Dropship
Well-Known Member
When the disciples asked how to pray, Jesus said "Like this -Our Father which art in heaven...", he didn't say "pray to me or my mum or to saints", or to anybody else..:)
John 1:1 - Jesus is the Father or he's not the one true God?
- Thread starter Rich R
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
The Apostle John declares Jesus is the Word with "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14).
Jesus became flesh, born of the virgin (Matthew 2:7).
The Apostle John declares the Word, Jesus Christ, is God with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).
You, and @APAK by liking your post, both deny Apostolic testimony, so you disbelieve.
In Judaism, names are significant.
Names are significant, and YHWH God places value on names with purpose, meaning, and/or character.
God's Holy Name of YHWH is profoundly significant, and God enshrines the value of God's Holy Name in the commandant "You shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain, for YHWH will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain" (Exodus 20:7).
Joshua's name means "YHWH saves", not "Joshua saves". Joshua is a profound name. Joshua!s name testifies about God's attribute, that God saves people, not Joshua being "God with us".
Immanuel is God's chosen name for Lord Jesus Christ.
Immanuel's name means "God with us" (Matthew 1:23). Immanuel is a profound name. Immanuel's name testifies about Immanuel's attribute, that Immanuel is God with us.
Immanuel, Jesus Christ, is called Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6); therefore, Jesus is the Mighty God with us that saves us.
Well, not for either of you because you two explicitly reject Jesus.
Jesus reveals Himself as truly God and truly Man at His discretion.
Jesus Christ is truly Man (Luke 1:26-33) - the Son of Man, and Jesus Christ is truly God (Luke 1:34-35, John 8:58, John 20:28, John 5:18, John 10:30-31) - the Son of God.
Based on this Truth (John 14:6), Jesus Christ can refer to Himself as Man at his discretion and when He deems it is appropriate.
Furthermore. Jesus Christ can refer to Himself as God at his discretion and when He deems it is appropriate.
Here is an instance of Jesus, truly God, saying "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of God thus including both the person of Jesus and the person of the Father in the One True God.
Here is another instance, this time of Jesus, truly Man, saying "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'" (John 20:17) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of Man thus including the person of Jesus and His brothers in one (John 17:21). See, the Son of Man being the firstborn of the born of God persons (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, John 3:3-8).
We, children of God, can also refer to Jesus in his capacity as truly God as well as His capacity as truly Man. We can use context to make the distinction.
We, born of the Holy Spirit of God persons (John 3:3-8), are one in God (John 17:21) because of the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17), thus God is One. We are the blessed beneficiaries of the Holy Spirit of God's work in us.
Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8) (see see the Truth [John 14:6] that God had me compose in post #283 to expose the deception of tigger 2 and Rich R).
You keep sounding like a rambling machine that makes much nonsense.
Thank God I do deny your false so-called Apostolic testimony. I'm an original 1st century believer not a contrived false 3-5th century false witness as you and many others are who can only boast and shout out scripture verses and yet cannot provide any logic, context and even proper grammatical sense of your claims in scripture. BL: you do not understand scripture to save your life. Typical, large on empty volume and small on substance and value.
Take for example your typical nonsense rambling when you say 'The Apostle John declares the Word, Jesus Christ, is God with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).'
John would never spread such lies that Yahshua is God. You have a quite different spirit operating within you as many others. Never can completely explain yourself to save your life. What is the word? You cannot even explain it let alone defend it. And this is what you base your faith and are willing die for, another false Christ? I'm sad for you and others that cannot articulate your central doctrine that Yahshua = God, let alone your mysterious 3rd person of your triple composite god. You cannot because you are a false witness concerning who is the true Father and his true Son.
Why do you think Yahshua was first called the Son of God, and lives as the Son of God then and today?
You disrespect and dishonor God with your words that minimize the value of John 10:30.
Lord Jesus says "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of truly God thus including both the person of Jesus and the person of the Father in the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4). He says it, and it is bitter for you!
Instead of your assignment, here is the Word of God saying Jesus is YHWH God.
Truly, Lord Jesus Christ says "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58).
Jesus says I AM, and He did not say "I was created".
So, one week before Abraham was born Jesus' words of I AM ring true.
And, two weeks before Abraham was born Jesus' words of I AM resound true.
And, three weeks before Abraham was born Jesus' words of I AM are true.
And, the minute prior to the minute any of all the angels were created Jesus' words of I AM trumpet true.
And, the week prior to any of the angels being created Jesus' words of I AM harmonize truthfully.
No matter when in time one seeks before Abraham was born, Jesus Christ's words of I AM remain absolutely true.
Going back in time, Jesus is always I AM, never created, He is always I AM.
Going back in time, anytime in all eternity because Jesus says "before Abraham" with no exceptions, Jesus Being.
Behold, Going back in time, Jesus Being.
JESUS IS EVERLASTING going back in time.
Jesus says "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).
The angel Gabriel declared to Mary about Jesus "He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end" (Luke 1:33).
Behold, Going forward in time, Jesus Being.
JESUS IS EVERLASTING going forward in time.
GOD is exclusively the One that IS EVERLASTING going back in time and going forward in time.
God is everlasting.
Jesus is everlasting.
No one except God is everlasting.
Everlasting YHWH God is Lord Jesus Christ for He declares "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58).
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8, see also Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13), thus says He Who is coming on the clouds!
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5).
"Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me" (Isaiah 43:10).
Jesus Christ is truly Man (Luke 1:26-33) - the Son of Man, and Jesus Christ is truly God (Luke 1:34-35, John 8:58, John 20:28, John 5:18, John 10:30-31) - the Son of God.
All people that think Jesus Christ was created hold to news that is not the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:6-7), so you have no gospel at all.
Enjoy your pagan Greek-Roman religious mythological dribble. Just look at what you keep writing. Are you really trying to persuade anyone here? You are incoherent in your thinking and in need of spiritual and mental healing.
Happy trails as you wander about in your rubber room...
ChristisGod
Well-Known Member
Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean the word is "a god." If we examine the passages where the article is not used with "Theos" we see the rendering "a god" makes no sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1). The "a god" position would have the Jehovah's Witnesses translate every instance where the article is absent. As "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." But they do not! "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun "Theos" which they translate as "a god" in John 1:1. But they do not change "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6. The J.W.’s are not consistent in their biblical hermeneutics they have a bias which is clearly seen throughout their bible.
Other examples-In Jn.4:24 "God is Spirit, not a spirit. In 1 Jn .4:16 "God is love, we don’t translate this a love. In 1 Jn.1:5 "God is light" he is not a light or a lesser light.
WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?
Dr. J. J. Griesback: "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1:1 is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
Dr. Eugene A. Nida (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek". ( Bill and Joan Cetnar Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses "who love the truth" p..55
Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 translated:'. . . the Word was a god'.a translation which is grammatically impossible. it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov, 1985
Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word . . . in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)
Dr. Anthony Hoekema, commented: Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into Modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself (The Four Major Cults, pp. 238, 239].
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28
Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God'. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (Portland OR.): "The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."
Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded that the The Christ of the New World Translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation .... It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly "78 No wonder British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."79 Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is "an insult to the Word of God."
Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the word was God." THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July - December, 1971 p. 12
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as 'the Word was a god'. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct.. I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.
DO ANY REPUTABLE GREEK SCHOLARS AGREE WITH THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?
A. T. Robertson: "So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos." A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.
E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.
C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 76.
C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of _theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos... That is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham,) the Father goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase." "New Testament Translation Problems the bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), P. 104.
Randolph 0. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ..and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that to logos is thesubject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 4.
ChristisGod
Well-Known Member
continued :
Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.
Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into t inking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.
Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: "Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, . . . `and the Word was a god,' with the following footnotes: " `A god,' In contrast with `the God' ". It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.
James Moffatt: "'The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,' simply means he Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ...." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61.
E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite -or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context,and in the case of John l:l this is not so." A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.
Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it,"that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.""(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.
Philip Harner states in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973) on Jn.1:1 "In vs. 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of 'God' for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense." (pg. 86. Harner notes the source of this quote: Brown, John I-XII, 24)
Julius R. Mantey; "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.' Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering .... In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation .... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,' is shockingly mistranslated, 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices o Jehovah's Witnesses." Statement JR Mantey, published in various sources.
Many of these Greek scholars are world-renowned whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted in their publications to help them look reputable. Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the-textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this quality who insist that John l: l cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.
I do want to say that there are some scholars that translate the word was a God or divine but they are in the very low percentages. If they were ever in a discussion with the scholars afore mentioned it would be clear they would not be able to hold a candle to their understanding. Yet JWs and a few other groups do run to these men's opinions to prop up their teaching.Scholars on Jn.1:1
hope this helps !!!
Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.
Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into t inking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.
Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: "Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, . . . `and the Word was a god,' with the following footnotes: " `A god,' In contrast with `the God' ". It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.
James Moffatt: "'The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,' simply means he Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ...." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61.
E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite -or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context,and in the case of John l:l this is not so." A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.
Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it,"that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.""(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.
Philip Harner states in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973) on Jn.1:1 "In vs. 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of 'God' for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense." (pg. 86. Harner notes the source of this quote: Brown, John I-XII, 24)
Julius R. Mantey; "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.' Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering .... In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation .... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,' is shockingly mistranslated, 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices o Jehovah's Witnesses." Statement JR Mantey, published in various sources.
Many of these Greek scholars are world-renowned whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted in their publications to help them look reputable. Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the-textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this quality who insist that John l: l cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.
I do want to say that there are some scholars that translate the word was a God or divine but they are in the very low percentages. If they were ever in a discussion with the scholars afore mentioned it would be clear they would not be able to hold a candle to their understanding. Yet JWs and a few other groups do run to these men's opinions to prop up their teaching.Scholars on Jn.1:1
hope this helps !!!
Yes, lacking intellectual insight. Myopic in that sense. That's you, to a good degree, in the things we have been discussing here.
Yeah, I'm with you there; rethinking Scripture is... not a good idea. :)
Grace and peace to you.
What qualifies a person mentally to obey Acts 2:38?
A high IQ or anyone that hears about it?
C, I appreciate your research into the central issue and confusion concerning the word of God. You are of a few who at least is taking this subject very seriously as you want to know the truth.
However, I do not agree with most of your references/sources as they are very biased as most are Trinitarians and truly do not add any primitive or rudimentary logic to the cause of knowing the Greek term 'logos.' They deliberately side-step or avoid its meaning completely. And I do not agree with the JW stance either. They are also very confusing and in err. I will briefly explain it in a moment.
Now there are a few I do agree with however.
E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.
And I only agree with this above source if he supports that the word of God was divine, and/or of deity. I really cannot tell from his cute phrase 'reticence to attribute the full Christian position to John..' whether he means the opposite or not.
Now the next two I agree with only if they mean that 'theos' without the definite article 'the' indicates the predicate in the phrase of John 1:1c as an attribute of logos only. It is not that clear in their writings.
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28
Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God'. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."
Now this next source seems on the surface on track with my thinking...maybe...
Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.
Now this next source wants it both ways...
Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into thinking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.
I agree when he says 'theos' is a predicate and disagree when he suggests that this predicate cannot mean 'divine or of a deity. He is very selective on what should and should not be called a predicate.
Now with this source I started to get excited and then....only at the beginning then at the end he became illogical and contradicted himself. They out of the blue he unjustifiably stated Jesus as truly God and truly man. He is all over the page.
James Moffatt: "'The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,' simply means the Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ...." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61.
This source on the surface I seem to agree with...
Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it,"that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.""(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.
So basically why I generally do not agree with other scholarly sources, is because they are deliberately biased, especially both the trinitarian schools and the JWs to their own doctrines. And thus the truth is concealed by their gross bias.
1. logos cannot, can never be a person, only a thing by virtue of it Greek grammar and meaning. Over 200 places in the NT 'logos' is never a person, only a thing of a characteristic, or its attribute of communication of any form...like as a voice, saying, talk, speech, command, expression, purpose, or plan etc. The biased translators made only one exception to the rule, for John 1:1. I'm glad they did not go all the way and delete logos or word and inserting Jesus in the text!
2. The translation of logos into the English as word does not have to be capitalized. It was done in John 1 and in Rev to convey or express a trinitarian man-made doctrine that is imaginary in scripture. It does not exist.
3. Since logos cannot be a person, logos or the word cannot mean Jesus ever.
4. In John 1:1c the word or logos was and is divine. Or from the Textus Receptus translation or text, it becomes backwards. Thus, divine was the logos or word. It expresses the nature of the word of God as being divine. He, God the Father alone is the source and has this attribute and no one else, and not even his Son. The Son however became possessed by it from his conception and birth; the Fathers' word and Holy Spirit dwelt with his Son's spirit. And it intensified and increased in power with his Son, since his baptism.
5. The logos or word is of God the Father only, his own unique attribute and source and is his own expression, voice, words purpose and plan that became present in a human being we came to know as Jesus, or Yahshua, the Son of God.
However, I do not agree with most of your references/sources as they are very biased as most are Trinitarians and truly do not add any primitive or rudimentary logic to the cause of knowing the Greek term 'logos.' They deliberately side-step or avoid its meaning completely. And I do not agree with the JW stance either. They are also very confusing and in err. I will briefly explain it in a moment.
Now there are a few I do agree with however.
E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.
And I only agree with this above source if he supports that the word of God was divine, and/or of deity. I really cannot tell from his cute phrase 'reticence to attribute the full Christian position to John..' whether he means the opposite or not.
Now the next two I agree with only if they mean that 'theos' without the definite article 'the' indicates the predicate in the phrase of John 1:1c as an attribute of logos only. It is not that clear in their writings.
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28
Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God'. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."
Now this next source seems on the surface on track with my thinking...maybe...
Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.
Now this next source wants it both ways...
Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into thinking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.
I agree when he says 'theos' is a predicate and disagree when he suggests that this predicate cannot mean 'divine or of a deity. He is very selective on what should and should not be called a predicate.
Now with this source I started to get excited and then....only at the beginning then at the end he became illogical and contradicted himself. They out of the blue he unjustifiably stated Jesus as truly God and truly man. He is all over the page.
James Moffatt: "'The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,' simply means the Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ...." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61.
This source on the surface I seem to agree with...
Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it,"that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.""(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.
So basically why I generally do not agree with other scholarly sources, is because they are deliberately biased, especially both the trinitarian schools and the JWs to their own doctrines. And thus the truth is concealed by their gross bias.
1. logos cannot, can never be a person, only a thing by virtue of it Greek grammar and meaning. Over 200 places in the NT 'logos' is never a person, only a thing of a characteristic, or its attribute of communication of any form...like as a voice, saying, talk, speech, command, expression, purpose, or plan etc. The biased translators made only one exception to the rule, for John 1:1. I'm glad they did not go all the way and delete logos or word and inserting Jesus in the text!
2. The translation of logos into the English as word does not have to be capitalized. It was done in John 1 and in Rev to convey or express a trinitarian man-made doctrine that is imaginary in scripture. It does not exist.
3. Since logos cannot be a person, logos or the word cannot mean Jesus ever.
4. In John 1:1c the word or logos was and is divine. Or from the Textus Receptus translation or text, it becomes backwards. Thus, divine was the logos or word. It expresses the nature of the word of God as being divine. He, God the Father alone is the source and has this attribute and no one else, and not even his Son. The Son however became possessed by it from his conception and birth; the Fathers' word and Holy Spirit dwelt with his Son's spirit. And it intensified and increased in power with his Son, since his baptism.
5. The logos or word is of God the Father only, his own unique attribute and source and is his own expression, voice, words purpose and plan that became present in a human being we came to know as Jesus, or Yahshua, the Son of God.
It must make Trinitarians wonder who God's Father is!
Then there's the times the scriptures talks about the God of Jesus, pretty much in all of the salutations of Paul's epistles. Jesus even mention his God a few other times. He even says it's the same God we all have. So you gotta wonder who God's God is. Maybe we should be worshiping that God! Soooo many problems with the trinity.
I can see John saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
What I don't see is, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God" I also don't see, "...and Jesus became flesh" in John 1:14.
I took the time and effort to learn what the logos (Greek for "word" in John 1) actually is. It's not Jesus. The third phrase in John 1:1 says it pretty clearly, "...and the Word (logos) was God." That would be the God that Jesus said he has, the same God we all have (John 20:17, Rev 3:12). Paul mentions the God and Father of Jesus in the salutation of every one of his Epistles.
The logos is another name for God. It's that simple. Now we don't have to figure out who is God's God and Father.
God was in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) just as Christ is in us (Col 1:27). Wherever you are, it is God in Christ in you there also. In other words, it could also be said of any Christian that wherever they are it is, "God with us."
Excellent and also simple to understand. or really know, if one has the true spirit.
In the OT the same Hebrew expression was used as a collective conscience of God's people. Whenever they would have enemies at the door or they would go into battle knowing through prayer and in spirit that their God was with them, for their benefit and their victory. Yahshua was our instrument of victory given by his Father.
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
I suspect we'd encounter difficulty discussing either of these subjects.
I believe the ten commandments are eternal in purpose (I know I'm in the vast minority on this point and, after being a Seventh-day Adventist for 32 years, I'm used to that), and that applying many of the terms we do to God, such as "logic," "nature," or "essence," just to name a few, is just plain foolishness. Many of us are going to be so embarrassed when we see Him face to face that our mouths will be struck dumb like the father of John the Baptist. Nothing personal, of course. I believe you and I had a few very nice chats a couple of months ago.
To me logic is logic. A thing is either logical or it is not. God's logic is just an infinitely greater understanding of the same type of logic that we have since we are made in His image. I can acknowledge that there are other human beings who have a much greater capacity for perceiving logic than I do, therefore it's no problem for me to imagine God being eternally further along this scale of perception. My understanding of things (99 times out of 100) is based on Scripture that I often can no longer recall. I really need to set up some sort of database to help me find Scripture related to given topics.
So, in this case, I speak of 'progressive revelation' suggested by texts such as John 16:12. In particular, I'm referring to a gradual unveiling of the purposes of God as opposed to the kind of dispensationalism that suggests "the love of God" could not exist in man until Pentecost.
The conditions of eternal life are eternal: perfect obedience to the commandments of God. Righteousness by faith is also eternal. God does not change. If human beings could surrender the nature that is born of the devil, they would all understand that God's purpose in the plan of redemption is restoring the image of God in man, thereby making the universe secure for for normal operation in harmony with the character of God. If this all sounds simple, circular logic, it's because that's exactly what it is.
Our part in the restoration operation is simple. But God, by His inconceivable grace and love, has been pleased to open to us the intricacies of His part in the operation, as well (insofar as we would allow Him to reveal them), which is much more complicated than ours. But human nature, unconverted, sees this revelation, in Christ and the Word, as a thing with which to be occupied and amused, well-nigh entirely ignorant of the solemn import of the matter.
I'm finding it more and more difficult to participate here lately. I suppose it's through some fault of my own, but the way most folks handle sacred things here is painful for me to witness, and taxing on my patience. I'm torn between my desire to witness to what I believe is true and my capacity to look upon so much presumption and the mingling of the sacred and the profane. Oh, and anti-denominationalism is all the rage. Christianity gets more and more trendy all the time. For many, politics have become a bona fide idol. The church is bound up with the world almost entirely. The Bible foretells it, so it should be no surprise.
I'm just rambling and thinking out loud. Pay me no mind.
By the way, a lot of folks don't realize that Galatians 3 refers to both the moral and the ceremonial law. You probably realize that, though.
Always a pleasure chatting with you, Rich. :)
I never said, "...the logos was a God." I read it exactly as written, "...the logos was God." Very simple declaration. Logos is another name for God, specifically Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh.
A couple of your own references:
A. T. Robertson: "So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos." A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.
Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the word was God." THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July - December, 1971 p. 12
John 1:14,Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the word was God." THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July - December, 1971 p. 12
John 1:14,
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
"...and dwelt among us" is a bad translation from the Greek. It literally says, "...and tabernacled in us." God first tabernacled in a tent ad then then in the Temple. Now it is God in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) in us (Col 1:14). In other words, God is now tabernacling in His people. That's what He wanted all along and that is all John 1:14 is saying. Now we don't have to explain who God's God is as well as a bunch of other inconsistencies the trinity causes. God is the Father and Jesus is the son of God.
Jesus is God's perfect representative on the earth (seeing him was as good as seeing the Father). He always said and did only what God told him to say and do. He did it, not because he is God, but because he loved enough to sacrifice his own interests to that of his Father's interest. He had free will. He didn't have to do anything he did. He did it all only because he loved.
As a bonus we no longer have to introduce a bunch of Gnostic terms and ideas to explain the unexplainable. Win/win for everybody!
ChristisGod
Well-Known Member
I will go with the Linguistic experts with their knowledge of the Greek over your biased opinion. But thanks anyways for responding.
hope this helps !!!
Good point about Israel. I never thought about that, but there it is. It's been there for a few thousand years now! Thanks.
- Status
Similar threads
