TRIUNE_GOD

Wow the Day of Pent. 'EVERY ONE HEARD THEM' In Cor 'NO ONE HEARS THEM" in Acts 2 'Dialectos' the root word is 'LEGO' and we see this root in THE LOGOS in Cor.14: "glossolalia"-= The root is Lalia which means JUST A NOISE not understood. see 1COR 13:1 sorry I am short on time .....lol lol that book you got it is full of problems dude . Check out that word Lord "YHWH" = GOD, not "adoni" Check out that word Lord "YHWH" = GOD, not "adoni" in many of these New test verses. CF Phlip 2:10 to the quote it comes from. In the old Testament I see that Jesus is "YHWH" of the old covenant . And this is why "so many" think unless you see Christ as God you cannot be Christian. Not here to argue just to show you what i see here from the other side of this dispute. Got to go to work sorry so short. God bless.

Sorry so long have been busy working i will have some time here soon. I am visually impaired ant it takes me hours to just type one Art. sheww But i am loving our Talk here you are meek i see and i really thank you for that. I am also glad you have a different view on things too as the bible says "IRON SHARPENS IRON" lol I will give you the documented statements on what i have as soon as i get a day off here. I did get a lot from DR.Z He is a Greek. Look up AMG Intl. I have a audio form (was Christ God) with permission to post it (from AMG) on a web site...looking forward to getting it on the Internet. You will admire it if you like Greek. We all are on different plains of understanding and I see that now after 10 Years lol lol God bless

Wow amazing how you differ with William Edward Jelf, Dr Z, and many more in some areas . I am forced to go with them on what they teach here. Agreed we do not even need a bible to go to heaven !! (we was just looking into it) I was just showing how accurate the Greek was remember now. Aman and HE is also could be the Subject in Verse two, glad you see this because when you get to verse three it makes the Word creator of all things :) You will have a hard time to prove that the Subject and the Predicate CANNOT be switched in Sect bSee was Christ God audio on Sect B in Verse one. hummmm sorry but i also see this in William E Jelfs works as well . see A.T. Robersons "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in light of Historical Research" If you are correct, can you document WHO you get this from that we cannot switch out The Subject with the Pred. when both have a Def. Art. in the same clause. ?? Thanks for your concern here sorry I should have said 'tov" just use to writing as it sounds. But it does say "thee God" pointing to the Father. Wow not what i see at all. It is very important to see this (to me). Ok i looked again here on this section rather than tell you "I" come up with all this, it would be a lie and I just learn as the Elders teach. Seems you are disagreeing with a well known scholar here Complete Word Study New Test page #305 "thee God " in Sect B also see Was Christ God audio in Sect B Hay i like how we are both learning here I have no denomination I do not even go to Church at all, or fellowship (in person) with anyone so how can I push a Denom. Am I going with a Group when The bible shows no details that "Jesus hung on a Cross with a cross beam" in it (that i see)?? Could it be so if I use Dr Lamsa, Taz Russel, Dr Wierwill, and many more. These cult like leaders I use there works to look at another view point. I am open here very much and I see a lot of people doing a lot of stuff to 'not accept Christ as God". And when I thought Christ was just a a Creature I could say the same about guys like me lol lol So we are forced to go with truth if we want it. Here is what I take as truth "the Word has always been toward The Father" And the Greek proves it lock stock and barrel. We are just going to spin our wheels unless you start documenting stuff, by well known and reliable scholars, so i could examine them. Otherwise i am like you and need statements here. Do you have any AT Roberson, or Jelfs works, What about Dr Z you should have him. GOD BLESS YOU

In the Complete Word study New Testament With Greek Parallel PG 865 #44 So English is not going to carry what is here unless you add words. I asked myself a question if the "Word is God" then when is God not eternal" Look again at this tense on the word "een" in JN 1:1 In fact is is said to be derived from the word "EIMI" in the I AM. This is not how I understand it. The Def Art. has nothing to do with a word being a noun or a verb, the Art. makes the Subject sometimes. But not always because when the Subject and predicate both have Def. Art. they are interchangeable. look at our verse here.JN 1:1B "kia ho logos een pros ton theon " we can switch out the subject with the predicate here. "kia ton theon een ho logos" The Def. Art does not determine a noun Further look here in sect C "kia theos een ho logos" Is not 'theos' God. Is he not a noun this section, where is the ART. here?? Look the ART. modifies a noun lets look again here in Sect B "and the Word was toward the God" This word 'theon" has a ART. before it, and therefore modifies "theon" it is 'ton theon" or, "tou theou". The Bible is saying in Sect b: "GOD" no, "a God" no, but "THEE God", Yes Because the Word (logos) is not "Thee God" in this Section, but the Word (logos) is God in sect C. So "tou" [Art.] is needed for the word to Fit with no contradictions. The word is saying to me here in a paraphrase: "and the Word has always been toward the Father" Now It would be wise to look at this too: "when a word does not have a DEF Art.in front of it, it brings forth the person or thing spoken about, general character". This is why in section C, the logos is 'theos", not "ton theon". Here we see "theos" meaning "God in his fullness" And from my position I see God in his fullness means "Father Son Spirit" these all three make up 'theos"/"elohim" Just what I see here. Glad we brought this out to look at Def. Art. a bit and wow I do know it takes a very skilled Grammarian here and I take a back seat and learn, as the elders of the holy Catholic [universial] Church teaches. So true and you know what here it does even more. Changes form to indicate distinctions in case, tense, mood, number, voice, and others in its pronouns, they change form to show whether they are used as subjects, this Dialect is very complex. Hay God bless

Hi wayslider glad you wrote. I see you have a good head to think with lol lol Wow you have truly grew a bunch WOW You say this it brings ROM. 1:20 to mind. And I think "God could convey a message by other means " by looking at that Verse it says just that. And I have been what they call "prophesied to" many times over and over, in a group or single, and cannot remember but only a few. But when God tells me something IT STICKS and he has used a Semi truck, Radios, bird, Chickens, and ministers just teaching on a program or at a Church service. God richly bless you my friend. Grace and peace unto you from God the Father and the Lord Christ Jesus.

I do not know about the past here, But I must say EVERYONE has been very nice to me. With all due respect, I have had nothing but things said to me in a loving way here in this thread. And WE (in this Thread) all do not all agree on this, but we still come together and share what we think about this topic. They say like "I disagree" or "I do not see it that way" And anotherdan said to me "I would like to see what you got to say about the subject" after i told him i had another view point. That is love/Meekness manifesting (to me). This is very biblical what we are doing here. There is so much of the Word on here WOW no matter what side you agree with, there is meat in this thread for all growth levels . Maybe God put all of here on this thread, for others to learn from. Or that we can disagree, and still love EA other NO MATTER WHAT. "Come let us reason together" Put yourself in my shoes how would you take someone that says to you 1) Your Wrong 2) Thank you for crying uncle. So am I to take your word that it is "THEM" in this thread.

You use a big dart there "YOUR WRONG" and your user name says "lovematters" hummm I am confused I have been wrong before, and I am sure I am wrong on stuff now and I admit it. That is why I try stay meek so I can receive the implanted word I want to ask you what is more important: 1) the word of God 2) "argument predates VP by thousands of years" So IF i am wrong on "argument predates VP by thousands of years" no big deal at all. But if I am wrong in the Word THAT IS A BIG DEAL. So I take your "YOUR WRONG" as no threat at all. Sorry I do not want to come off to you or anyone as harsh AT ALL, If I have please forgive me. God Bless

I am not god first off it is just a screen name that was not chosen, and it is a statement of faith. "together with yet distinctly independent of" this is a VPW Interp. (maybe more) of the word "pros" Although he does make a attempt to show that "the word is not Thee God" there is no debate about the word "pros" today by REAL scholars it is proven can be "face to face" "toward" "with". Look OUTSIDE the ways resources (not saying you do not). "Pros" 4311 Prep. governing the gen.,dat.,acc primary=Toward. Now I think it is important for me to say this at this time here. Rarely is "pros" and only in later use, this word drops its meaning as "motion, direction" and pros with the acc. means the same as "para" in the Dat. "near" and in JN one we see this. cf MT 13:56, Mark 2:2,4:1, 6:3, Phile.1:13. Now here is something I just learned this week, and had to re group my thinking. I had thought Pros only showed motion. I looked closer as I came to see "pros" more accurately. This was brought to me by a Greek almost 90 Yo., who speaks Greek 'DR. Peter Courtless" from the American Baptist association. I came home and what did I see... just what I shared with you to be true. now you are correct in that 'ho logos" goes way back before the NT. (you did not bust my bubble I knew this) Glad you brought it out. The "logos" was known by many, (before Christ becoming flesh) That the Logos was the creator of the universe. That is why many think thee Holy Spirit choose to use "ho logos" in JN Chapter 1 as the creator of ALL things (V3), and therefore God (1:1C). Not a god (1:1C), and not the Father (1:1B). He (v2) is "the Logos" not "a" Logos (v-1,a,b,c) Christ is Logos (v-14) "creator of all things"(v-3) Logos is very clear in these verses (to me) who he is. Thank you for your input it is a pleasure. I would love to go on in this Chapter, but this thread is about SIT. I think we have so much to share here, we may need a thread on it. God Bless

You should look in your Greek closer, I see several problems. You said "Straight from the Greek" Imposable you left out a Def. Art. before the word "theon" in Sect b. And added another "the" in Sect A, and scrambled up Sect. C. 1) where is your word support for "the" in "in beginning" ? 2) Why did you leave out the word "the" in " with THE God" ? 3) Why did you scramble up the words [you quoted] "and the Word was God" ? 4) Why did you put the word "een" [has always been] in the past tense ? If it is so easy why add, and scramble, and subtract, place in the wrong case, these words ?? here it is "from the Greek" putting "een" in the present tense, because we see it in past with your rendering and it is not either past or present in Greek. In Beginning is the Word and the Word is with the God and God is the Word This makes as much science as putting that word "een" in the past to me. the reason this is so important because the inspired Dialect of the NT. is pure and spotless "Holy" "ios". in Set C, it makes the Word a Person. Therefore it is not a "written word" or a "word of speech", but "a person". Some sects has tried to dance around this for years and the word is very clear that "ho logos" in JN 1 is a person, the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. But this is another debate. This verse "paraphrased" to ENG for a clear understanding of what is seen in the Greek, therefore It is not a Translation at all. "BEFORE ANY BEGINNING HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE WORD AND THE WORD HAS ALWAYS BEEN WITH THEE GOD AND GOD HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE WORD THIS PERSON HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE BEGINNING WITH THEE GOD." Just what I see here. look at your Greek in this Verse, see what is going on here. You are a wise man and I really enjoy talking to you, Hope to hear form you after the Holidays. You should look this up in the Greek. I know we got off topic here sorry :( God Bless

VPW did not even have a clue what worship was (if he did he hid it good). How could he tell me how to worship when he claims that Christ is not to be worshiped. "THAT IS TOTALLY UNFOUNDED" Never one time where the word "WORSHIP" appears in the bible you see "SIT" in the same context. And add "only in Cor 14 it ever appears" and Paul is not going along with it at all (that i see) "Proskuneo" is from the word "Pros" meaning With, side by side, face to face, Showing motion not like 'Sun" or "meta" "Kuneo" means to "kiss, adore" Used to pay homage, and Reverence to deity. see LXX: Gen. 47:23, 1 Kings 1:47 a) Used of God when in the absolute science. b) Used of the messiah when in the dative case, see Heb.1:6 This is my understanding of Worship. "the Father seeks to be worshiped " JN 4:23 "Christ accepts worship" MT 8:2,9:18,14:33,15:25,18:26,28:9 " The Father loves for us to worship his "monouneis" [one of the same race nature and stock of himself] and likes his creation to worship his Son. If you have a child and you see that child gets a honer for something they did, does it not please you and make you glow inside ?? just what I see here. God bless

True there is ways around it and that is why I do not "put down" paraphrases, only sometimes in the sections where there scholar was "errant", or they may have a good point somewhere it is useful at times :) True but it then becomes less accurate, and a paraphrase (to me). Let the word in its God-Breathed dialect show us how accurate it is cf to ENG. I am sorry to say this my friend, but I am forced by what I have seen in GK to say the KG is way more colorful and we cannot carry what is here (to my understanding). no harm meant to you. but it is just what I have learned till this day. Several of us was researching out to see if The Word was eternal in John chapter one. so we hit this word "een" or "en" in the Ipf tense. where is the grammar support for a TRUE translation here? There is none for the word "een" (that I have seen), in this context at all. Some scholars think this to be a eternal verb. Can we "accuratly" place this in English, unless I add a word, and if I add a word we no longer have the inspired written word, but just "another translation". Can that than be a "true" translation?? JN 1:1,2. en arche EN ho logos kia ho logos EN pros tou theou kia theos EN ho logos hutos EN en arche pros tou theou. Why add a word in Eng. here to use it as a paraphrase, because if we would want contrast or get to the "rightly divided word" one would need to place it in Imperf tense into ENG. Translations put in mostly Past here, because of "the beginning" that JN 1 and verse 2 is speaking of here. There looking at Gen:1 "en arche" in the LXX. but lets move on and not get into " arche" but note that the "en " applied to Christ in the context of JN 1 and it is is ALWAYS IN Ipf. (to my understanding) "Before any beginning "had always been" the Word and the Word "had always been" with the God and God "had always been" the Word this person "had always been". A "paraphrase" on the word "en" and more accurate than almost every English translations that I have seen on this word. "the Word had always been God" they put it in the past because JN 1 is speaking of the "eternity" of the word, and our minds can only think of the first "arche" in Gen. but the word "een", says the Word goes farther back than any beginning, and is eternal. This is just what i see and I see they have good and bads to them lol lol. Despite they (Jonathese Gerber, and his wife) missed this word "theos" and tries to add a Indef. Art. He did pick up on the Word "arche" in Jn. 1a,2. In his "In beginning" but messes it up in that Jesus Christ was first created in many passages with the word "archee' . So I do like to say that I see what he was looking at in JN 1:1,2- "en arche" but it is to the Watchtowers shame to allow Gerber to push his "Slanted Translation" in to there "New World Translation" and it is even worse I have seen some from VPWs group go with Gerber on this one, and add to the words in JN 1:1c. "a god". God bless

Sorry I should have been more clear, ( what you shared with us in the GK in your article above) The Greek ex or ek in Gen = as though a part was taken from the whole. like "eklego" get out from the scriptures using logic is what i was trying to say :). English can not be "the original" English can not carry the Grammar Support, therefore it cannot be a True Translation at all. God gave it to us in Koine Greek, so we would need to have another, a more complex dialect to to translate it more accurate. But we have it paraphrased in many Dialects now "Praise God" that is super, i think we should use them all, and the Greek adds contrast to it.Here is a story how God can use another translation. We (a kitchen full of people) that had two interlinear bibles with 8 different Trans. in each of them. I had a AMP,RSV,NKJV,NRSV,NJ,LAMSA,NIV,KJV,NWT we had so many at our fingertips I cannot recall them all. We wanted to do a study to see what all these translators had to say about that big word "by" in Heb.1:2,JN1:3. and the word "God" in JN 1:1c. They seen real fast and quick, after every one read about 20 different renderings of scholars translations, a girl (that was smart as a tack) spoke up after one in the group said "there all wrong" in HEB. there not going with the "accuracy" and the NWT is WAY out man..." The girl said your nuts, and out numbered bad, even the NWT has Heb right on with the other bibles. where did you go to school at. The kids really gave him a hassle over it. But to say that Eng. is not useful would be very wrong, and back to the box again i go lol lol. What is the difference if I said "lift ME" "Build ME" "magnify ME" "edifith Me It is MYSELF and Paul makes this clear. and that is what I think anyway, and the bible is saying here. "MY" in Cor. 14. And the word "spirit" can only be determined by its context, like "arche", as to what "spirit" or what "beginning". no where in this Chapter is God the Holy Spirit ever brought out. But "my spirit" is in this context several times. (just what i see here). "He that speaks in a tongue edifieth HIMSELF" Verse 14 "for if I pray in a tongue MY SPIRIT PRAYS" in submission to the Lord Jesus, AND IF a person is not in Sub. according to GAL. 5, will "NOT ENTER"and in turn has never been saved, and is guilty as of the people Christ speaks of in that last day in MT 7. "Lord Lord (even profess his deity here) have not we taught in your name , in your name did all these things, Jesus says to them I NEVER KNEW you, depart from me you WORKERS OF SIN." These People only professed, like "even the devils believe and tremble" there must be "faith that works" a "working faith" but here is another debate, and lets move on. Wow I looked over just on these last couple posts we did, and there is some meat in just what we covered in these last two verses. Wow that was only two verses lol lol sheww wee. I do say you got me digging (in the word) here lol lol Wow glad to hear your comment, and glad to see another view point ...makes me want to look at Verse 3 now hee hee God Bless

Grace and peace to you my Friend and I thank you so much for your uplifting words. I do want to say You are a very special person, and you are so right " "YES THE LOVE OF CHRIST AND GOD SAVES ME" And you said it is such a way that my 17 YO Daughter can understand it. Thank you so much God Bless

Sure I have been through the mill on this topic lol lol . he is the one that started this mix up in 1902, strange that Taz Russel and him established these movements in the same year. Yes VPW just took up this theory as well. I will say VPW did take a lot of this theory but he did not go as far as CHP. CHP taught that the "Holy Ghost" came after conversion, some call this teaching the 2ed work of grace. I have came against this teaching, when I found out by the late "Dr. J. Vernon Mcgee" in this series "through the bible" as he unfolds the truth about 'Spirit baptism' and I was a assistant Pastor at a Pentecost Church of God at the time lol lol. Dr J Vernon Mcgee brings out "sound teaching" when he hits "LEV 22,23,24, Cor. 12 ETC. as He unfolds the REAL TRUTH in his teaching about the body and bride of Christ. I would like to add here that if a person really thinks this is true teaching and "you must speak in the Heavenly Language to have the baptism of the Holy Ghost, look at just one Verse: "For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body" 1Cor.12:13 And in that verse it is clear what Spirit baptism does. "places a believer in the body of Christ". Further there is problems for the trinitarian pentecostal your teaching says I can have the Holy Spirit but not the HOLY GHOST (until i SIT). How does that match when you are for a 3 part God. here is what you say to me "God the Father, God the Son God the Holy Ghost, God the Spirit. so you bring to people a quad God (to me). Oh I forgot we taught but "THEE HOLY GHOST" is the FULLNESS of God. brandhamittes and oneness Pentecostal teach "you must SIT to be saved" and use Acts 2:38 as there base Verse. And water baptism is a MUST, and it must be in "Jesus name only" and they butcher MT 28:19 bad. baptismal regeneration with evidence of SIT is the REAL EVIDENCE of a TRUE Christian. I do think Oral Roberts should have went farther when he split from classic Pentecost, and there 2ed work of grace theory. Oral did come to see that the Spirit baptism came upon salvation, and the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit was the same person in the Godhead, but he was still errant in the tongue theory (I think anyway). God Bless you all

Well a pastor of a local Church, was speaking in a "ecstatic utterance" when: HE BEAT ME AND TOOK ME TO THE GROUND THIS YEAR!!" He was charged with "ASSULT" for doing that to me. I wonder if that was THEE HOLY GHOST ?? A lady in a local Church came in Speaking in what they call "the heavenly Lang." ohh my... everyone there thought she had the Holy Ghost " Boy O boy " well In just a week she sold a Martian D28 to a Preacher for a market value of 1500.00 cash. I went with him on the sale. She said "oh my husband had this most of his life, and there is nothing wrong with it". Well he took it home and after he played 2 songs the putty fell out, and the tone changed on it "it was cracked." which cost around 700.00 to fix, i said to the Preacher "And she spake in tongues too". The Preacher (being for SIT ) said to me "I FIGURED SHE WAS ONE OF THEM" hA HA I about died...lol lol, after he understood what he agreed to, he felt bad. Wonder if THE HOLY SPIRIT was speaking in a utterance through her at the services we had together. ?? I was a teacher at this Local Church and most knew I did not see the "sign gifts for today" (that is another debate) but the Pastor did. All was well and many were blessed by it , to see that we could worship together. I was watching to see if he would what you all call "Manifest". The reason I watched is because I knew the Bible in Gal. Ch 5: it teaches "The fruit of the Spirit is the real "Manifest"." and if a person professes to be Christian, and lives day after day in a sinful state and did not produce or "manifest" these... "he will not "ENTER" the kingdom", and turn has "never" been a Christian. Passages like this one, is the ones we must ask our selfs, (and I do) "am I manifesting these fruits " "is this the manifesting of the Holy Spirit for us today" Almost everyone in this town knows the Pastor and mock him bad because of the life stile he lived. It really hurt his out reach in the community, and the Church sat mostly empty because of it. I tried my best "to know no one after the flesh". One service he finally stood up and: "e col a ba higha, e shon dia, e sodia a mo tia " I said within my self "ok now lets hear God talk through you" and sure thing like clock work...say no more. One month later to two, the Church burned to the Ground, his girlfriend found out about the one in Ky so you put it together. What does that have to do with this, I am stuck with facts, and the fact is 1- The Pastor that beat me 2- and The Pastor who had a bad outreach. 3- And the woman who sold the Martin All of them was doing every thing contrary to Gal 5 applied to the real "manifesting" and yet they still was "SIT" as VPW named it , or sorry "Charles H.Parham". I do believe that if I am SIT it is "lifting myself up" and not "others" and therefore it is a selfish motive, and cannot be love at all, because love is given away. If I SIT I am just making a useless Noise in the air (to me). This is just a personal view that I have of real life events. And I have looked at my 'SIT" in the past that I have done, I see it was all just "my spirit period". Thanks for your ART. and exploring the Greek with me, and oh yes i see you "ex" from the Text hummmm I think I will like you, even though you need to see this ... hee hee... lol lol just kidding woo woo God bless you I thought I ran you all off the thread I told you all I had another view point. Hay I will say i see how you come up with some of those renderings but I cant say I can agree with your theory in general. God bless