Bakit noong isinalin ang latin bible sa tagalog, WALA PA RIN ANG TERMINO NA KATOLIKO
Tokay
Member
Kung totoo na makikita sa latin ang katumbas na termininong "katoliko", bakit noong isinalin ito sa tagalog, eh hindi makita ang terminong KATOLIKO sa mga bibliyang tagalog 
0
Comments
-
-
the word came from the Greeks .... kata and holos.
we got branded and it became catchy.0 -
Bakit wala ding pangalang Pilipinas sa bibliya?
0 -
Archimedes wrote: »Bakit wala ding pangalang Pilipinas sa bibliya?
Napaghahalatang mas matalino si Yoyoy sa yo!
0 -
From their own writings, we can find how the name "Catholic Church" came about:
The first bishop identified as having introduced changes into the Church was Ignatius, bishop of Antioch who was martyred in Rome about 110 A.D. He was the first to use the term Catholic Church in reference to the Church of Christ:
The name Catholic as a name is not applied to the Catholic Church in the Bible. ..St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the Christians of Smyrna about the year 110, is the first to use the name The Catholic Church (The Question Box, p. 132)
This same Ignatius introduced the doctrine that Christ is both God and man:
He asserted unequivocally both the divinity and humanity of Christ, the Savior. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7, p. 353)
Ignatius is one of the so-called Antenicene Fathers who were divided into three groups, namely:
1. Apostolic Fathers supposedly had personal contact with the Apostles or were instructed by their disciples. To this group belong Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyna, and Clement of Rome.
2. Greek Apologists born of the Churchs reaction to paganism. To this group belong Justin Martyr, Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus.
3. Theologians to this group belong Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian.
These Church Fathers were the source of the teachings that the Catholic Church taught and implemented beginning the second century. However, such persons were not immune from errors and yet, the apostatized church approved their teachings:
Obviously much that Christ and the apostles preached was in time reduced to writing. Hence there grew up a library composed of men called the fathers of the Church. They were called so because in apostolic days the word father also meant teacher of spiritual things, and these were among her earliest teachers. But, unlike the apostles, all of whom enjoyed infallibility, they were not immune from error nor inspired as the scriptural writers had been. In so far as they dealt with questions of faith and morals, much of what they wrote was approved by the Church, and thus, became part of written tradition. (Whereon to Stand: What Catholics Believe and Why, p. 142)
As a result of the teachings of these early Church Fathers, the Church of Christ or Christianity became Roman Catholicism, the last and the greatest of the mystery religions:
On that dies Domini, or Lords Day, the Christians assembled for their weekly ritual. Their clergy read from the Scriptures, led them in prayer, and preached sermons of doctrinal instruction, moral exhortation, and sectarian controversy
By the close of the second century, these weekly ceremonies had taken the form of the Christian Mass. Based partly on the Judaic Temple service, partly on Greek mystery rituals of purification, vicarious sacrifice, and participation through communion, in the death-overcoming powers, of the deity, the Mass grew slowly into a rich congeries of prayers, psalms, readings, sermon, antiphonal recitations, and, above all, that symbolic atoning sacrifice of the Lamb of God which replaced, in Christianity, the bloody offerings of older faiths. The bread and wine which these cults had considered as gifts placed upon the altar before the god were now conceived as changed by the priestly act of consecration into the body and blood of Christ, and were presented to God as a repetition of the self-immolation of Jesus on the cross. Then, in an intense and moving ceremony, the worshippers partook of the very life and substance of their Saviour. It was a conception long sanctified by time; the pagan mind needed no schooling to receive it; by embodying it in the mystery of the Mass, Christianity became the last and the greatest of the mystery religions. (Ceasar and Christ, pp. 599-600)
Thus, the claim of the Catholic Church that they are the Church founded by Christ in the first century is not true because the Catholic Church is very much different from the Church of Christ founded by Christ in the first century. The Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ, instead its the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Bible regarding the apostasy that will take place immediately after the death of the apostles. Hence, the claim of the Catholic Church that they succeeded the apostles is not a proof of being the true Christ founded by Christ, but instead, a strong proof that the Catholic Church is indeed the apostate Church, the fulfillment of what the Bible prophesied that after the death of the apostles, among the ranks of the bishops will rise false teachers that will distort the truth.
Finally, from the leaders of RCC themselves came the admission that RCC had very little to do with the original church of Christ in the first century:
We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. (The Spirit of Catholicism, p. 2)
Catholic authorities even boast that they did not derive their faith in Jesus from the Scriptures:
Without the Scriptures, says Mohler, the true form of the sayings of Jesus would have been withheld from us .Yet the Catholic does not derive his faith in Jesus from Scripture. (Ibid. p. 50)0 -
All what you have said are nothing but lies, propaganda and deliberate quoting out of context mixed with some truth as if all what you have said is what the Catholic Church teaches.KidlatNgayon wrote: »From their own writings, we can find how the name "Catholic Church" came about:
The first bishop identified as having introduced changes into the Church was Ignatius, bishop of Antioch who was martyred in Rome about 110 A.D. He was the first to use the term Catholic Church in reference to the Church of Christ:
The name Catholic as a name is not applied to the Catholic Church in the Bible. ..St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the Christians of Smyrna about the year 110, is the first to use the name The Catholic Church (The Question Box, p. 132)
This same Ignatius introduced the doctrine that Christ is both God and man:
He asserted unequivocally both the divinity and humanity of Christ, the Savior. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7, p. 353)
Ignatius is one of the so-called Antenicene Fathers who were divided into three groups, namely:
1. Apostolic Fathers supposedly had personal contact with the Apostles or were instructed by their disciples. To this group belong Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyna, and Clement of Rome.
2. Greek Apologists born of the Churchs reaction to paganism. To this group belong Justin Martyr, Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus.
3. Theologians to this group belong Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian.
These Church Fathers were the source of the teachings that the Catholic Church taught and implemented beginning the second century. However, such persons were not immune from errors and yet, the apostatized church approved their teachings:
Obviously much that Christ and the apostles preached was in time reduced to writing. Hence there grew up a library composed of men called the fathers of the Church. They were called so because in apostolic days the word father also meant teacher of spiritual things, and these were among her earliest teachers. But, unlike the apostles, all of whom enjoyed infallibility, they were not immune from error nor inspired as the scriptural writers had been. In so far as they dealt with questions of faith and morals, much of what they wrote was approved by the Church, and thus, became part of written tradition. (Whereon to Stand: What Catholics Believe and Why, p. 142)
As a result of the teachings of these early Church Fathers, the Church of Christ or Christianity became Roman Catholicism, the last and the greatest of the mystery religions:
On that dies Domini, or Lords Day, the Christians assembled for their weekly ritual. Their clergy read from the Scriptures, led them in prayer, and preached sermons of doctrinal instruction, moral exhortation, and sectarian controversy
By the close of the second century, these weekly ceremonies had taken the form of the Christian Mass. Based partly on the Judaic Temple service, partly on Greek mystery rituals of purification, vicarious sacrifice, and participation through communion, in the death-overcoming powers, of the deity, the Mass grew slowly into a rich congeries of prayers, psalms, readings, sermon, antiphonal recitations, and, above all, that symbolic atoning sacrifice of the Lamb of God which replaced, in Christianity, the bloody offerings of older faiths. The bread and wine which these cults had considered as gifts placed upon the altar before the god were now conceived as changed by the priestly act of consecration into the body and blood of Christ, and were presented to God as a repetition of the self-immolation of Jesus on the cross. Then, in an intense and moving ceremony, the worshippers partook of the very life and substance of their Saviour. It was a conception long sanctified by time; the pagan mind needed no schooling to receive it; by embodying it in the mystery of the Mass, Christianity became the last and the greatest of the mystery religions. (Ceasar and Christ, pp. 599-600)
Thus, the claim of the Catholic Church that they are the Church founded by Christ in the first century is not true because the Catholic Church is very much different from the Church of Christ founded by Christ in the first century. The Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ, instead its the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Bible regarding the apostasy that will take place immediately after the death of the apostles. Hence, the claim of the Catholic Church that they succeeded the apostles is not a proof of being the true Christ founded by Christ, but instead, a strong proof that the Catholic Church is indeed the apostate Church, the fulfillment of what the Bible prophesied that after the death of the apostles, among the ranks of the bishops will rise false teachers that will distort the truth.
Finally, from the leaders of RCC themselves came the admission that RCC had very little to do with the original church of Christ in the first century:
We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. (The Spirit of Catholicism, p. 2)
Catholic authorities even boast that they did not derive their faith in Jesus from the Scriptures:
Without the Scriptures, says Mohler, the true form of the sayings of Jesus would have been withheld from us .Yet the Catholic does not derive his faith in Jesus from Scripture. (Ibid. p. 50)
Let us just take for example this quote that you used:
Where is the proof that St. Ignatius was the FIRST person who INTRODUCED the doctrine that Christ is both God and man? If you have read his epistles to the Romans, Smyrna, Philadelphia, he was just reinforcing what St. John wrote in his Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation! Meaning, the teaching that Jesus is both God and man is the orthodox belief of the Apostles, and the Early Christians. On the other hand the belief that Jesus is not God came from the Apostate Jews of the Early 1st Century, from the Ebionites and Cerinthus. This kind of belief is condemned by St. John the Apostles in his Epistle calling them the spirit of the anti Christ.KidlatNgayon wrote: »Finally, from the leaders of RCC themselves came the admission that RCC had very little to do with the original church of Christ in the first century:
We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. (The Spirit of Catholicism, p. 2)
This same Ignatius introduced the doctrine that Christ is both God and man:
He asserted unequivocally both the divinity and humanity of Christ, the Savior. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7, p. 353)
And by the way show us the complete quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia so that we can judge for ourselves what the article is really saying.
Here is another stupid conclusion that you made:
To understand what the author said there you have to understand the development of doctrines for proper intellectualization and understanding. An oak although visibly different from an acorn still comes from an acorn and has the same genetic property, as much as a fetus is visibly different from a fully grown person.KidlatNgayon wrote: »Finally, from the leaders of RCC themselves came the admission that RCC had very little to do with the original church of Christ in the first century:
We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. (The Spirit of Catholicism, p. 2)
Where is the admission in that quote that the Catholic Church "had very little to do with the original church of Christ in the first century"?
Nowhere right? Your conclusion is based on wrong reading and interpretation of what the author is saying.0 -
i think the church of christ has been mentioned several times in the bible as being the "whole." tapos.0
-
Kaya wala ang salitang "Katoliko" noong isinalin ang Bible sa Tagalog ay dahil walang nakaisip noon na may gagamit ng argumento na "Wala sa Bible ang salitang Catholic, therefore hindi 'yan ang tunay na Church."
Parang ABS CBN lang pala ang pagsasalin ng mga skolar katoliko sa Bibliya, Kung hindi pupunain hindi isasalin na ganun
Oh baka naman hindi talaga "KATOLIKO" ang katumbas na salita ng tinutukoy niyo na pinagmulan diumano ng terminong Katoliko. Kasi walang bibliyang katoliko na nagsasalin ng gayun...0 -
All what you have said are nothing but lies, propaganda and deliberate quoting out of context mixed with some truth as if all what you have said is what the Catholic Church teaches.
Let us just take for example this quote that you used:
Where is the proof that St. Ignatius was the FIRST person who INTRODUCED the doctrine that Christ is both God and man? If you have read his epistles to the Romans, Smyrna, Philadelphia, he was just reinforcing what St. John wrote in his Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation! Meaning, the teaching that Jesus is both God and man is the orthodox belief of the Apostles, and the Early Christians. On the other hand the belief that Jesus is not God came from the Apostate Jews of the Early 1st Century, from the Ebionites and Cerinthus. This kind of belief is condemned by St. John the Apostles in his Epistle calling them the spirit of the anti Christ.
And by the way show us the complete quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia so that we can judge for ourselves what the article is really saying.
Here is another stupid conclusion that you made:
To understand what the author said there you have to understand the development of doctrines for proper intellectualization and understanding. An oak although visibly different from an acorn still comes from an acorn and has the same genetic property, as much as a fetus is visibly different from a fully grown person.
Where is the admission in that quote that the Catholic Church "had very little to do with the original church of Christ in the first century"?
Nowhere right? Your conclusion is based on wrong reading and interpretation of what the author is saying.
Why are you asking me what Catholic authors wrote? They were published (meaning your church approved their publication)! If you want to say that you're smarter than them, then publish books that refute your own people's books!
Are you surprised of their declarations? Did you not know these writings before I presented them to you?
Anyways, I'm adding this video - watch it or leave it!
http://incmedia.org/chosen-people-god-time/0 -
All what you have said are nothing but lies, propaganda and deliberate quoting out of context mixed with some truth as if all what you have said is what the Catholic Church teaches.
Let us just take for example this quote that you used:
Where is the proof that St. Ignatius was the FIRST person who INTRODUCED the doctrine that Christ is both God and man? If you have read his epistles to the Romans, Smyrna, Philadelphia, he was just reinforcing what St. John wrote in his Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation! Meaning, the teaching that Jesus is both God and man is the orthodox belief of the Apostles, and the Early Christians. On the other hand the belief that Jesus is not God came from the Apostate Jews of the Early 1st Century, from the Ebionites and Cerinthus. This kind of belief is condemned by St. John the Apostles in his Epistle calling them the spirit of the anti Christ.
And by the way show us the complete quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia so that we can judge for ourselves what the article is really saying.
Here is another stupid conclusion that you made:
To understand what the author said there you have to understand the development of doctrines for proper intellectualization and understanding. An oak although visibly different from an acorn still comes from an acorn and has the same genetic property, as much as a fetus is visibly different from a fully grown person.
Where is the admission in that quote that the Catholic Church "had very little to do with the original church of Christ in the first century"?
Nowhere right? Your conclusion is based on wrong reading and interpretation of what the author is saying.
Ferdinand, NOWHERE in the bible is written that the apostles taught Jesus Christ was God incarnated.
The only verse that you constantly use to declare Christ is God is when Apostle Thomas exclaimed: "My Lord and my god!" He wasn't even preaching that time. Besides what has he always been referred to? DOUBTING Thomas!
Christ said He has a God, who is also our God - His Father, who is also our Father!
This is also what Peter preached:
1 Peter 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
It was God who resurrected Christ from the dead. God is immortal, according to the bible. Can 1/3 of Him die? If 1/3 of God dies, will God still has His full power? These are questions that the members of the council of Nicea tried to answer, but no matter how intelligent they are in spinning the truth, they still cannot hide it.
1 Corinthians 3:19
New International Version
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness";
Job 5:13
He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away.
Proverbs 21:30
There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the LORD.
1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?0 -
KidlatNgayon wrote: »Ferdinand, NOWHERE in the bible is written that the apostles taught Jesus Christ was God incarnated.
John 1
English Standard Version (ESV)
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people[c] did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, This was he of whom I said, He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.) 16 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.[d] 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God,[e] who is at the Father's side,[f] he has made him known.
NOWHERE ka jan
0 -
alchemistofophir wrote: »John 1
English Standard Version (ESV)
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people[c] did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, This was he of whom I said, He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.) 16 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.[d] 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God,[e] who is at the Father's side,[f] he has made him known.
NOWHERE ka jan
You are just interpreting these verses the way the false preachers taught you! Too bad!
0 -
KidlatNgayon wrote: »You are just interpreting these verses the way the false preachers taught you! Too bad!
yan ang nakasulat sa biblya. eto yung main point.
the Word was God And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.0 -
yan ang paniniwala ng mga apostoles. at eto sabi ni Saint Paul.
Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.0 -
All what you have said are nothing but lies, propaganda and deliberate quoting out of context mixed with some truth as if all what you have said is what the Catholic Church teaches.
How can you quote this out of context?
"We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. (The Spirit of Catholicism, p. 2)
It is VERY CLEAR that Catholics are ACKNOWLEDGING and WITHOUT SHAME that RCC cannot be identified SIMPLY and WHOLLY with "primitive" christianity?
You cannot use your argument that the "acorn" is still the "great oak tree" because as it is said: it cannot be "identified with.."
How's your english nowadays, Ferdie? You are too much in denial! 
0 -
skye_phoenix 荒れ狂う稲光のシェルミーKidlatNgayon wrote: »You are just interpreting these verses the way the false preachers taught you! Too bad!
Kung false preachers din lang hinahanap mo, eh yung founder nyo isa na dun! Yung bird of prey kuno at bagong Jacob kuno, na nang aangkin ng maraming propesiya na hindi naman talaga sya ang tinutukoy. Isinisiksik ang sarili sa bibliya.
Tapos paniwalang-paniwala naman ang mga [email protected]@sunod nya. 0 -
Parang ABS CBN lang pala ang pagsasalin ng mga skolar katoliko sa Bibliya, Kung hindi pupunain hindi isasalin na ganun
Oh baka naman hindi talaga "KATOLIKO" ang katumbas na salita ng tinutukoy niyo na pinagmulan diumano ng terminong Katoliko. Kasi walang bibliyang katoliko na nagsasalin ng gayun...
Yung "Wala ang salitang Katoliko sa Bibliya kaya hindi ito tunay na Simbahan.", it's not a valid argument then, it's still not a valid argument today.0 -
skye_phoenix wrote: »Kung false preachers din lang hinahanap mo, eh yung founder nyo isa na dun! Yung bird of prey kuno at bagong Jacob kuno, na nang aangkin ng maraming propesiya na hindi naman talaga sya ang tinutukoy. Isinisiksik ang sarili sa bibliya.
Tapos paniwalang-paniwala naman ang mga [email protected]@sunod nya.
Gigil na naman si Inday!
0 -
alchemistofophir wrote: »yan ang nakasulat sa biblya. eto yung main point.
the Word was God And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
What is spoken of in John 1:1, 14 as being with God in the beginning is the "Word." Hence, in order to understand the real message of John 1:1, 14, we should first clarify the meaning of the term "Word." Does it really refer to a 'pre-existent Christ' as others allege? No. The Holy Scriptures prove instead that the "Word" refers to God's "promise" to send His Son, which He "announced" before:
"Which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:2-3, New American Standard Bible, emphasis ours)
"Which He announced before through His prophets in holy writingsconcerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:2-3, Young's Literal Translation, emphasis ours)
Moreover, Ryrie Study Bible explains that logos, the Greek equivalent of the term Word" in John 1:1, 14, means a "thought or concept" p. 1599). These termspromise, announcement, thought, conceptrefer to things that are abstract, not yet concrete, or not yet "made flesh" This is similar to a blueprint for a house, which is only a plan and not yet a constructed material house. Clearly, then, the term "Word in John 1:1, 14 is not Christ Himself but the "foreknowledge'*' or plan of God concerning Christ:
Foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, he has been manifested in the last times for your sakes." (I Pet. 1:20, Confraternity Version)
This pronouncement of Apostle Peter that Christ was "foreknown before the foundation of the world" explains the statement in the Gospel according to John, "In the beginning was the Word." Hence, what was there in the beginning was not Christ Himself but God's "Word" or foreknowledge of Him.
"Foreknowledge" is defined by the dictionary as "knowledge of a thing before it happens or exists? (Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, p. 717).
If Christ had already been existing before the foundation of the world, then there would not be any need to "foreknow" Him. Therefore, the fact that Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world disproves His so-called pre- existence.
What does the clause "And the Word became flesh" mean then? The "Word" which was only a thought or plan in the beginning was fulfilled when Mary gave birth to Jesus (Gal. 4;4) who is "truly human" (I Tim. 2:3 , Contemporary English Version") or "indeed flesh" (Gen. 6:3).
4But when the time was right, God sent his Son, and a woman gave birth to him. His Son obeyed the Law, (Gal. 4:4, Contemporary English Version)
We should not forget that it was the ''Word" which became flesh and not God Himself. John 1:1 & 14 therefore does not in any way teach that God became man or that Christ is God incarnate.
So why then did Apostle John state in John 1:1 that "the Word was God"? It is because God is almighty or powerful (Gen, 35:11), and so are His words (Luke 1:37). Thus, "the Word was God" indeed, but not in the sense that the "Word" is another divine being aside from God, but that it possesses the qualities and attributes of God. In John 1:1 the word "God'' in the clause "the Word was God" is used not as a noun but as an adjective. That is why in other renditions of the Bible, such as Moffatt and Goodspeed, John 1:1 states: "The Word was divine"
THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine. (John 1:1, James Moffatt New Testament)
In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine. (John 1:1, Goodspeed New Testament)0
Welcome to PinoyExchange!
Forums
- 4.5K All Categories
- 27.1K PEx Sports
- 56.7K PEx Local Entertainment
- 30.4K PEx International Entertainment
- 41.7K PEx Lifestyle
- 26.8K PEx Hobbies
- 64.1K PEx News and Tech
- PEx Business and Careers
- 44.5K PEx Family and Society
- 25.3K PEx Relationships
- 13.1K PEx Chat
- 29.5K PEx Campus
- 32.3K PEx Classifieds
- 703 PEx Community
In this Discussion
- KidlatNgayon 32 posts
- kurapika_hunter 16 posts
- skye_phoenix 14 posts
- Doicafvish 11 posts
- alchemistofophir 9 posts
- Ferdinand 4 posts
- Archimedes 3 posts
- jagaruga 2 posts
- sophion 1 post
- gotta lick it 1 post
