The Trinity Doctrine

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 28 2006,11:28)

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 did think it through, thoroughly. And I don't accuse people of lying as a habit. But in this instance the evidence was overwhelmingly clear. You got caught in a lie. This one:

“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.”

Jesus didn't teach this error, so you can hardly bring him into this.

Quote

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.

We are biblically mandated to expose sin:

Ephesians 5:11
Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them

1 Timothy 5:20
Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.

Quote

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

I produced the evidence with the accusation, so in this sense I would expect a fair trial if I was to come under judgement from God. But since I have passed from darkness into light and there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus I am not expecting to incur judgement at all – that is reserved for the wicked.

PS; I will routinely be away from home for work-related meetings over the next 5 weeks or so so will not be able to answer posts on a regular basis. I will endevour to catch up on my promised replies to Cubes and HICITC when I get the opportunity though.

Blessings

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 29 2006,06:00)

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?

*sigh*

I'm not going to continually repeat myself for your apparent amusement (I don't believe you are as dumb as you are making yourself out to be). I have given you this answer, read my posts again s-l-o-w-l-y.

[Proclaimer]

Quote

“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.”

I have taught that the article is used to denote identity and the lack of it can be used to denote quality. I haven't taught to my knowledge that this is true in every case, but I have quoted verses where this is so.

It is true that I applied this to John 1:1c, but I still believe that John 1:1c was constructed that way for that reason. If John meant to say that he was talking of identity, then I would assume that he could have done that without using a verse that can grammatically be used either way as you have admitted.

However, I am willing to be proven wrong. I have always been willing to be proven wrong. But so far you haven't disproved that John 1:1c can be used contextually and grammatically as qualitative. So even from your own understanding I can still be correct in that John chose a verse that lacked an article because he wasn't talking of identity like the other verses that have the article.

Your reading the sentence backwards with the article was mentioned by myself previous to this discussion taking place. I said that if the article was present, then Jesus would be God to the exclusion of the Father.

Thx

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 29 2006,05:56)

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.

I'm not angry really. just calling it as it is. When you can find it within yourself to admit that you have been untruthful in affirming that the missing article in John 1:c denotes that the noun has a qualitative meaning, then we can move on and discuss the context of the prologue.

[david]

Is 1:18, you and colwell keep repeating that that it depends on the context.
Is not context the parts that come before and after that clarify its meaning?

And wouldn't someone who already believes in the trinity see what comes before and after with a trinitarian slant? If one had never heard of the trinity, I don't believe there is any way the context could support what you claim.

John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.”
John 1:14 clearly says: “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.”
Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God.
At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.
For anyone to say that the Word was God, “the only true God,” would be contrary to what the apostle John proves by the rest of his writings.

JOHN 1:34
“And I have seen [it], and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.””
(What did John the Baptist bear witness to regarding Jesus?)

JOHN 1:49
“Nathańael answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.”” (How did Nathanael identify Jesus?)

JOHN 11:27
“She [Martha] said to him: “Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God.”” (What did Martha believe about Jesus?)

JOHN 20:31
“But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (Why did John write what he did? What did he want us to believe?)

JOHN 1:34
“I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.” (Did John bear witness that Jesus was God Almighty, or God’s Son?)

1 JOHN 4:15
“Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God . . .” (According to John, if we are to remain in union with God, what must confess?)

1 JOHN 5:5
“Who is the one that conquers the world but he who has faith that Jesus is the Son of God?” (According to John, what must we have faith in–that Jesus is God, or the “Son of” God?)
(It seems that John bore witness that Jesus was the “Son of” God, that he wrote what he did so that we would believe that Jesus was the “Son of” God, telling us to have faith that Jesus is the “Son of” God, and to confess that Jesus is the “Son of” God.)

In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his name is called The Word of God.” (AV; Dy)
Note that his name is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. Hence John 1:1 must mean, at most, that the Word was of God.

I don't pretend to be someone who understands Greek grammar. But from what I've read, it seems that greek grammar doesn't make it necessary for it to be translated as “the Word was God.” Most scholars seem to believe that it really comes down to the context. And interestingly, most scholars are trinitarians. So they see a trinitarian context. They see nothing unusual about someone being “with” someone and at the same time that one. Normally, that context would not allow for such translation. But for the trinitarian, the context fits, somehow.

Is 1:18, I asked you this before, but didn't get a response. I”m wondering where that 3 part thing on John 1:1 is that you gave to me. I thought it was on this trinity thread. But I'm having difficulty finding it.

davie

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 29 2006,06:21)

I have taught that the article is used to denote identity and the lack of it can be used to denote quality. I haven't taught to my knowledge that this is true in every case, but I have quoted verses where this is so.

Honestly t8, what other conclusion would people draw from what you have written here:

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.

….or 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.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 30 2006,01:15)

Quote (t8 @ July 29 2006,06:00) 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? *sigh* I'm not going to continually repeat myself for your apparent amusement (I don't believe you are as dumb as you are making yourself out to be). I have given you this answer, read my posts again s-l-o-w-l-y.

Is 1:18,

You are assuming that John 1:1c is saying Jesus is God contextually. This raises 2 points:

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 30 2006,01:32)

Honestly t8, what other conclusion would people draw from what you have written here: 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.

Quote

Men are gods doesn't have the article either, so it cannot be used to say that man is God for that reason.

Well if the article is used to identify, then it is not used here.

Quote

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.

The Logos is identified as a person by the article. In otherwords the logos is not an attribute of God at this point. You said yourself that the article main reason is to identify.

Code Sample

the article (the) shows identity lack of an article shows an attribute such as nature or character.

I still believe that this is so. I didn't mention that this is always true did I. You say that I am not that dumb, and I know one thing, that you can even quote a physical law and there will be exceptions. I after E, except after C. You know what I mean.

Generally speaking the article is used to identify (as you say too) and the the lack of one is focussing on a quality. Even the verses you quoted where God (the Father) didn't have an article, the context was still qualitative. Love and spirit are qualities of God, not identities. The other instances where the article was missing was using the words “from” and “of” which are also qualitative. When something is of God, we are usually refering to his nature or character.

But if we are talking about “the Word was God”. You say that 2 idenities are being referenced and is not qualitative. I still disagree. I still believe that it is referring to WHAT the word was not WHO.

Maybe you could quote a verse where the article is missing where the context is not qualitative. i.e., only identities are mentioned. I am not saying it doesn't exist, but that I haven't come across one yet.

Also if you could give me the reasons why you say John 1:1c cannot be qualitative, bias aside. Also if you could make the post simple and concise that would make the discussion easier for all to follow. People generally do not read large posts all the time, I don't anyway. I have to use my time wisely.

Also John 1:1c is constructed without an article, just as “One of you is a devil” is also.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 30 2006,01:23)

I'm not angry really. just calling it as it is. When you can find it within yourself to admit that you have been untruthful in affirming that the missing article in John 1:c denotes that the noun has a qualitative meaning, then we can move on and discuss the context of the prologue.

I still believe that it is qualitative. I have given you my reasons.
You say it is referring to identity, but I haven't seen your proof or reasons to deny the qualitative reason even though you must know that it is possible both grammatically and contextually. Maybe you did and it is buried it in a long winded post a few pages back.

I am a family man, so time is important to me.

Keep it simple.

Thx

[david]

I thought I would just mention this here. Several times on here, certain ones have repeatedly stated falsely that the NWT is the only Bible that doesn't translate John 1:1 as: “And the Word was God.”

So, here's a list of some Bibles that have translated it differently:

The Bible—An American Translation (1935), J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed.
“the Word was divine”
(The translation by Hugh J. Schonfield is the same.)

A New Translation of the Bible (1934), James Moffatt:
“the Logos was divine”

The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text (1808), published in London:
“the word was a god.”

Todays English Version:
“and he was the same as God.”

The New English Bible (The Revised English Bible):
“and what God was, the Word was.”

The Emphatic Diaglott (1864; as printed in 1942), Benjamin Wilson’s Interlinear reading:
“and a god was the Word.”

La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel (1928):
“and the Word was a divine being.”

The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed, by James L. Tomanek. (1958):
“and the Word was a God.”

Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany(1975):
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.”
(This one and the following two are translated from German.)

Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin (1978):
“and godlike kind was the Logos.”

Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany (1979)
“and a god was the Logos”

The Four Gospels—A New Translation, by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey:
“and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.”

Reflecting an understanding of Jn 1:1 with the New World Translations' :
“and the Word was a god,” we also have:
The New Testament in Greek and English(A. Kneeland, 1822.)
A Literal Translation Of The New Testament(H. Heinfetter, 1863)
Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible(R. Young, 1885)
The Coptic Version of the N.T.(G. W. Horner, 1911)
The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)

Other readings, by German translators, follow.
By Böhmer:
“It was tightly bound up with God, yes, itself of divine being.”

By Stage:
“The Word was itself of divine being.”

By Menge:
“And God (= of divine being) the Word was.”

By Ludwig Thimme: (Das Neue Testament)
“And God of a sort the Word was.”

[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:

But the vast majority of scholars and translators are trinitarian I would have thought. If faced with a verse that can grammatically swing either way, do you think they would swing it the other way from their bias?

Also the majority of the word is udner the sway of the evil one and then there is at least one scripture that says “where is the scholar, where is the wise, has he not made their wisdom foolish (something like that).

So I wouldn't rest on the fact that the majority of scholars say it is saying that the Word is actually God. It is the narrow way that leads to life and believers are a little flock.

The majority is no way to prove something. Probably most scientists hold to the theory of evolution.

[Proclaimer]

Thanks for your last post david.

[Elidad]

Hi David, Is 1:8 and T8, From what I can gather, it seems that examination of John 1:1 and what we are meant to understand from the word conveyed to John, by the Holy Spirit, is a classic case of turning a molehill into a mountain, or straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

I have read the debates on this verse a hundred times over in other publications and it has become nothing more than an exercise in academic and intellectual gymnastics, that has completely lost the simplicity and fundamental meaning of the statement. How did the average person in the days of John understand such, if, as I understand it, the Greek used was that understood in every day conversation? You didn't need to go to University or Bible College to figure out what it meant surely?

There is an article written by Anthony Buzzard on this very topic titled, John 1:1 Caveat Lector (Reader Beware) “In the beginning was the word” does not mean “In the beginning was the Son”, which pretty much covers all the angles and puts the matter to rest, once and for all. Unless of course, others can see weakeness/error in the case made, that I have failed to pick up on. The article can be read here: http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/john1.htm . It may be necessary to copy and paste this address into Browser if clicking on it here fails to get the right response.

Would welcome any comments, if you get half a chance to read this item.

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

Elidad

[Proclaimer]

To Is 1:18,

Here are some quotes from men who are supposedly renowned in Trinitarians circles and are often quoted by them.

They obviously disagree with you Is 1:18 regarding the meaning of the last Word 'God' in John 1:1 and support my so-called lies.

I would still like you to provide for the sake of those who read here, the reasons why you do not see the last word 'God' as qualitative besides your bias. I have given you my reasons, I await yours.

Thx

Cut and paste quotes from Trinitarians who believe that the last word 'God' in John 1:1 is qualitative. NOTE: I do necessarily endorse all that they say, but I quote them for their statements on the qualitative view of 'theos' only.

C. K. Barrett: “The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity.”
The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76.

C. H. Dodd: “On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia [substance (“what”)] of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos…That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase.
“New Testament Translation Problems II,” The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), p. 104.

James Moffatt: “'The Word was God…And the Word became flesh,' simply means “.the word was divine…And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man…”
Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p.61.

Philip B. Harner: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.” This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.”
“Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.

Henry Alford: “Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,–not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God–but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:–that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,–was with God (the Father),–and was Himself God.”
Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II (Guardian Press, 1975; originally published 1871), p. 681

B. F. Westcott: “The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person… No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word.”
The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3.

The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion d' en to korion, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. .Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos.
(H. E. Dana, Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1950) pp. 148-149).

“The Word was God. Here the word “God” is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes.”
(Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, vol. 3, “Golden Nuggets,” p. 52).

“In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity”
(Wuest, Word Studies, vol. 4, p. 209).

“The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation “The Word was God.” Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also “with God”. What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase “what God was, the Word was”, brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can…So, when heaven and earth were created, there was the Word of God, already existing in the closest association with God and partaking of the essence of God. No matter how far back we may try to push our imagination, we can never reach a point at which we could say of the Divine Word, as Arius did, “There was once when he was not” (F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), p. 31). “The Word is distinguishable from God and yet Theos en ho logos, the Word was God, of Divine nature; not “a God,” which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable; nor yet identical with all that can be called God, for then the article would have been inserted…”
(W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Greek Testament, 5 vols, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 1:684).

Are all these guys liars too Is 1:18?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Elidad @ July 30 2006,03:43)

Hi David, Is 1:8 and T8, From what I can gather, it seems that examination of John 1:1 and what we are meant to understand from the word conveyed to John, by the Holy Spirit, is a classic case of turning a molehill into a mountain, or straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. I have read the debates on this verse a hundred times over in other publications and it has become nothing more than an exercise in academic and intellectual gymnastics, that has completely lost the simplicity and fundamental meaning of the statement. How did the average person in the days of John understand such, if, as I understand it, the Greek used was that understood in every day conversation? You didn't need to go to University or Bible College to figure out what it meant surely? There is an article written by Anthony Buzzard on this very topic titled, John 1:1 Caveat Lector (Reader Beware) “In the beginning was the word” does not mean “In the beginning was the Son”, which pretty much covers all the angles and puts the matter to rest, once and for all. Unless of course, others can see weakeness/error in the case made, that I have failed to pick up on. The article can be read here: http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/john1.htm . It may be necessary to copy and paste this address into Browser if clicking on it here fails to get the right response. Would welcome any comments, if you get half a chance to read this item. May purity of understanding and truth as it is in Christ Jesus prevail. Elidad

Thanks Elidad.

I agree that such things are intellectual gymnastics. But this is how Is 1:18 works. I prefer to keep scripture simple and let scripture speak. But he loves to impress with big words and theological perspectives.

But for the sake that Is 1:18 accused me of being a liar, I felt it only in that context to give an answer to satisfy his accusation. If I had said nothing, then some may have interpretted this as me acknowledging that he was right. Otherwise I would probably have ignored him and let him think he got the last word. I have done this with him in the past because I know that he will draw you in and waste your time over silly things.

I have been posting here for quite a while and I have always given an answer to what I believe (eventually), so I went the distance this time.

Anyway I hope that Is 1:18 is satisfied that John 1:1 doesn't prove a Trinity or that the Word (Yashua), is God (Yahweh). But I think I know him well enough to keep on with this. But I may give him the last word if that gets him to go away for awhile or stops him yapping at my feet.

The important things was I gave an answer to what I believe, even if I had to waste a lot of time to do it.

But yes I agree with your words that this is basically an argument that has happened 100 times before and therefore it is really senseless.

Your view that the 'Logos' is really 'logos' (smallcaps) an attribute or plan I do not agree with however. As you may have read in this discussion, the article is used to define a person or identity and in English we simply capitalise the first letter i.e., Logos, whereas in Greek the article is used as there are no capitals. But Anthony Buzzard reads it as logos (smallcaps), but the “Logos” has the article each time in John 1:1 so it is defining an identity. Also we know that the Logos was WITH God, not IN God.

The biggest danger with not acknowledging the Logos as Christ (The Logos became flesh) is that it appears to be antichrist.

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Anthony Buzzard teaches that Jesus didn't come in the flesh. How could he if he doesn't believe that the Word who pre-existed (is Jesus) who became flesh. Rather he believes that God's plan become flesh. That is really a subtle way to deny that Jesus Christ didn't come in the flesh.

In the same way Trinitarians hold to an antichrist doctrine. They say Jesus is God, but he is really the messiah that God sent, in otherwords not God himself.

1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.

John 8:42
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 29 2006,06:33)

Is 1:18, You are assuming that John 1:1c is saying Jesus is God contextually. This raises 2 points: That you are lying (by your own judgement) because you are ignoring that a qualitative sense is possible both contextually and grammatically, but you rule this out anyway, or you fail to mention it which according to yourself is a lie.

My position is the same as Colwell's, the vast majority of kione Greek experts and the teams of translators for all the credible English versions. Which is: based on the context of the prologue, the noun 'theos' in John 1:1c should be interpreted as definite. There are very good reasons why I hold this position and I'm happy to discuss these with you, but I'm waiting for you to show some integrity and admit you have deceived potentially thousands of people with your blatant exegetical error, despite being set straight on it on more on more than one occasion in the past. You must have known that you were lying to people but continued to do it anyway.

And no t8, I haven't haven't had to resort to writing intentionally misleading statements with regard to grammar to strengthen my position. So accusing me of lying without any proof at all is clearly just an attempt at throwing up a smoke screen. I have not lied about anything. Just admit that you knowingly perpetuated an untruth to strengthen your position, and let's move on.

Quote

By saying that the Word was God himself and acknowledging that the Word was also WITH God. You are then admitting that there was a God WITH a God. So contextually speaking The Word cannot be the God that he is WITH. After all if you believe that they are all one substance/being, then how is it that the WORD was WITH God or as you see it God was WITH God.

There are two subjects in John 1:1, not two Gods. That is why John 1:1 will never invoke a dilemma for trinitarians or binatarians, they affirm that both the Father and the Logos are God. The problem that immediately confronts the non-trinitarian (and will not go away) is providing a rational explanation for John's insistence that there are two divine beings “in the beginning” (i.e. before time). The default position for them is bi-theism.

John 1:1;

Not a problem for the binatarian/trinitarian

BIG problem for the anti-trinitarian.

Quote

I count 2 Gods in your context and as you said yourself “I don't believe you are as dumb as you are making” so you should know that I am capable of counting up to 2.

Your assertion assumes that God is unipersonal. This is not biblical. There is not one verse in the entire Bible that explicitly states that God is a single person.

Quote

Hmmm.

Hmmm….try to be honest t8.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 29 2006,07:23)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 30 2006,01:23) I'm not angry really. just calling it as it is. When you can find it within yourself to admit that you have been untruthful in affirming that the missing article in John 1:c denotes that the noun has a qualitative meaning, then we can move on and discuss the context of the prologue. I still believe that it is qualitative. I have given you my reasons. You say it is referring to identity, but I haven't seen your proof or reasons to deny the qualitative reason even though you must know that it is possible both grammatically and contextually. Maybe you did and it is buried it in a long winded post a few pages back. I am a family man, so time is important to me. Keep it simple. Thx

I don't think ive seen any significant comment on the context that the thrid clause of John 1:1c is placed into from you t8.

[Is 1:18]

Quote

I still believe that this is so. I didn't mention that this is always true did I.

Your quotes speak for themselves t8.

Quote

You say that I am not that dumb, and I know one thing, that you can even quote a physical law and there will be exceptions. I after E, except after C. You know what I mean.

Any exceptions mentioned in your quotes t8?  

No.

Quote

Generally speaking  the article is used to identify (as you say too) and the the lack of one is focussing on a quality.

Incorrect. You still don't get it. Unbelievable.

Quote

Even the verses you quoted where God (the Father) didn't have an article, the context was still qualitative. Love and spirit are qualities of God, not identities.

Again I have to reiterate that the predicate nominatives from John were quoted to show that two articles in the sentence would render it unintelligible. IT WAS NOT A COMMENT ON THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE NOUN 'THEOS'.

That said, the subject is still definite, because John's purpose was to identify 'God' not an attribute of God. While the predicate might be qualitative, the 'subject' noun is not.

“God is love” makes sense
“Divine is love” does not

Quote

The other instances where the article was missing was using the words “from” and “of” which are also qualitative. When something is of God, we are usually refering to his nature or character.

Okay, maybe you could find a verse where you believe 'theos' should be interpreted qualitatively and let's examine the grammar and context.

Quote

But if we are talking about “the Word was God”. You say that 2 idenities are being referenced and is not qualitative. I still disagree. I still believe that it is referring to WHAT the word was not WHO.

There are good contextual reasons that I think strongly argue this. Hopefully we can move on to context shortly.

Quote

Maybe you could quote a verse where the article is missing where the context is not qualitative. i.e., only identities are mentioned. I am not saying it doesn't exist, but that I haven't come across one yet.

T8, are you serious?? Here are 10 from the first 3 chapters of John where anarthrous nouns are used to identify God.

John 1:6
There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.

John 1:12
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God

John 1:13
children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

John 1:51
He then added, “I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:17
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

John 3:33
The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful.

John 3:34
For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.”

Try transplanting “divine” into these verses…..

Quote

Also if you could give me the reasons why you say John 1:1c cannot be qualitative, bias aside. Also if you could make the post simple and concise that would make the discussion easier for all to follow. People generally do not read large posts all the time, I don't anyway. I have to use my time wisely.

Well t8, we're all busy and it's not in my best interests to continually repeat myself. If you made and effort to understand what I was writing to begin with, I would not have had to write the volume of words I ended up needing to. You didn't even really bother trying to understand my position and when I made tried to make it as clear as possible you complained that my posts were too long (!). It's been an exercise in frustration for me and to be honest I think I would have had a more receptive audience had I tried explaining John 1:1c to my 5 year old son.

Quote

Also John 1:1c is constructed without an article, just as “One of you is a devil” is also.

Yes….and?

[Elidad]

Thank you T8 for your comments. Yours is indeed the keyboard of a ready writer. You have made a number of points and I am not sure how to respond and retain brevity, here goes anyway.

Firstly, whilst I don't subscribe to everything that Anthony Buzzard writes, I am of the impression that he has done a pretty fair job of untangling considerations relating to the trinity subject, clarifying the status of 'the one true God' and 'Jesus Christ' whom He sent, in terms of John 17:3

To associate Buzzard as holding an anti-christ position is hard to reckon with.

John stated, that everyone that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is of God. Those who say the opposite are not of God.

From all that I have read of Buzzard's writings, he like myself, whole heartedly believes that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. What is meant by making this claim? By this I mean that Jesus has really come, He came in the flesh, He came as a man, He was for real, He appeared physically. He was the Messiah, He was the Saviour of the world, He was the one of whom the Old Testament spoke; from Genesis to Malachi. I could give a more complete picture if you wish, but it would make this note unduly long.

Buzzard is not of the mind set of the Jews who were going around during the time of John, saying that the Messiah had not really come. The real, physical appearance of the Messiah was being denied by the vast majority of the Jewish religious establishment, as I am sure you well know. In fact, to this very day, the majority of the religiously inclined Jews (other than those who have become Christians) still deny that the Messiah has actually come in the flesh. In other words, he hasn't come at all.

Buzzard certainly believes that Christ was the central element of God's word (logos) and that it was this word (logos) that became flesh (reality, fact of life), consistent with what else John said about Jesus in 1 John 1.

The way I see it, prior to Jesus' birth by Mary, he was the one spoken about throughout the entire Old Testament. At that stage He was nothing more than a 'word' a 'thought' a 'plan' thought about in the mind of God and written about by prophets whom God inspired, to reveal His 'word', 'thouhgt' or 'plan'.

Many years ago, I came across a translation of the first section of John, as presented in the book, 'Christian Theology' by Jack Finegan – 1957 printing. (I still hold copy of this book, which played a key part in helping me to rethink my trinitarian viewpoints) It reads:

“In the begining was the Idea, and the Idea was with God, and the Idea was divine. All things were made in pursuance of that Idea and without it nothing was made. The Idea was the sustaining Substance, the Inner Reality of all that was made.

The Idea became alive and the Life of it was the Light of men, the true Light that lighteth everyman that cometh into the world. The Idea was made flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth. No man has seen God at any time, but no man having once seen that Life full of grace and truth can fail to catch the Idea”.

To me this unravels the riddle and makes the picture very clear. A word is first of all an idea in the mind and then it is the expression of that idea which communicates it to others. Thus, to my way of thinking, to say that Jesus Christ is the Word of God is to signify that He is God's thought, and also the expression of that thought in human life.

This is getting long, so I better leave off here.

Perhaps you could explain to me what you think the logos was before it became flesh, as I think I have failed to pick up clearly from previous posts, exactly what you understand in this regard.

Maybe you could point me to a post where you have spelt it out before.

Again, thank you for the continuing dialog.

Elidad

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Elidad @ July 29 2006,08:43)

Hi David, Is 1:8 and T8, From what I can gather, it seems that examination of John 1:1 and what we are meant to understand from the word conveyed to John, by the Holy Spirit, is a classic case of turning a molehill into a mountain, or straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. I have read the debates on this verse a hundred times over in other publications and it has become nothing more than an exercise in academic and intellectual gymnastics, that has completely lost the simplicity and fundamental meaning of the statement. How did the average person in the days of John understand such, if, as I understand it, the Greek used was that understood in every day conversation?  You didn't need to go to University or Bible College to figure out what it meant surely?

Okay, here is the verse:

John 1 (NIV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1 (NASB)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1 (KJV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

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

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

Stripped back, here is my interpretation of John 1:1c……

The Word was God.

Here is what t8 and others affirm:

The Word was not in fact God but instead this noun should be interpreted in a qualitative sense, in that it does not identify a person but rather an attribute of godliness.

Who is straining the gnat?

Quote

There is an article written by Anthony Buzzard on this very topic titled, John 1:1 Caveat Lector (Reader Beware) “In the beginning was the word” does not mean “In the beginning was the Son”, which pretty much covers all the angles and puts the matter to rest, once and for all. Unless of course, others can see weakeness/error in the case made, that I have failed to pick up on. The article can be read here: http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/john1.htm . It may be necessary to copy and paste this address into Browser if clicking on it here fails to get the right response.

Tell me why I should consider important what Anthony Buzzard thinks?

[Author]

Posts