be waiting to see how Sal answers to Mexdeaf's question concerning Part I.

The entire post was a question/ a common practise incorporated in English literature.

Here is another 'written English' question I will be taking to experts, since I cannot refute Sal's claim right now from my personal knowledge; but it didn't feel common to me since I haven't read any one else employing it. BTW-- the grammar authorities that I have consulted so far have not supported any of Sal's technical English language assertions (commas, semicolons, etc.). Also, I do not trot out commentators and academic opinions to persuade Sal (he is far to smart to look at evidence), but rather that there will be some truth readily accessible for those readers that come later.

Meanwhile, if Sal wants an answer, he will have show us more plainly where the question is.

 

[Askjo]

Besides, Brother, even in your example of context it is also too easily construed that you are separating Jesus as The Mediator from being God who is The Mediator.

That is what I wonder about franklinmonroe's comment on 1 Tim 2:5