Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[Pierac]

Long post but still condensed….There is some truth to your post but I do not agree with some of the conclusions.

The 12 Apostles mostly represented the beliefs of the Jewish-Christians. That belief system mostly died out before the 1st century. Are there Jewish-Christian beliefs that you want to resurrect?

The Apostle Paul mostly represent the Gentile-Christians.... are there things about his teachings you disagree with.

Put I do agree that Greek philosophy permeated those Gentiles that were educated.

And I agree that the concepts and aspects of the formula and function of the Trinity was an evolving Christian thought and is still evolving. The concept of the one God formula is definitely borrowed from Greek Mythology were some of their gods had more than one aspect.

No... I think Paul was pretty much spot on... he did actually come out of that system...

Paul and James were not that far off in truth...

Jam 2:8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well.

Rom 13:9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Different men... for different groups... yet in the end.... same outcome... LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF!

 

[Pierac]

I think 1 John 5 supports Trinity much more definitively, as all Three are Named in heaven.

After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. (8) καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ

That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

External Evidence. (1) the passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from the late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript.

The eight manuscripts are as follows:

61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early 16th century.

88.v.r. a variant reading in a 16th century hand, added to the 14th century codex Regius of Naples

221 v.r. a variant reading added to a 10th century manuscript in the Bobleian Library at Oxford.

429 v.r. a variant reading added to a 16th century manuscript at Wolfenbuttel.

636 v.r. a variant reading added to a 16th century manuscript at Naples.

918: a 16th century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.

2318: an 18th century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest Romania.

(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic). Except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the old Latin in its earliest form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first-hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as part of the actual text of the Episcopal is in a fourth century Latin treaties entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4.), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (though the mention of the three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin fathers in north Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars.

(B) Internal Probabilities. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

Yea.... this verse was added by men.... So ask your self... why did men need to add to what John wrote hundreds of years after his death? I mean this is not even an issue among scholars... In modern terms.... It's called... fake news!

 

[RedFan]

The accusation against those who choose to believe what the Bible says rather than what they assume that it says is the difference between the “wheat” and the ”weeds”….the “sheep” and the “goats”….

They say…..

So, let me demonstrate who it is that is breaking the First Commandment….

The NWT, along with other translations render the second “theos” in John 1:1 as “a god” in the full meaning of the word “theos” in Greek (understood by first century writers) as opposed to later century translators with a bias towards the trinity….a false doctrine that gradually worked its way into the foretold apostate church, which Christendom pretends never happened, when it actually did, right in front of their noses.

Go to any Greek to English Interlinear and see what the word “theos” meant to the Bible writers.
It’s primary definition is….

1. “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities”

It can also mean…

1. spoken of the only and true God
   1. refers to the things of God
   2. his counsels, interests, things due to him
2. whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
   1. God's representative or viceregent
      1. of magistrates and judges”

So, translating “theos” as “God” (with a capital “G”) was only valid when speaking about Yahweh….since the Greek has no indefinite article (“a” or “an”) it only has the definite article “the” (ho)…..so what does the Greek say?

“In the beginning (en archē) was the Word, (ho logos) and the Word (ho logos) was with God, (ho theos) and the Word was God.(theos)

Since both the Father and son are mentioned in the same verse, they are differentiated by that little word “ho” (the) You can see that “ho logos” is “the word”….and “ho theos” is “the God” but the definite article is not used for the second mention of “theos”, which leaves it open for the translators to add an indefinite article, as they have done throughout the Greek scriptures. Every time you see an “a” or an “an” it is inserted by the translators so that the English flows correctly as it is read by us English speakers.

To omit the definite article or to add it when it is not in the original text, is deceptive, especially when one is trying to promote a doctrine that was not even official “church” doctrine until the 4th century.

That means that the trinity as a concept and as a doctrine was missing entirely from the way the first Christians read the scriptures. Every instance where scripture is mentioned by trinitarians to demonstrate a triune god, it is in ambiguous verses and backed up by suggestion and inference…..no doctrine, especially a primary one can be based on supposition….there must be clear statement that leaves no room for conflicting views. Who is the author of such conflict…..? We already know……and how smug would he be if he got the majority to believe a lie that would in turn lead them to a major breach of the first Commandment?…..no one who puts other equal gods in the Father’s place will inherit the Kingdom.

Calling “the Word” “a god” is exactly what is indicated in the NWT…..the son is not an equal “God” with the Father but a divine one, who was authorized by his God and Father. How many times did Jesus call Yahweh, “my God”?….even in heaven? Does God have a God for whom he is “a holy servant”? (Acts 4:27, 30)

If “the Father is greater” than the son, then there is no equality. Jesus has been “the son of God” since the “beginning” of his existence…..he has served as his Father’s mouthpiece (logos) just as Aaron served as the mouthpiece for Moses to Pharaoh. He did so under divine authority…..did Jesus have divine authority?
In Matt 28:18, before commissioning his disciples to spread the good news and to make disciples, Jesus said…
“All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.”
If Jesus was God, why would the Father have to “give” any authority?

In Phil 2:5-11….another scripture that is mistranslated and misinterpreted to mean something it never says….

“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped“

Existing “in God’s form” simply means he was a spirit being like his Father……all who inhabit the spirit realm are spirits.including the Creator…..it is a realm where material beings cannot go, or exist.

“but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man“

So he willingly emptied himself of his spirit form in order to be born as a human child.
Dying in our place was the only way to redeem us from the sin Adam left to all his children.

Atonement is “one for one” so Jesus life atoned for Adam’s….a sinless life was taken from Adam’s children by an act of disobedience, but an act of obedience on the part of God’s son gets us back what Adam lost for us…….everlasting sinless life in paradise on earth……there was never a mention of going to heaven or of serving a triune God…..Israel never heard of such things.

The Jews never expected their Messiah to rule from heaven or for his chosen “saints” to join him there…..but that is what Jesus promised them…a place in his Father’s house…..with his grand spiritual temple in heavenly “New Jerusalem”……no city on earth fits the description that is given in Revelation 21:12-21 of heavenly Jerusalem.
Only a symbolic city could have the dimensions and splendor of New Jerusalem. Its base was foursquare, about 555 km (345 mi) on each side, or about 2,220 km (1,379 mi) completely around, that is, 12,000 furlongs. Being a cube, the city was also as high as it was long and wide. No earthly city could ever reach that far into “outer space.” (Heb 12:22-24)
“New Jerusalem” is a cube 345 miles on each side, or 1,379 miles all around. Imagine a city wall 354 mikes high!

“He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

To whom was God “obedient to the point of death”? Is God obedient to himself? Can mere humans kill an immortal God? What a preposterous assumption!

“For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name”

God highly exalted himself and gave himself a name that is above the name he already has? (Psalm 83:18 KJV)

“so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.“ (NASB)
Is this bowing at the knee, “worship”? or is it an expression of respect….bowing was a common custom in Bible times.…but who is it that receives the glory…? Jesus?…or his Father?

It is the ones who place three equal gods in the Father’s place who commit the breach…..not the ones who understand what “theos” means in Greek, and list him as ‘a divine mighty one’ “a god-like one”…..but never is he called a deity, or asked to be worshipped.
The son worships the Father even in heaven. (Rev 3:12) The Father worships no one, and the holy spirit doesn’t worship anyone either. No scripture says to worship the holy spirit.

These are the facts…plain and simple.

Aunty, you know I respect your view. But I continue to believe that John 1:1 is translatable either way.

We could look at all of the instances in the NT where theos has and doesn’t have the article to see how often your rule holds up. Of course, that would take all day – but fortunately On the Use of Theos and Theon in John 1:1 and Elsewhere in the Greek New Testament has done the math for us:

CASE​	Singular	Plural
Nominative	ὁ θεός (ho theos) [ 261 with, 48 without ]	οἱ θεοὶ (hoi theoi) [ 1 with / 5 without ]
Accusative	τὸν θεόν (ton theon) [ 112 with, 35 without ]	τοὺς θεούς (tous theous) [ 0 with, 2 without]
Genitive	τοῦ θεοῦ (tou theou) [ 501 with, 190 without ]	τῶν θεῶν (tōn theōn) [ 0 / 0 ]
Dative	τῷ θεῷ (tō theō) [ 118 with, 41 without]	τοῖς θεοῖς (tois theois) [ 0 with, 1 without ]
Vocative	θεέ (theé) [ 2 ] (both in Mt. 27:46)	N/A

So we see a total of 1,316 occurrences for the masculine Greek forms of theos in the NT, of which 996 have the article and 320 do not.
Obviousy some of those 320 references are indeed to Yahweh and some are not. So, the unarticulared theos COULD be a reference to Yahweh.

 

[RedFan]

I thought you were going to expand on the part in red.

My entire post was designed to expand on precisely that.

What are you trying to say? From my understanding of the Old Covenant, justification via sacrifice was on a per incident basis. Paul explains the New Covenant is better with Jesus being the justification for all time and all incidents, shifting the focus from our acts - our sacrifices - to his.

My understanding is that the Leviticus-described sacrifice is a communal one for a host of sins, both incidental and national. I do agree that Paul is describing a better way.

 

[Grailhunter]

No... I think Paul was pretty much spot on... he did actually come out of that system...

Paul and James were not that far off in truth...

Jam 2:8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well.

Rom 13:9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Different men... for different groups... yet in the end.... same outcome... LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF!

Merry Christmas!!!

And of course you know about all this....
There are multiple matches for the Johannine addition, including a chapter in the Gospel of John, a section in 1 John, and a section of John 7:53–8:11:

• Chapter 21
  This chapter is considered a later addition to the Gospel of John, and is known as the appendix. It has a different style from the rest of the gospel, and in it, someone speaks in the first person plural, as if representing a community.
  
  
• Johannine Comma Addition
  This is an addition to 1 John 5:7–8 that is not considered to be part of the original text. It is intended to clarify the meaning of the verses by interpreting them as referring to the Holy Trinity.
  
  
• John 7:53–8:11
  This section is not considered to be part of the original Gospel of John, and is usually set off in brackets or in a footnote. Most New Testament scholars believe it was added centuries after the gospel was written.
  

Interesting history and straight up a scam.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Aunty, you know I respect your view. But I continue to believe that John 1:1 is translatable either way.

We could look at all of the instances in the NT where theos has and doesn’t have the article to see how often your rule holds up. Of course, that would take all day – but fortunately On the Use of Theos and Theon in John 1:1 and Elsewhere in the Greek New Testament has done the math for us:

CASE​	Singular	Plural
Nominative	ὁ θεός (ho theos) [ 261 with, 48 without ]	οἱ θεοὶ (hoi theoi) [ 1 with / 5 without ]
Accusative	τὸν θεόν (ton theon) [ 112 with, 35 without ]	τοὺς θεούς (tous theous) [ 0 with, 2 without]
Genitive	τοῦ θεοῦ (tou theou) [ 501 with, 190 without ]	τῶν θεῶν (tōn theōn) [ 0 / 0 ]
Dative	τῷ θεῷ (tō theō) [ 118 with, 41 without]	τοῖς θεοῖς (tois theois) [ 0 with, 1 without ]
Vocative	θεέ (theé) [ 2 ] (both in Mt. 27:46)	N/A

So we see a total of 1,316 occurrences for the masculine Greek forms of theos in the NT, of which 996 have the article and 320 do not.
Obviousy some of those 320 references are indeed to Yahweh and some are not. So, the unarticulared theos COULD be a reference to Yahweh.

Thank you for the reference which I read with interest….

The conclusion was therefore interesting as well….

”Before discussing the use of various Greek words or phrases for God or "gods" in the LXX, it must be pointed out that apart from the unique name of God; most often translated as LORD in English (though some translations have used “Yahweh” or only "YHWH" which is יהוה in Hebrew — for more on this, see the video The Divine Name), and simply as kurios (κύριος) in the LXX, the Hebrew Scriptures often use what is technically a plural noun when not only speaking of the one true “God” but also of false gods: That word is ʼĕlôhîym (אֱלֹהִים where the -îym ending most often indicates a plural noun). Two other Hebrew words similar to ʼĕlôhîym in their usage are: ʼĕlôah (אֱלֹהַּ; for example in Isaiah 44:8, “Is there any God but me?”) and simply ʼêl (אֵל; for example in Exodus 6:3, ʼêl shadday, God Almighty).”

As I have mentioned before, if the use of the divine name had still been practiced, the trinity could never have surfaced, as John 1:1 would not have the ambiguity to be translated as it is in many versions of the NT.

The word “Almighty” is translated from the Hebrew word Shad·daiʹ and the Greek word Pan·to·kraʹtor. Both words evidently convey the idea of strength or power.

In the Hebrew text Shad·daiʹ is used seven times along with ʼEl (God), forming the title “God Almighty.” (Ge 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14;48:3; Ex 6:3; Eze 10:5) In the other 41 occurrences it stands alone and is translated “the Almighty” or “the Almighty One.” Similar to ʼAdho·naiʹ(Sovereign Lord) and ʼElo·himʹ (God), Shad·daiʹ is in the plural to denote excellence.—Ge 49:25; Nu 24:4; Ps 68:14.

Jesus is never referred to as “El Shad·dai’“ (Almighty God)…as is demonstrated in Isa 9:6 where the coming Messiah is said to be “Mighty God”….this is “el gibôr” meaning a mighty one, not the “Almighty” one.

John 1:1 is a poor excuse for translation when the Greek clearly indicates that only one “theos” is “ho theos” in that verse. “The Word was with ho theos” but he was not “ho theos“ but just “theos” denoting a divine personage.

When looking at the Greek in other passages such as John 10:31-36, we see also an omission of the definite article to give a false impression. This passage amply demonstrates the omission because the Jews were not accusing Jesus of being “God” (ho theos) but of claiming divinity….saying God was his Father, otherwise the rest of their address to him and his response makes no sense.

“Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” (theos) 34  Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? (theos) 35  If he called ‘gods’ (theos) those against whom the word of God (ho theos) came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36  do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s (ho theos) Son’?”

So much of what we see in your cited reference relies on the Septuagint which was Hebrew to Greek…..to then translate the Greek to English is another matter, especially by biased trinitarian translators…..exposed so often for mistranslating verses to support their doctrine….leaving out that one small identifying word that would have cleared this issue up before it even began.

Why is this a serious issue? Because it is blasphemy to put another “God” (capital “G”) in place of the Father….when there are no capital letters in Greek. In all the verses mentioned I believe it is obvious as to whom is identified by the use of the definite article…..only Yahweh is called “ho theos” as an identification. Replace “ho theos” with YHWH, as it should be written, and there is no ambiguity.

Not a single reference to Jesus calls him “ho theos”….but referring to him as just “theos” in no way makes him equal to his God and Father. Not once did he even hint at such a thing. Jesus is a “holy servant” of his God and Father. (Acts 4:27, 30)

Unless we “know the only true God” AND the one he sent” (John 17:3) we will not have everlasting life…..this is a salvation issue.

 

[Scott Downey]

After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. (8) καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ

That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

External Evidence. (1) the passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from the late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript.

The eight manuscripts are as follows:

61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early 16th century.

88.v.r. a variant reading in a 16th century hand, added to the 14th century codex Regius of Naples

221 v.r. a variant reading added to a 10th century manuscript in the Bobleian Library at Oxford.

429 v.r. a variant reading added to a 16th century manuscript at Wolfenbuttel.

636 v.r. a variant reading added to a 16th century manuscript at Naples.

918: a 16th century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.

2318: an 18th century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest Romania.

(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic). Except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the old Latin in its earliest form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first-hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as part of the actual text of the Episcopal is in a fourth century Latin treaties entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4.), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (though the mention of the three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin fathers in north Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars.

(B) Internal Probabilities. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

Yea.... this verse was added by men.... So ask your self... why did men need to add to what John wrote hundreds of years after his death? I mean this is not even an issue among scholars... In modern terms.... It's called... fake news!

I don't accept any of that you wrote. God put together the scriptures the way He wanted them to be. All scripture is inspired by God.

Why do people think God just lets things slide by, especially when it comes to His scriptures which His people are reading, and studying and will be using for doctrine. God most certainly is in control. The thing about a cult is they will say only they have and know the truth, and you are lost in darkness unless you follow their teachers and guide books. Mormons do that, and so do JW.

All cults will create situations to question the scriptures and deny and change what they teach, try to lead people away from what is in the scriptures.

The Man of God and the Word of God​

10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [c]instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[Wrangler]

John 1:1 is translatable either way.

Using you legal standard, one should not doctrinally invest in an ambiguous text when explicit verses are available, such as 20:31, right?

 

[Johann]

Aunty, you know I respect your view. But I continue to believe that John 1:1 is translatable either way.

We could look at all of the instances in the NT where theos has and doesn’t have the article to see how often your rule holds up. Of course, that would take all day – but fortunately On the Use of Theos and Theon in John 1:1 and Elsewhere in the Greek New Testament has done the math for us:

CASE​	Singular	Plural
Nominative	ὁ θεός (ho theos) [ 261 with, 48 without ]	οἱ θεοὶ (hoi theoi) [ 1 with / 5 without ]
Accusative	τὸν θεόν (ton theon) [ 112 with, 35 without ]	τοὺς θεούς (tous theous) [ 0 with, 2 without]
Genitive	τοῦ θεοῦ (tou theou) [ 501 with, 190 without ]	τῶν θεῶν (tōn theōn) [ 0 / 0 ]
Dative	τῷ θεῷ (tō theō) [ 118 with, 41 without]	τοῖς θεοῖς (tois theois) [ 0 with, 1 without ]
Vocative	θεέ (theé) [ 2 ] (both in Mt. 27:46)	N/A

So we see a total of 1,316 occurrences for the masculine Greek forms of theos in the NT, of which 996 have the article and 320 do not.
Obviousy some of those 320 references are indeed to Yahweh and some are not. So, the unarticulared theos COULD be a reference to Yahweh.

A word of caution-

Daniel B. Sedory appears to be an independent researcher who has authored works such as "On the Use of Theos (θεός) and Theon (θεόν) in John 1:1 and elsewhere in the Greek NT."
THE STARMAN
However, there is limited information available regarding his academic credentials or affiliations with recognized theological institutions. His writings are primarily hosted on personal websites, which may not undergo the rigorous peer-review process typical of scholarly publications.

Therefore, while his analyses may offer interesting perspectives, they should be approached with caution and cross-referenced with works from established biblical scholars to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.

J.

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't accept any of that you wrote. God put together the scriptures the way He wanted them to be. All scripture is inspired by God.

With all due respect, you are arguing a misinformed point. God did put together the scriptures the way He wanted them to be. But since then there have been a lot of fingers in the pie. The scriptures are one thing and Bibles are another. Beyond the various translations as the texts moved forward through history things were changed, removed, and added.

The average Christian understand things as they arrived in the 17th century. That was the result of faulty translations and the adoption of various Catholic doctrines. A lot of the modern translations correct for the addition in the scriptures because they are considering the oldest copies of the original texts before certain items were added.

So if your level of understanding convinces you to endorse any Bible as the same thing as scripture….you are wrong. The Word of God is more likely to be in the scriptures than any Bible. Serious study goes back to the scriptures.

 

[Aunty Jane]

God's angels had no issues with worshipping Christ as a babe (along with wise men!) when God the Father brought Him(self) the Son, into the world.

If you had ever bothered to do some original language word studies you would know that “worship” is given only to the Almighty…never to humans or to other spirit creatures. The same word is used for “obeisance” which is respectful honor given to those who merit such. The son of God most certainly did, and it was rendered by his angels as well as his disciples on earth. Jesus was never “worshipped” as that would have been blasphemy to claim to be God incarnate…which he never did.

As for the magi, they did not come to “worship” a new god in their devotion to many gods, but they came, as they said, to honor a new born king.
The star led them first to a murderous King who hatched a plot to kill the Christ child before the star led them directly to Jesus, who by this time was a young child and living in a house….they were never at the stable as is depicted in Christmas art…..why would God lead pagan astrologers to his son when he knew that Herod was a tyrant who would relinquish his kingship to none but his own sons.

If God led the magi to Herod, then he is responsible for the deaths of all the infants Herod ordered to be killed in his attempt to destroy any future king other than those of his own dynasty.

In my country we follow the British judicial system, and interestingly, judges used to be called “Your Worship” in decades past, whereas in the USA, judges are called “Your Honor”…..showing that “worship” is not always the meaning of “pro·sky·neʹo”. “Obeisance” is an act of respect, common in Bible times.

Of course, they had seen them in Heaven and enthroned in glory but we by faith believe.

Exactly…..so the angels were well acquainted with “the son of God” before his earthly mission. He has always been at his Father’s side, as John 1:1 clearly says….he was “with God in the beginning”.…..so he was not God, but a divine creation of his God. (Rev 3:14) God’s “firstborn”. (Col 1:15)

“By faith you believe” in what? What Christendom’s apostate church system has taught you?

John tells us that “no man has ever seen God”…..(John 1:18)….was John a liar?

If your wise you will worship like they all did who are wise unto salvation.
Else you're a raging fool to fight against God, for who has resisted His rule?

Or you will be smashed to pieces, the rock of Christ who is God will fall on and crush you.

And here we go with the fear mongering….who is “raging against God”…or “resisting his rule”? Who is using the Bible to promote something that they assume will befall others, but never applying it to themselves….?

This was written as a prophesy about the enemies of God who at the end times, will be found like the Jews when Jesus first appeared on earth.….claiming to teach Bible truth, but doing everything Jesus said not to do (Matt 15:7-9) ……Today we have Christendom who is friends with the world in many ways, making themselves enemies of God in ways they do not acknowledge. (James 4:4) Every celebration they share with the world alienates them from the true God because they are serving the interests of the counterfeit one that the church created centuries after Jesus died. The devil, disguised as “the god of this world” is the god of every false religion in existence, including apostate Christendom…..so he is served by all of them. (2 Cor 4:3-4)

The only ones who have to fear the true God, are those who ‘do not know him, and those who do not obey him’….(2 Thess 1:6-10) Christendom claims Jesus as their “Lord” and “God”, but the Scriptures clearly show that they do not know him at all….nor do they obey his teachings. (Matt 7:21-23) It is not the majority who will make it through these last days….(Matt 7:13-14)

 

[St. SteVen]

I don't accept any of that you wrote.

Agree.
If what he is claiming is true it would not have appeared in any modern translations.

See notes.

Bible Gateway passage: John 1:1-4 - New English Translation

The Prologue to the Gospel - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and the life was the...

www.biblegateway.com

[

 

[Pierac]

I don't accept any of that you wrote. God put together the scriptures the way He wanted them to be. All scripture is inspired by God.

So.... God put together the scriptures for the first 400 years the way he wanted... and then decided.... to change it over 400 years later?

Let me help you understand.... when I wrote.... (The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic). Except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the old Latin in its earliest form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first-hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).)

Change the word.... manuscripts to Scriptures or even Bibles! You starting to see?


Indeed All scripture is inspired by God! That does not mean that scripture inspired by God can't be altered by men when only 10% of the population could read or write!!!

So NO..... You don't have to accept historical scriptural facts.... you are welcome to go on feelings... like many....

 

[TheHC]

Aunty, you know I respect your view. But I continue to believe that John 1:1 is translatable either way.

We could look at all of the instances in the NT where theos has and doesn’t have the article to see how often your rule holds up. Of course, that would take all day – but fortunately On the Use of Theos and Theon in John 1:1 and Elsewhere in the Greek New Testament has done the math for us:

CASE​	Singular	Plural
Nominative	ὁ θεός (ho theos) [ 261 with, 48 without ]	οἱ θεοὶ (hoi theoi) [ 1 with / 5 without ]
Accusative	τὸν θεόν (ton theon) [ 112 with, 35 without ]	τοὺς θεούς (tous theous) [ 0 with, 2 without]
Genitive	τοῦ θεοῦ (tou theou) [ 501 with, 190 without ]	τῶν θεῶν (tōn theōn) [ 0 / 0 ]
Dative	τῷ θεῷ (tō theō) [ 118 with, 41 without]	τοῖς θεοῖς (tois theois) [ 0 with, 1 without ]
Vocative	θεέ (theé) [ 2 ] (both in Mt. 27:46)	N/A

So we see a total of 1,316 occurrences for the masculine Greek forms of theos in the NT, of which 996 have the article and 320 do not.
Obviousy some of those 320 references are indeed to Yahweh and some are not. So, the unarticulared theos COULD be a reference to Yahweh.

But which way (of translation) agrees with the context?
And I’m not just referring to the context of verse 1, although it is forceful (e.g., how could the Word be “with” God, and also be God? Does that seem rational? Why would John write something so ambiguous, if he meant Jesus was that God?); saying Jesus was with God and he was like God, is a sound & rational statement.

Let’s use the rest of the Gospel of John’s context:
Just a few verses later, vs.18, John writes “No one has ever seen God.”
If in saying “… god was the word” (remember, John left “the” out) John meant Jesus was God, this contradicts, because thousands saw Jesus. Then thousands saw God… But John says “no one has ever seen God.”

If however Jesus is Godlike, it’s understandable.

See what I mean? This Trinity doctrine makes so many Scriptures an ambiguous mess.

Shouldn’t knowing who God is, be elementary? At John 4:23,24 (notice it’s still John’s context), Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “We worship what we know.” He further stated “true worshipers will worship the father in spirit and truth.” He went on to say, “God is a spirit.” At the time, Jesus was still a fleshly human.

But I skipped ahead. Let me continue with context of chapter 1, later.

It’s late where I am.

(This entire reply is going to be long. The entire context is 21 chapters!)

— End of Part 1 —

(This probably won’t work, now that this reply is posted, but I want to tag @Johann . I was going to eventually address your concerns from the other thread, but it’s been discontinued. I’ll be glad to discuss those Scriptures you posted.)

Goodnight to all.

 

[RedFan]

Using you legal standard, one should not doctrinally invest in an ambiguous text when explicit verses are available, such as 20:31, right?

But as @Johann has pointed out (see posts 148 and 357), explicit and unambiguous verses are available on both sides of this. That's why we need to look deeper.

 

[St. SteVen]

But as @Johann has pointed out (see posts 148 and 357), explicit and unambiguous verses are available on both sides of this. That's why we need to look deeper.

No one likes to hear this, but contradictions are there.

[

 

[David in NJ]

But which way (of translation) agrees with the context?
And I’m not just referring to the context of verse 1, although it is forceful (e.g., how could the Word be “with” God, and also be God? Does that seem rational? Why would John write something so ambiguous, if he meant Jesus was that God?); saying Jesus was with God and he was like God, is a sound & rational statement.

Let’s use the rest of the Gospel of John’s context:
Just a few verses later, vs.18, John writes “No one has ever seen God.”
If in saying “… god was the word” (remember, John left “the” out) John meant Jesus was God, this contradicts, because thousands saw Jesus. Then thousands saw God… But John says “no one has ever seen God.”

If however Jesus is Godlike, it’s understandable.

See what I mean? This Trinity doctrine makes so many Scriptures an ambiguous mess.

Shouldn’t knowing who God is, be elementary? At John 4:23,24 (notice it’s still John’s context), Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “We worship what we know.” He further stated “true worshipers will worship the father in spirit and truth.” He went on to say, “God is a spirit.” At the time, Jesus was still a fleshly human.

But I skipped ahead. Let me continue with context of chapter 1, later.

It’s late where I am.

(This entire reply is going to be long. The entire context is 21 chapters!)

— End of Part 1 —

(This probably won’t work, now that this reply is posted, but I want to tag @Johann . I was going to eventually address your concerns from the other thread, but it’s been discontinued. I’ll be glad to discuss those Scriptures you posted.)

Goodnight to all.

Good Morning @TheHC

Let’s use the rest of the Gospel of John’s context:
Just a few verses later, vs.18, John writes “No one has ever seen God.”
If in saying “… god was the word” (remember, John left “the” out) John meant Jesus was God, this contradicts, because thousands saw Jesus. Then thousands saw God… But John says “no one has ever seen God.”

This Truth is for Children who believe every word that proceeds from the Mouth of God

John 6:46"No one hath seen the Father, except he which is of God, He hath seen the Father."

The EXCEPTIONAL EXCEPTION of GOD has SEEN the FATHER

Not only this but JESUS also SAYS:

And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form


What do you make of them 'Apples'???

Some people on here like to make apple sauce in an attempt to squash the TRUTH

Personally, i like to take the Bread from Heaven and the Apple of His Eye and the Honey of Praise on His Lips and make Apple PIE !!!

Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good;
Blessed is the man who trusts in Him! - Psalm 34:8

 

[TLHKAJ]

Maybe not even then will we understand God.

1 John 3:2
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”

 

[Wrangler]

But as @Johann has pointed out (see posts 148 and 357), explicit and unambiguous verses are available on both sides of this. That's why we need to look deeper.

No! This contradicts your previous statement of understanding legal contracts where explicit text supersedes ambiguous text.

There is ambiguous text, yes but there is also explicit text. It’s just that the explicit text proves God is one, not 3 in 1 and is not Jesus.

1. Ex 3:15. God’s eternal name to be remembered for all generations is YHWH (not Jesus).
2. Deut 6:4. God is YHWH, the one and only God.
3. Joel 2:27. I am YHWH, your God, and there is no one else.
4. John 17:1-3. Jesus said his father is the only true God (meaning Jesus nor the HS are true God’s).
5. Every epistle states only ‘God the Father.’
6. 1 COR 8:6. ‘There is one God, the Father.’

 

[St. SteVen]

No! This contradicts your previous statement of understanding legal contracts where explicit text supersedes ambiguous text.

There is ambiguous text, yes but there is also explicit text. It’s just that the explicit text proves God is one, not 3 in 1 and it not Jesus.

Explicit statements about Christ's deity in biblical times = stoned to death
Ambiguous statements about Christ's deity in biblical times = NOT stoned to death

Choose carefully.

[