- This topic is empty.
- Posts
John 1:1
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/john1_1.htmAs it reads, this verse seems to be a contradiction. How can the Word be God and yet also be with God? Many try and suggest that John is expressing a paradox here, but this is not the case. The translation “the Word was God” loses an aspect of the Greek that is important for understanding the Trinity – it will not be necessary to understand a discussion of Greek grammar to untangle this. Phillip Harner presented a list of five alternate renderings of the text and shows, by comparison and contrast, the meaning of John 1:1 that sidesteps the need for a degree. I have paraphrased him here, and recommend that you read his original article as given in the bibliography.
When John says that the “Word is with God” the word God possesses the definite article (the word “the” in English is the definite article in English – but please note that Greek and English usage of the article differ in important ways).The next time the word “God” is used (“the Word was God”) it does not posses this article (note that there is no indefinite article in Greek, the indefinite article in English is the word “a”), and it is in a special form called a predicate nominative. Also (although word order is less significant in Greek) the subject precedes the noun. The significance of all this is that the word is made qualitative, but is not changed in its basic meaning.
To help get a handle on this, Philip Harner listed several different Greek phrases which John could have written (but did not) so that we can compare them with what John did say and thereby better understand what John meant and did not mean to say. The alternatives presented were as follows:
- ho logos en ho theos: The logos (the Word) and theos (God) are completely equivalent and interchangeable – they are identically the same. This is how most people mistakenly read the verse. If this had been what John had written, then we would not believe in the Trinity today. Rather, we would be monarchists.
- theos en ho logos: This is what John actually wrote. This differs from (1) in that it makes the word theios qualitative. It's meaning is something like the New English Bible's translation: “What the Word was, God was.” Moffat, Goodspeed, and other scholars have translated the qualitative word “God” using words like “divine” or “deity” but what they are trying to express with these words is prone to misunderstanding. Their meaning is in keeping with the NEB, that “divine” or “deity” refers to the unique divinity of the one True God.
- ho logos theos en: This would have the same meaning but a different emphasis than the previous list item. This version would put the emphasis on the Word rather than on the nature he possessed.
- ho logos hen theos: This would mean that the word was a divine being of some kind – perhaps like an angel.
- ho logos hen theios: Similar in meaning to the last clause. Uses an adjective theios rather than a noun theos.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 17 2013,14:15) Why not? Apparently, every translator in the history of the world disagrees with you – since they all translate that as “ye are gods” – not “ye have certain God-like qualities”.
But the point is not the language but what “ye are gods” means in Greek. It has a qualitative meaning.How the Greek Article is Used
Source: <a href="http://inthesaltshaker.com/drills/article.htm” target=”_blank”>http://inthesaltshaker.com/drills/article.htmThe Greek article was originally a weak demonstrative pronoun / adjective (i.e., a weaker form of “this,” “that,” “these,” “those”). It pointed to someone or something, in a subtle way that was still clear and obvious to the listener or reader. It may have been used as a pronoun, as a sort of short and abbreviated reference to someone or something already known through the context of what was being said or written, so the whole name of the person or thing did not need to be repeated in full (e.g., “This is what we are talking about.”). Or it may have pointed to a noun in order to indicate that the noun was now present or previously mentioned (e.g., “That man is the one.”).
Thus, the Greek article originally served a completely different function than the English definite article “the.” Then the Greek article developed many uses which are far more closely related to its original Greek function than to the functions of the English definite article. The Greek article definitely is not just an equivalent to the English definite article “the.” Nor is the absence of the Greek article simply an equivalent to the English indefinite article (“a” or “an”).
Therefore, in translating Greek into English, we cannot automatically always use an English definite article “the” in the place of a Greek article. There are many times when one will use no English article in the translation. And sometimes one can even use an indefinite English article in translating a Greek article. For instance, when a Greek article indicates a generic noun, we may translate the Greek article as an English indefinite article, or as an English indefinite pronoun (“any”). Also, if there is no Greek article in front of a Greek noun, we often use an English definite article in the translation, simply because the context indicates a definite reference to that Greek noun.
http://inthesaltshaker.com/drills/article.htm
From the above text, it basically says that the Greek article can be translated with no English article, the definite article, or the indefinite article depending on which brings out the best meaning. Given that, if you said that “the Word was a god” and a person translated that back into Greek, he could say, “The Word was The God” and that would be wrong.
Of course, the Greek article very often, but definitely not always, functions as an individualizing article, where it is used to distinguish one entity — one person, one group of persons, one thing, or one group of things — apart from all other entities. And, if a Greek article does this, it functions much like our English definite article. Thus, it very often can be translated directly into an English definite article.
Again, “The Word was a god” in English is distinguishing one entity, thus could be translated back in Greek as “the Word was the God”.
The normal use of the Greek article has basically two kinds of functions, and often performs both functions at the same time. One is a semantic function. That is, a Greek article in front of a noun or substantive is often used to add additional meaning to that noun or substantive. For example, the articular noun, ὁ ἄνθρωπος, in different contexts, can refer to a particular man distinguished from all other men, to the whole category of mankind, to “thee man” who is the best in the category of all men, or to other things. Using an article in front of a noun can cause the reader to identify additional contextual information with that noun, and the article thus adds meaning to the noun.
Then the article can have a structural function, where it is used to contribute to the structure of a clause or sentence. It can be used in certain ways as a pronoun. Or it can be used with certain words or phrases which are not nouns, in order to transform those words or phrases into nouns (i.e., into substantives). Or it can be used to indicate which grammatical role a word or phrase will serve in a clause or sentence — such as to indicate whether it is a subject or direct object.
So 'the Devil' is an example here that putting a definite article in front of a non-noun turns it into a noun. devil is not a noun, but the definite article changes it into one. Hence when Jesus said, “one of you is devil”, he was not using it as a noun. He was not saying that Judas was literally a devil.
So if there is no definite article in “the Word was theos”, then it too takes on a qualitative meaning even though it differs from 'devil' in that 'theos' is actually a noun. But it is using the noun in a qualitative sense. If this sounds confusing then we see this in English too:
If I say 'you are an angel', then because I have no definite article I am using the noun in a qualitative way. It is as if I had said, “you are angelic” which is now using an adjective. Is there a difference in using the noun 'angel' or the adjective 'angelic' in these sentences? I think they say exactly the same thing.
Quote (t8 @ April 25 2013,17:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 17 2013,14:15) T8, I don't get it. Do you seriously believe that there exist only TWO Gods – Jehovah and Satan?
Mike. There are two who are the originators of all that we see. One is Yahweh who is the only one who is good and the other is Satan, who is the Father of lies and a murderer from the beginning.Satan wanted to be like the Most High and he set out to be a God I guess. And he accomplished that. He is the God of this world.
Jesus on the other hand chose to obey God and to do God's will and not his own, even when he preferred to do his own will.
Just because Satan is the God of this age and Jesus is the son of God, this is by no means meant to be taken that Satan is greater than Jesus. The one who is greater is the one who obeys God. The one who is greater is the one who lays his own life down.
T8,Scripture calls Satan the God of this world. This confuses some that do not understand the difference between being called God and being God.
Satan is called God because the relationship between Satan and this World is like that between God and his creation.
God is worthy to be worshiped, Satan is not. In the case of Job Satan required permission before he rained troubles and tribulations on Job. God does not require Satan's permission for anything.
Thanks for that information, t8.
Hebrews 1
7 In speaking of the angels he says,“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”8 But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever……….
Is this verse calling Jesus a god?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 22 2013,19:21) Quote (Lightenup @ April 20 2013,22:48) The others were not perfect, Jesus was. Only God beings are perfect and must be perfect and uncreated.
Luke 13:32
And He said to them, “Go, tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.’Hebrews 2:10
In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God……. should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.Hebrews 5:9
and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation…………..Hebrews 7:28
…but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.All of these speak about Jesus BEING MADE perfect, Kathi. Do you suppose God was ever “made perfect”?
Hebrews 10:14
For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.Oh, and the verse above tells how many more of us will be made perfect, just as Jesus was.
The real question is: Knowing that those scriptures exist, will you continue to make the claim you've made in the quote box above?
Mike,
As the Branch, His purpose was brought to completeness. That is the idea of being made 'perfect' here. It is not the same sense that I am using the word. The Father and the Son are the theos that are perfect and uncreated. Other theos are not uncreated or perfect.Quote (kerwin @ April 21 2013,08:15) Quote (Lightenup @ April 21 2013,07:37) Quote (kerwin @ April 19 2013,08:11) Quote (Lightenup @ April 19 2013,11:03) Kerwin, The belief in the two powers of Yahweh was a teaching of the Jews. Read this:
http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/
LU,Some off the Canaanites, polytheists, believed in two essential powers. Dr. Michael S. Heiser is interpretation the Hebrew bible in its Canaanite setting.
Quote In my dissertation (UW-Madison, 2004) I argued that Segal’s instincts were correct. My own work bridges the gap between his book and the Hebrew Bible understood in its Canaanite religious context. I don't know anything about rabbinical scholar Alan Segal except what Dr. Heiser said about him. I have heard no peer review of Alan Segal's work, though he published it as a book in 1977.
Hi Kerwin,
The OT says “the Holy Elohim are He.” I agree with that.
The NT says the Father and I are one. I agree with that.
The OT says Jehovah is God of gods and Lord of lords. I agree with that.
The NT says for us there is one God, the Father and one Lord, Jesus Christ. I agree with that too.That all supports plurality in unity of God.
LU,Those are words and words can mean many things. I believe all you wrote but not what you mean.
As for the Canaanites, they have two essential powers, of which one sounds like God. The second is his wife, who name is said to mean city. That may just be one sect.
As you see the Canaanites have split off from the truth and are said to make a personification of the city a second God. El Elyon is still the most high God.
Kerwin,
The Targums reflect the understanding of equating the Word of Jehovah with Jehovah. The Targums are Jewish understanding.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 22 2013,19:05) Quote (Lightenup @ April 20 2013,22:45) Mike,
Jesus is not lessor than God, Jesus is God.
John 3:17
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.Who SENT Jesus into the world? It says “God”, right? And who is greater – the one who SENDS, or the one who IS SENT?
That one verse shows that God is greater than Jesus…….. but there are also many more that show the same thing.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 20 2013,22:45) He is very God of very God.
So is Satan and the other spirit sons of God. They are all “gods”, according to Biblical terminology, and they are all “of God”, since God also brought them forth into existence.
He was greater in the sense that He was the Father.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 22 2013,19:26) Quote (Lightenup @ April 20 2013,23:01) If the President of the U.S. begat you, he would be your father and your president. Right?
Good point, Kathi. But would the son the President begot be “part of” the President? Would he be “Co-President” or something?In other words, would he be “The Son of POTUS”………….. or “POTUS the Son”? Which one?
He could become president. But here we are speaking of an office, not a nature.President George Bush beget another George Bush who was the same in nature to the one who begot him and he became president also.
t8,
Quote So if there is no definite article in “the Word was theos”, then it too takes on a qualitative meaning even though it differs from 'devil' in that 'theos' is actually a noun. Not so! There are many times (some even in John 1) that have theos without the definite article and it is clearly not taking on a qualitative meaning. You don't seem to recognize that when a nominative is part of the predicate, the definite article is dropped to indicate that is the case, not to indicate that it has a qualitative meaning.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 22 2013,19:29) Quote (Lightenup @ April 20 2013,23:04) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 20 2013,23:40) Quote (Lightenup @ April 20 2013,22:22) Mike,
Do you think God is an angel?
An angel of WHO, Kathi? Who is it that sends Almighty YHWH to deliver his message?
Is that a no?
Correct. I don't think the Most High God is an angel.
Good. But you think the second most high theos is an angel being?Quote (t8 @ April 25 2013,18:33) John 1:1
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/john1_1.htmAs it reads, this verse seems to be a contradiction. How can the Word be God and yet also be with God? Many try and suggest that John is expressing a paradox here, but this is not the case. The translation “the Word was God” loses an aspect of the Greek that is important for understanding the Trinity – it will not be necessary to understand a discussion of Greek grammar to untangle this. Phillip Harner presented a list of five alternate renderings of the text and shows, by comparison and contrast, the meaning of John 1:1 that sidesteps the need for a degree. I have paraphrased him here, and recommend that you read his original article as given in the bibliography.
When John says that the “Word is with God” the word God possesses the definite article (the word “the” in English is the definite article in English – but please note that Greek and English usage of the article differ in important ways).The next time the word “God” is used (“the Word was God”) it does not posses this article (note that there is no indefinite article in Greek, the indefinite article in English is the word “a”), and it is in a special form called a predicate nominative. Also (although word order is less significant in Greek) the subject precedes the noun. The significance of all this is that the word is made qualitative, but is not changed in its basic meaning.
To help get a handle on this, Philip Harner listed several different Greek phrases which John could have written (but did not) so that we can compare them with what John did say and thereby better understand what John meant and did not mean to say. The alternatives presented were as follows:
- ho logos en ho theos: The logos (the Word) and theos (God) are completely equivalent and interchangeable – they are identically the same. This is how most people mistakenly read the verse. If this had been what John had written, then we would not believe in the Trinity today. Rather, we would be monarchists.
- theos en ho logos: This is what John actually wrote. This differs from (1) in that it makes the word theios qualitative. It's meaning is something like the New English Bible's translation: “What the Word was, God was.” Moffat, Goodspeed, and other scholars have translated the qualitative word “God” using words like “divine” or “deity” but what they are trying to express with these words is prone to misunderstanding. Their meaning is in keeping with the NEB, that “divine” or “deity” refers to the unique divinity of the one True God.
- ho logos theos en: This would have the same meaning but a different emphasis than the previous list item. This version would put the emphasis on the Word rather than on the nature he possessed.
- ho logos hen theos: This would mean that the word was a divine being of some kind – perhaps like an angel.
- ho logos hen theios: Similar in meaning to the last clause. Uses an adjective theios rather than a noun theos.
T8,If I understand this correctly, it is claiming that John 1:1 is teaching us that the Word has the nature of God. It is not just any word but the Word that has the nature that is like God's. Is that what you understand?
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2013,23:43) The Father and the Son are the theos that are perfect………………
So then “YES”, you ARE going to keep making the claim, despite what I showed you?Kathi, one who has existed eternally as a “perfect” being would NEVER have the need to “be made perfect”. Jesus was “made perfect”, like those of us who overcome will also be.
I cannot help it if you want to imagine some different, abstract meaning of the word “perfect”, just so the scriptures won't say what they really say. That is your choice. I will understand it as Jesus was made perfect through suffering, and therefore wasn't created perfect.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2013,23:48) He was greater in the sense that He was the Father.
And in the sense that He was Jesus' God. And teacher. And Master. And Lord. And protector. And so on, and so on.Face it, the God of Jesus is greater than His servant Jesus… in all ways.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2013,23:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 22 2013,19:26)
Good point, Kathi. But would the son the President begot be “part of” the President? Would he be “Co-President” or something?In other words, would he be “The Son of POTUS”………….. or “POTUS the Son”? Which one?
He could become president.
So then he wouldn't be “part of” the President from the moment he was brought forth?He would be the Son of POTUS instead of POTUS the Son?
Okay. Now apply that to Jesus and his Father. And when you're doing that, ask yourself why many scriptures speak of the Son OF God, but not one of them speak of God the Son.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2013,23:58) Good. But you think the second most high theos is an angel being?
An angel is simply a spirit son of God, who delivers messages and does other tasks for his God. They, like their Father, are all “spirit beings”, not “angel beings“.Jesus is one of them. In fact, he is the firstborn of myriads of them.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2013,04:53) Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2013,23:48) He was greater in the sense that He was the Father.
And in the sense that He was Jesus' God. And teacher. And Master. And Lord. And protector. And so on, and so on.Face it, the God of Jesus is greater than His servant Jesus… in all ways.
MikeQuote Face it, the God of Jesus is greater than His servant Jesus… in all ways. do they never believe but their own views
?they are false teachers ,who make s Jesus the almighty God the father ,
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2013,00:30) Why WON'T they believe, Pierre? I just don't get it.
Mikeit is really very simple,THEY ACT AS THEY KNOW BETTER ,AND BEING INFLUENCE BY RELIGION ,WHAT THEY HAVE A HARD TIME TO LET IT GO,BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT INFLUENCE THAT MAKE PEOPLE NOT SEE OR UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES IS ;THAT THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN THEM AS FACE VALUE,AND SO THEY ALWAYS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING ELSE OUT SIDE OF SCRIPTURES TO UNDERSTAND THEM'; THIS WOULD SEEMS A SMALL THING, BUT IN REALITY THEY REJECTING THE POWER THAT GOD HAS TO DEAL WITH HIS OWN WRITTEN WORD ,AND SO THEY DO NOT HAVE A FULL HEART AND MIND IN GOD AND NO FAITH IN HIS SON ,
THEY DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THAT THE TRUTH ONLY SPEAKS TO THE TRUTH ,THE TRUE UNDERSTANDING COMES OUT OF THE TRUTH ,AND IT IS GOD THROUGH HIS SON THAT GIVE IT TO WHOM PRODUCED THE FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH,(HOLY SPIRIT )
BUT THEY ARE ALSO CONVINCED THAN NO ONE AS THE TRUTH ,SO WHY LOOKING FOR IT
BUT TO MEN OF WEAK CONVICTIONS IT IS EASIER TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN LIE THAN FOLLOW AND SEARCH FOR GOD'S TRUTH .SO THEY ARE ONLY ,LEARNING THE WORDS WITHOUT THE TRUE UNDERSTANDING ,AND SO ALWAYS FIND SOMETHING WRONG ,WITH THE TRUTH PRESENTED TO THEM.BUT THEN THAT IS THE CHOICE TO ALL MEN ;FOLLOW THE TRUTH OF GOD OR ………..WHAT EVER …………..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
