[Faith-talk] Following up with your response.

[Mostafa]

Dear Jason, thank you so much for writing me back.

Before I dive into our subject, I would like to express my tremendous fascination of your Bible study sessions, where you currently reflect on the book of Corinthians in a weekly Bible classes.

You are confidend, knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and quite earnest about your faith.

I love to see people as such, even if I  disagree with them.

   Thank you for your advice to me about reading throughout the Bible, I really appreciate it.

I absolutely agree with you on that regard.

I actually do not attend a regular Bible study.

But, I will critically consider reading the Bible on a regular basis.

Thank you for advising me to read in the Gospel of John, chapters 1, 6 and 8.

I did not read them as a whole to be quite honest with you.

But I am sufficiently  familiar with the verses you quoted.

The first verse you quoted renders as follows;

John 1 1;

“In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, and the word was God”.

Thank you for providing your reference in citation.

I will attempt to reflect on John  1 1 for now. 

  I may later reflect on the rest.

I just wish to be thoroughly accurate as much as possible.

First, John 1 1, lets walk through its context and see what we can discover.

In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, and the word was God.

Well, before I get started, I would like to distinctly emphasize on my excessive compulsion of Lexicography and Translation.

  I am not professional on that regard but, I attended a classical translation class at the American University in Cairo, and I possess multiple lexicons on Theology majors.

In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, and the word was god.

Dear Jason, if you deal with any text in the world, there are two ways of approaching it.

  1; There is the reflection on its actual meaning, the meaning that it says, the explicit interpretation. 

2'; There is the diversion approach where it focuses on the preconceived notion of interpreting the text.

It essentially relys on implicit apprehensions to derive its conclusion.

It is the pursuit and the concern of rhetoric where it determines which meaning it was.

In the beginning was the word.

What is the significance of using this term, the word?

Here it comes the role of implementing the rhetorical import.

Rhetorically, the usage of this term the word could be interpreted variously.

    1; The word can possibly be the divine command of God.

In our Islamic tradition, the whole world was created by the divine command which says Be, and it is.

  Gramatically, the verb be in English signifys the quality of actual existence, the quality of decisive extant.

The verb be is used in imperative form, if it is placed at the beginning of the sentence.

Be Jesus son of Mary.

   It also expresses the  future tense, if it subsequences the verbs should, shall, and will, which are verbs to suggest that something suppose to happen or must happen in future time.

I should be there at 6:00.

   I shall be there at 6:00.

I will be there at 6:00.

The first two sentences are expressing obligation, should be, and shall be.

Whilst the last one expresses certainty, will be, he is definite.

The speakers is certain about the time of his arival.

It could also be used as an obligation if it consecutively succeeds the compound verb have to.

I have to be there at 6:00.

2; The term word can also mean the scriptures.

This is how we recognize the Torah, the Psalms, the Gospel, and the Koran.

They encompass or contain the divine commandments of God.

  Afterwards, it comes the usage of the preposition with.

The preposition with signifys accompanying something or someone.

Well, it says here;

The word was with God.

And then it says, the word was God.

I need to stop here for a moment.

How the word could consistently be with God and simultaneously, it is God himself.

Can you rationally be with someone and him at the same time?

You are either him or with him.

But I am afraid, you cannot be both.

That predominantly contradicts with  the sequential premisses of the genuine logic.

If you are me, you then cannot be with me.

And if you are with me, you obviously cannot be me.

  Do not you guys agree with me?, .

Well, that is enough for now I believe.

It was my distinctive honour to meet with you Jason. 

You are such an inspiring Pastor, and you truly intrigue your audience.

I would like to guide my Christian friends to where they can download your lectures on the book of Corinthians.

They are quite interesting, here you go.

 http://calvarymorninglight.org/Morning_Light/media.html

I listened to some of them, and I intend to proceed.

This segment has a continuem, so watch out for what comes next.

Thank you so much, it was my great privilege to communicate with you.

Here the preposition  with comes to speak up again, ha-ha.

Please accept my salutes from Cairo Egypt.

(Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is a shoreless ocean.)

Mostafa Almahdy, I am academically accredited as a Theologian on Islamic studies, and I am self-educated on Christianity.


____________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wlEmoticon-smile[1].png
Type: image/png
Size: 1041 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20140326/c2908f43/attachment.png>