Charles&#39; Jesus is God Proof Texts

Blocked

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 22 2011,00:14)

1John 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

1 John 5:20And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

in 1:2 IT SAYS:and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

In 5:20 IT SAYS:This is the true God, and eternal life.

So if Jesus is the ETERNAL LIFE MANIFESTED,and the TRUE GOD IS ALSO ETERNAL LIFE!!

THEN JESUS IS THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE.

Hi Charles,

Your point is that both God AND Jesus are called “the eternal life”, right? First of all, you must be able to recognize the metaphor (actually “simile”) here. The Father is not “eternal life” itself, as if “life” is a being of any sort. What is meant in both cases is that the Father is able to GRANT eternal life, and now, so is Jesus:

John 5:26
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

See? Jesus didn't use to have life in himself. That quality was GRANTED him by his own God. God granted Jesus many things, even as He has also granted us many things.

Don't get confused with metaphors and similes. It is said “God is righteousness”; but you must be able to understand that “righteousness itself” is not our God. What it means is that God EMBODIES righteousness.

Same with “God is love”. We don't worship and pray to “love”, right? We worship and pray to the God who is the EMBODIMENT of “love”.

Or, “God is salvation”. God is not the abstract notion of being saved, but the One who DID the saving.

Do you get it? God is not “eternal life” itself, but instead the One who is able to GRANT eternal life. There now are two beings with that capability, because Jesus' own God GRANTED him the ability to also GRANT eternal life.

Anyway Charles, I would prefer if you wouldn't comment on my discussions with others right now. Normally I wouldn't mind, but ever since I've started this thread to get to the bottom of the scriptures YOU personally listed as “proofs” that Jesus is God, our conversations have been constantly sidetracked by the things others are saying.

Right now, I want to conclude our discussion on the John 1:1 stuff that you quoted. I want to be SURE that you completely understand what's going on with 1:1 before discussing “eternal life”, or anything else with you.

peace,
mike

December 22, 2011 at 9:53 pm#268987

terraricca

Participant

Charles

Quote

The jar is not the candies ,and vice versa. OK !

Now ,what is it that you, Mike and some others speak so logic although it is clear that logic is not the guarantee to the truth, especially when it comes to GOD!!

Logic is not concerned with the truth of the conclusion, but with the validity or invalidity of the argument

Presumably, according to you, the Jar is CHRIST and the candies are us, CHRISTIANS.OK?

Since the JAR is not the CANDIES, and the CANDIES are not the JAR, and since also the JAR is not in the CANDIES, as the CANDIES are in the JAR.

CHRIST is not US, and we are not CHRIST. Also CHRIST is not in US as we are in Christ is it OK??

Now read and perceive how GOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOGIC:

Ephisians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church:

orinthians 6: 13 ………Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
1 C
1 Corinthians 6: 15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?

1Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

1Corinthians 12: 27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular

Colossians 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is CHRIST IN YOU, the hope of glory:

28Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man PERFECT IN CHRIST JESUS:

So from the above scriptures, we are certain that Jesus is Both the HEAD, and the BODY of the Church.

NOW THE CHURCH IS US

WE are also certain that our BODIES (candies) are both the members of CHRIST, and the BODY of CHRIST, (the jar itself)

Also our BODIES ( candies) are for the LORD ( jar ) and the LORD ( jar ) is for our BODIES (candies)

And to conclude, CHRIST ( jar) is in US ( candies ) , and WE (candies) are in CHRIST ( Lord )

So not to deviate our selves from our subject which is the difference between the first born over all creation, and the first born of every creature, your argument is not valid according to your LOGICAL understanding.

Now,please can you define “the first born over all creation”

1)Presumably, according to you, the Jar is CHRIST and the candies are us, CHRISTIANS.OK?;;;;NO correction the candies is creation,

2)Ephisians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,the owner of the jar and the candies was pleased to give all authority to use the jar to distribute all his candies what s wrong with that ??

3)23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. can the one in charge of the jar not pick witch candies he likes and want to keep for himself ??

Quote

orinthians 6: 13 ………Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
1 C
1 Corinthians 6: 15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?

1Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

1Corinthians 12: 27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular

do you not see that Paul talks about conducts after you have come to God to serve him ,and that we have to be come holy in body and spirit and soul,

5)So from the above scriptures, we are certain that Jesus is Both the HEAD, and the BODY of the Church.

NOW THE CHURCH IS US;;is not scripture saying HE IS THE HEAD ? and some of the believers are part of the body,(unless you are called to a priest /king you are not called to be in heaven with Christ .and so are NOT part of the body of Christ church but only a believer to receive the blessings of that church,

6)WE are also certain that our BODIES (candies) are both the members of CHRIST, and the BODY of CHRIST, (the jar itself) ;;the candies in the jar is all of creation ,that is hold together in Christ (the jar )so our body ARE NOT the candies, but only some of the candies,

7)And to conclude, CHRIST ( jar) is in US ( candies ) , and WE (candies) are in CHRIST ( Lord ) ;;;;WE NEVER CAN BE THE JAR EVEN IF WE ARE MADE FREE OF THE JAR LIKE SOME WILL BE ,HOW CAN THAT MAKE THEM PART OF THE JAR? OR BE THE JAR,? HOW CAN THE JAR BE IN THE CANDIES ? BUT WE CAN BE WITH THE JAR,THE JAR CAN MAKE US PART OF THE JAR BUT NOT BE THE JAR,(JUST LIKE A BUTTON IS PART OF A JACKET ,BUT IS NOT THE JACKET ,ONLY PLACED TO BE USEFUL TO THE ONE WARING THE JACKET)[/B]

Quote

Now,please can you define “the first born over all creation”

;SO MY ARGUMENT IS VALUABLE ,YOU SEE THE OWNER OF THE JAR IS GOD,THE JAR IS CHRIST (SO HE IS THE FIRST BORN OF ALL AND BEFORE ALL THE CANDIES ARE MADE)AND SO HE IS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD,WE LIVE BECAUSE OF HIM,THIS IS WHAT PAUL TALKS ABOUT IN ; Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

SO THIS WOULD CORRECT AND ANSWER ALL YOUR INQUIRIES RIGHT ?

Pierre

December 23, 2011 at 1:26 am#269020

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 23 2011,06:48)

Quote (jammin @ Dec. 21 2011,20:18)

did satan said to himself i am the son of GOD?

No, he didn't.

Now it's your turn to show me where Jesus said, “I am God Almighty!”

Well?

well you admit. then it's clear that you are making conclusions.
second, the verse you said is not telling that satan is a son of GOD. but the sons of GOD in job 6:1 is referring to the divine angels and not SATAN! it refers to the members of the heavenly court mike.

therefore it's clear that you are twisting the word of GOD. repent mike. may GOD have mercy on you.

December 23, 2011 at 1:46 am#269024

Participant

let me correct the verse/ it's job 1:6

December 23, 2011 at 1:49 am#269025

Blocked

First of all, I never claimed that Satan himself said he was God's son. I claimed (truthfully) that Satan is CALLED a son of God in scripture.

It was YOU who put the spin on it that if Satan HIMSELF never said he was a son of God, then I was “making conclusions” – whatever that means.

But I held up my end of the deal, jammin. I showed you where Satan was included as one of the “sons of God” who came before God in Job 1 and 2.

It is now for YOU to hold up YOUR end of the bargain. Where is the scripture in which Jesus HIMSELF claims to be God Almighty?

December 23, 2011 at 2:16 am#269028

Participant

you are just making conclusion mike. it did not say in job 1:6 that satan is a son of GOD. it's referring to the divine angels. your understanding is so vague. satan is not divine! well, maybe your satan is divine.
but in the bible , satan is not divine! he is evil!

Revelation 12:9

New Century Version (NCV)

9 The giant dragon was thrown down out of heaven. (He is that old snake called the DEVIL OR SATAN, who tricks the whole world.) The dragon with his angels was thrown down to the earth.

you said satan was included as one of the sons of GOD in job 1:6. it's your conclusion mike. hahahaha. you cant read that in job 1:6
let me post the verse again.

Job 1:6

Common English Bible (CEB)

Job’s motives questioned
6 One day the divine beings[a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and the Adversary also came among them.

sons of GOD there are the divine angels! satan is called the adversary

now what is the meaning of adversary?
(ăd'vər-sĕr'ē) pronunciation
n., pl., -ies.

An opponent; an enemy.
Adversary The Devil; Satan. Often used with the.

you see mike! it's very clear that you do not understand what you are reading!
PRAISE GOD! HALLELUYAH! repent mike! may GOD have mercy on you!

December 23, 2011 at 6:34 pm#269106

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2011,08:13)

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 20 2011,13:45)

This is FABRICATION MIKE!!

1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

Hi Charles,

We are just sticking to the facts here, right? And you have already agreed that the FACT of the matter is that there are THREE valid possibilities for John 1:1c:
1. THE God
2. A god
3. god in a qualitative sense, such as “and the Word was divine”.

You cannot now backtrack on what you've already agreed to and say the NWT is “fabricating things”, when it is a known FACT that “a god” IS a possible translation.

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 20 2011,13:45)

TWO GODS?? With respect to the sentence yes but when it comes to definition two persons, or entities, in ONE GOD.

Now HERE is the REAL “fabrication”. There is no possible way to conclude “two persons in one God” from the words John wrote. The FACT of the matter is that John writes of two “THEOS”, one of whom was WITH the other, and only one of whom was called “THE theos”. That translates into English as “TWO GODS”, not “two persons in one God”.

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 20 2011,13:45)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

There is only ONE god in the whole of scripture. We both know that is NOT the truth.

You see Mike when you involve the OT .You will ruin the truth.

Really? Involving what the NT writers themselves called “God-breathed scripture” is ruining the truth?

Your source is wrong, Charles. They try to persuade gullible people that if there is only ONE called “god” in the whole of scripture, Jesus must be that god. They are wrong, and even the NT proves it. Don't forget that it was Paul who said “there are MANY gods in heaven and on earth”.

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 20 2011,13:45)

1John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

It says clear enough here.

Get a new translation, Charles. The word “God” is nowhere in that scripture. In fact, the KJV, which you quoted, even adds brackets around [of God] to let you know they are adding their own words. Try these translations:

NET ©
We have come to know love by this: that Jesus laid down his life for us; thus we ought to lay down our lives for our fellow Christians.

NIV ©
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

NASB ©
We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

NLT ©
We know what real love is because Christ gave up his life for us. And so we also ought to give up our lives for our Christian brothers and sisters.

MSG ©
This is how we've come to understand and experience love: Christ sacrificed his life for us. This is why we ought to live sacrificially for our fellow believers, and not just be out for ourselves.

BBE ©
In this we see what love is, because he gave his life for us; and it is right for us to give our lives for the brothers.

NRSV ©
We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for one another.

NKJV ©
By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

I await your response to my analysis of your source's next paragraph. Because there is no need to discuss the first two paragraphs further. We have already BOTH agreed that “a god” IS a possible translation of 1:1c. And we've already agreed that there are many who are called “god” in the scriptures.

Time to move FORWARD with the discussion instead of wallowing in things already discussed and agreed upon.

peace,
mike

Quote

We are just sticking to the facts here, right? And you have already agreed that the FACT of the matter is that there are THREE valid possibilities for John 1:1c

Mike,

where did I agree that there there are THREE valid possibilities for John 1:1c ??

December 23, 2011 at 9:09 pm#269123

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 23 2011,07:53)

Charles

Quote

The jar is not the candies ,and vice versa. OK !

Now ,what is it that you, Mike and some others speak so logic although it is clear that logic is not the guarantee to the truth, especially when it comes to GOD!!

Logic is not concerned with the truth of the conclusion, but with the validity or invalidity of the argument

Presumably, according to you, the Jar is CHRIST and the candies are us, CHRISTIANS.OK?

Since the JAR is not the CANDIES, and the CANDIES are not the JAR, and since also the JAR is not in the CANDIES, as the CANDIES are in the JAR.

CHRIST is not US, and we are not CHRIST. Also CHRIST is not in US as we are in Christ is it OK??

Now read and perceive how GOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOGIC:

Ephisians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church:

orinthians 6: 13 ………Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
1 C
1 Corinthians 6: 15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?

1Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

1Corinthians 12: 27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular

Colossians 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is CHRIST IN YOU, the hope of glory:

28Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man PERFECT IN CHRIST JESUS:

So from the above scriptures, we are certain that Jesus is Both the HEAD, and the BODY of the Church.

NOW THE CHURCH IS US

WE are also certain that our BODIES (candies) are both the members of CHRIST, and the BODY of CHRIST, (the jar itself)

Also our BODIES ( candies) are for the LORD ( jar ) and the LORD ( jar ) is for our BODIES (candies)

And to conclude, CHRIST ( jar) is in US ( candies ) , and WE (candies) are in CHRIST ( Lord )

Now,please can you define “the first born over all creation”

1)Presumably, according to you, the Jar is CHRIST and the candies are us, CHRISTIANS.OK?;;;;NO correction the candies is creation,

3)23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. can the one in charge of the jar not pick witch candies he likes and want to keep for himself ??

Quote

orinthians 6: 13 ………Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
1 C
1 Corinthians 6: 15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?

1Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

1Corinthians 12: 27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular

do you not see that Paul talks about conducts after you have come to God to serve him ,and that we have to be come holy in body and spirit and soul,

5)So from the above scriptures, we are certain that Jesus is Both the HEAD, and the BODY of the Church.

Quote

Now,please can you define “the first born over all creation”

SO THIS WOULD CORRECT AND ANSWER ALL YOUR INQUIRIES RIGHT ?

Pierre

Quote

(SO HE IS THE FIRST BORN OF ALL AND BEFORE ALL THE CANDIES ARE MADE)

Pierre,

I will start from the end!

Explain to me how Jesus became the first born of all and before all?

He was born of whom,if there were no one??

To be born, there must have been some one before Him. NO??

Who is this someone who was born of??

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

December 23, 2011 at 9:15 pm#269125

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 23 2011,07:16)

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 22 2011,00:14)

1John 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

in 1:2 IT SAYS:and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

In 5:20 IT SAYS:This is the true God, and eternal life.

So if Jesus is the ETERNAL LIFE MANIFESTED,and the TRUE GOD IS ALSO ETERNAL LIFE!!

THEN JESUS IS THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE.

Hi Charles,

John 5:26
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

See? Jesus didn't use to have life in himself. That quality was GRANTED him by his own God. God granted Jesus many things, even as He has also granted us many things.

Same with “God is love”. We don't worship and pray to “love”, right? We worship and pray to the God who is the EMBODIMENT of “love”.

Or, “God is salvation”. God is not the abstract notion of being saved, but the One who DID the saving.

peace,
mike

Quote

OK Mike,

With every respect

I won't comment on this confusion of yours.

December 23, 2011 at 9:43 pm#269127

Blocked

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 23 2011,11:34)

Mike,

where did I agree that there there are THREE valid possibilities for John 1:1c ??

You are right, Charles. I thought you had addressed this post from page 71. But instead, you posted your own source, and the discussion veered away from what I was showing you, and to something you wanted to show me.

But here is the first part of that post again, from page 71. Will you address the bolded questions at the bottom now?

Here's what the 25 TRINITARIAN scholars of NETNotes, (who would like nothing more than to agree with you that the Word was THE God), have to say about it:
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.

Charles, are you able to see that there are THREE possibilities for the proper translation of John 1:1? Those three options are:
1. God
2. A god
3. God-like, divine, having qualities similar to God's qualities

Charles, I REALLY want you to recognize and acknowledge for me that you understand all THREE of these options. I don't ever want to hear you say, “Scriptures says: THE WORD WAS GOD. TO ME THAT IS FINAL.” Because the majority of Trinitarian biased English translations is NOT the “final” answer on John 1:1 – nor do their translations make any sense. (Which you'll see in a minute.)

There are THREE different possible translations. Charles, do you understand this? Will you please ACKNOWLEDGE that you understand this for me?

December 24, 2011 at 3:15 am#269158

terraricca

Participant

charles

Pierre,

I will start from the end!

Explain to me how Jesus became the first born of all and before all? YES ACCORDING TO PAUL COL;1;13-15

He was born of whom,if there were no one?? HE WAS CREATED BY GOD HIMSELF

To be born, there must have been some one before Him. NO??THERE WAS GOD THE FATHER HE ALWAYS WAS

Who is this someone who was born of?? ARE YOU REFERRING TO JESUS ? BEING BORN OF MARIE AND WERE GOD IS HIS FATHER '

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

December 24, 2011 at 7:32 am#269177

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 24 2011,13:15)

charles

Pierre,

I will start from the end!

Explain to me how Jesus became the first born of all and before all? YES ACCORDING TO PAUL COL;1;13-15

He was born of whom,if there were no one?? HE WAS CREATED BY GOD HIMSELF

To be born, there must have been some one before Him. NO??THERE WAS GOD THE FATHER HE ALWAYS WAS

Who is this someone who was born of?? ARE YOU REFERRING TO JESUS ? BEING BORN OF MARIE AND WERE GOD IS HIS FATHER '

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

Quote

He was born of whom,if there were no one?? HE WAS CREATED BY GOD HIMSELF

I asked born of, not created.

Scripture is clear the first born, not the first created!!

Find in scripture where it is clear that “Jesus was created”.

December 24, 2011 at 11:31 am#269215

Participant

that's the reason why christ is GOD. he is not created but a creator. they will just twist the word of GOD. giving wrong meanings to the scriptures. they cant defend their false doctrine to the true christians.

December 24, 2011 at 2:19 pm#269217

Blocked

Quote (jammin @ Dec. 22 2011,19:16)

satan is not divine! he is evil!

Did God create him evil, jammin? Or did God create him as a divine angel like all the rest, and then he decided to do evil things after the fact?

Quote (jammin @ Dec. 22 2011,19:16)

The dragon with his angels was thrown down to the earth.

So Satan has his own angels? Exactly what kind of being IS Satan then? And why are the angels who chose to follow him still called “angels” in the verse you quoted, but you insist that Satan, their leader, is not an angel?

Quote (jammin @ Dec. 22 2011,19:16)

6 One day the divine beings came to present themselves before the LORD, and the Adversary also came among them.

sons of GOD there are the divine angels! satan is called the adversary

This “adversary” came AMONG the angels that came to present themselves to God. What OTHER kind of being besides angels came to present themselves? And why was Satan listed as being AMONG the other angels?

Revelation 12
7 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven.
How many kinds of beings do you know about that dwell in heaven, jammin? Because Satan is included in the “they” who “lost their place in heaven”. That tells us that Satan once had a place in heaven, right?

So, if he was not an angel, not Jesus, and not God, then what kind of being was he?

December 24, 2011 at 2:39 pm#269219

Blocked

Quote (jammin @ Dec. 24 2011,04:31)

that's the reason why christ is GOD.

Hmmmm………… what's wrong with this statement? Let me rephrase it for you, and see if you can detect the problem:

“That's the reason why the one who God anointed IS the very God who anointed him.”

Do you see it now, jammin?

Quote (jammin @ Dec. 24 2011,04:31)

he is not created but a creator.

Read the prayer in Acts 4:24-30, jammin. I'll post the beginning and the end for you:

24 When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.

Take notice that they are praying TO the One who “made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them“.

30 Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

Now take notice that Jesus was the “holy SERVANT” they prayed THROUGH. Jesus was not the God they prayed TO, but the servant OF God that they prayed THROUGH. You know, the Mediator BETWEEN God and man.

Now, if Jesus was NOT the God they prayed TO, then he has no choice but to be part of the “EVERYTHING” created BY that God, as mentioned in verse 24.

There are three other scriptures that I know of so far that distinguish Jesus as someone OTHER THAN the One who created all things. If Jesus is NOT the One who created all things, then he has no choice but to be one of the “things” created BY that One, don't you agree?

Quote (jammin @ Dec. 24 2011,04:31)

they will just twist the word of GOD. giving wrong meanings to the scriptures. they cant defend their false doctrine to the true christians.

Here you are attributing actions to us that truly apply to YOU. jammin, I'm trying hard to use SCRIPTURE to help you teach yourself a few things. Why do you resist so? Don't you want to know the TRUTH of the scriptures?

December 24, 2011 at 6:52 pm#269259

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 24 2011,07:43)

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 23 2011,11:34)

Mike,

where did I agree that there there are THREE valid possibilities for John 1:1c ??

But here is the first part of that post again, from page 71. Will you address the bolded questions at the bottom now?

There are THREE different possible translations. Charles, do you understand this? Will you please ACKNOWLEDGE that you understand this for me?

Quote

There are THREE different possible translations. Charles, do you understand this? Will you please ACKNOWLEDGE that you understand this for me?

Mike,

I will never consider the term “a god”

is a possible translation.

I did more then enough research about John 1:1, and I am only posting just a section which refers to the term A GOD AS PROOF THAT I DID MY RESEARCH SERIOUSLY AND AS I SAID PREVIOUSLY:

THE WORD WAS GOD to me is final.

No use to discuss further on it.

My answer here is not meant to argue some theological doctrine, but to point out how important it is to have a pure heart when seeking God in His revealed speaking (the Bible) and how much it helps to know the Greek language in helping to answer some very complicated questions. A little (and incomplete) knowledge of Greek can do more harm than good when people try to apply it beyond their scope of knowledge. I beg you to seek the Lord honestly and continue to love Him with your whole heart.

1 Corinthians 8:1:3 says,……… ‘Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him’.

Many questions that are beyond our human understanding will only be answered when we see Him face to face. But for now, we continue to love Him and seek Him with our whole heart. The rest is up to Him.

This is for you to read:

James White

What about “a god?”

Until 1950, an extra section dealing with a translation of John 1:1 as “the Word was a god” would not have been necessary. No one would dare publish such a “translation.” However, in 1950, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society published its own translation of the Bible, The New World Translation of the Greek Scriptures. This version translates John 1:1 in this way. A number of appendices have appeared in the NWT attempting to defend this translation by making reference to many of the same scholars that have already been quoted. Aside from the comment of The Expositor's Greek Testament above, the following from F. F. Bruce sums up the truth pretty well:

It is nowhere more sadly true than in the acquisition of Greek that “a little learning is a dangerous thing”. The uses of the Greek article, the functions of Greek prepositions, and the fine distinctions between Greek tenses are confidently expounded in public at times by men who find considerable difficulty in using these parts of speech accurately in their native tongue. (18)

A footnote appears after the comment on the article, and it says:

Those people who emphasize that the true rendering of the last clause of John 1:1 is “the word was a god”, prove nothing thereby save their ignorance of Greek grammar.

This translation violates the following principles:

Monotheism in the Bible – certainly it can not be argued that John would use the very word he always uses of the one true God, theos, of one who is simply a “god-like” one or a lesser “god.” The Scriptures do not teach that there is a whole host of intermediate beings that can be called “gods.” That is gnosticism.
If one is to dogmatically assert that any anarthrous noun must be indefinite and translated with an indefinite article, one must be able to do the same with the 282 other times theos appears anarthrously. For an example of the chaos that would create, try translating the anarthrous theos at 2 Corinthians 5:19. There is simply no warrant in the language to do this.
It ignores the position of theos in the clause – it comes first, and is emphatic.
It ignores a basic tenet of translation: if you are going to insist on a translation, you must be prepared to defend it in such a way as to provide a way for the author to have expressed the alternate translation. In other words, if theos en ho logos is “a god,” how could John have said “the Word was God?” We have already seen that if John had employed the article before theos, he would have made the terms theos and logos interchangeable, amounting to Sabellianism.
The translation tears the phrase from the immediately preceding context, leaving it alone and useless. Can He who is eternal (first clause) and who has always been with God (second clause), and who created all things (verse 3) be “a god?”
Just because a noun is not preceded by the article does not automatically justify the insertion of the English indefinite “a”. This is a gross over-simplification of the facts, a practice unfortunately common amongst those who are not properly trained in the Greek language. I am aware that this is a serious charge, however, the facts reveal that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has consistently refused to name any of its NWT translators, and of those who have been discovered, none had any more than two years of Greek and no formal Hebrew. (19)

The complete information sheet from James White I will post for others to read to have a more clear awareness of what John meant

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

December 24, 2011 at 6:57 pm#269261

Participant

The information sheet regarding

John 1:1 IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD,THE WORD WAS WITH GOD,THE WORD WAS GOD.

The prologue to John's Gospel has long been a center of controversy when discussing the Deity of Christ, and naturally so. One can hardly read the above sentences without catching a glimpse of One Who is far beyond the realm of simply human; even far beyond the realm of the angelic. The logos, the Word, was in the beginning, was with God, and was God. The Word created all things, and there is absolutely nothing in existence that the Word did not create. Remember that the original readers of John's Gospel would not have already read verse 14, and they would not have the preconceived knowledge that the Word is identified as Christ. Try to detach yourself from that knowledge for a moment, and imagine what kind of being you would be imagining while reading about this Word. Certainly one can hardly conceive of a higher Being.

To understand what John is saying, we must delve into the verses themselves and analyze them carefully. We must bear in mind that we are reading only a translation of what John wrote, and hence some mention will have to be made of the Greek language.

John's first assertion is that “In the beginning was the Word.” Which beginning? Considering the whole context of the prologue, many have identified this beginning as the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1. But most see that the assertion of the Apostle goes far beyond that.

The key element in understanding this, the first phrase of this magnificent verse, is the form of the word “was,” which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word en (the “e” pronounced as a long “a” as in “I ate the food”). It is a timeless word – that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the “beginning” as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Hence, the Word is eternal, timeless. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at “the beginning,” for He antedates that beginning.

John is very careful in his language at this point. Throughout this section, John carefully contrasts the Word, and all other things. He does so by consistently using en of the Logos, the Word, and by consistently employing a totally different verb in reference to all other things. This other verb is “to become” (egeneto). It is used of John the Baptist in verse 6, of the world in verse 10, and the children of God in verse 12. Only when we come to verse 14 does John use “to become” of the Word, and that is when the Word “became flesh.” This refers to a specific point in time, the incarnation, and fully demonstrates John's intentional usage of contrasting verbs.

John is not alone in this. Jesus contrasted Abraham's “becoming” with His own eternal existence in John 8:58 in the same way. The Psalmist contrasted the creation of the world with the eternity of God in Psalm 90:2 (LXX) by using the same verbs found in John 1:1 and 14. Hardly seems coincidental, does it?

We have seen that the Word is eternal. Much has been said about how John got the term “Logos,” the Word. Some say he borrowed it from Greek philosophy, a sort of philosophical subterfuge. No one would argue that John just simply left the Logos as he found it among the philosophers. No, he filled the Word with personality and identified the Word not as some fuzzy, ethereal essence that was the guiding principle of all things, (as the Greeks thought), but as the eternal Son of God, the One Who entered into time, and into man's experience as Jesus of Nazareth. The “Word” reveals that Jesus is the mind of God, the thought of God, His full and living revelation. Jesus did not just come to tell us what God is like – He showed us. He is the revelation of God.

John did not stop here, however. He did not leave us to simply know the eternity of the Word. The next phrase says, “and the Word was with God.” Again we find the verb “was” cropping up, again pointing to the timelessness of the subject at hand. The Word was with God. The preposition John uses here is quite revealing. It is the Greek word pros. It means “to be in company with someone” (1) or to be “face-to-face.” It speaks of communion, interaction, fellowship. Remember that this is an eternal fellowship, a timeless relationship. “Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.”(2)

This phrase, if taken completely alone, would be very confusing, since John has already asserted the eternality of the Word. Now he clearly distinguishes between the Word and God. He asserts that they are distinguishable. “God” and “Word” are not interchange-able terms. Then, is John talking about two “gods?” Can more than one being be fully eternal? John was a monotheistic Jew. He could never believe in more than one Being Who can rightly be called “God.” How then is this to be understood?

This phrase must be taken with the one that follows. We read, “and the Word was God.” Again, the eternal en. John avoids confusion by telling us that the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus, as we know Him as the Word, does not constitute everything that is included in the Godhead. In other words, John is not teaching the ancient heresy known as Sabellianism, which taught that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are simply three different aspects of one person, i.e., Jesus is the Father, the Father is the Spirit, and so on. Instead, John here asserts the full Deity of Christ, while informing us that He is not the Father, but that they (“God” and the “Word”) have eternally co-existed.

This last phrase has come under heavy fire throughout the ages. The correct translation of this passage is here given, and anyone interested in the technical aspects of the argument are referred to Appendix A. Basically, the passage teaches that the Word, as to His essential nature, is God. John does not here call the Word “a divine one,” as some polytheistic Greek might say. He did not use the adjective, theios, which would describe a divine nature, or a god-like one. Instead, he used theos, the very word John will use consistently for the Father, the “only true God” (17:3). He uses the term three times of Jesus in the Gospel, here, in 1:18, and in 20:28. It can not be doubted that John would never call a creature theos. His upbringing and Jewish heritage forbad that.

How then are we to undertand these two phrases? Benjamin B. Warfield said:

“And the Word was with God.” The language is pregnant. It is not merely coexistence with God that is asserted, as of two beings standing side by side, united in local relation, or even in a common conception. What is suggested is an active relation of intercourse. The distinct personality of the Word is therefore not obscurely intimated. From all eternity the Word has been with God as a fellow: He who in the very beginning already “was,” “was” also in communion with God. Though He was thus in some sense a second along with God, He was nevertheless not a seperate being from God: “And the Word was” –still the eternal “was” –“God.” In some sense distinguishable from God, He was in an equally true sense identical with God. There is but one eternal God; this eternal God, the Word is; in whatever sense we may distinguish Him from the God whom He is “with,” He is yet not another than this God, but Himself is this God. The predicate “God” occupies the position of emphasis in this great declaration, and is so placed in the sentence as to be thrown up in sharp contrast with the phrase “with God,” as if to prevent inadequate inferences as to the nature of the Word being drawn even momentarily from that phrase. John would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God's coeternal fellow, but the eternal God's self. (3)

The Beloved Apostle walks a tight line here. By the simple ommission of the article (“the”, or in Greek, ho)
before the word for God in the last phrase, John avoids teaching Sabellianism, while by placing the word where it is in the clause, he defeats another heresy, Arianism, which denies the true Deity of the Lord Jesus. A person who accepts the inspiration of the Scriptures can not help but be thrilled at this passage.

John goes on in verse two to reiterate the eternal fellowship of the Father and Son, making sure that all understand that “this one,” the Word, was (there it is again) in the beginning pros ton theon, with God. Their fellowship and relationship precedes all else, and it is timeless.

As icing on the cake, John then precludes anyone from misunderstanding his claim that Jesus is eternally God by writing verse 3. “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” One can hardly be more inclusive than that. There is simply nothing that is existent anywhere that was not created by the Word. He created everything. Obviously, therefore, if one can be described as creating everything, one must be the Creator, and certainly not a creation. The Word is the Creator. All people reading John's words would undertand that the Creator is God, not some lower being created by God to do the work for Him. By not qualifying his statement, John assured that we could correctly understand his intention and his teaching concerning Christ, the Word. He is eternally God, the Creator.

——————————————————————————–

Section II
En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

Almost all the controversy surrounding John 1:1 revolves around the fact that the theos of the last phrase kai theos en ho logos is anarthrous, i.e., it has no article. Some have gone so far as to assert that the correct translation, therefore, is “the Word was a god,” basing the argument on the lack of the definite article ho before theos. What does the lack of the article indicate? Is it necessary to what John is saying?

I begin with the most quoted scholar on this subject, Dr. A. T. Robertson:

And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of the Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality. (4)

As Robertson made reference to his voluminous Grammar in the above quotation, I will include it in its entirety:

The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may be. So in Jo. 1:1, theos an ho logos, the subject is perfectly clear. Cf. ho logos sarx egeneto (Jo. 1:14). It is true that ho theos an ho logos (convertible terms) would have been Sabellianism. See also ho theos agape estin (1 Jo.4:16). “God” and “love” are not convertible terms any more than “God” and “Logos” or “Logos” and “flesh.” Cf. also hoi theristai angeloi eisin (Mt. 13:39), ho logos ho sos alatheia estin (Jo. 17:17), ho nomos hamartia; (Ro. 7:7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea. (5)

Note that Robertson translates the phrase, “the Word was God.” His argument is summed up well in the following passage:

A word should be said concerning the use and non-use of the article in John 1:1, where a narrow path is safely followed by the author. “The Word was God.” It both God and Word were articular, they would be coextensive and equally distributed and so interchangeable. But the separate personality of the Logos is affirmed by the construction used and Sabellianism is denied. If God were articular and Logos non-articular, the affirmation would be that God was Logos, but not that the Logos was God. As it is, John asserts that in the Pre-incarnate state the Logos was God, though the Father was greater than the Son (John 14:28). The Logos became flesh (1:14), and not the Father. But the Incarnate Logos was really “God only Begotten in the bosom of the Father” (1:18 correct text). (6)

In light of Dr. Robertson's comments, it is indeed unbelievable that some will quote from the above section and try to intimate that Robertson felt that Jesus was less than the Father because he quoted John 14:28. A quick look at his comments on John 14:28 in Word Pictures in the New Testament, volume 5, page 256 refutes this idea.

To recap, Robertson says that 1) the translation of the phrase theos en ho logos is “the Word was God.” 2) That the anarthrous theos is required for the meaning. If the article were present, this would teach Sabellianism, as then theos and logos would be convertible terms. 3) That the article before logos serves to point out the subject of the clause.

H. E. Dana and Julius Mantey utilize John 1:1 to illustrate the usage of the article to determine the subject in a copulative sentence:

The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion d' en to korion, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos. (7)

Again, these scholars are pointing out the use of the article to show the subject against the predicate in a clause. They, like Robertson, point out that since theos is anarthrous, it shows that it is not convertible with logos and vice versa.

Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor of Greek at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, commented on this verse:

The Word was God. Here the word “God” is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes. Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenter, the teacher, is Very God. (8)

Wuest in his Expanded Translation, renders 1:1:

In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity. (9)

That Wuest brings in the idea that the anarthrous predicate noun has a characterizing effect, and that it refers more to the nature of the subject of the clause than to an identification of it. This is right in line with what Robertson said – that the Logos is not all of God, and that you cannot say “the God was the Logos.” The very context (kai ho logos en pros ton theon) demonstrates this fully. Those who would assert that the Logos is to be identified with all of God (i.e., Jesus is the Father and the Father is Jesus – Sabellianism) find an insuperable problem here.

It is good to note Vincent's comment that here “John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word.” (10) The Logos is the central character here. Hence, when we see that the Word was, as to His nature God, we can understand exactly how He can be with God and yet be God.

F. F. Bruce's comments on this passage
are valuable:

The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation “The Word was God.” Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also “with God”. What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase “what God was, the Word was”, brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can…So, when heaven and earth were created, there was the Word of God, already existing in the closest association with God and partaking of the essence of God. No matter how far back we may try to push our imagination, we can never reach a point at which we could say of the Divine Word, as Arius did, “There was once when he was not.” (11)

Another scholarly source along this line is found in the Expositor's Greek Testament:

The Word is distinguishable from God and yet Theos en ho logos, the Word was God, of Divine nature; not “a God,” which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable; nor yet identical with all that can be called God, for then the article would have been inserted…(12)

A slightly different tact is taken by another group of scholars. These scholars refer to what is known as Colwell's rule, named after E. C. Colwell, who first enunciated his rule in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933. (13) The rule says, “The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John.” (14) This is the view taken by Morris, Metzger, Griffith and others. Though Colwell's rule is not exceptionless, it is a valuable guide. At the very least, it is a good guide to translation in this case. Those scholars who see the verse in this light are not necessarily in contradiction with the others already cited. First it should be noted that Robertson and Nicoll had passed away before the work of Colwell, and their comments reflect this. Also, both approaches lead to the same conclusion – the passage teaches the Deity of Jesus Christ. Some scholars see the anarthrous theos as emphasizing the nature of the Word, and all agree that it is not simply an adjectival type of description, saying that Christ is merely a “god-like one.” A more recent authors work (March 1973) bears on this issue as well. Philip B. Harner did an extensive study of anarthrous predicate nouns which was published in the Journal of Biblical Literature as well (15). His research led to some realignment in viewing Colwell's rule, it is true. It should also be noted that his article has been used extensively by those who would deny the Deity of Christ and mistranslate this passage. Sufficent at this point is a quotation from Harner's article itself:

In all of these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express. 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. (16)

The authoritative reference source, Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, is quite direct on John 1:1:

A similar ascription is more common in the Johannine writings, and for the most part incontestable. Jn. 1:1 says of the Pre-existent: kai theos en ho logos…The lack of the article, which is grammatically necessary in 1:1, is striking here, and reminds us of Philonic usage. The Logos who became flesh and revealed the invisible God was a divine being, God by nature. The man born blind has some sense of this when, after his healing, he falls down in believing adoration before Christ, who addresses him with the divine “I” (Jn. 9:38f). The final veil is removed, however, when the Risen Lord discloses Himself to Thomas and the astonished disciple exclaims: ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou (Jn. 20:28). In Jn. 1:1 we have Christology: He is God in Himself. Here we have the revelation of Christ: He is God for believers. (17)

To summarize: The phrase kai theos en ho logos is most literally translated as “and the Word was God.” (Robertson, Bruce). The reason that theos is anarthrous is both that it is the predicate nominative (Robertson, Dana and Mantey) and that it is demanded by the fact that if it had the article, it would be then interchangeable with logos, which is contextually impossible. (Robertson, Dana and Mantey, Bruce, Nicoll) Colwell's rule also comes into play at this point. We have seen that the majority of scholarship sees the theos as indicating the nature of the Word, that He is God as to His nature. The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as “god-like.”

Hence, John 1:1 teaches that the Word is eternal (the imperfect form of eimi, en), that He has always been in communion with God (pros ton theon), and hence is an individual and recognizable as such, and that, as to His essential nature, He is God. Anything less departs from the teaching of John, and is not Biblical

December 24, 2011 at 8:16 pm#269270

terraricca

Participant

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 25 2011,00:32)

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 24 2011,13:15)

charles

Pierre,

I will start from the end!

Explain to me how Jesus became the first born of all and before all? YES ACCORDING TO PAUL COL;1;13-15

He was born of whom,if there were no one?? HE WAS CREATED BY GOD HIMSELF

To be born, there must have been some one before Him. NO??THERE WAS GOD THE FATHER HE ALWAYS WAS

Who is this someone who was born of?? ARE YOU REFERRING TO JESUS ? BEING BORN OF MARIE AND WERE GOD IS HIS FATHER '

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

Quote

He was born of whom,if there were no one?? HE WAS CREATED BY GOD HIMSELF

I asked born of, not created.

Scripture is clear the first born, not the first created!!

Find in scripture where it is clear that “Jesus was created”.

Charles

I do not care for wording ;

scriptures are saying that Christ was the first of God's creation or born or bring forth, or ………………..

the fact is Christ at one point was not their anywhere ,so God made him to be ,

Pierre

December 25, 2011 at 1:43 am#269292

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 25 2011,00:19)

Quote (jammin @ Dec. 22 2011,19:16)

satan is not divine! he is evil!

Did God create him evil, jammin? Or did God create him as a divine angel like all the rest, and then he decided to do evil things after the fact?

Quote (jammin @ Dec. 22 2011,19:16)

The dragon with his angels was thrown down to the earth.

Quote (jammin @ Dec. 22 2011,19:16)

6 One day the divine beings came to present themselves before the LORD, and the Adversary also came among them.

sons of GOD there are the divine angels! satan is called the adversary

So, if he was not an angel, not Jesus, and not God, then what kind of being was he?

do you understand what you are saying mike hahahaha.
read a verse that satan is divine. i read a verse that satan is evil.
maybe your god is satan. i guess so.

job 1:6 is talking about divine angels. satan is not divine, read a verse that satan is divine. you are ALWAYS MAKING YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION

PRAISE GOD! repent mike

December 25, 2011 at 2:14 am#269298