JOHN 15:19 one reason true christians are no part of the world

avatar

zkp2003 said:

333 said:

No sir I am not a pastor or a priest.

Thank you I am a girl not a sir eek

I am very sorry, I did not know.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #151 posted 08/01/04 12:47pm

avatar

NotDeaf said:

333 said:

333
(4) Word for word, the MGV literally reads: "The world would have loved the one's own the one's of."

For the ease of the modern english reader, could that be written: 'The world would have loved it's own, those of the world'?

While I understand the constraints of time, and your efforts ARE appreciated, could you research one of the other phrases in there? The english 'but I have chosen you out of the world'? How does Jesus' CHOOSING fit in with your explination that this relates to his death releasing from ownership to the world? His death doesn't selectively forgive sins. All have access to it's value. It is the people who must choose to accept it. Jesus chose that his followers should (not belong \ be no part \ not of ) the world. The people must choose to be his followers.

I think your translastion is a very fair one. And may I say I really like your insightful comments and questions. I promise I will address them. Perhaps tonight, but more likely tomorrow.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #152 posted 08/01/04 3:34pm

avatar

333 said:

NotDeaf said:

333 said:

(4) Word for word, the MGV literally reads: "The world would have loved the one's own the one's of."

I think your translastion is a very fair one. And may I say I really like your insightful comments and questions. I promise I will address them. Perhaps tonight, but more likely tomorrow.

I'll be around. wink

Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #153 posted 08/02/04 1:02am

avatar

NotDeaf said:

333 said:

The NIV captures the thought when it translates the phrases: "If you belonged to the world" and "you do not belong to the world."

Ok, let's look at the words in English:
Belong Vs Part (Info from Dictionary.com)
belong
\Be*long"\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Belonged; p. pr. & vb. n. Belonging.] [OE. belongen (akin to D. belangen to concern, G. belangen to attain to, to concern); pref. be- + longen to desire. See Long, v. i.]
Note: [Usually construed with to.] 1. To be the property of; as, Jamaica belongs to Great Britain.
2. To be a part of, or connected with; to be appendant or related; to owe allegiance or service.
A desert place belonging to . . . Bethsaids. --Luke ix. 10.
The mighty men which belonged to David. --1 Kings i. 8.
3. To be the concern or proper business or function of; to appertain to. ``Do not interpretations belong to God ?'' --Gen. xl. 8.
4. To be suitable for; to be due to.
Strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age. --Heb. v. 14.
No blame belongs to thee. --Shak.
5. To be native to, or an inhabitant of; esp. to have a legal residence, settlement, or inhabitancy, whether by birth or operation of law, so as to be entitled to maintenance by the parish or town.
Bastards also are settled in the parishes to which the mothers belong. --Blackstone.

part (pärt)
n.
A portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole.
Any of several equal portions or fractions that can constitute a whole or into which a whole can be divided: a mixture of two parts flour to one part sugar.
A division of a literary work: a novel in three parts.
(used with a pl. v.)
An organ, member, or other division of an organism: A tail is not a part of a guinea pig.
parts The external genitals.
A component that can be separated from or attached to a system; a detachable piece: spare parts for cars.
A role: He has the main part in the play.
One's responsibility, duty, or obligation; share: We each do our part to keep the house clean.
Individual endowment or ability; talent. Often used in the plural.
A region, area, land, or territory. Often used in the plural: “Minding your own business is second nature in these parts” (Boston).
The line where the hair on the head is parted.
Music.
The music or score for a particular instrument, as in an orchestra.
One of the melodic divisions or voices of a contrapuntal composition.

-Bold and Italics are mine-

Interesting, the word Belong can mean 'A PART of'. and 'to owe allegiance or service'
The word Part can mean 'responsibility, duty or obligation'.

these verse do not in any way suggest that Christians do not have some part or relationship to the world, nor does it even hint at the idea that Christians are not participate in matters concerning the world.

The English word used in the NIV CAN support the idea of not sharing in the responsibilities, duties, and obligations of the world. 'To not belong' can mean to NOT owe allegiance or service.

It really is the APPLICATION you don't agree with, isn't it?

From the definitions supplied for the word part only two are possible for this context (used as a noun).

(1) A portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole.
(7) One's responsibility, duty, or obligation; share: We each do our part to keep the house clean.

From the definitions supplied for the word belong only two are possible for this context (used as a verb).

(1) To be the property of; as, Jamaica belongs to Great Britain.
(2) To be a part of, or connected with; to be appendant or related; to owe allegiance or service.

Section 1
Lets examine the 1st definition of the word part: a portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole. This definition could possibly fit the context. If one takes it to mean that Christians form a separate division from the whole, the whole being the world. For example, a son is part of a family. If taken in this way it is saying more or less the the same thing as "belongs to." For example, a son belongs to a family. There is no problem with that idea because origin is the key thought. No more is implied than some thing(s) or some person(s) come from, or out of, or are numbered apart from, a segment of a whole. But keep in mind there is no Greek word for "part" in John 15:19.

Lets examine the 7th definition of the word part: one's responsibility, duty, or obligation; share. Please bear with me for a moment. I need to cover some others points before I can address this. Still keeping in mind that there is no Greek word for "part" in John 15:19, the Greek preposition "ek" is used only in the genitive case. As I point out above, according to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd Ed. (William Bauer, revised and edited by F. W. Danker; University Of Chicago Press: 2000) there are five basic usages of "ek":

(1) marker denoting separation (p.295). In this case it reflects the idea of the place or a thing from which separation takes place (used with verbs of motion). There are no verbs of motion in this text and thus it does not fit.

(2) marker denoting the direction from which something comes (p. 296). For example: "I am from New York." Also this does not fit this passages.

(3) marker denoting origin, motive, reason (p. 296). This one fits the usages in the passage and clearly can be seen from the phrase "I have chosen you out of [from] the world." Their place of origin was the world. The world is where he found them.

(4) marker used in periphrasis (p.297). Once again this usage does not fit.

Also as I point out above, only one of these fit the context of this passage and that is number 3. None of there others fit, and even if they did they in no way could support the NWT reading. So what I am saying is that there is no way to derive the meaning of responsibility, duty, or obligation, from "ek" plus the genitive case, never mind the fact there is no Greek word for "part, responsibility, duty, or obligation" in the text. If one were to translate this passage in such a way, as the NWT, one could substitute the word "obligation" for the word "part." So it would read: "no obligation of the world," which would mean that Christians have no obligations to the world. But there are two problems with this translation, other than the fact that there is no Greek word for "part, responsibility, duty, or obligation," this is not a function of the genitive case nor of the preposition "ek" (See Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel B. Wallace; Zondervan, 1996 pp.72-136 and pp. 371-372).

At least two perhaps three things would be needed to make this passage read and mean as the NWT translates it:

(1) Some Greek word (noun or verb) meaning something along the lines: "part, responsibility, duty, or obligation."

(2) The dative case (but the dative case alone will not help unless the word used was a verb).

(3) The correct preposition which takes the dative case.

Section 2
Lets examine the 1st definition of the word belong: to be the property of. This is just what the Greek text means. The problem, and I don't think it really is a problem, comes from the 7th definition of the word belong: to be a part of, or connected with; to be appendant or related; to owe allegiance or service. This is nothing more than an extension of the 1st definition. Sure Christians owe allegiance or service to Christ. Sure Christ should come first in the life of the Christian. Sure Christians should obey God rather than man or governments. I grant all of these points. However, none of these were ever the question that needed to be addressed. The question is: how can the NWT used this passage to prove that Christians should not share in the responsibilities, duties, and obligations of the world? And if one says that allegiance to Christ rules out the all other allegiances, I see no reason to believe this. There are levels or degrees of allegiances, first Christ, then family, then friends, then myself, and then government (This ranking is for myself only, others could rank them differently, but a Christians must put Christ first). Since Christ is first, if one of the other allegiances comes in conflict with it, then Christ must win out over all the others. Thus one could take part in the democratic process without harming his allegiance to Christ. But if it should come in conflict with a person allegiance to Christ, then Christ must come first. I find no command not participate in government or the military or that matter. And it is really is just that simple.

And one last note. Translators has to pick the best way to convey the meaning and/or thought of a author. So as to the NIV, if the NIV or the TNIV, NRSV, REV, NAB, NJB, which all have "belong to," thought the Greek carried more than simply the idea of origin and ownership they could have translated this passage to reflect that meaning. But since they did not, I would say they all knew the limits of the Greek in this verse and stayed within those bounds. Even the KJV, NKJV, RSV, NAS all have "of" and do not go beyond the bounds of the literal Greek reading of the genitive case.
[This message was edited Thu Aug 12 3:47:15 2004 by 333]

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #154 posted 08/02/04 2:04am

Heiress

333 said:

But to answer your last question, no I do not agree that NIV does support the idea of not sharing in the responsibilities and obligations of the world.

my whole point has been that the actions of the early disciples say a lot more about the interpretation of this text than any amount of literal translation on our part... thus i don't see a drastic difference in the meaning of your translation vs. the NWT- the NWT just renders the same thought more interestingly, from living language to living language. peter rendered the words of a living language into his life's work.

just as Not Deaf has been saying... i could do the same sort of translation work as you are doing here with the french documents i translate... but when you get too literal, rather than putting some of the original feeling into it, more often than not the translation comes out dead and almost devoid of its original meaning. french is not at all written like english; every language has its own beauty, cadence, logic... which do not necessarily translate literally into another language.

good translation is an art.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #155 posted 08/02/04 3:03am

avatar

Heiress said:

333 said:

But to answer your last question, no I do not agree that NIV does support the idea of not sharing in the responsibilities and obligations of the world.

I have tried to state why the NWT is in error on this topic. Perhaps I have not been as clear as I could have been. So let me state it as clearly as I can:

(1) There is no Greek word for "part" in the text.

(2) This is a possessive genitive and cannot be viewed as anything else.

(3) The Greek preposition "ek" is used, in this case, to denote origin, source, ownership and cannot be viewed as anything else.

(4) The genitive case nor the preposition "ek" function in the manner needed to translate the text as the NWT has.

For these reasons alone the NWT is not correct in its translation.

At least two perhaps three things would be needed to make this passage read and mean as the NWT translates it.

(1) Some Greek word (noun or verb) meaning something along the lines: "part, responsibility, duty, or obligation."

(2) The dative case (but the dative case alone will not help unless the word used was a verb).

(3) The correct preposition which takes the dative case.

And while I agree with you that "good translation is an art," one must follow the rules of gammar and syntax. If one fails to do so, then what comes is nothing but nonsense and error. No one can or should try to make something mean what it never meant.
[Edited 6/17/05 0:27am]

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #156 posted 08/02/04 3:24am

Heiress

333 said:

Heiress said:

I have tried to state why the NWT is in error on this topic. Perhaps I have not been as clear as I could have been. So let me state it as clearly as I can:

(1) There is no Greek word for "part" in the text.

(2) This is a possessive genitive and cannot be viewed as anything else.

(3) The Greek preposition "ek" is used, in this case, to denote origin, source, ownership and cannot be viewed as anything else.

(4) The genitive case nor the preposition "ek" function in the manner needed to translate the text as the NWT has.

For these reasons alone the NWT is not correct in its translation.

At least two perhaps three things would be needed to make this passage read and mean as the NWT translates it.

1) Some Greek word (noun or verb) meaning something along the lines: "part, responsibility, duty, or obligation."

(2) The dative case (but the dative case alone will not help unless the word used was a verb).

(3) The correct preposition which takes the dative case.

I'm considering other verses as well which seem to support the idea of non-participation in politics. Am looking at the big picture...

In John 12:31 he says the ruler of this world will be cast out.

Matthew 4:8-10, he refuses the Kingdoms of this World... who seemed to belong to whom?

Just two more verses that came to mind, off-hand.

Just read John 18:36 in the American Standard Version... and somehow, it seems to say the same thing to me as the NWT - although it uses the term "of this world" - when you read the entire verse:

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

Pilate addressed him with the charge of being King of the Jews... and this was his answer. His Kingdom as heavenly and not of this earth. From considering the other verses, that which is of the earth is Satanic...

But then later on, Paul tells us at Romans 13:1 that we are to be in subjection to secular authorities ("higher powers," as the American Standard puts it) that are "ordained of God..."

With these verses in mind (perhaps you can think of others), what do you believe the correct interpretation to be? That it's a matter of Christian conscience whether one participates in the political process?

"Caesar's things to Caesar" has been interpreted all sorts of ways, true enough.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #157 posted 08/02/04 7:14am

avatar

Interesting. I'll get back to you. Play nice with Heiress. Her use of other scriptures to help in understanding is an important tool. (I'm running late this morning.....)

Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #158 posted 08/02/04 3:56pm

avatar

Your explanation of the Greek and English is well done. The idea of property / ownership, along with the allegiance that is inherent in it, seems to be the thrust of the text.

As to the NTW and the use of the phrase ‘no part of’: I suggest this is what you describe in your note on translators. The NTW translators were taking into consideration the implied allegiance that comes with ownership. Sticking strictly to the literal translation would lead to the use of Belong. Nothing wrong with that, just means more research would be needed on the part of the reader to understand the implications.

The question then becomes, if Christians do not belong to the world, then does the allegiance end as well? And, does this include to the governments? It would seem so. Jesus taught his followers to pray (Matt 6:10) to let your kingdom come. At Philippians 3:13 the Christians citizenship is said to be ‘in the heavens’. At 2 Corinthians 5:20 Christians are described as ‘ambassadors’. Therefore, a Christian is a citizen of God’s heavenly kingdom, and an ambassador to all other governments. An ambassador would NOT become involved with any government other than it’s own. For a Christian that means not becoming involved with any human governments.

You added at the end a comment about ‘no command not (to) participate in government or the military’. Briefly on the military, in addition to the points about not becoming involved with the governments, John 13:35 wouldn’t allow for one Christian to kill another in warfare. It would also come into play during campaign season. Or do Republican Christians still love Democrat Christians? They aren’t very united, are they?

Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #159 posted 08/02/04 5:37pm

noellastra

DavidSF said:

fantasyislander said:

ok, so you read it before, and you didn't notice where it said, that if a christian's life was in danger, they could go into the voting booth, but what they did in their was private? it was saying, if the law requires it, or if they are in physical danger, or if her husband demands it. but i see you conveniently ignored the first part, which was meant to guide a christian in his/her decision, stating the MANY reasons a true christian would not vote for a human governmental leader.

We obviously have different interpretations on the article. The article says clearly it's a matter of conscience then goes on to state the MANY (emphasis yours) reasons a true Christian won't vote. You read this is as saying it's forbidden to vote. I read this as saying it's OK to vote (i.e. "conscience matter"), but not recommended. And I'm talking about real voting, not just going into the booth, but actually voting for John Kerry for example. True, the Society doesn't recommend voting, but it doesn't forbid it either. At least that's my undersanding after reading the entire article and re-considering your highlighting.

The Society had this exact same stand on higher education (college) 20+ years ago. It said that college was a conscience matter but always qualified that with numerious Scriptural reaons why it wasn't recommended for true Christians. Bottom line: going to college was OK back then. You couldn't be DF'ed or even rebuked if you went to college. Of course now the Society has softened its view on college and it's stand now is that it may even be recommended in certain lands in order to support a family. Too bad for those young bright brothers and sisters who didn't go to college 20 years ago because of the Society's harsh stand on the matter.

David
[This message was edited Fri Jul 16 9:23:39 2004 by DavidSF]

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #160 posted 08/03/04 12:40am

avatar

Heiress said:

333 said:

I have tried to state why the NWT is in error on this topic. Perhaps I have not been as clear as I could have been. So let me state it as clearly as I can:

(1) There is no Greek word for "part" in the text.

(2) This is a possessive genitive and cannot be viewed as anything else.

(3) The Greek preposition "ek" is used, in this case, to denote origin, source, ownership and cannot be viewed as anything else.

(4) The genitive case nor the preposition "ek" function in the manner needed to translate the text as the NWT has.

For these reasons alone the NWT is not correct in its translation.

At least two perhaps three things would be needed to make this passage read and mean as the NWT translates it.

1) Some Greek word (noun or verb) meaning something along the lines: "part, responsibility, duty, or obligation."

(2) The dative case (but the dative case alone will not help unless the word used was a verb).

(3) The correct preposition which takes the dative case.

Heiress said:

In John 12:31 he says the ruler of this world will be cast out.

The phrase "the ruler (or prince) of this world" occurs in John 12:31 and John 16:11. The phrase "the ruler (or prince) of the world" occurs only in John 15:19.

Let me make just a few comments on the nouns "ruler" and "prince." The Greek word "archon" is the word translated "ruler" in the above passages. It is used 37 times in the NT, but only once is it used of Jesus (Rev. 1:5). According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd Ed. (William Bauer, revised and edited by F. W. Danker; University Of Chicago Press: 2000 p. 140) this noun may be translated "ruler, lord, prince, leader, and official." The Greek noun "archegos" ("archegos" is clearly related to "archon", both being built off the form "arche") occurs only four times in the NT (Acts 3:15, 5:31; Heb. 2:10, 12:2), "exclusively as a christological title for the exalted Jesus" (See Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, eds., Eerdmans Publishing: 2002, vol. 1 p. 163). Some of the possible translations for this noun, according to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 138), are "leader, ruler, prince, originator, and founder."

As Heiress points out "good translation is an art." And I completely agree. So I would translate John 12:31, 16:11, 15:19, Acts 3:15, 5:31 and Heb. 2:10 all as "prince." While there is nothing wrong with the translation "ruler" or "leader," but they lack the idea of kingship, royalty. Christ came to establish the kingdom of God. Satan, at least seemingly, is the prince of this world. So I think this adds some depth of understanding as to the roles each have in relationship to the world. Christ is the true prince, the true king, because he is the creator of the world, because he is from the kingly line of David, because he establishes the kingdom of God. In this way the contrast between Christ as true prince and Satan and a false prince is made clear. Christ is the King of kings and Lord of lords. Satan is only a pretender to the throne. His claim to kingship is false.

Heiress said:

Matthew 4:8-10, he refuses the Kingdoms of this World... who seemed to belong to whom?

I believe the key word in your comment is "seemed." Think about what I said above. Christ is the King of kings and Lord of lords. Christ is the true prince, the true king, because he is the creator of the world, because he is from the kingly line of David, because he establishes the kingdom of God. Also note what you yourself point out below. Paul tells us at Romans 13:1 that the secular authorities are ordained of God. In other words, governments or leaders rule because God allows it or because God places them into power. So in regard to Matt. 4:8-10, I don't believe that Satan had the authority or power to give Jesus all the kingdom of the Earth. It was a lie. How can Satan give the King of kings something that is already his? How can Satan give the creator of the world that which belongs to him already because he created in the first place? How can Satan give Jesus all the kingdom of the world, when they only exist because God allows it or places them into power?

Heiress said:

Just read John 18:36 in the American Standard Version... and somehow, it seems to say the same thing to me as the NWT - although it uses the term "of this world" - when you read the entire verse: Pilate addressed him with the charge of being King of the Jews... and this was his answer. His Kingdom as heavenly and not of this earth. From considering the other verses, that which is of the earth is Satanic...

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

This is the same Greek construction as found in John 15:19: "ek tou kosmou." Remember, according to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd Ed. (William Bauer, revised and edited by F. W. Danker; University Of Chicago Press: 2000) "ek" is marker denoting origin, motive, reason (p. 296). Thus Jesus is saying that the source of his kingdom does not come from the world, it does not originate from the world. And the last sentence of this passage makes it very clear what Jesus means.

NWT: "...my kingdom is not of this source."

NIV: "...my kingdom is from another place."

NEB: "...my kingdom is not from here."

Jesus is not saying that his kingdom does not extent to the world. He is saying that the source and authority of his kingdom is not derived from the world. Jesus came to establishes the kingdom. How can one then say that his kingdom does not extent to the world?

Heiress said:

But then later on, Paul tells us at Romans 13:1 that we are to be in subjection to secular authorities ("higher powers," as the American Standard puts it) that are "ordained of God..."

I have already address this somewhat above but the way in which you phrase it, I believe, leaves the wrong impression. You say: "we are to be in subjection to secular authorities that are ordained of God." This is not what the text says. The text says: "...there are no authority except by God" (NWT). In other words, just as I point out above, all secular authorities exist because God either allows it or because he places them into power.
[This message was edited Thu Aug 12 3:52:16 2004 by 333]

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #161 posted 08/03/04 12:41am

avatar

NotDeaf said:

Interesting. I'll get back to you. Play nice with Heiress. Her use of other scriptures to help in understanding is an important tool. (I'm running late this morning.....)

I will. I promise.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #162 posted 08/03/04 5:50am

Beaulah

I find Jehovas Witnesses very confusing. Where is the line drawn in regard to 'not being of this world'?

Do you (JW's).....

Ride in cars?
Travel on aeroplanes?
Watch TV?
Use computers?
Have mobile 'phones?
Wash your clothes in a washing machine?

IMO your stance on voting and politics makes it seem as though you have been brainwashed. Why would you not use your power to make this world a better place while you are waiting for the end?

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #163 posted 08/03/04 6:34am

Beaulah said:

we do try to make the world a better place- by teaching people the truth from the bible. do you know how many lives have been changed for the better by studying with JWs? how many men used to beat their wives? how many wives were degrading and belittling to their husbands? how many people used to steal and cheat? how many people used to get into fights and hurt others? how many people went to war and killed others? how many people used to be prostitutes and drug dealers? do you have any idea how many people's lives have changed, all because of studying the bible? it's an amazing thought, and something i am very proud to be a part of.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #164 posted 08/03/04 6:39am

Beaulah said:

maybe it would be helpful to look at the example of the first century christians to understand this. they didn't seclude themselves in some secret community. they didn't avoid the marketplace so as not to be considered "of that world." they were noted for not being of this world, because they refused to participate in politics. they did not join the army. they paid their taxes and were obedient to the "superior authorities", being good citizens and obeying the laws, etc. but one line they never crossed was getting involved in politics or giving their allegiance to caesar rather than God.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #165 posted 08/03/04 7:15am

avatar

333 said:

So in regard to Matt. 4:8-10, I don't believe that Satan had the authority or power to give Jesus all the kingdom of the Earth. It was a lie. How can Satan give the King of kings something that is already his? How can Satan give the creator of the world that which belongs to him already because he created in the first place? How can Satan give Jesus all the kingdom of the world, when they only exist because God allows it or places them into power?

What is really missing is the idea from Matt. 4:1 "Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil." If they wern't the Devil's to give, it wouldn't have been a temptation. Also, Jesus didn't challange the Devil's ability to deliver, he only said "Go away" and only worship God.

So, 333, do you suggest that since the government's are allowed by God to exist, that they have His blessing? That Christians may participate in these Governments because thay are PART / BELONG to God?

Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #166 posted 08/03/04 8:10am

zkp2003

avatar

fantasyislander said:

Beaulah said:

Fantasy ...about the lives that have been changed from studying with JW, the calender last year was so beautiful it made me totally cry. All those people that changed because they loved God so much they were willing to search for the truth and it is so amazing how Jehovah helps ones to make these changes. I like the story about the drug dealer from Florida ...he really opened up his heart. Just had to share that with you. smile

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #167 posted 08/03/04 8:35am

zkp2003 said:

fantasyislander said:

yeah, that was beautiful, wasn't it! nod

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #168 posted 08/03/04 8:39am

NotDeaf said:

333 said:

yeah, what 333 said doesn't really make sense about this. because satan did offer jesus all the kingdoms. jesus never disputed the fact that they belonged to satan. in fact, the bible calls satan the ruler of this world. if the kingdoms weren't satans to give then jesus would have said something about that. but he didn't. because he knew that satan was the ruler of this world.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #169 posted 08/03/04 12:35pm

WSTGM

avatar

Hi

I just wont to give a big tanks too fantasyislander, zkp2003 and others that are making this world a better place by teaching people, like me, the truth.

biggrin

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #170 posted 08/03/04 12:45pm

ekalb101

avatar

fantasyislander said:

NotDeaf said:

Also is a pretty good reasoning point for Trinitarians as well. Can you imagine Satan being able to tempt God Himself with earthly kingdoms of the world? Such an offer would only be tempting to a flesh and blood human with the ability to sin and accept the offer.

Many Christmas' ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #171 posted 08/03/04 2:51pm

avatar

NotDeaf said:

What is really missing is the idea from Matt. 4:1 "Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil." If they wern't the Devil's to give, it wouldn't have been a temptation. Also, Jesus didn't challange the Devil's ability to deliver, he only said "Go away" and only worship God.

So, 333, do you suggest that since the government's are allowed by God to exist, that they have His blessing? That Christians may participate in these Governments because thay are PART / BELONG to God?

fantasyislander said:

yeah, what 333 said doesn't really make sense about this. because satan did offer jesus all the kingdoms. jesus never disputed the fact that they belonged to satan. in fact, the bible calls satan the ruler of this world. if the kingdoms weren't satans to give then jesus would have said something about that. but he didn't. because he knew that satan was the ruler of this world.

Let me address both of these posts at the same time for they cover the same topic, for the most part.

Actually what I said above in regard to Matt. 4:1-8 makes perfect sense.

(1) Satan is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44)

(2) According to Romans 13:1, secular authorities are ordained by God. If it is by God's will he allows and/or places into power kingdoms, then Satan cannot be the true ruler. It is by God's will that they exist.

(3) Jesus is the creator. Which mean that everything exists or is allowed to exist because it is his will. Col. 1:16 makes it clear: "For by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities..." (NAS). So if Satan in any sense does rule, it is only because it is allowed.

(4) Jesus is the King of kings and the Lord of lords (1 Tim. 16:15 and Rev. 17:14). Which means Jesus is the ruler over all kings and all lords. Satan cannot give Jesus, who is the true King of every kingdom, of the world, of everything that exists, anything because he does not truly own them. They do not truly belong to him. Jesus is the only true King and rightful ruler.

(5) Jesus could have said: "Hey Satan what are you taking about? I am the creator, I am the King of kings and Lord of lords. What could you possibility give me that is not already mine?" And Jesus would be correct. The fact that Jesus not dispute Satan on these points do not make them any less true. The reason he did not is because even though he is the the creator, the King of kings and Lord of lords, he came as a servant. He came to sever. He came to live life as a perfect example (but not the only reason).

Tempt Verses Test
I will add this post here since it some what concerns this topic.

eklab101 said:

You are confusing two different connotations of the word "tempt." The Greek verb "peirazo" means "to try, to test." And while it true that Jesus was tried and tested, the English word carries with it the idea of desire. If someone today says they were tempted they mean they had the desire or will to do something. Thus Jesus was tempted, that is he was put to the test, but he was not tempted, that is he did not have the desire. Thus the Greek word "peirazo" need not include the idea of desire. In fact there are many OT passage which state that no one is to tempt God. Jesus himself says the same thing in Matt. 4:7. Jesus uses a form of the same verb "to test" in regard to "tempting" God as Matthew does in regard to Jesus being put to the test by Satan. No one would says that God can be tempted, that is in the sense of desiring that which is evil or sinful. Of course not. And the same is true of Jesus. God can be tested, put to the test. Both the OT and the NT clearly say so.

Now since the idea of the Greek verb is "to put to the test," and the verb "peirazo" is used in regard to Jesus and to God, the conclusion that this somehow refutes the trinity is baseless.

One last thing, NotDeaf asked two questions (1) "do you suggest that since the government's are allowed by God to exist, that they have His blessing?" I would say some do and some don't; (2) that Christians may participate in these Governments because thay are PART / BELONG to God?" No way. What I am saying is that if one does participate, then it in no way wrong in and of itself, but if it conflicts with ones allegiance to God, then there is a problem.
[This message was edited Thu Aug 12 3:56:20 2004 by 333]

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #172 posted 08/03/04 2:56pm

PlanetMe	333- am i right in gathering from your post that you believe in the trinity? or some form thereof? do you believe that Jesus is, not God's Son, but God?
	- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator

Reply #173 posted 08/03/04 3:00pm

PlanetMe

333 said:

One last thing, NotDeaf asked two questions (1) "do you suggest that since the government's are allowed by God to exist, that they have His blessing?" I would say some do and some don't; (2) that Christians may participate in these Governments because thay are PART / BELONG to God?" No way. What I am saying is that if one does participate, then it in no way wrong in and of itself, but it conflicts with ones allegiance to God, then there is a problem.

being in subjection to the superior authorities (paying taxes, obeying the laws, etc) isn't wrong. Jesus himself said to pay the tax. Jehovah put the superior authorities in position because He knew they would provide a measure of stability, He allows them to exist. but how can you say they have His blessing when these are the very governments He has promised to destroy?

and if one says the pledge of allegiance, or votes (thereby putting their trust in earthling man), or runs for a position in government him/herself, how is that not conflicting one's allegiance to God?

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #174 posted 08/03/04 3:19pm

ekalb101

avatar

333 said:

Tempt Verses Test
I will add this post here since it some what concerns this topic.

eklab101 said:

You are confusing two different connotations of the word "tempt." The Greek verb "peirazo" means "to try, to test." And while it true that Jesus was tried and tested, the English word carries with it the idea of desire. If someone today says they were tempted they mean they had the desire or will to do something. Thus Jesus was tempted, that is he was put to the test, but he was not tempted, that is he did not have the desire. Thus the Greek word "peirazo" need not include the idea of desire. In fact there are many OT passage which state that no one is to tempt God. Jesus himself says the same thing in Matt. 4:7. Jesus uses a form of the same verb "to test" in regard to "tempting" God as Matthew does in regard to Jesus being put to the test by Satan. No one would says that God can be tempted, that is in the sense of desiring that which is evil or sinful. Of course not. And the same is true of Jesus. God can be tested, put to the test. Both the OT and the NT clearly say so.

Now since the idea of the Greek verb is "to put to the test," and the verb "peirazo" is used in regard to Jesus and to God, the conclusion that this somehow refutes the trinity is baseless.

One last thing, NotDeaf asked two questions (1) "do you suggest that since the government's are allowed by God to exist, that they have His blessing?" I would say some do and some don't; (2) that Christians may participate in these Governments because thay are PART / BELONG to God?" No way. What I am saying is that if one does participate, then it in no way wrong in and of itself, but it conflicts with ones allegiance to God, then there is a problem.

Im not the greek scholar you are 333 and Im certainly not going to argue that you are incorrect on the translation of "peirazo". However, it stills seems crazy to me that God could be 'tried, or tested' by offering Him the kingdoms of the world for one act of worship. Why did Satan even bother with such a lame test? Why would God, owner and creator of the universe be the least bit tempted to do an act of worship to Satan in exchange for worldly kingdoms?

Many Christmas' ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #175 posted 08/03/04 3:38pm

HiinEnkelte

avatar

ekalb101 said:

it's interesting now to watch this thread switching tactics to a questioning of the Jesus as the incarnation of God, to watch people try to translate and read the bible according to their pre-formed doctrine rather than to get their doctrine from an accurate reading of the bible.

Welcome to the New World Odor and
the Mythmaking Moonbattery of Obamanation.

Chains We Can Bereave In

LIBERALISM IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #176 posted 08/03/04 3:52pm

HiinEnkelte said:

ekalb101 said:

so does it make sense to you?

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #177 posted 08/03/04 3:53pm

avatar

PlanetMe said:

333- am i right in gathering from your post that you believe in the trinity? or some form thereof? do you believe that Jesus is, not God's Son, but God?

I am not opposed to the idea. And to be fair, trinitarians believe that Christ is both the son and God. But my only point was that such passages do nothing to disprove trinitarians.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #178 posted 08/03/04 3:56pm

333 said:

PlanetMe said:

333- am i right in gathering from your post that you believe in the trinity? or some form thereof? do you believe that Jesus is, not God's Son, but God?

I am not opposed to the idea. And to be fair, trinitarians believe that Christ is both the son and God. But my only point was that such passages do nothing to disprove trinitarians.

ok, but pretty much every point you make also hinges on the "fact" that Jesus is God. do you not agree with this?

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #179 posted 08/03/04 3:57pm

avatar

ekalb101 said:

333 said:

Tempt Verses Test
I will add this post here since it some what concerns this topic.

You are confusing two different connotations of the word "tempt." The Greek verb "peirazo" means "to try, to test." And while it true that Jesus was tried and tested, the English word carries with it the idea of desire. If someone today says they were tempted they mean they had the desire or will to do something. Thus Jesus was tempted, that is he was put to the test, but he was not tempted, that is he did not have the desire. Thus the Greek word "peirazo" need not include the idea of desire. In fact there are many OT passage which state that no one is to tempt God. Jesus himself says the same thing in Matt. 4:7. Jesus uses a form of the same verb "to test" in regard to "tempting" God as Matthew does in regard to Jesus being put to the test by Satan. No one would says that God can be tempted, that is in the sense of desiring that which is evil or sinful. Of course not. And the same is true of Jesus. God can be tested, put to the test. Both the OT and the NT clearly say so.

Now since the idea of the Greek verb is "to put to the test," and the verb "peirazo" is used in regard to Jesus and to God, the conclusion that this somehow refutes the trinity is baseless.

One last thing, NotDeaf asked two questions (1) "do you suggest that since the government's are allowed by God to exist, that they have His blessing?" I would say some do and some don't; (2) that Christians may participate in these Governments because thay are PART / BELONG to God?" No way. What I am saying is that if one does participate, then it in no way wrong in and of itself, but it conflicts with ones allegiance to God, then there is a problem.

Thanks ekalb101 for the compliment but I do not consider myself a Greek scholar. I have got to go now but I will try to address your thoughts tonight.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

- E-mail - orgNote -