The Trinity Doctrine

[Proclaimer]

Here are some quotes for the benefit of others who read here, I do not expect a positive response from Is 1:18, so I offer them to those who may read here:

(Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)
“We next notice John's use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”

John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.
When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God's Christ, God's Son, God's Wisdom, God's Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word “god” at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English… The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas “my Lord and my god” (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (verse. 17) “Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as “our God”, “my God”, but probably never as “God” without qualification.

-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.
We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God'' of Paul, Col. 1:15.

[Elidad]

If you can read Greek then perhaps you should consider the article at this WEB address that looks at the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit when conveying the words as expressed in John 1:1
http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/john1.htm. Would be interested in your feedback after reading this article, and the many others that can be looked over at the same site.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 25 2006,05:29)

You are right, it is a very serious accusation, and I don’t make it lightly. I certainly wouldn't do it if there was an element of ambiguity involved, but there isn’t – it's clear cut. You teach that the noun 'theos' in John 1:1c is denotative of quality not identity because the article is missing. This is not true. It's a watchtower lie that you have perpetuated for quite a while now, even when the error has been explained to you – many times over, and in detail. You indeed have been lying to people t8, the evidence speaks for itself. These are your words:

Is 1:18, you are free to call me a liar. But such an accusation should be carefully thought out. If we call Jesus a liar, then what are we saying about God? If what we do to the least of Jesus brethren we do to him, then what are you saying to Christ.

I mean it is one thing to debate whether a 3rd century doctrine is a major pillar of the Christian faith or that it is even taught at all in scripture, but when you start acting in this way, my advice to you is that you should not sin when you are angry. You should be very careful as to who you call a liar for such words you will give an account to God for. Such judgement is the same that will come to you as it is written that the same measure you dish out to others is the measure that God will judge you by. So a serious accusation like me being a liar will be applied to you in the same measure to your life and conduct. I truly am warning you out of love. Be very careful as God knows every word that is written here. Just because it is said in a forum doesn't excuse your behaviour.

[Proclaimer]

Is 1:18,

In this post I am pointing out the examples you gave regarding God being used most of the time without the article.

But in all those verses you quoted, even though it is talking of God, the meaning of the context is still invoking a qualitive sense.

Quote

John 4:24 “God is spirit” – pneuma ho theos “Pneuma ho theos” can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” John uses a predicate nominative to avoid the possibility of this being misconstrued. 1 John 4:16 God is love – ho theos agape estin

Love and spirit are qualities not identities just as hate and flesh are.

But you also said that the majority texts in scripture with the word 'God' do not include the article. So I read part way through the book of John and skim read the verses that talked about God (the Father) that didn't use the article and they were used in a particular fashion which I will explain further on. (I didn't have time to read the whole New Testament, nor the whole book of John, to see if this was universally true for obvious time constraints, but since we are talking about John 1:1, I thought it good to read from there. So please refrain from calling me a liar if what I have read doesn't agree with all the bible.

The fashion in which they were used were in these phrases, “of God” or “from God“.

All the verses that say “from God” or “of God” including the verses you quoted above, are still invoking a qualitive sense however. Just as love and spirit are qualities, when we say “of” we are usually talking about a quality from the source. If someone is of God, then they are not God himself are they? If they are of the Devil, then they are not the Devil either. Same with from God. They come from him or share his nature or attributes. If someone is from their Father the Devil, then surely we wouldn't read that as them being the Devil.

I leave this for food for thought for others who love to search the scriptures for truth. If you have anything to add, I am all ears.

[Elidad]

Quote (t8 @ May 13 2002,21:52)

John 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God. I dont know where people get this notion. It clearly doesnt say The Word is God. The scriptures are very clear that Christ is from God, he is subject to God and God knows things that his Son does not. The scriptures are also clear that Gods children are of Christ and Jesus calls us brothers, yet we are children to our Father. The scriptures are also very clear that the Woman is of Man, and Man is of woman. of meaning born or from. ——————————————– 1 Corinthians 11:3 (English-NIV) 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. ——————————————– This may not be politically correct, but its truth and its the divine order. ——————————————– 1 Corinthians 3:22-23 (English-NIV) 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas {That is, Peter} or the world or life or death or the present or the future–all are yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God ——————————————– 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (English-NIV) 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. ——————————————– Philippians 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ——————————————– Is this your confession? Also who came in the flesh, God or the Word?

Hi T8, I have read through many of your posts on the subject of the Trinity and must say that I appreciate your line of reasoning. It seems that we both share much the same conclusions as a result of questioning this particular theological concept.

Are you familar with the material from this WEB site: http://www.christianeducational.org/bookpromo.html and have you read this particular book: 'The Doctrine of the Trinity – Christianity's Self-inflicted Wound' by A.F. Buzzard and C.F. Hunting. It can be read online at: http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/book.htm

Another book of considerable interest is the book titled, 'When Jesus became God' by Richard E. Rubenstein ?

[Scott]

Hey everyone,

I posted here before not that long ago, just about the need for a large degree of grace on both “sides” of this dicussion. Unfortunately I have just been essentially “ousted” from sharing our lives with a group of believers because I cannot come to see the truth of the trinity in the scriptures. I wish this was not the case because the fruit in their lives was such that I am sure Jesus is not ashmed to call them brothers.

Despite this rejection I feel no anger toward them. Only a sence of loss and sorrow that this doctrine bears the same fruits as it has always done. Unless one is willing to look at the truth of the scriptures and not feel the need to defend an entrenched position, then these words just keep going around and around.

I know for myself that at this point in time I have been forced to defend a position I am confident that my Father is happy with, and in a sence have to “suffer myself to be defrauded” Please brothers pray for me that I would operate only out of Gods own Holy spirit and that with my lips (or heart) I would not sin.

A solemn brother.

Scott

[Proclaimer]

Scott, thankyou for your post.

I will pray for you and will mention you to my wife so she can pray too.

Be encouraged Scott:

1 John 5
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

[Proclaimer]

Hi Elidad.

I haven't read much from Anthony Buzzard. I think his stance is unitarian, in that he also says that Jesus was just a man, i.e., a created being.

What is your belief regarding Jesus/Yeshua?

Was he literally the firstborn of all creation or was he firstborn in position only?

I will check out that link tomorrow. It is very late here at the moment.

Thanks

[Scott]

Thanks for your encouragement t8,
it was a breath of fresh air to my spirit. Simple and true.

Grace and peace be to you, and look forward to some more communication.

Scott.

[WhatIsTrue]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 27 2006,18:11)

Hi WIT, Epistemaniac is correct when he says Christ can be seen in two lights. Rom 1.1-4 “1Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, (A)called as an apostle, (B)set apart for ©the gospel of God, 2which He (D)promised beforehand through His (E)prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3concerning His Son, who was born (F)of a descendant of David (G)according to the flesh, 4who was declared (H)the Son of God with power [a]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,” See also 2 Cor 5.16.and Phil 2 Christ “existed in the form of God” and partook of our flesh nature. His flesh died on Calvary and his spirit departed as is the way of all flesh, but like Abraham he lives.

Yes, Nick, I am aware of your view that no one died on the cross; that Y'shua was actually more alive than ever as a result of the crucifixion, as he rid himself of the “bondage” of human flesh and became a completely spirit being once more.

Of course, that reduces the supposed glorious resurrection three days later to a cosmic puppet show whereby Y'shua put on the “flesh suit” one more time to make a few theatrical appearances for his disciples.

I'll have to pass on that view.  Thanks for the observation though.

[Elidad]

Quote (t8 @ July 28 2006,13:23)

What is your belief regarding Jesus/Yeshua? Was he literally the firstborn of all creation or was he firstborn in position only?

Hello t8, To you first question regarding Jesus/Yeshua, my belief is the same as that expressed by Peter when Jesus asked him, “who do you say that I am” as recorded in Matthew 16:15-17. He is the Christ, the Son of the living God. With this response Jesus was well pleased. What was Peter endorsing when he made this statement? To my way of understanding he was affirming that Jesus was the Messiah, the one spoken about from the book of Genesis through to the book of Malachi.

With your second question I need to ask which creation are you referring to, the physical creation as spoken about in the book of Genesis, which involved the first Adam, or the creation of the body of Christ (the church) which involved the second Adam, Christ Jesus? I think we need to differentiate here, like when reading through the New Testament and come across the word 'beginning'. Sometimes I believe it refers back to the 'beginning' as recorded in the book of Genesis and at other times it refers to the 'beginning' of Christ's ministry or the beginning of the New Covenant. Well that's how I see it at present, until someone can show me that I have picked up the wrong slant on things. Mind you, I am still learning, the race is still running, so there may yet be need for further refining of my understandings, which has been the case over many years.

In conclusion, to my way of thinking, Christ was the firstborn of the creation of which you and I and all are invited to form part (2 Cor 5:17)

May purity of understanding and truth as it is in Christ Jesus prevail.

In His love.

[Proclaimer]

Thanks for your post Elidad.

You may be interested in the following discussion regarding the nature of Christ. It is called the “Who is Jesus” – The nature and person of Jesus.

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….=1;t=65

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 28 2006,08:41)

So then you admit that this view is possible grammatically.

What view?
That a definite or qualitative conveyance is possible? Depending on the context – Yes. I'm surprised it took you so long to see that.

Quote

Uh huh. So you say that the article doesn't matter.

In the sense that a noun can be made 'definite' with or without the article – yes.

Quote

Do you think then if the article was added to John 10:34, that the verses meaning wouldn't change?

Here are the key points:

In the construction used by John in John 1:1c the two nouns are in the nominative form and are linked with a copulative verb. The noun with the definite article is therefore made the subject. But when the definite article is used with both nominatives then a fully reversible sentence is forced, i.e. had John done this in John 1:1c he would have affirmed Sabellianism. But by placing the nominative noun 'theos' in the emphatic position and dropping the article, John's conveyance could only be interpreted to go one way.

– The absence of the article in John 1:1c is not evidence FOR a qualitative interpretation. “A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article.” (Julius R. Mantey)

– If the article was used with 'theos' in John 10:34 then 'definiteness' would be assumed. BUT, that would also be the case whether or not the definite article was included (depending on context). How do we know? Scholarly opinion aside, just compare the NT frequencies where writers use “theos” in reference to the Father WITHOUT including the definite article, to the number of instances where the article IS USED, you will find that in the vast majority of instances it isn't used- in fact well over 90%!

Quote

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods (theos)'

PSALM 82:1-7 (NAS)
1God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers.
2How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah.
3Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
4Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
5They do not know nor do they understand;They walk about in darkness;All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.
7″Nevertheless you will die like men and fall like any one of the princes.”

Does this passage teach us that men are divine?

No.

A quick check of the context of the quoted Psalm will bear this out, emphatically!

Quote

Is 1:18, pg 341 Trinity thread …..Jesus’ point in quoting Psa 82:6 to the Jews was that men are in fact called “gods” (Elohim) in their scripture, therefore the charges they were bringing against Him (vs 33) were rendered groundless on this technicality. They could not legally stone him for inferring he is something synonymous with what scripture ascribes to men. But when you actually read the Psalm itself in context it’s abundantly obvious that when elohim is used, it’s intended to convey irony, it's a not-uncommon hebraic literary device. The “men” of Psa 82:6 were in fact magistrates, “wicked judges” in Israel who will “die like men and fall like any one of the princes”. Could it be more manifestly obvious that they were called “gods” in sarcasm, not because men are divine?

To teach that Psa 82:6 or John 10:34 shows that men are divine is to teach falsesly. That wasn't the psalmist's intent and nor was it Yahshua's.

[Proclaimer]

Is 1:18, we will partake of the divine nature and the fact remains that we are called gods without it meaning that we a YHWH. That is the point. Those 2 points words/concepts that are used for Jesus are also used for men.

Trinitarians argue that this proves Jesus is the Almighty God, yet do not apply the same logic when used for other beings such as men. Their lack of consistency shows once again how Trinitarians are fond of changing the rules when it suits. i.e., Theos means almighty God when applied to Jesus, but not to men, angels, and other gods. Some logic that is. Even logic is not good enough to understand the things of God, but the Trinitarian arguments fail both.

The usage of 'theos' and 'elohim' is not always in reference to the Most High God, plain and simple.

I am not sure why you are telling me that usage for the word 'theos' is not always in usage to mean divine? I am not sure what you are getting at here. I agree with that and have taught so. However your usage of the “ye are gods” to mean they are wicked judges doesn't rub with me. Immediately after that statement it says “you are all sons of the Most High”. This is beside the point, but we are all made in the image of God, even though we have fallen and some men are evil.

The funny thing about this is that you are proving the point that I have been making all along. That the word 'theos' and 'elohim' is not always applied to the Most High God. In fact the Most High God leads one to assume that there are lesser gods (theos & elohim). You will see both those words in reference to the Most High, Jesus, Satan, angels, men, and false gods.

Given Trinitarian arguments I have heard, someone could use the same logic to prove that Satan is God. The arguments that Trinitarians make that Jesus is God because Thomas said “My Lord and theos” is a weak one when you see how these words are used in scripture.

Thank you for supporting this important point Is1:18. Even those who rebel against truth can be used to prove the truth.

Anyway back to John 1:1c.

Is the word 'theos' used to:

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 28 2006,10:06)

FYI there are many who teach that the lack of the article is very important in John 1:1, JWs aside. You say “Identity’ can be conveyed with – or – without – the – article”. But in saying this you actually give rise in your own theology to the possibility that 'theos' in John 1:1c can be qualitive”. That being the case, you personally cannot use John 1:1 to prove that Jesus is God if you admit that it could be qualitive.

I don't believe John intended a qualitative meaning, based on the context that the clause is placed into.

Quote

This is the point. Trinitarians use John 1:1c as one of the major pillars for the Trinity doctrine. They quote John 1:1c (even on it's own, without context of other scriptures) as if it were definite proof that Jesus was and is God Almighty. But at least Is 1:18 admits that this is not necessarily the case. Ahh a Trinitarian with a bit of vision.

Properly understood, John 1:1 is very strong evidence in support of the trinity. Here's one reason why: If you reject the notion that the “Logos” is an ethereal abstraction (in which case how do you rationally explain a thought/plan of God making the world and having “life”??), and you also reject the concept of plurality within unity (i.e. compound unity), then you are left with the dilemma of having TWO divine beings in existence before the creation of time. So the default position is overt bi-theism. In reality this applies whether a qualitative or definite conveyance is adopted.

Quote

Anyway, I have pointed out many times that the lack of the article as well as the context John 1:1 shows us that it is qualitive. The context in John 1:1b is that the Word was with God. How can the Word be WITH God, if he is that God. I have taught this many times if you wish to check.

I don't recall you ever mentioning context as being particularly important to the correct rendering, and you certainly haven't affirmed this at any time in our our latest dialogue (until now – how convenient!). Here are the two diadactic posts you've written since July 20 2006 in order to convey your understanding of John 1:1 to me and others (I omitted all posts that did not significantly address grammer or context of the verse)

From: pg 338

Quote

That part is missing the article. Men are gods doesn't have the article either, so it cannot be used to say that man is God for that reason. But the other instances of God and Word have the article in John 1:1, except the last instance that you quoted. The article is used to define a person (identity), that is why the Logos has an article. This shows that the verse is not talking about an attribute. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (the) God, and the Word was God. the article (the) shows identity lack of an article shows an attribute such as nature or character. Another example: Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he has the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek, but most translators deem it necessary to add the “a” to complete the thought. So Judas was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. This is an example of how John 1:1c is constructed.

No mention of context being relevant to the correct rendering of John 1:1c here.

From: pg 340

Quote

Is 1:18, I said a while back that I wasn't going to waste my time reading your posts. The posts I have read from you since then, have been short and my time was not wasted in replying you. I felt those replies would be in good service to those who read here. But the longer posts you have just made may be too time consuming to read and then reply to all that you have said. But I have speed read your post and it seems pretty much a repeat from other posts you have made (as you have said I think) so I will take it from there. My reply to you regarding John 1:1 and the lack of the article in John 1:1c starts with reading John 1:1: a) In the beginning was the Word, (en arch hn o logoV) b) and the Word was with the God, (kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon) c) and the Word was God. (kai qeoV hn o logoV). If we add the article to John 1:1c it would actually be saying that Jesus (Word) was God to the exclusion of the Father. So it cannot be saying that the Word is actually God himself. John 1:1b even says the Word was with the God, so it is quite simple really. He was next to God. Also both b) & c) in English are very similar except b) has one extra word “with” and c) lacks the article. So why does one have the article and not the other when they are similarly constructed? But lets look at it this simply. Which one of these 2 examples is correct?a) In the beginning was the woman, b) and the woman was with the man c) and the woman was the man a) In the beginning was the woman, b) and the woman was with the man c) and the woman was man The correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind or that the woman is a man in the sense that God made man, male and female Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. In other words the word 'man' is used as an attribute or to describe one's nature. It is not used in an identity sense like the other instances of the words woman and man. The first example is wrong because adding the article means that the woman is the man in identity and not nature. It means that the woman is actually the man himself or that Eve is Adam. So then we are left with “Who is Adam” if Eve is the Man? In other words confusion. But we could go further and excuse this confusion by saying that Man is beyond our understanding so it is no wonder it seems confusing. Now if we were to actually believe the first example, we would know that it was kind of rediculous, but to make it sound feasible we could invent a doctrine to explain this stupidity. Lets call it the Doctrine of the Triune Man. Adam is Man, the Eve is Man and the Spirit of man is Man. Hence Adam is the man, Eve is the Man, and the spirit of Man is the Man. They are three, but they make up one Man (one being). Each is co-equal and co-created. Is it starting to sound familiar now? One last thing. In reality we can refer to Adam as both THE man and man. This answers your statement about God not always having the article.

Nor here.

In these posts you had every opportunity to write that context was the key to the correct rendering of John 1:1c but NOT ONCE did you even allude to it. Your primary focus was the significance of the missing article. So the part I bolded in your above quote appears
to also be very deceptive. You should know better than telling more lies to cover up old lies. It only makes things worse.

Quote

If one holds that John 1:1c isn't qualitive, rather it is identifying the Word as God himself, then that leads to confusion and this confusion doesn't agree with the order we see in scripture and contradicts many hundreds of verses in the bible, as well as contaminating  John 1:1 and the book of John as a whole with confusion.

I agree. It's very confusing to the non-trinitarian. They have the polytheistic implications of having two eternal, divine beings existing in the beginning to deal with. BTW, John 1:1 aligns perfectly with the other major passage in which Yahshua's pre-terrestrial existence is mentioned in some detail, namely Philippians 2:5-8.

Quote

By confusion I mean understanding John 1:1c as “the Word is actually God”. This understanding opens up legitimate questions such as “who is God that the Word was with”? Were there 2 Gods then? If the Word was God and the Word was with God, then we have 2 Gods do we not? But if you say there is one God even though your understanding of John 1:1c says there are 2 (remember – the Word was with God), then if the Word is God, then what is the Father? Remember there is one God.

All of these dilemma's persist for you, and it doesn't matter whether a definite or qualitative rendering is assumed. Since trinitarians affirm plurality within unity these are not legitimate onbections to throw at them. Instead you should be asking them of yourself.

Quote

It appears that what you say about the article being present in John 1:1c for the word “theos” would render a modalistic context, (HO THEOS EN HO LOGOS), but which way do you read John 1:1c then? As God himself As divine in a qualitive sense. Or do you have a different option? If you choose the first option then by your own reasoning it appears that you are saying Jesus is God and you are still stuck with the same problem that John 1:1c has even with the article (except for the ability to reverse the sentence). In this case The Word is God himself, The Word is with God, so there must be 2 Gods.

As i've already mentioned more than once, my opinion is the same as the teams of NT scholars that translated the 19 English versions listed on BibleGateway.com and all 11 versions offered on Blueletterbible.org This means that I along with the absolute vast majority of (creditable) NT Greek translators agree that, based on the context of the prologue, identity was the intended conveyance of John when he penned John 1:1c. The Word was God.

Quote

If you believe the second option, i.e., that it is qualitive, then you cannot use John 1:1 to prove your Trinity doctrine.

It's a good thing I don't then isn't it. Although it's notable to mention that some highly-credentially scholars do hold to the qualitative interpretation that the Word was “divine” but, as opposed to you, assert that this simply conveys the sentiment that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). So it amounts to the same thing really.

Quote

As I see it, either way you have been caught in your own craftiness.

Once again a lack of understanding on your part.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 29 2006,23:53)

Quote (t8 @ July 28 2006,10:06) FYI there are many who teach that the lack of the article is very important in John 1:1, JWs aside. You say “Identity’ can be conveyed with – or – without – the – article”. But in saying this you actually give rise in your own theology to the possibility that 'theos' in John 1:1c can be qualitive”. That being the case, you personally cannot use John 1:1 to prove that Jesus is God if you admit that it could be qualitive. I don't John intended a qualitative meaning, based on the context that the clause is placed into.

Oh OK.

So it is qualitive after all.

Yay. Finally some progress.

So in that case you cannot use John 1:1c to prove the Trinity doctrine because the Word was “God” shouldn't be capitilised as it is not referring to an identity but it is qualitive. That is if the rule to capitalise is used when referring to a person or identity.

So again even though you are against us, your long winded posts have only proved that what we are saying is correct. The last word 'theos' is qualitive.

Thank you.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 29 2006,04:53)

As i've already mentioned more than once, my opinion is the same as the teams of NT scholars that translated the 19 English versions listed on BibleGateway.com and all 11 versions offered on Blueletterbible.org This means that I along with the absolute vast majority of (creditable) NT Greek translators agree that, based on the context of the prologue, identity was the intended conveyance of John when he penned John 1:1c. The Word was God.

Read carefully t8. The above quote clarifies my position. Also, i've told you previously that I agree with Colwell when he wrote:

E. C. Colwell::  
“…predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context and in the case of John 1:1c this is not so.”  “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.

So there should be no doubt now…..I hope!!!

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 28 2006,12:02)

Is 1:18, In this post I am pointing out the examples you gave regarding God being used most of the time without the article. But in all those verses you quoted, even though it is talking of God, the meaning of the context is still invoking a qualitive sense. Quote John 4:24 “God is spirit” – pneuma ho theos “Pneuma ho theos” can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” John uses a predicate nominative to avoid the possibility of this being misconstrued. 1 John 4:16 God is love –  ho theos agape estin Love and spirit are qualities not identities just as hate and flesh are.

Here is my quote from pg 340:

“John 1:1c is a predicate nominative construction. An English equivalent example of this might be: “John is the butcher.” In Greek, if you put the article before both “John” and “butcher,” then the statement would have to be fully reversible (unlike English, word order is insignificant in Greek, except for emphasis). So in the above example the statement would read both ways, “John is the butcher,” and “the butcher is John.” This would mean that all butchers are named John, which is clearly ludicrous.

Question:  How then in the Greek do you make it clear that you only intend it to go one way?

Answer: By NOT including the article.

Here are some excerpts of biblical verses where the subject is made plain by the article and the predicate without it:

John 4:24
“God is spirit” – pneuma ho theos

“Pneuma ho theos” can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” John uses a predicate nominative to avoid the possibility of this being misconstrued.

1 John 4:16
God is love –  ho theos agape estin

Same deal as above.

John 1:14
the Word became flesh – ho Logos sarx egeneto, “

John 1:14 is the same construction, only the word is the subject. It would be unintelligible had this read “Flesh became the Word”.

So can you see where this is leading t8?…..

Since an article with “theos” in John 1:1c would have forced a fully reversible statement (Jesus is God AND God is Jesus) we know that John could NOT have legitimately used the article without affirming Sabellianism (or modalism)! But by placing the term “theos” in the emphatic position and dropping the article John deliberately avoids evoking the impression of ontological subordinationism and at the same time avoids making “logos” and the “theos” of John 1:1 the same person (subject).

As you can plainly see, the point I was making had NOTHING to do with an indefinite, qualitative or definite interpretation of the noun 'THEOS' in John 1:1c. I was trying to show that there are plenty of examples of anarthrous predicate nominatives in John (let alone the whole of the NT). And that if you use two articles in that particular Greek sentence construction, then you can render it unintelligible. And that certainly was the case with John 1:1c. John could not have legitimately used two articles in John 1:1c because by doing this he would have strongly affirmed modalistic thought. John obviously would have known this. So your argument that the missing article having any significance was groundless when the grammar was examined and considered.

I'm trying to be patient with you t8, but you really should TRY to understand what I write before passing comment on it…..
“

Quote

But you also said that the majority texts in scripture with the word 'God' do not include the article. So I read part way through the book of John and skim read the verses that talked about God (the Father) that didn't use the article and they were used in a particular fashion which I will explain further on. (I didn't have time to read the whole New Testament, nor the whole book of John, to see if this was universally true for obvious time constraints, but since we are talking about John 1:1, I thought it good to read from there. So please refrain from calling me a liar if what I have read doesn't agree with all the bible.

Once again, my point was this:

“Identity’ can be conveyed with – or – without – the – article, t8. Patently. Read through the NT and tally how many times the anarthrous noun ‘theos’ is used to identify God……dozens and dozens of times. Likewise the article with the noun will also “identify’ the subject. It doesn't matter if the article is used or not – it amounts to the same.”

I'm NOT making an absolutist statement here. If the article is used with the predicate then a definite statement about identity is being made. HOWEVER….(and this is the point you have categorically failed to grasp)……definiteness/identity can be conveyed WITHOUT the article TOO.

Do you understand NOW??

Quote

The fashion in which they were used were in these phrases, “of God” or “from God“. All the verses that say “from God” or “of God” including the verses you quoted above, are still invoking a qualitive sense however. Just as love and spirit are qualities, when we say “of” we are usually talking about a quality from the source. If someone is of God, then they are not God himself are they? If they are of the Devil, then they are not the Devil either. Same with from God. They come from him or share his nature or attributes. If someone is from their Father the Devil, then surely we wouldn't read that as them being the Devil. I leave this for food for thought for others who love to search the scriptures for truth. If you have anything to add, I am all ears.

Yes that's right, qualitativeness is not excluded unless the article is used. But when no article is used with 'theos' a indefinite, qualitative or definite conveyance is possible – DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 29 2006,23:53)

In these posts you had every opportunity to write that context was the key to the correct rendering of John 1:1c but NOT ONCE did you even allude to it. Your primary focus was the significance of the missing article. So the part I bolded in your above quote appears to also be very deceptive. You should know better than telling more lies to cover up old lies. It only makes things worse.

Is 1:18,

You appear to be very angry, so I remind you to step carefully in your anger. In fact it would probably be better for you if I didn't engage you in coversation for that reason. However I feel that truth is more important than your reputation, so I will answer. But I still mean what I said about your lengthy posts. I am not going to waste my time with them, I will skim over those ones. You are welcome to post simpler and more concise posts that cover one or a few points, instead of a thesis.

Anyway your quote of my post at the top of this post is suppose to be lies I take it?

Well that is sad for you. If I do not mention in a/or some particular post that the sentence construction lacks an article for reasons of not making the sentence read backwards as well, then I think your anger is making you blind. How can I lie for example if I do not mention that it is Saturday today when it is Saturday. Just because a person doesn't mention something doesn't mean that they are a liar. I mean I think the way you have judged me reflects very badly on you.

E.g., You mention the wicked judges, but you failed to mention that “we are all sons of the Most High God” part. So if I applied your judgement, this would show that you are a liar would it not? Please be clear that I am not calling you a liar, I am just showing how your judgement of me reflects badly on you.

There are other examples where you have failed to mention things, such as “One God the Father” when scripture says it, but you say Jesus is God too. I think this is far more serious an issue than what you accuse me of.

So you condemn yourself Is 1:18.

I still think that what I have said in that post (you quoted) is true and you have even agreed with the points I make in it.

You said with your own keyboard that the presence of the article is used mainly to define an identity. I said that it is used to define identity.

Quote

In koine Greek the article is used differently than it is in modern English t8. It's true that the primary purpose is to identify. But, its also true that if no article is used, it does NOT AT ALL denote that identity is not the focus. And there is a very good grammatical reason why John could NOT have legitimately used an article here.

So tell me this, if John uses the article to identify God and the Word, but not in John 1:1c, then are you saying that John had no way of constructing that sentence without the article? If he could have used another sentence construction, then why does he use a sentence that doesn't use it when he could have used one in order to remove all doubt that he was talking of identity? Maybe because identity was not what he meant? Or does he use the sentence he did, because identity was not the focus? At the end of the day, whether he didn't use it because he couldn't or he chose that particular sentence construction to show that it was qualitive, you still agree that it is qualitive. So at least we agree here and your agreement is an acknowledgment that you cannot use John 1:1 to prove that Jesus is God himself, if the Word was theos (qualitive).

So if we use John 1:1c to prove that Jesus is God, then is such a person a liar?

In the post that you quoted above, I even said “that If we add the article to John 1:1c it would actually be saying that Jesus (Word) was God to the exclusion of the Father. So it cannot be saying that the Word is actually God himself.” This by the way is how most Trinitarians read it. You obviously disagree with them and that is good.

Here is what you have said, quoted below.

Quote

Since an article with “theos” in John 1:1c would have forced a fully reversible statement (Jesus is God AND God is Jesus) we know that John could NOT have legitimately used the article without affirming Sabellianism (or modalism)!

So when I say something it is bad, but when you say it, it is good. Hmmmm. Let me think about that one.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 30 2006,00:19)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 29 2006,04:53) As i've already mentioned more than once, my opinion is the same as the teams of NT scholars that translated the 19 English versions listed on BibleGateway.com and all 11 versions offered on Blueletterbible.org This means that I along with the absolute vast majority of (creditable) NT Greek translators agree that, based on the context of the prologue, identity was the intended conveyance of John when he penned John 1:1c. The Word was God. Read carefully t8. The above quote clarifies my position. Also, i've told you previously that I agree with Colwell when he wrote: E. C. Colwell:: “…predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context and in the case of John 1:1c this is not so.” “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20. So there should be no doubt now…..I hope!!!

Oh OK, you say that John 1:1c is used to define identity and is not qualitive. Is that correct?

I picked that up because your post was concise and the point was not buried in a long winded post.

But would you not be a liar by your own judgement if you said that the context was talking of identity, while ignoring the possibilty of quality, when it is grammatically correct to use it in a qualitative sense?

I could make a meal of this you know.
Got any ketchup?

[Author]

Posts