- This topic has 698 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 24 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
This threefold unity must also co-relate to the threefold nature of man…Body, Soul, Spirit – THREE in ONE…common t8, can’t you just sense some profound connection in all this…!! 🙂
“The historic Christian doctrine of the Triune God has been attacked by multitudes throughout history. Everything from world religions to heretical pseudo-Christian cults & secular agnostics & atheists have come against the Trinity with all the zeal they can muster. Sophisticated arguments and twisted Bible interpretations are constantly brought into play to destroy the faith.” – Bob L. Ross
–
Bob L. Ross is director of Pilgrim Publications & amp; author of “The Trinity & the Eternal Sonship of Christ” see playlist “Dealing with Anti Trinitarians (UPC)” at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=…
–
websites: http://www.BIBLEQUERY.ORG, http://www.HISTORYCART.COM & http://www.MUSLIMHOPE.COM) for this special series explaining the Biblical foundation for the Trinity. This video presentation is designed to assist Christians in defending their faith against attacks of numerous false prophets and refute those who come against the historic Christian faith (Jude 3).You talk about ‘truth’…but you misconstrue the whole meaning of Scripture to try and make sense of your teaching…
–
The Bible says – “the Word was God.”..!!
You say – the Bible’s wrong…!!
–
But you are wrong… sadly you make the same age old mistake of relying on your natural understanding to try and make logical sense of God, instead of trusting in the Holy Spirit for revelation..Pay attention DavidL.
In the same way that the Word was theos, so it is that it is also written, “ye are theos”.
In other words, if the Word was God *himself as you proclaim, then “ye are theos” should be read, “ye are God” too. Both are without the definite article and both are legitimate. And ‘ye’ are those who are the sons of God to whom the Word of God came.
Obviously there is much more going on here than your cave man approach to this subject allows. No point in just coming in and clubbing me over the head and shouting UG! while beating your chest. Be reasonable as God expects from a man of God. He gave you a mind to think and reason with because he wants you to understand that which he has revealed.
Rightly dividing the word of God is a good thing. Show the word some respect. Do not trample it under foot.“The Word was God…” – this is what Scripture says…
–
when you take what John declares about the Deity of Christ and alter it to fit your Newtonian/ant-Trinity ideas…you are not rightly dividing the Word – but corrupting it according to your own human logic…But you cannot explain why “ye are theos” means that ye are not THE God.
The silence on this issue is deafening and just proves that you do not have the answer. There are more holes in your teaching here than a string vest.John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: “In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word.” Notice that it says “God was the word.” This is the actual word-for-word translation. It is not saying that “a god was the word.” That wouldn’t make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.
–
1. “In beginning was the word…”
(en arche en ho logos)
A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
–
2. “and the word was with the God…”
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
This same Word was with God.
–
3. “and God was the word.” — Properly translated as “and the Word was God.”
(kai theos en ho logos)
This same Word was God.
–
Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is “…and the Word was God,” not “and God was the word.” This is because if there is only one definite article (“ho”=”the”) in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative (“subject”) form (“theos” and “logos”), then the noun with the definite article (“ho”=”the”) is the subject. In this case “ho logos” means that “the word” is the subject of the clause. Therefore, “…the Word was God” is the correct translation, not “God was the Word.”1 But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that Jesus is “a god,” or the “mighty god” as was addressed above.
–
Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3. How do the Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context, since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called “a god,” besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4?
–
http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-11-word-was-godThe text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy. From the point of view of early church history, heresy develops when a misunderstanding arises concerning Greek articles, the predicate nominative, and grammatical word order. The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, “and the Word was the God.” The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, “and the word was a God.”
— David A. ReedJehovah’s Witnesses deny the deity of Christ, and claim that John 1:1 merely calls him “a god,” but not full deity. They rest their case on three facts of Greek grammar:
–
1. There is no such word as “a” or “an” in Greek, so we sometimes have to add “a” to translate into English, (Acts 28:6).
–
2. The Greek word used here (theos) has two meanings: usually the supreme God revealed in Scripture, but sometimes lesser beings like the gods of Greek mythology.
–
3. The Greek word “the” is often attached to the word “God” or theos, but it does not appear in John 1:1. Hiding behind the Witness rendering of the verse is an unspoken equation: God + “the” (ho theos) = Jehovah, the Almighty God, God – “the” (theos) = a created being with divine qualities. Witnesses claim that the apostle John deliberately omitted a “the” in the final phrase to show the difference between God and the Word. As the New World Translation (p. 775) explains:
–
“John’s inspired writings and those of his fellow disciples show what the true idea is, namely, the Word or Logos is not God or the God, but is the Son of God, and hence is a god. That is why, at John 1:1,2, the apostle refers to God as the God and to the Word or Logos as a god, to show the difference between the Two.”
–
Is this the proper translation?
–
No. The equation underlying the Witness rendering breaks down within a few verses. John 1:18 contains theos twice, without “the” either time. According to Watchtower assumptions, we would expect to translate both as “god” or “a god.” Instead, the New World Translation says “God” the first time and “god” the second time. The context overrules their rule.
–
Why did John choose not to put “the” on the word “God”?
–
1. To show which word was the subject of the sentence. In English, we can recognize the subject of a sentence by looking at word order. In Greek, we must look at the word endings. John 1:1 is trickier than most verses, because both “God” (theos) and “Word” (logos) have the same ending. The usual way to mark off the subject clearly was to add “the” to the subject and leave it off the direct object. That is precisely what John did here.
–
2. To conform to standard Greek grammar. E.C. Colwell demonstrated in an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933 that it was normal practice to omit “the” in this type of sentence. John was simply using good grammar, and making it clear that he intended to say, “The Word was God” rather than “God was the Word,” a statement with some theological drawbacks. John constructed his sentence in the one way that would preserve proper grammar and sound doctrine, declaring that “the Word was God.”
–
Author: Dr. John BechtleThe Trinity and Mathematics
–
November 9, 2001
–
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a stumbling block for some individuals, especially those who adhere to other religions. Atheists may claim that this doctrine is irrational. Many Jews and Moslems have the impression that the Christian religion is polytheistic, which is abhorrent to them. The doctrine is nowhere explicitly enunciated in the Bible, but is the result of Christian theologians trying to reconcile seemingly contradictory scriptures. This seeming contradiction consists of two basic biblical truths: 1) that there is one God (clearly stated in Deut. 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”) and 2) the many scriptures which indicate that the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit each has the attributes of God yet are distinct Beings. Any Christian text on Theology can provide many supporting scriptures for this second point, so it is not believed to be necessary to expand upon it here. So, is there one God or are there three Gods? The doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one God, yet each member of the Godhead mentioned above is God and is distinct from the other members. This, indeed, sounds like a contradiction. It is usually explained by referring to it as a mystery, something which is incomprehensible to humans, and yet is still true. Our natural way of thinking tells us that there is no way that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. Yet this is what the doctrine of the Trinity tells us is the case about God. Throughout history there have been many attempts to use analogies in order to illustrate the Trinity. For instance, one such analogy is the egg, consisting of the yolk, the white, and the shell. There is one egg, with three parts. However the egg fails as an adequate analogy since there is no way that a yolk can be considered an egg. Nor may either of the other parts be considered an egg. The egg analogy is simply three parts of a whole which is not analogous to the Trinity. Nor is even the triune nature of man (spirit, soul, and body) an adequate analogy. Again, these are simply three parts of a whole, similar to the egg analogy. There have been many other such attempts and they all, likewise, fail to adequately illustrate this doctrine. A mathematical attempt to explain the Trinity has been to replace 1 + 1 + 1 in the above equation with 1 x 1 x 1. 1 x 1 x 1 does equal 1; but this is not analogous to the Trinity. In reading this equation, we would say “one times one times one equals one”. If I said two times four, we would understand that to mean that we have two groups of four, which is equal to eight, objects. Therefore one times one means one group of one which is just one and in no way may be considered to be two. In the same way, one group of one group of one is just one, and in no way may be said to be three. However, there is a mathematical way to illustrate how 1 + 1 + 1 can equal 1. This is by using the concept of infinity: one infinity plus one infinity plus one infinity equals three infinities, and, as any student of mathematics knows, three times infinity equals one infinity. So one infinity plus one infinity plus one infinity equals one infinity. One infinite Father plus one infinite Son plus one infinite Holy Spirit equals one infinite Godhead. Since God is infinite, this is a suitable mathematical description of the doctrine of the Trinity. This in no way detracts from the mystery of the doctrine since infinity, like the Trinity, is beyond our ability to comprehend. It is simply hoped that this mathematical description will satisfy those who accuse Christians of having a conception of God which is irrational or polytheistic.
–
© 2001 Arthur Manning
–
http://www.artmanning.dragonflydays.net/paper2.htmlHuman reasoning. It’s simple DavidL/
We believe what is written and you do not. You prefer the treatise of men. Yet one scripture is of greater value than all the books of the world because scripture is inspired by God.
Here is what we believe and you do not:
“For us there is one God the Father.”
Jesus said, “this is eternal life, that you may know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom ye have sent”.
“Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,The Mysterious Trinity is part of the Mystery Religion and Mystery Babylon, the Mother of all harlots. The whole world is drunk on her false religions. She has deceived the whole world.
But Jesus came to destroy the works of the Devil. Jesus said, “eternal life is this, that you may know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent”.
Stand fast and hold onto what Jesus taught us. He is the son of God, and the messiah. The Gates of Hell will never prevail against this, no matter what Babylonian lie they try to sell us.I think your opening paragraph in the post above has an error. So I didn’t bother reading the rest of your post. I am not a JW, so I am not about defending their denomination, but they do teach that Jesus is a divine being. They teach that he is the son of God and is divine in nature because he was begotten of the divine God. Well that is what I have been led to believe, I could be wrong, but would need to check that.
The Catholics believe in the Trinity Doctrine, the one that you defend. The Catholic Church arose out of this man-made foundational belief enforced by the Roman Empire. It was them who policed it, and it was them who put to death all who they considered heretics for denying their faith. She is the woman who rides on the back of the Beast and the Beast was Rome. Today, Rome is a sovereign state, city, and the home of the biggest religion. Babylon was the same. It was a city and the HQ for false religion. It is not wise to drink their wine because it makes people drunk you know.
I have come out of her. I do not wish to partake in any way of her sins. I pray that God’s people come out of her and I also pray that God forgives me all my own sins in the name of Jesus Christ, the son of God and the messiah. Amen.UNDERSTANDING THE TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1
http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm
–
QUESTION:
My name is Bethany, and recently I have been trying to learn Greek. One reason is to be able to (hopefully) better understand the bible. But also because of what it says at John 1:1. There it says that the Word was with God and the word was God. But a friend of mine, who is a devote Christian, pointed out the Greek there. The spelling for God, in the sentence ‘and the word was God’ is different than the spelling of God else where. I looked at this and saw it too. This same spelling is seen when referring to ‘other’ gods. My friend and I are wondering if maybe the translation wasn’t done correctly. Maybe it should say ‘and the word was a god’ or something of the sort. Please look into this, with an open mind.
Thank you for your help. May God guide you and protect you.
Bethany.
–
ANSWER: By Corey Keating
In answering your question, let me first note that understanding the Greek text of the New Testament is extremely important and necessary for a clear apprehension of what the writers of the New Testament meant as they wrote the letters and accounts that we now enjoy. One note of caution is needful because Greek, like every language, has its own nuances and ways of saying things that can lead to confusion or misunderstanding when looking at it from the perspective of an English (or foreign) reader. An excellent example of this is the phrase you asked about in John 1:1
–
THE APPARENT DIFFERENCE IN SPELLING:
First of all, the same Greek word is used in both occurrences of the word “God” in John 1:1. This same word is used in many contexts, whether it refers to the Only True God or whether it is referring to a false god – such as a man-made god (1 Cor. 8:5) or Satan as the ‘god of this age’ (2 Cor. 4:4). The apparent differences in spelling between the word ‘God’ in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’ (‘theos’) and in other places, (even in the previous phrase, ‘and the Word was with God’ (‘theon’)) is due to inflection in the Greek language. Each Greek noun normally has 8 or 9 forms (cases & number) in which it can appear. (See my page on ‘Inflection’ and ‘Cases’ on the Web site). In the first instance in John 1:1 it is the object of preposition and thus is in the accusative case. In the phrase in question, it is in the nominative case (indicating the subject or predicate nominative – equal to the subject). But it is the same word for ‘God’, and in both phrases here indicates the One and Only True God. So the apparent difference is spelling is not because ‘theos’ is a different word than ‘theon’, but is a different form of the identical word.THE LACK OF A GREEK DEFINITE ARTICLE:
Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article “a”. Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated “the word was a god,” rather than “the word was God.” It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’. In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it. (We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.) (See Note 1, below.) And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (See Note 2, below.) Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, see an example of the use of the word ‘God’ and the definite article in John chapter one.) Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
–
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ – John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.
–
(For a more thorough explanation of the function and use of the Greek article (and meaning of its absence), see ‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’, by Daniel Wallace. He includes fifty pages – entitled ‘The Article, Part I’ – which is a more complete treatment of the subject that many grammar books present and explains all the general uses of the article. He actually has a ‘Part II’ which discusses some special issues with the article. Fifteen pages of this second section apply directly to understanding this passage in John 1:1. It is highly recommended for those who really desire an honest and thorough understanding of this passage.)THE PREDICATE COMING BEFORE THE SUBJECT:
Also, this phrase in John 1:1 is an example of a predicate nominative coming first in the sentence, before the subject. (Sentences like this one that use a linking verb require the noun in the predicate part of the sentence to be in the nominative case. Thus the phrase ‘predicate nominative’.) The subject of this clause is ‘the Word’ and the predicate is ‘God’. In Greek, the word ‘God’ comes before the word ‘Word’. According to normal Greek usage (Colwell’s Rule), the word ‘God’ should not have a definite article. Oftentimes, emphasis is shown in Greek by placing a word out of its normal, expected word order. Special emphasis is shown when the predicate comes first in the sentence. In other words, contrary to the thought that ‘since there is no definite article used here it could belittle the fact of the Word being God’, the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’.
–
THE CONTEXT OF ALL OF THE APOSTLE JOHN’S WRITINGS:
It is also necessary to see this statement in context of the rest of John’s writings. When comparing this with other statements about who the person and nature of Jesus Christ really is, it adds to what is already made clear by the Greek grammar. See for instance: John 8:56-59 (cf. Exo. 3:13-14); 10:28-33; 14:6-11; 1 John 5:20; (also John 8:23; 3:12-13; 5:17-18). These verses also indicate that, in John’s understanding and thus the Bible’s clear statements, Jesus Christ is the same essence and nature as God the Father, but distinct in their person-hood.CONSULTING WITH OTHER WELL RESPECTED GREEK SCHOLARS AND GRAMMARIANS:
For a further explanation and clarification about these items, it is helpful to consult with many of the well respected Greek scholars and expositors. Personally I have never come across any objective, well respected Greek grammarian that has come up with different conclusions that what has been presented here. Many of them go into much more detail than I have in these few short paragraphs. See for instance the writings of Daniel Wallace (‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’), A.T. Robertson (both his ‘Grammar’ and ‘Word Pictures’), R.C.H. Lenski (in his commentary on the Gospel of John), Henry Alford (‘Greek Testament’), J.A. Bengel (‘Word Studies), Albert Barnes (‘Barnes’ Notes’), B.F. Westcott, and F.L. Godet, (and many others).
–
FINAL COMMENT:
Bethany, I hope this helps to answer your questions. Obviously you are asking about a very large topic that can only be touched upon in such a small answer. 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 8:1b-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. Please let me know if I can be of further help or guidance.
–
Note 1: A literal translation of the end of John 1:12 in Greek reads: ‘…to those who believe into [the] his name.’ It makes our English translation sound awkward or non-sensible to include the definite article ‘the’ before the words ‘his name’, even though it appears in Greek.
–
Note 2: Literally in Greek, John 1:2 says: ‘He was in beginning with God.’ Notice that in Greek there is no definite article before the word ‘beginning’. It makes sense to include the definite article ‘the’ in our English translation for the sake of clarity and English idiom. Thus, ‘He was in the beginning with God.’
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
