- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Good questions david.
The fact that there is no indefinite article poses difficulties when translating into a language that demands one.
So I see that there are 3 possibilities, as you do, (even if our opinions may differ):
1) divine (quality
2) a god (identify)
3) The God (identity)If it is read as 'The God', then I think that this actually rules out the option that the Father as God, because it would mean that the Word was exclusively God. Can someone confirm if this is correct with a source? I can't remember the sources I originally found as that was quite a while ago now.
So the Word was 'THE God' would be like saying in structure that George Bush is the president, thereby excluding other people from being the president.
A guide to this could well be when Jesus called Judas a 'devil'. (NOTE: I added in 'a' to make the sentence readable in English.)
If Jesus said that he was 'the Devil', then he was identifying him as Satan the Devil. If he was saying that he was 'a devil', then he may well have meant that he was a demon or one of the Devils angels or non-human servants as devils seems to imply. But the lack of article here also could be referring to just 'devil', which has a qualitative application, meaning that he had the nature or character of the Devil, that he was diabolical. This allows for Judas to still be a man but to be like the Devil in character.
As most of you are probably aware, I see these as qualitative.
Adding the definite article is just reckless in my opinion, and adding the indefinite article is perhaps not as bad, but implies that there is a second god, or in Judas's case, another devil creature.Quote (david @ Oct. 15 2008,14:13) Hi golli. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Greek has no indefinite article [a]. It does have a definite article [the]. While this definite article appears before the first God in that verse, it does not appear before the last “god” mentioned.
Since there is no indefinite article in the greek language, where the context demands it, the translator adds the [a], otherwise there would be no “a's” in the New testament.
david, I think you will find if you haven't already is that gol, Gene, and others don't acknowledge the importance of articles in John 1:1. If they did, then they would know that the Logos is preceded by the definite article as God is in John 1:1 a/b.They are arguing John 1:1 in a way as if they weren't there and aren't identifying. Although they may acknowledge the articles in John 1:1 a/b for God as that agrees with their doctrine, but not for Logos.
Wonderful brother T8, we don't debate on the definite article here because we don't see “Logos” as a person we see as an attribute of One and only God by which our One God the Father created this whole universe. We also see this “logos” as an expression of that One God with which He acts in this universe and that expression became a living expression in Jesus the man made in the image of God.
Thanks and peace to you
AdamHi GM,
John saw and even touched this attribute.
Is the attribute of God coming again as shown in Rev 19?Quote So I see that there are 3 possibilities, as you do, (even if our opinions may differ): 1) divine (quality
2) a god (identify)
3) The God (identity)Yes, those are the possibilities. Isn't it interesting that the early Coptic translation (which unlike other languages back then, actually having an indefinite article) translated it as “a god.”
Of course, what we're told by someone who actually reads books on the coptic language is that “a god” in this language can mean “divine.” But, it cannot mean “the God.”
The closer we get to the time of Jesus, the more trust I have in those that called themselves “Christian.”
Since the Coptic translation came before all those councels where they were trying to figure out and define the trinity, I put a whole lot more trust in what those Christians who translated this version believed and understood, then those who came later.Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 15 2008,23:07) Wonderful brother T8, we don't debate on the definite article here because we don't see “Logos” as a person we see as an attribute of One and only God by which our One God the Father created this whole universe. We also see this “logos” as an expression of that One God with which He acts in this universe and that expression became a living expression in Jesus the man made in the image of God. Thanks and peace to you
Adam
Exactly.You ignore the articles referring to Logos but not Theos because of you predefined belief.
If we are free to add or takeaway from the impact that the definite article has, then you could with the same measure as yourself turn God into the attribute and Logos into the person.
Would it not be better to be consistent. If God is identified because of the definite article, then why Logos?
david,
I am not understanding what you are saying.I could understand that you have another bible translated with indefinte article, 'a',.Is it so?what your bible is called like mormon's bible?
pulivarthyPulvarthy, there are several Bible's that at John 1:1 that read “the Word was a god” or “the word was divine.”
But most Bibles of course read “the Word was God.”
The problem in translating the greek is that Greek doesn't have an indefinite article [a]. It does have a definite article [the].
So how do we know how the earliest Christians understood this?
Since Greek and latin have no indefinite article, and since the coptic language does, we can note how they translated this 1700 years ago into the coptic language. Did they use the indefinite article or not? They did.
It's the early time of that translation that is so interesting.david,
thank you david .when there was no concept of article in original scriptures, we should not bother much about articles and we should not insert any article also.we should not give much importance to articles brought in by english grammaritans.
love in christ
pulivarthy.Hi WM
Since our discussion is a little off topic as not3 has pointed out, I moved it to here…
I Hope as time permits to get to the rest of your response. Gonna be out of town for a week starting Tuesday.
Keith
Hi David
Quote (david @ Oct. 15 2008,14:13) Since there is no indefinite article in the greek language, where the context demands it, the translator adds the [a], otherwise there would be no “a's” in the New testament.
Who says John 1:1 demands an indefinite article except your own theology?John 1:1 should be interpreted in light of the Gospel of John (John 20:28) and other scriptures that refer to Yahshua with the definite article and other Greek rules of grammar.
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
The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4.
This rule is also found in the following scripture…
as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Titus 2:13Paul confirms who it is that will appear in this verse…
Now Enoch, the seventh in descent beginning with Adam, even prophesied of them, saying, “Look! The Lord is coming with thousands and thousands of his holy ones, Jude 1:14WJ
Hi t8
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 15 2008,22:19) As most of you are probably aware, I see these as qualitative.
Adding the definite article is just reckless in my opinion, and adding the indefinite article is perhaps not as bad, but implies that there is a second god, or in Judas's case, another devil creature.
Yes it is your opinion which defies hundreds of real Greek scholars that disagree with you.The problem you have is like David you can not give one example in scriptures of the word “theos” ascribed to any being with “qualitative” or “divine qualities” other than the Father and Yahshua and the Spirit.
This means it is reckless and borders on blasphemy to imply that the writer inspired by the Holy Spirit is referring to Yahshua, “The Word” that was “with God”, and was in the “form of God”,(Phl. 2:6), and by whom was the Creator of all things, (John 1:3, Col. 1:16, 17, Heb 1:2), to be qualitatively less in nature than God.
Especially in light of other scriptures with the definite article referring to Yahshua as God! (John 20:28, Heb. 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13)
Yahshua is referred to as “The Word of God”, (John 1:1, 1 John 1:1, Rev. 19:13) because the very essence of all that God is, “The Word” is. Heb 1:3
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,,who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John 1:18 NIV
WJ
Hi LU
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 11 2008,05:26)
In conclusion, the word theos represents more than one type. What remains important is that we worship the One True God and the One whom He has sent, Jesus Christ.3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
LU
Yes the word “Theos” does represent more than one type. “True Theos” and “false theos”.
The scripture says there is “Only One True theos”. But you believe in and worship “two true theos” or two “Divine beings”.
Like the rest, you have not responded to my challenge to support your theory.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 10 2008,19:05) Now lets see if you can find the word “theos” ascribed to any other being with qualities of God or his attributes with the definite article. You will find only Yahshua is.
WJ
WJ
Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 11 2008,00:19) Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,22:16) Quote A particularly glaring error you make is where you say “The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again” While this is partly true, it is, unfortunately, only partly true. God's word also tells us, that is, Jesus Himself tells us in the Scriptures that He will raise Himself from the dead!!!
John 2:18-21 (ESV) 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.”Once again it is the failure to realize the GOD in Christ principle that gives rise to such arguments as this.
The simple fact is that Jesus as a man was representing two people – Himself and his Father.
Therefore sometimes it was the Father speaking and sometimes it was the son.
Remember Jesus was the temple of GOD – he was HIS body. He spoke HIS Fathers words and also (obviously) at times
his own words.
It was GOD who raised Christ from the dead as his disciples preached after receiving the Holy Spirit.
Why would the Holy Spirit contradict the words of Jesus?
There is no contradiction this was GOD speaking when Jesus said 'I will raise it up again'.imo
There is no contradiction because Jesus is God. There WOULD be a contradiction if Jesus was not God. The Holy Spirit would not contradict the words of Jesus, I never said otherwise. But, if Jesus is not God, then Jesus specifically and directly contradicts the other passages of Scripture which say that it was God who raised Him from the dead. Either Jesus is God, or the Scriptures contradict themselves.This is not Jesus “speaking for the Father”. The text nowhere indicates any such thing, although in some instances in other passages that may be the case, but there is no evidence in this passage of Jesus speaking for His Father. It simply says, that is, Jesus simply says, “I will raise this temple in 3 days” and John goes on to relate how after Jesus' resurrection, the disciples realized that Jesus was actually referring to His own body.
So this is no failure to recognize the “God in Christ” principle at all. Jesus did represent the Father to us, He only did the Father's will, He spoke for God…. all these things are true, but they do not change the fact that the Scriptures say on the one hand that God will raise Jesus from the dead, and on the other, that Jesus will raise Himself from the dead. Those who deny Jesus' divinity do not want to accept this plain passage of Scripture because it so clearly evidences His deity.
So you are right, “it was God who raised Christ fromt he dead as his disciples preached after receiving the Holy Spirit”, and I want to thank you for pointing this fact out and being so clear about it. And more importantly, Jesus was right when He said that He would raise Himself from the dead. QED, Jesus is God.
blessings,
Ken
Hi KenSo true!
But again the “Arians” will explain away Yahshua’s simple words with apologetics.
”Jesus answered and said unto them“, Destroy this temple, and in three days “I will raise it up“. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But “he spake” of the temple of “his body“. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that “he had said this unto them”; and they believed the scripture, and the word which “Jesus had said”. John 2:19-22
Look real close unbelievers. The Holy Spirit breathed this truth through John by bringing to his remembrance the words “Of Yahshua”.
There is no way this scripture can be interpreted as the Father speaking third party.
Heck, you could say none of Yahshua’s words were his own, and that Yahshua never spoke anything but it was always the Father doing the speaking, which would mean that Yahshua was “God in the flesh”.
WJ
Hi Keith,
Quote But again the “Arians” will explain away Yahshua’s simple words with apologetics. ”Jesus answered and said unto them”, Destroy this temple, and in three days “I will raise it up”.
I'm not sure if I'm “Arian” and I don't know a lot of apologetics, but if Jesus was able to pray (and ask God) to raise his buddy, Lazarus, don't you think he could also say he would raise himself (by the same power available to him)?Meaning, he didn't do it himself, as Jesus simple words have already told us that he can do nothing without the Father.
Just some thoughts,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 17 2008,04:12) Hi Keith, Quote But again the “Arians” will explain away Yahshua’s simple words with apologetics. ”Jesus answered and said unto them”, Destroy this temple, and in three days “I will raise it up”.
I'm not sure if I'm “Arian” and I don't know a lot of apologetics, but if Jesus was able to pray (and ask God) to raise his buddy, Lazarus, don't you think he could also say he would raise himself (by the same power available to him)?Meaning, he didn't do it himself, as Jesus simple words have already told us that he can do nothing without the Father.
Just some thoughts,
Mandy
Hi MandyThe words that Yahshua said “He can do nothing of himself”, interpreted that he didnt do anything would contradict many scriptures like John 5:17-19 where Yahshua claims to do the “works” that he sees his Father doing.
It is common for those who do not believe in Yahshua as being God to just make him a mere puppet on a string and reduce him to a mere man who had no power.
The words “I can do nothing of my self” means Yahshua simply did nothing apart from the Fathers will or what he sees the Father do.
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, “but what he seeth the Father do“: for what things soever he doeth, “these also doeth the Son likewise“. John 5:19
Blessings Keith
Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 17 2008,04:12) Hi Keith, Quote But again the “Arians” will explain away Yahshua’s simple words with apologetics. ”Jesus answered and said unto them”, Destroy this temple, and in three days “I will raise it up”.
I'm not sure if I'm “Arian” and I don't know a lot of apologetics, but if Jesus was able to pray (and ask God) to raise his buddy, Lazarus, don't you think he could also say he would raise himself (by the same power available to him)?Meaning, he didn't do it himself, as Jesus simple words have already told us that he can do nothing without the Father.
Just some thoughts,
Mandy
Hi MandyArians!
Here is some info on the battle that still rages against the Trinitarians.
WJ
Hi WJ,
Your bluster would carry more weight if you could show trinity taught in scripture.Otherwise it is just bluster.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 17 2008,04:28) The words “I can do nothing of my self” means Yahshua simply did nothing apart from the Fathers will or what he sees the Father do. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, “but what he seeth the Father do”: for what things soever he doeth, “these also doeth the Son likewise”. John 5:19
I wonder then…..Why did the disciples, coming to Jesus, say, “We couldn't get those demons out!” and Jesus says, “That's because those only come by prayer and fasting.”? Who did Jesus pray to to receive the power to take care of those nasty demons?
Why did Jesus have to pray to God in order to raise Lazarus?
Why did Jesus have to ask God a lot of things before they were able to be accomplished if not to receive the power from the Almighty to accomplish them?
Hi Mandy
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 17 2008,04:28) The words “I can do nothing of my self” means Yahshua simply did nothing apart from the Fathers will or what he sees the Father do. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, “but what he seeth the Father do”: for what things soever he doeth, “these also doeth the Son likewise”. John 5:19
Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 17 2008,07:40)
I wonder then…..Why did the disciples, coming to Jesus, say, “We couldn't get those demons out!” and Jesus says, “That's because those only come by prayer and fasting.”? Who did Jesus pray to to receive the power to take care of those nasty demons?
Is there a scripture that says Jesus prayed to cast demons out?
He told the disciples “They had to pray and fast”.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 17 2008,07:40)
Why did Jesus have to pray to God in order to raise Lazarus?What did Yahshua pray? He said the Father always heard him but for their sakes he prayed. He saw what the Father was doing and he did it.
Whose voice did Lazarus hear and respond too?
That all men should honour the Son, “even as they honour the Father“. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth “my word”, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when “the dead shall “hear the voice of the Son of God“: and they that hear shall live“.
Do you know any mere anointed Prophet or man that could make such claims?
Of course Yahshua sought to do only the Fathers will. Yahshua already had the Spirit without measure, therfore he was able to perform the works that he saw the Father do.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 17 2008,07:40)
Why did Jesus have to ask God a lot of things before they were able to be accomplished if not to receive the power from the Almighty to accomplish them?Can you give me scriptural examples where Yahshua prayed for the power of the Almighty or prayed specifically before he did anything?
He already had it.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
