May nilalang daw ang Dios na dapat sambahin? Weh? - Page 3 | Realm of Thought | PinoyExchange

Page 3 of 5 First ... 2 3 4 ... Last
Results 41 to 60 of 88
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by sophion View Post
    ^ iyan kasing bwiset na biblia ninyo malinaw na sinabing "the Word was God" eh. kaya nga ako umalis sa pagkachristiano dahil sa gulo ng libro na yan! di mapagkatiwalaan.
    WHAT DOES JOHN MEAN WHEN HE SAID THAT “THE WORD WAS GOD”?

    Professor Bruce Vowter, a Catholic biblical scholar and a trinitarian, on his commentray on “The Gospel According to John” agrees with the “Simple copula of predication”:

    “Here ‘God’ without the article is predicative. The Word is divine, but he is not all of divinity, for he has already been distinguished from another divine person.” (Vowler, p. 422)

    This trinitarian holds that “’God’ without the article is predicative.” The word “theos” is mentioned in the last two clauses of John 1:1. But, please take note the differences:

    “En arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros TON THEON, kai THEOS en o logos.”

    The second clause mentioned the word “theos” but with definite article “ton” (“the”), but take note that in the third clause, the word “theos” is mentioned without definite article “kai THEOS en o logos.” However, the word “logos” is mentioned in all the three clauses, and all mention of “logos” there is a definite article before it (“o logos”). Because of this, Vowler concluded “Here ‘God’ without the article is predicative.” Remember what Erickson said about the “simple copula of predication”?

    “…One is the ‘is’ of of predication or of attribution, where a particular quality is predicated of the subject by use of an adjective. The final use is the ‘is’ of identity, where the subject is equivalent with the predicate. This is, in the terminology of logic, a double A-type proposition where ‘All X is Y’ and ‘All Y is X.’ Such propositions are invertible: in other words, there really is no subject and predicate, only nouns in the first and second position.” (Erickson, p. 460)
    To be classified as “simple copula of identification” or “simple copula of conclusion”, Erickson said, “there really is no subject and predicate, only nouns in the first and second position.” But, in the third clause of John 1:1, the absence of a definite article confirms that the term theos (God) function not as a noun, but as predicate, and the term o logos (the Word) is the subject. Because of this reason we can dismiss the use of the simple copula (verb “en”) of the third clause of John 1:1 as “is of identification” and “is of conclusion.” Thus, the Word is not God Himself, and not a part of a larger entity called “God.”

    Those who interpret this (“kai theos en o logos” - “and the Word was God”) to mean that Jesus Christ is God accuse those who hold the opposite view of making so much of the omission of the definite article “o” (Greek for “the”) before theos (Greek for “God”). The implication of such criticism is that the omission of “o” before “theos” is not that important.

    However, those critics easilly dismiss the importance of the article before “theos” would not only have to answer why the article is “omitted,” but also face those thoughtful and sincere trinitarian scholars who, although not completely certain why the article was “omitted,” cannot deny the importance of this “omission.” According to the admission of Professor Harris, a trinitarian, the absence of the article before the term theos:

    “…show[s] that the statement ‘the Word was God’ is not convertible position. John thereby denies that “God was the Word.” (Harris, p. 63)

    Had there been an article with both nouns, the proposition would have been true in both directions (“the Word was God”; “God was the Word”). But John did not say that. With the absence of a definite article, “the statement ‘the Word was God’ is not convertible position.” Indeed, JOHN DENIES THAT “GOD WAS THE WORD.”

    It is like the statement “Time is Gold.” But, surely it is not in convertible position, as “Time is Gold”; “Gold is Time.” Indeed, “Time is Gold” but “Gold is not Time.” THUS, WITH THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITE ARTICLE, “THE WORD WAS GOD” BUT “GOD IS NOT THE WORD.”

    Without the definite article, theos (God) is predicative and has the significance of an adjective describing the characteristic of the logos (Word). As Vowler said, “Here ‘God’ without the article is predicative. The Word is divine…” Thus, the reason why some Bible scholars and translators translated John 1:1 as:

    John 1:1 Goodspeed
    “…and the Word was divine.”

    John 1:1 Moffatt
    “…the Logos was divine.”

    In the statement “the Word was God”, the term theos (God) is not used as the subject, but as predicate, an adjecive. John used the term theos (God) to described the characteristic of the logos (Word). So, why does the text say θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (the Word was God)?

    “For no word from God shall be void of power.” (Luke 1:37 ASV)

    Like God eho is almighty or all-powerful (Gen. 35:11), no word of God is without power.

    pinaka-ok lang sa biblia eh iyung mga aral ni jeeezus about love and peace.
    with those regards I FOLLOW JEEEZUS!
    I know you are a "good" person in the eyes of many people but in the eyes of God. "you lacked one thing"!

  2. #42
    ^ http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/1-1.htm

    As to the article ο being wanting before θεος, God, which some have urged as a proof that the word is here to be used in a subordinate sense, it must be observed, that there are so many instances in the writings of this apostle, and even in this chapter, (see John 1:6; John 1:12-13; John 1:18,) where the same word, without the article, is used to signify God, in the highest sense of the word, that it is surprising any stress should be laid on that circumstance. “On the other hand, to conceive of Christ as a distinct and co-ordinate God, would be equally inconsistent with the most express declarations of Scripture, and far more irreconcilable with reason.”




    Notice the last part of that quote. The reason why INC does not believe in the translation 'the Word was divine". INC has its own translation "the Plan was God's idea". unfortunately none of the translations reflect that interpretation.
    Last edited by sophion; 1 week ago at 02:24 AM.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by sophion View Post
    ^ http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/1-1.htm

    As to the article ο being wanting before θεος, God, which some have urged as a proof that the word is here to be used in a subordinate sense, it must be observed, that there are so many instances in the writings of this apostle, and even in this chapter, (see John 1:6; John 1:12-13; John 1:18,) where the same word, without the article, is used to signify God, in the highest sense of the word, that it is surprising any stress should be laid on that circumstance. “On the other hand, to conceive of Christ as a distinct and co-ordinate God, would be equally inconsistent with the most express declarations of Scripture, and far more irreconcilable with reason.”




    Notice the last part of that quote. The reason why INC does not believe in the translation 'the Word was divine". INC has its own translation "the Plan was God's idea". unfortunately none of the translations reflect that interpretation.
    Hanuka??? Naiintindihan mo ba ako? WE, INC, BELIEVE that the Word is divine or having the qualities of God, but not God! Divine does not mean God Himself, Mokong! Mahina ka palang umintindi!

    Yung second phrase, the "Word was with God" is when we say that the Word is a thought emanating from God, because if the word is GOD WITH GOD, then there will be two Gods! Heynakupo!

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by KidlatNgayon View Post
    Hanuka??? Naiintindihan mo ba ako? WE, INC, BELIEVE that the Word is divine or having the qualities of God, but not God! Divine does not mean God Himself, Mokong! Mahina ka palang umintindi!

    Yung second phrase, the "Word was with God" is when we say that the Word is a thought emanating from God, because if the word is GOD WITH GOD, then there will be two Gods! Heynakupo!
    what qualities?

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by KidlatNgayon View Post
    [B]SO BAKIT MO NGA SINASABING SI CRISTO AY TOTOONG TAO AT TOTOONG DIYOS KUNG GANYAN DIN LANG ANG POINT MO??? MERON BANG SABAY NA NAKIKITA AT HINDI NAKIKITA - FLESH AND SPIRIT AT THE SAME TIME???
    Kid, gawin nating maayos ang usapan, lundag ka ng lundag eh hindi pa nga tayo nagkakasundo sa ibig sabihin ng kalikasan ng tao. Agree ka ba sa sinabi ko na ang kalikasan ng tao ay tao? Kung ano ako iyon ako. Dahil tao ako ang gawa ko ay ang gawa ng tao ang kalikasan. Agree ka ba diyan o disagree?

    Quote Originally Posted by KidlatNgayon View Post

    Romans 1:20
    New Living Translation
    For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

    ^SO PAANO MO MAIKUKUMPARA YAN SA KALIKASAN NG TAO NA TAO, AYON NA RIN SA YO???
    Wala pa tayo diyan kid, darating tayo diyan. Hindi kasi maganda iyang ugali mo sa pakiki pagdiskusyon na evading the argument, UGALI mo yan eh, hindi intellectual ang approach mo sa discussion natin, palaging assertion ang type mo na communication.

  6. #46
    There was the Word. The Word was with God. And the Word was God.

    Before Time was God. At the Beginning of Time was The Word, who was with God, who existed before time. And they are Both Gods.

    Then comes the Creation. And the Word was manifested in Creation as The Christ, who is God and also human.

    And the Holy Spirit was the third person who proceeds from both God and the Word, acquiring their divinities and making itself God.

    Thus the Trinity is complete.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferdinand View Post
    Kid, gawin nating maayos ang usapan, lundag ka ng lundag eh hindi pa nga tayo nagkakasundo sa ibig sabihin ng kalikasan ng tao. Agree ka ba sa sinabi ko na ang kalikasan ng tao ay tao? Kung ano ako iyon ako. Dahil tao ako ang gawa ko ay ang gawa ng tao ang kalikasan. Agree ka ba diyan o disagree?
    OK, Agree.

    Wala pa tayo diyan kid, darating tayo diyan. Hindi kasi maganda iyang ugali mo sa pakiki pagdiskusyon na evading the argument, UGALI mo yan eh, hindi intellectual ang approach mo sa discussion natin, palaging assertion ang type mo na communication.
    Wow, hindi maganda ang ugali ko dahil hindi ako agree sa yo! O sya! Magandang ugali sa yo yung kapareho mo ng opinion na pabugok-bugok, pabobo-bobo! O sige, yan ang UGALI mo eh! Hindi mo ako maisahan kaya "evading the argument" ako.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by sophion View Post
    what qualities?
    Righteousness, mercifulness, sinlessness.

    Christ has been EXALTED by God so he became Lord, a level almost equal to God. Christ is head of everything, but God is head of Christ:

    Ephesianas 1:22
    New Living Translation
    God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made him head over all things for the benefit of the church.

    1 Corinthians 15:27
    New International Version
    For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

    1 Corinthians 11:3
    But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

    Philippians 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped

    form
    /fôrm/
    noun
    1. the visible shape or configuration of something:
    "the form, color, and texture of the tree"
    synonyms:
    shape, configuration, formation, structure, construction, arrangement, appearance, exterior, outline, format, layout, design
    2. a mold, frame, or block in or on which something is shaped.
    synonyms:
    mold, cast, shape, matrix, die

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by HermesTrismegistus View Post
    There was the Word. The Word was with God. And the Word was God.

    Before Time was God. At the Beginning of Time was The Word, who was with God, who existed before time. And they are Both Gods.
    E di DALAWA NGA ANG DIYOS MO DIYAN, malinaw mong sinabi.

    Then comes the Creation. And the Word was manifested in Creation as The Christ, who is God and also human.
    E di sinasabi mo diyan na nilikha nga ng Diyos si Cristo, therefore si Cristo ay nilikha at hindi Diyos.

    And the Holy Spirit was the third person who proceeds from both God and the Word, acquiring their divinities and making itself God.

    Thus the Trinity is complete.
    So pinatutunayan mo dito, na HINDI SABAY-SABAY ang Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Merong time na ang Diyos lamang ay ang Ama; tapos naging dalawa silang diyos ng Anak; tapos dumating ang Holy Spirit at sabi mo, dito pa lang na-complete ang Diyos. Ito ba ang doktrina nyo sa RCC?

  10. #50
    mahirap bang intindihin ang 3 persons and 1 essence?

  11. #51
    荒れ狂う稲光のシェルミー skye_phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by HermesTrismegistus View Post
    mahirap bang intindihin ang 3 persons and 1 essence?
    Nahihirapan sya kasi di sya ginagabayan nang Holy Spirit.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by KidlatNgayon View Post
    OK, Agree.



    Wow, hindi maganda ang ugali ko dahil hindi ako agree sa yo! O sya! Magandang ugali sa yo yung kapareho mo ng opinion na pabugok-bugok, pabobo-bobo! O sige, yan ang UGALI mo eh! Hindi mo ako maisahan kaya "evading the argument" ako.
    See how you put words in my mouth, ang sabi ko:

    Hindi kasi maganda iyang ugali mo sa pakiki pagdiskusyon na evading the argument
    - Ferdinand

    hindi ko sinabi itong sabi mo tungkol sa sinabi ko.

    Wow, hindi maganda ang ugali ko dahil hindi ako agree sa yo
    - kidlat

    kid sa iyo ba maganda bang ugali sa diskusyon yung evading the argument? Hindi di ba? Kasi you have been avoiding the arguments instead of dealing with them. Ang mga sagot mo kalimitan, paiwas. Tulad na lang ng inilatag ko tungkol sa KALIKASAN NG TAO, ayaw mong sagutin kung sang-ayon ka o laban ka sa sinabi ko, tumalon ka na agad sa defensive mode mo.

    Saka hindi ko UGALI sa buhay ang manglamang sa kapwa, o mang-isa sa kapwa. Hindi kita iniisahan, yan kasi ang MENTALITY mo, everytime na may kausap ka na hindi sang-ayon sa doktrina mo, eh ginugulangan ka na o iniisahan. Dahil sa mentality mong iyan yung usapan malimit na didiskaril sa katotohan o sa matinong usapan na intellectual. So mag- umpisa uli tayo at ibabalik ko lang itong sinabi ko, I hope this time you will discuss with me instead of asserting you doctrines:

    Wala namang tutol na ISA LANG ang Diyos. Pag Diyos kasi ang usapan ang tinutukoy natin ay ang NATURE niya kaya ang NATURE niya ay ISA LANG. Bogged down ka na naman kasi sa material thinking mo, hindi arithmetic ito, theology and philosophy ang usapan dito, metaphysics that deals with the nature of existence, kaya huwag mong ipasok ang arithmetic.

    Parang ang NATURE ng tao ay isa din lang, yung tinatawag nating HUMAN NATURE, tao sa kalikasan kaya isa lang ang human nature natin - HUMAN, o TAO. Kung ANO tayo, IYON tayo. Kaya ang tanong ay ANO ba tayo aso o tao sa kalikasan? ANO ba tayo halaman sa kalikasan o tao sa kalikasan ? ANO ba tayo Diyos sa kalikasan o tao sa kalikasan? Di ba ang sagot sa katanungan na ANO ang KALIKASAN natin ay palaging TAO? So ilan ba ang kalikasan ng tao, isa o dalawa o tatlo? Di ba ISA LANG? Itigil ko na diyan at baka malito ka pa, iyan na lang muna at isipin mo kung tama yang mga sinabi ko sa iyo, o may tutol ka.

    So do you agree with that or not? Based on what I said, and only in what I said, please agree or disagree with explanation.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by HermesTrismegistus View Post
    mahirap bang intindihin ang 3 persons and 1 essence?
    Well, base sa explanation mo, everything conflicts with what the bible introduces God to be - He ALONE is God, and this is attributed to the Father

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by skye_phoenix View Post
    Nahihirapan sya kasi di sya ginagabayan nang Holy Spirit.
    By saying that, you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit, saying that the HS AY GUMAGABAY sa kasinungalingan!

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferdinand View Post
    See how you put words in my mouth, ang sabi ko:

    Hindi kasi maganda iyang ugali mo sa pakiki pagdiskusyon na evading the argument
    - Ferdinand

    hindi ko sinabi itong sabi mo tungkol sa sinabi ko.

    Wow, hindi maganda ang ugali ko dahil hindi ako agree sa yo
    - kidlat

    kid sa iyo ba maganda bang ugali sa diskusyon yung evading the argument? Hindi di ba? Kasi you have been avoiding the arguments instead of dealing with them. Ang mga sagot mo kalimitan, paiwas. Tulad na lang ng inilatag ko tungkol sa KALIKASAN NG TAO, ayaw mong sagutin kung sang-ayon ka o laban ka sa sinabi ko, tumalon ka na agad sa defensive mode mo.

    Saka hindi ko UGALI sa buhay ang manglamang sa kapwa, o mang-isa sa kapwa. Hindi kita iniisahan, yan kasi ang MENTALITY mo, everytime na may kausap ka na hindi sang-ayon sa doktrina mo, eh ginugulangan ka na o iniisahan. Dahil sa mentality mong iyan yung usapan malimit na didiskaril sa katotohan o sa matinong usapan na intellectual.
    Noted, Ferdinand, you are a good and intelligent person as I perceive. I DO NOT evade the argument but I sense that you are "trapping" me in a linear argument where even a Yes-No answer will eventually let you pin me down on the basis of philosophical reasoning (a ball is round: the earth is round: therefore a ball is the earth).

    So mag- umpisa uli tayo at ibabalik ko lang itong sinabi ko, I hope this time you will discuss with me instead of asserting you doctrines:

    Wala namang tutol na ISA LANG ang Diyos. Pag Diyos kasi ang usapan ang tinutukoy natin ay ang NATURE niya kaya ang NATURE niya ay ISA LANG. Bogged down ka na naman kasi sa material thinking mo, hindi arithmetic ito, theology and philosophy ang usapan dito, metaphysics that deals with the nature of existence, kaya huwag mong ipasok ang arithmetic.

    Parang ang NATURE ng tao ay isa din lang, yung tinatawag nating HUMAN NATURE, tao sa kalikasan kaya isa lang ang human nature natin - HUMAN, o TAO. Kung ANO tayo, IYON tayo. Kaya ang tanong ay ANO ba tayo aso o tao sa kalikasan? ANO ba tayo halaman sa kalikasan o tao sa kalikasan ? ANO ba tayo Diyos sa kalikasan o tao sa kalikasan? Di ba ang sagot sa katanungan na ANO ang KALIKASAN natin ay palaging TAO? So ilan ba ang kalikasan ng tao, isa o dalawa o tatlo? Di ba ISA LANG? Itigil ko na diyan at baka malito ka pa, iyan na lang muna at isipin mo kung tama yang mga sinabi ko sa iyo, o may tutol ka.

    So do you agree with that or not? Based on what I said, and only in what I said, please agree or disagree with explanation.
    I do not agree with what you said KUNG NANINIWALA ka na ang tao ay classified as Animal in the Science World. Pero kung agree ka na hindi dapat i-classify na animal ang tao, then agree ako sa yo. Isa pa kung AGREE ka na ang tao ay tao sa UMPISA hanggang sa HULI, walang pagbabago, then in that sense tama ka, kasi ang ibig sabihin ng KALIKASAN from the root word LIKAS ay HINDI nagbabago.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by KidlatNgayon View Post
    Noted, Ferdinand, you are a good and intelligent person as I perceive. I DO NOT evade the argument but I sense that you are "trapping" me in a linear argument where even a Yes-No answer will eventually let you pin me down on the basis of philosophical reasoning (a ball is round: the earth is round: therefore a ball is the earth).
    It is not a trap, it is a way of following your train of thought. And we both know that what you said here is faultya ball is round: the earth is round: therefore a ball is the earth and that is not the kind of conclusion I want to make.

    Quote Originally Posted by KidlatNgayon View Post
    I do not agree with what you said KUNG NANINIWALA ka na ang tao ay classified as Animal in the Science World. Pero kung agree ka na hindi dapat i-classify na animal ang tao, then agree ako sa yo. Isa pa kung AGREE ka na ang tao ay tao sa UMPISA hanggang sa HULI, walang pagbabago, then in that sense tama ka, kasi ang ibig sabihin ng KALIKASAN from the root word LIKAS ay HINDI nagbabago.
    What I believe about homo sapiens I think has nothing to do with what we are discussing. All I am saying is that my nature is human, therefore I am what I am. I am not a dog in nature, nor a fish in nature, nor a bird in nature, nor a God in nature, nor an angels in nature. What I do is dictated by my nature which is a human nature. It is my nature that decides what I can possibly do. For example I sleep, think, walk, run, talk, laugh. I do not live in and under the sea or live breath underwater since those are not part of my nature. A Fish lives in water since that is its nature, a bird flies since that is its nature, neither of that I can do on my own since those are not my nature. So basically my nature decides what I can do. Now although it is my nature that decides what actions are possible to me, it is I the person who do the actions. Now tell me if there is something in there that you disagree, name them and tell me why you disagree.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferdinand View Post
    It is not a trap, it is a way of following your train of thought. And we both know that what you said here is faultya ball is round: the earth is round: therefore a ball is the earth and that is not the kind of conclusion I want to make.

    What I believe about homo sapiens I think has nothing to do with what we are discussing. All I am saying is that my nature is human, therefore I am what I am. I am not a dog in nature, nor a fish in nature, nor a bird in nature, nor a God in nature, nor an angels in nature. What I do is dictated by my nature which is a human nature. It is my nature that decides what I can possibly do. For example I sleep, think, walk, run, talk, laugh. I do not live in and under the sea or live breath underwater since those are not part of my nature. A Fish lives in water since that is its nature, a bird flies since that is its nature, neither of that I can do on my own since those are not my nature. So basically my nature decides what I can do. Now although it is my nature that decides what actions are possible to me, it is I the person who do the actions. Now tell me if there is something in there that you disagree, name them and tell me why you disagree.
    So you are basically telling me that when Jesus was man, he did not think or act as God because the "man-nature" limited Him or dictated Him to be man?

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by KidlatNgayon View Post
    So you are basically telling me that when Jesus was man, he did not think or act as God because the "man-nature" limited Him or dictated Him to be man?
    Kid, let me tell you what I am doing here, I am laying down principles that we can agree before we go to our respective arguments. First I want to see if we can agree with what is my nature. Then I want to know if we can agree on if there is a person in my nature. Third I want to know if we can agree that nature and person is also applicable with God. So for the meantime, just limit your questions to what I have said so far regarding nature and person, instead of jumping back and forth on topics or definition of terms.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferdinand View Post
    Kid, let me tell you what I am doing here, I am laying down principles that we can agree before we go to our respective arguments. First I want to see if we can agree with what is my nature. Then I want to know if we can agree on if there is a person in my nature. Third I want to know if we can agree that nature and person is also applicable with God. So for the meantime, just limit your questions to what I have said so far regarding nature and person, instead of jumping back and forth on topics or definition of terms.
    You are a human being, a person - your nature is flesh.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by KidlatNgayon View Post
    You are a human being, a person
    So what am I again? A human being? A man?

    Quote Originally Posted by KidlatNgayon View Post
    - your nature is flesh.
    Well I disagree with that, if my nature is flesh, what then of my soul or spirit?
    Last edited by Ferdinand; 6 days ago at 08:52 AM.

Page 3 of 5 First ... 2 3 4 ... Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •