Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[Scott Downey]

@CadyandZoe


John 1:3
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
"All things were made through Him"

Joh 1:3 All things πάντα came into being ἐγένετο, through δι’ Him, αὐτοῦ and καὶ without χωρὶς Him αὐτοῦ not even οὐδὲ one [thing] ἕν came into being ἐγένετο that ὃ has come into being. γέγονεν.

ἐγένετο (egeneto): The aorist indicative middle/passive verb of γίνομαι, meaning "came into being" or "were made," indicates Jesus as the agent through whom creation occurred.


Colossians 1:16
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
"For by Him all things were created"

ἐκτίσθη (ektisthē): Aorist indicative passive verb of κτίζω, meaning "created," shows that all things were created in Him, with Him being the active sphere of creation.

τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται
"All things have been created through Him and for Him"

ἔκτισται (ektistai): Perfect indicative middle/passive verb of κτίζω, emphasizing the completeness and enduring results of His creative work.

Hebrews 1:2
δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας
"Through whom also He made the worlds"

ἐποίησεν (epoiēsen): Aorist indicative active verb of ποιέω, meaning "made" or "created," indicating Jesus' direct and active role in creation.

1 Corinthians 8:6
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ
"Through whom are all things, and we exist through Him"

δι’ οὗ (di’ hou): Preposition διά with the genitive case indicates the instrumental agency of Christ in creation and sustaining life.

These passages collectively demonstrate that Jesus is presented as the divine agent actively participating in the creation of all things. The verbs and grammar leave no room for the interpretation that He was merely passive or secondary in this work.

I just read this and believe it brother.

J.

And
John 1
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His [c]own, and His [d]own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the [e]right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Magdala]

Well, you're not going to convince me that Jesus dictated anything to Maria Valtorta, so let's leave her out of the discussion.

I wouldn't presume that I could convince you, because only God can, in cooperation with your free will. Jesus made it known that Maria Valtorta was His spokesperson in numerous ways, as well as took care of her and the Work (see links in my signature). I hope you read His comparison of the Holy Trinity to light.

 

[MonoBiblical]

I always proof read and check WHAT I post for God's glory and not my ego. And quote the whole, not a snippet of what I have posted. If I misunderstood you, let me know.

Perhaps you reconsider terseness. I will endeavor to rebut you as much as I can when yours needs it.

 

[MonoBiblical]

And
John 1
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His [c]own, and His [d]own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the [e]right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

But if we check a lexicon, and it has to be Thayer's.

1. to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2. to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
   1. of events
3. to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
   1. of men appearing in public
4. to be made, finished
   1. of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5. to become, be made

You can see made is a cherry pick definition, and not the same as ktizw. I would personally improve the lexicon by saying begin as the definition and call it passive rather deponent.

Furthermore, it is my belief that such is not a past tense aorist verb, but rather a present tense aorist.

 

[face2face]

You are here to debate the other camp-not attack them with ad hominems.

J.

You must be feeling a lot of pressure in this thread J.
Don't envy seeing the foundation of your faith erode away by such compelling evidence.
F2F

 

[MonoBiblical]

How about Matt. 9:34? I will go with "by" for that one, or maybe "by means of" or "through" (just like King Jimmie does).

How do you get past the use of the dative which is known to receive actions unlike the genitive?

 

[face2face]

What I find odd is that you still rely on the JW bible with all its deliberate changes of the original Greek.

And what about the cross that is replaced with stake or pole in the whole NT, why ??

Is the apostle John a liar?

He witnessed the crucifixion.

Sorry, I use the NET & ESV Bibles mostly...sometimes I might quote from the KJV because I'm too lazy to change Bibles.
F2F

I'm not dogmatic on the type of cross, stake or pole.

John is not a liar though - he represents the eagle face and see's well beyond you or I

F2F

 

[RLT63]

fair

Sorry, I use the NET & ESV Bibles mostly...sometimes I might quote from the KJV because I'm too lazy to change Bibles.
F2F

I'm not dogmatic on the type of cross, stake or pole.

John is not a liar though - he represents the eagle face and see's well beyond you or I

F2F

I have the NET full notes edition

 

[RedFan]

How do you get past the use of the dative which is known to receive actions unlike the genitive?

ἐν always takes the dative. Receiving actions -- whether the object of an active verb or the subject of a passive verb -- characterizes the objective dative, not the instrumental dative. Matt. 9:34 is clearly the latter. This may help: A Syntax of the Greek New Testament - The Dative case

 

[MonoBiblical]

ἐν always takes the dative. Receiving actions -- whether the object of an active verb or the subject of a passive verb -- characterizes the objective dative, not the instrumental dative. Matt. 9:34 is clearly the latter. This may help: A Syntax of the Greek New Testament - The Dative case

Datives are not instrumental, but the genitive can be. Under a prince of demons, or in the prince of the demons would be much better. They were defaming God's authority, saying Jesus couldn't do this under the power of God.

I see how saying by rather than in or at is interpretative. it could be a repeating of Tyndale's errors which is common and such it is.

Even the Israelites knew Jesus did his miracles under/in a [power] and not by it.

 

[RedFan]

Datives are not instrumental, but the genitive can be. Under a prince of demons, or in the prince of the demons would be much better. They were defaming God's authority, saying Jesus couldn't do this under the power of God.

I see how saying by rather than in or at is interpretative. it could be a repeating of Tyndale's errors which is common and such it is.

Even the Israelites knew Jesus did his miracles under/in an authority and not by it.

But there are lots of instances of instrumental dative following ἐν. NEW TESTAMENT GREEK PREPOSITIONS

 

[APAK]

Why are you discouraged and despairing at what Amigo said? Might it be conviction you are feeling? Salt does have a sting to it where it needs to do its work of purifying and cleansing. Sound doctrine often needs to be "endured", it doesn't always make us feel good.

What are you saying Liz again? When did I say that I was discouraged and under some type of desperation by Amigo's words. You have it all backwards? Reread my post again. I was reflecting this description as to how Amigo responded to my earlier post to him.. as a desperate attempt to avoid my words as truth.....

And then Amigo loved your post, and he knew you had it all wrong. He was laughing that you got it all backwards and made him look golden, What a friend indeed he is...

Read the post again Liz

Post #1103 to amigo:

"Oh my, you defy scripture again, and then in desperation try to add a gotcha that is not at all.
Do you want me to explain this one to you as well? ..you might learn something more precious in scripture than your words of discouragement and despair today? One day you might stop running on your own and listen to the Spirit."

 

[MonoBiblical]

But there are lots of instances of instrumental dative following ἐν. NEW TESTAMENT GREEK PREPOSITIONS

You mean instrumental genitive. Dative is a secondary result of a verb, and your proof is weak, and your book is not properly adjusted to the internet.

 

[RedFan]

You mean instrumental genitive. Dative is a secondary result of a verb, and your proof is weak, and your book is not properly adjusted to the internet.

No, I mean instrumental dative. As in Luke 22:49 and 1 Cor. 4:21.

 

[MonoBiblical]

No, I mean instrumental dative. As in Luke 22:49 and 1 Cor. 4:21.

And I meant instrumental genitive.

But let us look up Luke 22.49 and 1 Cor. 4:21:
We shall smite them at, in, or with the sword. By is not even considered. But if εν μαχαίρᾳ means at the blade; it can be argued only the sword, spear or blade is instrumental.


When I see a dative prepositional that is dative in Greek, it says to me that it is a subjective one in Greek. The subject-nominative is not doing the action. Thus, Paul is asking what the person will. Will he come at a blade or the consideration of the spirit and meekness?

I am surprised to see no instrumental genitive in your document.

 

[RedFan]

And I meant instrumental genitive.

But let us look up Luke 22.49 and 1 Cor. 4:21:View attachment 55505
We shall smite them at, in, or with the sword. By is not even considered. But if While ἐν + dative certainly can μαχαίρᾳ means at the blade; it can be argued only the sword, spear or blade is instrumental.

View attachment 55508
When I see a dative prepositional that is dative in Greek, it says to me that it is a subjective one in Greek. The subject-nominative is not doing the action. Thus, Paul is asking what the person will. Will he come at a blade or the consideration of the spirit and meekness?

I am surprised to see no instrumental genitive in your document.

When used with an inanimate object such as a rod or a sword, ἐν is surely signifying an instrumental dative. How could it be otherwise?

 

[MonoBiblical]

When used with an inanimate object such as a rod or a sword, ἐν is surely signifying an instrumental dative. How could it be otherwise?

When it comes to Heb and Grk, the in-words en, bet- are not translated enough as at. So, you may be right partially. But for an instance like something being the instrument, dia is used with the genitive for an action. Dia means through or with instrumentally in the genitive case. I think I have argued this enough.

Also, I do not believe an instrumental dative is a possibility in Grk.

 

[Bladerunner]

That is your choice of course….but there are no “perfect“ people….as in, those who are immune from Adam’s sin. The very reason why Jesus came in the flesh was so that his perfect sinless life could atone for the one Adam lost for us. If Noah had been that kind of “perfect” then he could have died to save us much earlier….the redemption price was set in Eden…..and reiterated in God’s law to Israel….”an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life”…..only a sinless life could pay the price.

No, the redemption price was set on the original traditional marriage arrangement... Perfect is the word GOD used in the translation of the KJV Bible....who am I or you to dispute it.

 

[MonoBiblical]

No, the redemption price was set on the original traditional marriage arrangement... Perfect is the word GOD used in the translation of the KJV Bible....who am I or you to dispute it.

Because it doesn't describe adequately like a Greek word agathos.

 

[ProDeo]

Sorry, I use the NET & ESV Bibles mostly...sometimes I might quote from the KJV because I'm too lazy to change Bibles.
F2F

The NET, ESV and KJV have all the traditional passages contrary to the JW bible.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [esv]
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. [net]
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [kjv]

John 1:14 And the Word [God] 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.

It makes no sense to understand the incarnation by human logic, let alone the Trinity, an exercise in futility, you can only believe it by faith, trusting the Scripture.

I'm not dogmatic on the type of cross, stake or pole.

John is not a liar though - he represents the eagle face and see's well beyond you or I

F2F

I am confident you understood my question as rhetoric, John is of course not the liar, the JW bible is. The Scriptures is all we have, we should treasure it and keep it clean from deliberate changes, the apostle John saw Jesus crucified on a cross, not on a stake or pole.