Announcement

Collapse

JW - Watchtower Society Guidelines

Theists only.

Knock, Knock!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the Jehovah's Witnesses). This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Regligions Department.


Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: [urlhttp://theologyweb.com/campus/help#theologywebfaq/theologywebdecorum]Here[/url]
See more
See less

The Omnipotence and Omniscience of Jesus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by apostoli View Post
    The omnipotency of God is a philosophical conclusion not a demonstratable fact!
    As you are in error concerning the omnipotence of God so too you are in error concerning His omniscience.

    Concerning παντοκράτωρ
    a. NIDNTT: The term pantokratwr, the Almighty, the Lord of all, occurs both in connexion with OT quotations (2 Cor. 6:18; cf. Hos. 1:10; Isa. 43:6) and independently (Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). In both cases the title serves to describe the immense greatness of God. He has power over all men and all things (3:718, Strength, G. Braumann).
    b. Danker: Almighty, All-Powerful, Omnipotent (One) (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, pantokratwr, page 755).
    c. TDNT: His omnipotence, in which Christ shares as kurios (1 C. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Mt. 28:18), extends over the whole world, over heaven and earth (1:679, gee, Sasse).
    d. Louw/Nida: (a title for God, literally 'all powerful') - 'the Almighty, the One who has all power' (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 12.7, pantokratwr, page 139).
    e. Mounce: pantokratwr is a compound of the two Greek words meaning "all" and "power"-thus either "the Almighty" or "the all-powerful One" (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Almighty, page 15).
    f. Thayer: he holds sway over all things; the ruler of all; almighty (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pantokratwr, page 476).


    So much for the God's omnipotence not being a demonstrable fact.
    -------------------------------
    Concerning knowing someone's heart your example doesn't even come close. God knows the TOTALITY of the hearts of ALL people.

    Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all (Psalm 139:4, NASB).
    Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it (Psalm 139:6, NASB).

    Can you supply the name of any person who is able to attain this knowledge that David couldn't attain (Psalm 139:4, 6)?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
      Can you supply the name of any person who is able to attain this knowledge that David couldn't attain (Psalm 139:4, 6)?
      Sure! Jesus Christ!!! Even the Muslims believe the Son of Mary (they call him Isa) will come to judge the living and the dead.

      As for your other ignorant comments and reliance on philosophic speculators it seems you still have not contemplated the difference between omniscience and prescience...

      I've come to the conclusion from our discussion that you adhere to a gnostic perception of God...and that God created all things with a view to failure, so he could puff himself up with vainglory. Might work for the pgan religions but such an opinion is totally opposed to Christianity. Are you a Christian?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by apostoli View Post
        Sure! Jesus Christ!!! Even the Muslims believe the Son of Mary (they call him Isa) will come to judge the living and the dead.

        As for your other ignorant comments and reliance on philosophic speculators it seems you still have not contemplated the difference between omniscience and prescience...

        I've come to the conclusion from our discussion that you adhere to a gnostic perception of God...and that God created all things with a view to failure, so he could puff himself up with vainglory. Might work for the pgan religions but such an opinion is totally opposed to Christianity. Are you a Christian?
        Yes, Jesus Christ has knowledge that David couldn't attain because He (Jesus Christ) is omniscient (God). BEFORE we even speak He knows. So much for Him not knowing the totality of everyone's heart in terms of future prayers. The more you write the worse your position becomes.

        Your delusions of towering so far above Danker, Mounce, Thayer, Louw and Nida and Braumnann are noted. Good thing we can depend on you to come along and straighten them out.
        Last edited by foudroyant; 08-15-2014, 07:34 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
          Yes, Jesus Christ has knowledge that David couldn't attain because He (Jesus Christ) is omniscient (God). BEFORE we even speak He knows. So much for Him not knowing the totality of everyone's heart in terms of future prayers. The more you write the worse your position becomes.
          I'm now wondering if your loyalties are to Islam. The Quaran says that Allah is closer to you than your jugular vein. Seems a sentiment you share!!! On second thoughts, you are probably an adherent to oneness Pentecostalism (Sabellianism) - a cult that has been rejected by the orthodox churches since its arise and rejection in the 3rd century. Read the Gospel of John and if you pretend to be Christian get an understanding of Christianity...

          Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
          Your delusions of towering so far above Danker, Mounce, Thayer, Louwand Nida and Braumnann are noted. Good thing we can depend on you to come along and starighten them out.
          Obviously you still haven't made the effort to determine the difference between omniscience and prescience. Scripture is emphatic Jesus in certain respects did not have prescience - he only knew whatever his Father would reveal to him...

          No demerit in his Godhood, simple fact of the scriptural witness.

          As for your "experts" consider they each simply parrot each other on the basis of a philosophic perspective. The typical crap you get from masters and doctorate pursuits. Not long ago I read one of these guys that advocated that Mary was somehow inseminated (albeit, in his opinion, not by sexual penetration) by a priest named Simeon...

          Imo, and experience, your selective quotation of phrases and sentences, which I perceive you have plagiarised from some ignorant source, indicates you have done no independent research. Its a technique the JWs (WBTS) use to fool ignorant people...Why do you employ their tactics and rhetoric whilst you criticize them? At least try to show some originality!

          foudroyant, there is at least 1700 hundred years of discussion you could read. I've only read the first several hundred years, and a bit after. In my opinion you would be considered aberant by all the early fathers of the church...
          Last edited by apostoli; 02-13-2014, 04:39 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
            Your delusions of towering so far above Danker, Mounce, Thayer, Louwand Nida and Braumnann are noted. Good thing we can depend on you to come along and starighten them out.
            ps: Thayer, whilst a brillliant grammarian was a Unitarian, so he would not have supported your aberrant opinion! In fact I doubt if anyone with a knowledge of scripture would support your naivety!!!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by apostoli View Post
              ps: Thayer, whilst a brillliant grammarian was a Unitarian, so he would not have supported your aberrant opinion! In fact I doubt if anyone with a knowledge of scripture would support your naivety!!!
              Prove your assertion that Thayer was a Unitarian.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                Prove your assertion that Thayer was a Unitarian.
                No proof required. It is common public knowledge!!! Discontinue your colon inspection. Then get off your arse and do some personal study. Much better than plagiarizing hillbilly pamphlets...

                ps: whilst you on the omniscient bandwagon: Which one of the 30+ theological definitions do you support. eg: Do you support the notion that if God is omniscient then he has an experiential knowledge of all things detestable to himself (ie: he does all that Satan does and has personal experience of all evil, including rebelling against himself).

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                  No proof required.
                  You make an assertion so I ask for proof and this is your response. Yeah just believe it because renowned theologian and scholar apostoli said so.

                  Pitiful to the extreme.

                  Good bye.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                    You make an assertion so I ask for proof and this is your response. Yeah just believe it because renowned theologian and scholar apostoli said so.

                    Pitiful to the extreme.

                    Good bye.
                    Yes you are 'Pitiful to the extreme", especially in your laziness and ignorance.

                    In regards to Thayer and proof that he adhered to Unitarianisn, it is not a hidden fact, he was totally open in professing his beliefs, which raised huge concerns by various conservatives whilst he participated in the creation of the ASV. In fact just go into Google and you will find loads of rants against him and the ASV...try the following
                    https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sour...ayer+unitarian

                    Also hunt out Joseph Henry Thayer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Publishers Introduction, page VII. The publisher explicitly warns that Thayer was/is a Unitarian saying "A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes..."

                    I'm wondering if in your general laziness you have found the effort to determine the difference between omniscience and prescience. I trust you haven't! So it would seem a waste (but I'll do it anyway) to invite you to investigate the difference between the Greek words gnosis, epignosis & ginosko all of which are simply translated as "knowledge" in the KJV & others...but such does not convey their exact meaning...
                    Last edited by apostoli; 02-21-2014, 12:14 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                      Yes you are 'Pitiful to the extreme", especially in your laziness and ignorance.

                      In regards to Thayer and proof that he adhered to Unitarianisn, it is not a hidden fact, he was totally open in professing his beliefs, which raised huge concerns by various conservatives whilst he participated in the creation of the ASV. In fact just go into Google and you will find loads of rants against him and the ASV...try the following
                      https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sour...ayer+unitarian
                      According to some of those links you suggest, Thayer's links with Unitarianism are dubious at best.

                      http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.y...4#.UwbdnmeYbMo

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                        According to some of those links you suggest, Thayer's links with Unitarianism are dubious at best.

                        http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.y...4#.UwbdnmeYbMo
                        I just provided a suggested search text in Google...I only looked up one of the links Google listed, as it has always been my understanding that Thayer has always been criticised for his lack of orthodoxy, but not his ability as a Grammarian...

                        I've heard it argued that he was a Congregationalist at some stage, but the fact remains that it is on public record that he denied the Trinity, Eternal Torment and a few other things that orthodoxy promotes...

                        Borrowing from one thread: "We simply quote the "Publishers Introduction" to Thayer's famous lexicon: "A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy." (Joseph Henry Thayer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Publishers Introduction, page VII)"
                        http://onlytruegod.org/defense/wts.t...ure_thayer.htm

                        Believe it or not!

                        Doesn't really matter, his Lexicon is considered redundant...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                          Yes you are 'Pitiful to the extreme", especially in your laziness and ignorance.

                          In regards to Thayer and proof that he adhered to Unitarianisn, it is not a hidden fact, he was totally open in professing his beliefs, which raised huge concerns by various conservatives whilst he participated in the creation of the ASV. In fact just go into Google and you will find loads of rants against him and the ASV...try the following
                          https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sour...ayer+unitarian

                          Also hunt out Joseph Henry Thayer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Publishers Introduction, page VII. The publisher explicitly warns that Thayer was/is a Unitarian saying "A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes..."

                          I'm wondering if in your general laziness you have found the effort to determine the difference between omniscience and prescience. I trust you haven't! So it would seem a waste (but I'll do it anyway) to invite you to investigate the difference between the Greek words gnosis, epignosis & ginosko all of which are simply translated as "knowledge" in the KJV & others...but such does not convey their exact meaning...
                          Zero hard core evidence that Thayer was a Unitarian.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                            Zero hard core evidence that Thayer was a Unitarian.
                            I don't know whether you are illiterate, intellectually challnged or a complete moron. Thayer's publisher warned in the introductory notes to Thayer's Lexicon that Thayer was a Unitarian! Also, that he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and numerous other orthodox doctrines is well attested by both his friends and foes...

                            As I remarked to RBerman, it doesn't really matter as Thayer's lexicon has long been considered redundant...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                              I don't know
                              That adequately sums up the proof that you have that Thayer was a Unitarian.

                              Oh his publisher said so which means that must make it true. You have zero citations from Thayer himself.

                              http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hearsay?s=t

                              You asserted that he was a Unitarian but like I wrote earlier you have ZERO hard core evidence.


                              In fact, when I read Thayer's Lexicon I see:

                              1. Matthew 28:18 Thayer: the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed, [generally translated authority]); a. univ.: Mt. 28:18 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, exousia, page 225).
                              Christ has all-power. He is omnipotent which is the same thing as being "Almighty".

                              2. Ephesians 4:10: Christ, exalted to share in the divine administration, is said to fill (pervade) the universe with his presence, power, activity, Eph. 4:10 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, plerow, page 518).
                              Christ is able to fill the universe with his power ->See #1.

                              3. Colossians 2:9: the state of being God (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, theotes, page 288).
                              Clear enough?

                              4. Revelation 5:12: supreme intelligence, such as belongs to God: Rev. 7:12, also to Christ, exalted to God's right hand, Rev. 5:12 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, sophia, page 582).
                              Christ has "supreme" intelligence. You can look up "supreme" if you don't know what it means.

                              5. Revelation 19:16: kurios kuriwn i.e. Supreme Lord. (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, kurios, page 366).
                              See the second sentence from my comments in #4 to help you out.
                              Last edited by foudroyant; 03-30-2014, 10:25 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                                That adequately sums up the proof that you have that Thayer was a Unitarian.

                                Oh his publisher said so which means that must make it true. You have zero citations from Thayer himself.

                                http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hearsay?s=t

                                You asserted that he was a Unitarian but like I wrote earlier you have ZERO hard core evidence.


                                In fact, when I read Thayer's Lexicon I see:

                                1. Matthew 28:18 Thayer: the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed, [generally translated authority]); a. univ.: Mt. 28:18 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, exousia, page 225).
                                Christ has all-power. He is omnipotent which is the same thing as being "Almighty".

                                2. Ephesians 4:10: Christ, exalted to share in the divine administration, is said to fill (pervade) the universe with his presence, power, activity, Eph. 4:10 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, plerow, page 518).
                                Christ is able to fill the universe with his power ->See #1.

                                3. Colossians 2:9: the state of being God (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, theotes, page 288).
                                Clear enough?

                                4. Revelation 5:12: supreme intelligence, such as belongs to God: Rev. 7:12, also to Christ, exalted to God's right hand, Rev. 5:12 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, sophia, page 582).
                                Christ has "supreme" intelligence. You can look up "supreme" if you don't know what it means.

                                5. Revelation 19:16: kurios kuriwn i.e. Supreme Lord. (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, kurios, page 366).
                                See the second sentence from my comments in #4 to help you out.
                                To correctly quote myself (as opposed to your fabrication) "I don't know whether you are illiterate, intellectually challenged or a complete moron". On the evidence of your post/s, I've decided you are, to a major extent, all three!!! (although I presume you have some minor grasp in English comprehension).

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Working...
                                X