JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
You know the God of Jesus is our God.
Why pay lip service to the foundational integrity of Scripture?

[Not3in1]

Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 04 2008,12:24)

btw Mandy – sorry to disappoint but I did start by saying a few posts back: Quote Don't know that I can explain it LU, can try to set forth my understanding as it stands. But I expect that it takes a revelation to get this (aka GOD has to quicken scriptures by HIS SPIRIT) Guess that's why its termed the mystery of godliness… I stand by that – noone can explain to satisfaction this mystery so that all will see it, if they could then Paul or one of the writers of the gospels or Jesus himself would have done so. It takes a revelation from GOD, HE is sovereign in this I believe.

Fair enough. Thanks for the response. I didn't see if Kathi responded or not? I guess your answer was good enough for her.

Take care,
Mandy

[Lightenup]

Hi Mandy,
Malcolm said that he believes that the Son of God was the “arm of God”, the agent used in creation by the Father.  I have said that myself and can certainly understand how that could be.  The scriptures are written in a progressive revelation where the New Testament's teaching shed light on the OT.  Some of the OT has passages say that “I alone” created the world and the NT passages say that He did it through Christ.  We need to interpret scripture with scripture and understand that the NT is giving the reader a fuller picture of things not a lesser picture.  We build precept upon precept.
God bless,
Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,05:32)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 04 2008,17:49) Hi LU, So the son of God is not really a son. More of a clone? Nick, I couldn't see in LU's post where that is mentioned. What sentence or text of LU's are you referring to. Thanks.

Good question t8, thanks!
LU

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 04 2008,11:00)

Quote (david @ Oct. 04 2008,14:47) Quote The difficulty is this:- John 1:3, Col 1:16, 1 Cor 8:6, Heb 1:3 and Heb 1:10 all establish that Yeshua, at the very least, was involved in the creation event. Isa 44:24 does not allow for the involvement of any agency outside of YHWH. Hi Paul.  It's been a while.  I wish you would discuss Phil 2:5-7 in that thread.  I respect your research and your very detailed analysis of scripture.  That being said….. “This is what the LORD says—       your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:       I am the LORD,       who has made all things,       who alone stretched out the heavens,       who spread out the earth by myself, I think we have to consider the context of that chapter. Jehovah is asserting his superiority over false gods.  If we look at the context, it is all about how these gods have no power, no nothing.  How they are responsible for nothing.  We are comparing false gods with Jehovah, the true God.  This verse is not making a point to say that Jehovah existed alone.  In context, it's making a point to say that all the credit goes to Jehovah. Here's a similar verse: JEREMIAH 32:17 ““Alas, O Sovereign Lord Jehovah! Here you yourself have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm. The whole matter is not too wonderful for you yourself,” He made the heavens and the earth by his great power and by his arm.  He alone is RESPONSIBLE for this.  It was his power that was behind it.   When we think back to Jesus miracles, they were actually done by means of God's holy spirit.  Jesus always gave the credit to God, did he not?  Yet, he was there, and had a part, right? Quoting what others have said: “Jehovah is the Arquitect and Jesus is the contractor. Guess who receives all the credit?” And quoting someone else: It would be better to read the whole chapter 44 rather than concentrating on verse 24 only. Why did Jehovah said, He created all things by Himself. Please read verses 7-21. Jehovah was stressing the uselessness of carved image and false gods. He was comparing His glory and power against those lifeless gods. It is logical then that He only mentions Himself. Because, the issue here is between the True God Jehovah against false gods-carved image. It's pretty simple Hi David Well then how about this context… O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, (not gods) thou art the God, even “thou alone“, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth. Isa 37:16 Which “alone” spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. Job 9:8 Here is a couple especially for the Henotheist and the Polytheist… Thus shall ye say unto them, “The gods” **that have not made** the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. Jer 10:11 For *all the gods* of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens. Pss 96:5 Your Bible calls Yahshua “a god”, and LU say's that Yahshua is her great God and Saviour and yet he is not the “One true God”. How do you reconcile this with YHWH alone, by himself created all things? And if Yeshua was the quote “firstborn of creation” (or came into existence as a separate sentient being) then would he not be like the Father? Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and “there is none else”; I am God, and “there is none like me”, Isa 46:9 If Yeshua was a separate sentient being or “creation”, (for all things were created including the born), and he was involved in the creation as such then he would have surely been beside the Father… Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Isa 45:21 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that “there is none beside me“. I am the LORD, and there is none else. Isa 45:6 Here is what the Lord says about making any other being “a god”… Exod 23:13 “Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth. Exod 23:13 Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. Isa 44:8 None could create the universe but God alone, because creation is a work of infinite power, and could not be produced by any finite cause or being: For the distance between being and not being is truly infinite, which could not be removed by any finite agent, or the activity of all finite agents united. YHWH is One. John knew this when he was inspired to write… In the beginning1 was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. John 1:1-3 This same Word/God was manifested and we beheld his image and Glory… No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18 WJ

Hi WJ,

Quote

And if Yeshua was the quote “firstborn of creation” (or came into existence as a separate sentient being) then would he not be like the Father? Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and “there is none else”; I am God, and “there is none like me”, Isa 46:9

He would NOT be like the Father in that the Father ALWAYS EXISTED and was the SOURCE of all things good. He would be like the Father's nature, though. So the Son is like the Father in some things and not like Him in other things.

Quote

If Yeshua was a separate sentient being or “creation”, (for all things were created including the born), and he was involved in the creation as such then he would have surely been beside the Father… Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared t his from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Isa 45:21 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that “there is none beside me“. I am the LORD, and there is none else. Isa 45:6

WJ, this is your favorite translation of John 1:18, right? This verse gives us two individuals in fellowship, not one and not three:

No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18

You also know that this verse is translated as the Son of God being the “only begotten God.” This translation also speaks of two called God (and we know that the Father is the “one true God”), not one and not three:

biblegateway Joh 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Interesting that the NIV says that there is God the One and Only at the Father's side, again that makes two, not one and not three:

NIV
biblegateway Joh 1:18
No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

Notice in that last translation that the Son is at the “side” of the Father. So is He at the side of His Father as this says or is He not as Isa 45:21 says “there is none beside me.”

We know that both are correct in their own context so there must be more to it than what meets the eye.

Now regarding created beings, when God made man, He made the first man out of dust, Adam, and the woman He made out of the first man's rib. He started with something of a different nature and created something else, a first of its kind with a unique nature. I believe that the firstborn of God came from God Himself who wasn't created and so the firstborn wasn't born from something of a created kind originally, later He humbled Himself and came in the likeness of man into a body prepared for Him that was from a created kind.

LU

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 05 2008,04:05)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 05 2008,01:58) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,13:44) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 04 2008,13:39) This would be true if the scriptures say Yahshua is “an” image of the invisible God. Still true if he is the image of the invisible God. Is the Father the image of the invisible God? No, Yeshua is. The Father is the one true God and Jesus Christ is who God sent. For 'us', there is one God the Father. For you there is one God the Father, Son, Spirit. You cannot be 'us' in this context. Hi t8 Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,13:44) Is the Father the image of the invisible God? Yes, if the Father who is invisible makes himself visible. Would the “image” you see not be God? Again, you reduce Gods image to being less than God therefore creating a false image of God! WJ Hi WJ, Do you think that when Jesus revealed the nature of God he himself became invisible? God was in him reconciling the world to Himself[2cor 5] But he was not the God Who was in him.

Hi NH

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 05 2008,04:05)

But he was not the God Who was in him.

The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.

Of course you would not say that the Father is the Son who is in him!    

WJ

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
The Father is the God of Jesus and should be yours too.
My children stay away from idols.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2008,17:16)

Hi Mandy, Malcolm said that he believes that the Son of God was the “arm of God”, the agent used in creation by the Father.  I have said that myself and can certainly understand how that could be.  The scriptures are written in a progressive revelation where the New Testament's teaching shed light on the OT.  Some of the OT has passages say that “I alone” created the world and the NT passages say that He did it through Christ.  We need to interpret scripture with scripture and understand that the NT is giving the reader a fuller picture of things not a lesser picture.  We build precept upon precept. God bless, Kathi

Hi LU

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2008,17:16)

We need to interpret scripture with scripture and understand that the NT is giving the reader a fuller picture of things not a lesser picture.  We build precept upon precept.

This is true.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.  2 Peter 1:1 NET

…as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Titus 2:13

With regard then to eating food sacrificed to idols, we know that “an idol in this world is nothing,” and that “there is no God but one”. If after all “there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth” (as there are many gods and many lords), yet “for us there is one God”, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live. 1 Cor 8:4-6

Is Paul and Peter contradicting themselves when they say…

“…our God and Savior, Jesus Christ“,

and…

“…the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ“.

and then Paul says…

“there is no God but one”. and…“for us there is one God”

Not at all.

Many have used 1 Cor 8:6 falsely to prove the Trinitarian view wrong. Paul’s language is to make the distinction between the person of the Father and Yeshua by using the term “God” for the Father and “Lord” for Yeshua so not to convey “modalism” or “oneness”.

If the term “God” is exclusive to the Father then the term “Lord” must be exclusive to Yeshua. Of course many would not claim the Father is not “Lord”.

Now let’s look at the language that Paul uses for his description of Yeshua in verse 6.

…one Lord, Jesus Christ, “through whom” are all things and “through whom” we live.

So while it appears that this part of the verse is proof that Paul is saying Yeshua is not God because he says “through whom”, then compare scripture with scripture…

Paul writes…

For of him, and “through him”, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Rom 11:36

A close examination of Romans chapter 11 shows that “the One” Paul speaks of in verse 36, he calls both Lord and God in that chapter without mentioning who it is he speaks of, the Father or Yeshua.

If you say the Lord here is Yeshua, then you are saying Yeshua is God. If you say the Lord here is the Father, then you still are saying Yeshua is God based on Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 8:6

…one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and “through whom” we live. 1 Cor 8:6

For of him, and “through him”, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Rom 11:36

So is Paul contradicting himself? Not at all.

For us there is “One God”.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.  2 Peter 1:1 NET

…as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Titus 2:13

Paul, Peter, and John agrees with YHWH…

Exd 20:3
Thou shalt have “no other gods” before me.

Exd 23:13
And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and “make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth”.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 06 2008,17:06)

Hi WJ, The Father is the God of Jesus and should be yours too. My children stay away from idols.

NH

He is!

WJ

[david]

WJ, what are your thoughts on the Sahidic Coptic translating of John 1:1 as “a god.”

Much was made of it in the scholarly world when an apocryphal gospel written in Coptic, titled the “Gospel of Thomas,” was discovered in Egypt near Nag Hammadi in December 1945.
Yet, after an initial welcome, the scholarly world has been strangely silent about an earlier and more significant find, the Sahidic Coptic translation of the canonical Gospel of John, which may date from about the late 2nd century C.E.–George William Horner, The Coptic version of the New Testament in the southern dialect, otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic, 1911, pp. 398, 399

This manuscript was introduced to the English-speaking world in 1911 through the work of [Reverend] George William Horner. Today, it is difficult even to find copies of Horner's translation of the Coptic canonical Gospel of John. It has been largely relegated to dusty library shelves, whereas copies of the “Gospel of Thomas” (in English with Coptic text) line the lighted shelves of popular bookstores.

In the book, The Text of the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1987), Kurt and Barbara Aland, editors of critical Greek New Testament texts, state:
“The Coptic New Testament is among the primary resources for the history of the New Testament text. Important as the Latin and Syriac versions may be, it is of far greater importance to know precisely how the text developed in Egypt.”
(Page 200)

The Sahidic Coptic text of the Gospel of John has been found to be in the Alexandrian text tradition of the well-regarded Codex Vaticanus (B) (Vatican 1209), one of the best of the early extant Greek New Testament manuscripts. Coptic John also shows affinities to the Greek Papyrus Bodmer XIV (p75) of the late 2nd/3rd century.–Aland, p. 91

Concerning the Alexandrian text tradition, Dr. Bruce Metzger states that it “is usually considered to be the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original.”--Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd  edition, United Bible Societies, 1994, page 5

Therefore, it is all the more strange that insights of the Sahidic Coptic text of John 1:1 are largely ignored by popular Bible translators. Might that be because the Sahidic Coptic Gospel of John translates John 1:1c in a way that is unpopular in Christendom? The Sahidic text renders John 1:1c as auw neunoute pe pshaje, clearly meaning literally “and was a god the Word.”Unlike koine Greek, Sahidic Coptic has both the definite article, p, and the indefinite article, u. The Coptic text of John 1:1b identifies the first mention of noute as pnoute, “the god,” i.e., God. This corresponds to the koine Greek text, wherein theos, “god,” has the definite article ho- at John 1:1b, i.e., “the Word was with [the] God.”

The koine Greek text indicates the indefiniteness of the word theos in its second mention (John 1:1c), “god,” by omitting the definite article before it, because koine Greek had no indefinite article. But Coptic does have an indefinite article, and the text employs the indefinite article at John 1:1c. This makes it clear that in reading the original Greek text, the ancient Coptic translators understood it to say specifically that “the Word was a god.”

The early Coptic Christians had a good understanding of both Greek and their own language, and their translation of John's koine Greek here is very precise and accurate. Because they actually employed the indefinite article before the word “god,” noute, the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c is more precise than the translation found in the Latin Vulgate, since Latin has neither a definite nor an indefinite article.

It may be noted that the earliest Coptic translation was likely made before Trinitarianism gained a foothold in the churches of the 4th century. That may be one reason why the Coptic translators saw no need to violate the sense of John's Greek by translating it “the Word was God.”
(I copied most of this info from a website that no longer exists.)

Anyway, wondering what others think of the coptic translation?

[gollamudi]

So how many Gods or gods are there for you brother David;
one is almighty and other is small 'god' or mighty god. Am I correct ?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi LU

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 04 2008,11:00)

And if Yeshua was the quote “firstborn of creation” (or came into existence as a separate sentient being) then would he not be like the Father? Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and “there is none else”; I am God, and “there is none like me”, Isa 46:9

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2008,18:41)

He would NOT be like the Father in that the Father ALWAYS EXISTED…

But you base your theory that “Yeshua did not always exist”,  on ambiguous scriptures and a “personal” revelation that goes beyond scriptures.

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2008,18:41)

…and was the SOURCE of all things good.

…one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are **all things** and “through whom” we live. 1 Cor 8:6

1:17 He himself is before all things and ”all things are held together in him”. Col 1:17

The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word…, Heb 1:3

In fact Yeshua is the “Way, the Truth and the Life”. So yes Yeshua is also the source, for all things are his.

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2008,18:41)

He would be like the Father's nature, though. So the Son is like the Father in some things and not like Him in other things.

Really? Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 04 2008,11:00)

If Yeshua was a separate sentient being or “creation”, (for all things were created including the born), and he was involved in the creation as such then he would have surely been beside the Father… Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Isa 45:21 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that “there is none beside me“. I am the LORD, and there is none else. Isa 45:6

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2008,18:41)

WJ, this is your favorite translation of John 1:18, right?  This verse gives us two individuals in fellowship, not one and not three:

That is correct. I am not a Modalist nor a Polytheist or Henotheist. John does mention 2 here that are One, and later mentions “another” who is also One with the Father and the Son.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; John 14:16

Mathew and Paul also mention the three…

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt 28:19

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. 2 Cor 13:14

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2008,18:41)

No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18 You also know that this verse is translated as the Son of God being the “only begotten God.”  This translation also speaks of two called God (and we know that the Father is the “one true God”), not one and not three: biblegateway Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Yes, the NASB is practically the only version that uses the term “begotten god”.

In light of John 1:1 the more accurate translation is the NET, NIV, ESV, ISV, CEV, NCV, NIRV, TNIV, found on BibleGateway.

If the writer John wanted to convey Yeshua as a “begotten god”, then he would have started the chapter with…

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was the “begotten god”. But he didn’t.  

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2008,18:41)

Interesting that the NIV says that there is God the One and Only at the Father's side, again that makes two, not one and not three:

John hadn’t gotten to John 14:16 yet.

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2008,18:41)

NIV biblegateway Joh 1:18 No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known. Notice in that last translation that the Son is at the “side” of the Father.  So is He at the side of His Father as this says or is He not as Isa 45:21 says “there is none beside me.”

Yes and we know that the fulness of all that is God is in Yeshua, and Yeshua is in the Father. They are One. Yeshua is at the Father’s side and the Father is at Yeshua’s side and yet they are within each other. They are “One Spirit! To be at the Fathers side means that Yeshua is equal to the Father in nature, not above him, nor beneath him but at his side. This is what John means when he writes “the Word was with God and the Word was God. They are inseparable in nature and power and Glory.
 

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2008,18:41)

We know that both are correct in their own context so there must be more to it than what meets the eye.

There is, and John 1:1 sets the tone.

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2008,18:41)

Now regarding created beings, when God made man, He made the first man out of dust, Adam, and the woman He made out of the first man's rib.  He started with something of a different nature and created something else, a first of its kind with a unique nature.

If you are implying Adam is 100% human and Eve is something else, I disagree. I think you have nature and gender mixed up. God does not have a gender. Is there a scripture that says Yeshua is “somewhat of a different nature” than the Father?

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2008,18:41)

I believe that the firstborn of God came from God Himself who wasn't created and so the firstborn wasn't born from something of a created kind originally, later He humbled Himself and came in the likeness of man into a body prepared for Him that was from a created kind. LU

I know what you believe, but you base your theology on ambiguity. There is no unambiguous scripture that says Yeshua had a beginning and especially that he was born or created from an asexual God. YHWH did not bring birth to a lesser god by whom he created all things and then ask us to bow down and worship him calling him our Great God and Savour.

Your theology sounds too much like this…

The Theogony (the birth of the Gods).

The ancient Greek mankind, trying to explain certain metaphysical phenomena and anxieties, invented amazing myths concerning the Cosmogony (the creation of the World) and the Theogony (the birth of the Gods). Thus, the ancient Greek people created their own splendid, yet human-like world of gods, justifying the various abstract significances like Love, Birth or Death. Source.

IMO

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi David

Quote (david @ Oct. 06 2008,18:32)

Therefore, it is all the more strange that insights of the Sahidic Coptic text of John 1:1 are largely ignored by popular Bible translators. Might that be because the Sahidic Coptic Gospel of John translates John 1:1c in a way that is unpopular in Christendom?

I think that translating John 1:1c as “a god” also would be unpopular to the Hebrews that believed there is only one “True God”.

Here is some information concerning the Sahidic Coptic translation.

John 1:1 in the Sahidic Coptic Translation
Several Jehovah's Witness apologists have claimed that the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1 fully supports the rendering of the New World Translation (NWT): “and the Word was a god.”

I have written on this topic here.

Recently, Witness apologist Solomon Landers and an anonymous blogger calling himself “Memra” have created several blogs and websites touting the Sahidic Coptic translation. One would think that two apologists (assuming Memra is not Solomon) would only need to bring up two sites, but perhaps they are trying to create the impression of 'buzz' on the Internet.

In any event, both apologists have attempted to respond to my comments. I have no doubt that others may soon jump on board, as Witnesses see the Sahidic translation – a translation dating back to at least the 3rd Century – as vindication of the NWT in a big way.

Click here for more.

WJ

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 05 2008,01:58)

Hi t8 Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,13:44) Is the Father the image of the invisible God? Yes, if the Father who is invisible makes himself visible. Would the “image” you see not be God? Again, you reduce Gods image to being less than God therefore creating a false image of God! WJ

Let's put your words to the test.
The test is scripture.

1 Timothy 6:15-16
15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

So according to Paul, no one can see God and no one has seen God.

So your bit about the invisible God being visible is incorrect.

Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. If Jesus were God, then according to Paul, Jesus would be invisible and no one could see him or has seen him.

Wake up WJ, it is time for you to put away this folly.
It is silly to teach that the invisible God is visible.
I think you can see that it is a is a blatant contradiction.
At least be honest with yourself if you can't admit it publicly.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 05 2008,03:10)

Hi t8 Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,13:44) For 'us', there is one God the Father. Really? Then why do you say Yahshua is a “theos”, god? You said you have no problem calling Yeshua your “theos”, god! As the scriptures say satan is “the theos”, god of this world. Yet would you say satan is your “theos”, god? Yet you say that Yahshua is your “theos”, god! So to you there is two “theos”, gods, the Father and the son! WJ

Yes the Father is the only and one true God.

Some who are given his authority are called theos, but they are not the Most High Theos or true Theos. Rather they are representative of him who is the one true Theos.

Your argument is not with me, but scripture. I am merely acknowledging a reality.

Sorry WJ, but trying to be flash with your words has only exposed your conflict with scripture for all to see.

Anyone can see that your words do not match up with the reality of the application of the word 'theos' in scripture.

For anyone who doesn't know, WJ, cannot grasp the word 'theos' and all its uses. He thinks Jesus is God because 'theos' is applied to him, yet he isn't consistent with his false understanding because the Judges of Israel are also called 'theos' and at least we both agree that they are not God.

Funny thing is I think he can understand the way the word spirit is used, in that we are taught that there is one Spirit, yet there are plenty of spirits including angels of God.

I actually think it is just his bias or pride that blinds him, not an intellectual disability. But that is my opinion.

1 Corinthians 12:9
to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit,

Ephesians 4:4-6
4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Hebrews 1:14
Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

Hebrews 12:9
Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!

[gollamudi]

Good posts brother T8,
At the same time please say that there can be no other Gods besides our Father in this whole universe. Please don't be confused with the word 'theos' which is wrongly translated for princes and judges in greek. These so called gods can not be confused with our True God Father.

Thanks and peace to you
Adam

[epistemaniac]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:31)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 05 2008,01:58) Hi t8 Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,13:44) Is the Father the image of the invisible God? Yes, if the Father who is invisible makes himself visible. Would the “image” you see not be God? Again, you reduce Gods image to being less than God therefore creating a false image of God! WJ Let's put your words to the test. The test is scripture. 1 Timothy 6:15-16 15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen. So according to Paul, no one can see God and no one has seen God. So your bit about the invisible God being visible is incorrect. Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. If Jesus were God, then according to Paul, Jesus would be invisible and no one could see him or has seen him. Wake up WJ, it is time for you to put away this folly. It is silly to teach that the invisible God is visible. I think you can see that it is a is a blatant contradiction. At least be honest with yourself if you can't admit it publicly.

But… here is the rest of the story… “The question why the Son is called “The Word” may be answered by saying that the term expresses both his nature and his office. The word is that which reveals. The Son is the εἰκών and ἀπαύγασμα of God, and therefore his word. It is his office to make God known to his creatures. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. The Son, therefore, as the revealer of God, is the Word.”

Hodge, C. Systematic Theology (504). Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

So according to all of Scripture, on this issue, no one has seen God, however, the Son has come as a declarer of God…. and the Son is, as the writer of Hebrews also states, the “exact representation of His nature”…. and, those who have seen Christ have seen the Father. For we have the very words of Christ Jesus Himself who said (John 14:9 ESV) Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?”

To see Jesus, is to see God. Therefore Paul's words in 1 Tim. must refer to God the Father, who is spirit, and the human eye cannot see “spirit”, and not to Jesus, further reinforcing the doctrine of the Trinity, as there is a distinction being made in reference to the Father, which humans are physically unable to see, and Jesus, who's role it was to make God visible to us.

blessings,
Ken

[epistemaniac]

Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 06 2008,22:09)

Good posts brother T8, At the same time please say that there can be no other Gods besides our Father in this whole universe. Please don't be confused with the word 'theos' which is wrongly translated for princes and judges in greek. These so called gods can not be confused with our True God Father. Thanks and peace to you Adam

This such a great point… the Bible is so very clear… there is only 1 true God…. but as David and other JW's and other inconsistent Unitarians of various stripes admit, the bible refers to Jesus as being God, or, for the sake of argument, lets say “a god”… But… and here is the crucial point…. if there is only one true God, and Jesus is a god, then by resistless logic, by the application of the law of the excluded middle, Jesus simply HAS to be a false god!! Of course, that cannot be true! Its blasphemous to think so. Therefore, Jesus has to be, in some profound essential way, a part of the one true God's very nature, or as the ancient creed so well puts it, Jesus is:
“God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;”.
And this is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. It resolves this biblical conundrum, and without it, the Bible explicitly contradicts itself by saying that there can only be 1 true God, and that Jesus is god or a god, yet Jesus is spoken of throughout the bible in a favorable sense, as the Messiah, as the Savior, as God's Son, etc… all positive favorable descriptions…. none of which would lead us to believe that Jesus is a false god. So Jesus is the true God, and the Trinity is what best explains the full counsel of Scripture.

blessings,
Ken

[malcolm ferris]

Been busy last few days…
Hi WJ
Some thoughts on some of your comments.

Quote

Really? Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?

Only one?
How about a few?
Omnipotence – Jesus does not have omnipotence of himself – he was given it by GOD – after he rose from the grave. If it was an intrinsic part of himself he could not have it then not have it then have it again…
Also he said himself that his Father was greater than him (Mt 14:28)
Omniscience – Jesus did not know everything that the Father did (Mk 13:32) Now as with the previous point – he cannot have omniscience then lose it then gain it again.
Jesus could die – GOD is eternal – therefore cannot die.
Jesus could be a man – GOD is not a man.
There is no such thing as an eternal son, and the son of God is not a second GOD.
If Jesus ever was eternal then he could not die.
The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again.

Quote

There is no unambiguous scripture that says Yeshua had a beginning and especially that he was born or created from an asexual God.

There is nothing ambiguous about the title son – it clearly denotes the following
Offspring – and therefore the fact that Jesus (as all offspring of a parent do) had a beginning.
Add to this the fact that he has a father. Everyone I know of that has a father had a beginning in that father.
“you are MY Son today I have begotten you” – nothing ambiguous about that.
What does the word beget mean? Especially when used in context to HIS Son.
Asexual GOD? Sex and GOD are not relative at all – He can make children of the rocks – He can speak children even as He spoke the entire creation into existence.

Quote

YHWH did not bring birth to a lesser god by whom he created all things and then ask us to bow down and worship him calling him our Great God and Savior.

A lesser GOD – there is but one GOD – one Source and creator of all.
How HE chooses to do the creating is HIS sovereign prerogative.
As T8 says Jesus being the image of the invisible GOD does not make him identical
The meaning of the word image denotes this fact, an image is not the original it is an image.
Blessings

[epistemaniac]

Quote (david @ Oct. 06 2008,18:32)

WJ, what are your thoughts on the Sahidic Coptic translating of John 1:1 as “a god.” Much was made of it in the scholarly world when an apocryphal gospel written in Coptic, titled the “Gospel of Thomas,” was discovered in Egypt near Nag Hammadi in December 1945. Yet, after an initial welcome, the scholarly world has been strangely silent about an earlier and more significant find, the Sahidic Coptic translation of the canonical Gospel of John, which may date from about the late 2nd century C.E.–George William Horner, The Coptic version of the New Testament in the southern dialect, otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic, 1911, pp. 398, 399 This manuscript was introduced to the English-speaking world in 1911 through the work of [Reverend] George William Horner. Today, it is difficult even to find copies of Horner's translation of the Coptic canonical Gospel of John. It has been largely relegated to dusty library shelves, whereas copies of the “Gospel of Thomas” (in English with Coptic text) line the lighted shelves of popular bookstores. In the book, The Text of the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1987), Kurt and Barbara Aland, editors of critical Greek New Testament texts, state: “The Coptic New Testament is among the primary resources for the history of the New Testament text. Important as the Latin and Syriac versions may be, it is of far greater importance to know precisely how the text developed in Egypt.” (Page 200) The Sahidic Coptic text of the Gospel of John has been found to be in the Alexandrian text tradition of the well-regarded Codex Vaticanus (B) (Vatican 1209), one of the best of the early extant Greek New Testament manuscripts. Coptic John also shows affinities to the Greek Papyrus Bodmer XIV (p75) of the late 2nd/3rd century.–Aland, p. 91 Concerning the Alexandrian text tradition, Dr. Bruce Metzger states that it “is usually considered to be the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original.”--Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd  edition, United Bible Societies, 1994, page 5 Therefore, it is all the more strange that insights of the Sahidic Coptic text of John 1:1 are largely ignored by popular Bible translators. Might that be because the Sahidic Coptic Gospel of John translates John 1:1c in a way that is unpopular in Christendom? The Sahidic text renders John 1:1c as auw neunoute pe pshaje, clearly meaning literally “and was a god the Word.”Unlike koine Greek, Sahidic Coptic has both the definite article, p, and the indefinite article, u. The Coptic text of John 1:1b identifies the first mention of noute as pnoute, “the god,” i.e., God. This corresponds to the koine Greek text, wherein theos, “god,” has the definite article ho- at John 1:1b, i.e., “the Word was with [the] God.” The koine Greek text indicates the indefiniteness of the word theos in its second mention (John 1:1c), “god,” by omitting the definite article before it, because koine Greek had no indefinite article. But Coptic does have an indefinite article, and the text employs the indefinite article at John 1:1c. This makes it clear that in reading the original Greek text, the ancient Coptic translators understood it to say specifically that “the Word was a god.” The early Coptic Christians had a good understanding of both Greek and their own language, and their translation of John's koine Greek here is very precise and accurate. Because they actually employed the indefinite article before the word “god,” noute, the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c is more precise than the translation found in the Latin Vulgate, since Latin has neither a definite nor an indefinite article. It may be noted that the earliest Coptic translation was likely made before Trinitarianism gained a foothold in the churches of the 4th century. That may be one reason why the Coptic translators saw no need to violate the sense of John's Greek by translating it “the Word was God.” (I copied most of this info from a website that no longer exists.) Anyway, wondering what others think of the coptic translation?

The “Sahidic Coptic has no neuter gender (thus most Greek neuter nouns are rendered as though they were masculine); Sahidic Coptic has only the active voice; Sahidic Coptic often renders the Greek imperfect and the aorist as perfects, etc. Early Coptic translations reflect a heavy use of Greek loan-words, but often with variations in spelling especially with regard to vowels. As B. Metzger observes, “Compared with Greek [Coptic] is much more wooden and lacking in suppleness and variety of expression” (1977: 107).
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6:803). New York: Doubleday.

Also… “If an early translator (third Century or earlier) understood John to have written “and the Word was a god,” this would appear to be evidence in favor of the NWT's rendering. But, as we shall see, appearances can be deceiving.

The full citation of Horner's Coptic New Testament is as follows:

The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect
otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic, 4 Volumes (Oxford, 1911).

Horner's English translation of John 1:1c is as follows:

“…and [a] God was the Word.”

Horner's critical apparatus defines the use of square brackets as
follows: “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English” (p. 376).

How can Horner say that the indefinite article, while present in the
Sahidic original, is not required in English?

The answer lies in the usage of the Sahidic indefinite article
itself. We may first note that, unlike English, the indefinite
article is used in Sahidic with abstract nouns and nouns of
substance (Walters, CC, An Elementary Coptic Grammar of the Sahidic Dialect, p. 12). An example of this usage may be found in John 1:16, which Horner translates:

Because out of fulness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace in
place of [a] grace.

More importantly, the indefinite article does not always denote
class membership. It can also used to attribute qualities or
characteristics (what in Greek grammars is called a “qualitative
usage” [e.g., Wallace, p. 244]):
Indefinite Article
one specimen of the lexical class of … ;
one specimen having the quality of the lexical class of … (Layton,
Bentley, A Coptic Grammar With Chrestomathy and Glossary – Sahidic Dialect, 2nd edition, p. 43, “…” in original).

Dr. Layton explains further:

The indef. article is part of the Coptic syntactic pattern. This
pattern predicates either a quality (we'd omit the English article
in English: “is divine”) or an entity (“is a god”); the reader
decides which reading to give it. The Coptic pattern does NOT
predicate equivalence with the proper name “God”; in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the def. article. Occurrence of an anarthrous noun in this pattern would be odd.3

So, the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic does not
necessarily mean that the Coptic translator understood John to have written “a god.” He was not equating the Word with the proper name God, but he could have understood John to be using theos in a qualitative sense, as many Greek scholars have argued. Dr. Layton says it is up to the reader to decide, but is there any indication in the immediate context to help us?

I believe there is significant evidence in favor of a qualitative
reading. In the Sahidic version of John 1:18b, the anarthrous theos in the Greek is translated with the defi
nite article. Horner's
translation reads as follows:

“God, the only Son.”
It would seem unlikely in the extreme that a translator would
understand John to have designated the Word “a god” in John 1:1 and “the God” in John 1:18. Instead, his use of the definite article in verse 18 would make more sense if he understood John to be ascribing the qualities of Deity to the Word in John 1:1.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard”
from http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-February/037663.html

Lastly, while the website from which much of this info in the post asking for views on this Coptic version was taken may no longer exist, it appears to be lifted from a book that all anti Trintarians would be interested in reading and assimilating, as it takes on on Trinitarianism in general, and many popular Trinitarian scholars in particular… the info seems to be taken from a book by Patrick Navas entitled …. and Nick and all the others who are somewhat maniacally opposed to “tradition” will especially like this title…. “Divine Truth or Human Tradition?”, which, for those who may have missed the earlier thread, commits the informal fallacy of a false dichotomy, the section on this version of John in the Sahidic Coptic version/manuscript is apparently done by Solomon Landers, a prominent Jehovah's Witness apologist. Portions of the book can be found for free online at google books… and, again, for the specific issue concerning John 1:1 and the version found in the Sahidic Coptic manuscript, see:

http://books.google.com/books?i….A311,M1

blessings,
Ken

[Author]

Posts