The Trinity Doctrine

[Proclaimer]

To GJG,

What do you think Jesus would say if you denied his personality/mind and said that he was another, namely God himself.

If you said that I was God because the Spirit was within me and I had a body of flesh, then it would be fair enough to say that you do not know me. Even if I am a Son of God. I am my soul. I am unique. I have my own will. I am not the Spirit within me and I am not the body. If you said I was either, then you would be wrong and that would prove that you didn't know me.

e.g If someone said to me, do you know Margaret Thatcher and I said yes I know HIM, then I have either expressed myself wrongly in my language, incorrectly thought she was a man, or I do not know Margaret Thatcher and I am pretending to know her.

Same with Christ. If you do not know him personally, then you cannot be his disciple. If you say that he is somebody else (God, who is not the son) you demonstrate that you do not know him. Perhaps you do know him, but you do not understand who he is?

You say that Jesus is the Son of God. That is the true confession. But who is the Son of God? Is it God or Jesus Christ? Yet many shall say that Jesus is the Christ and decieve many.

An antichrist is one who denies that Jesus came in the flesh.

You say that God came in the flesh. Have I read you wrong. I really hope so.

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.

You say that Jesus is God, therefore you must conclude that God is the Christ. But Jesus is the Christ, not God. When you say Jesus is the Christ in your mind and heart you are saying that God is the Christ. God in a human body.

1 John 4:3
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

You say Jesus is God. Yet we must believe who he is,  he is from God. If I am from my parents, I cannot be either parent. I will be like them though.

2 John 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

You say God himself came in the flesh, but it was Jesus who came in the flesh. If you say that Jesus is The God, then you say that The God came in the flesh.

I can accept that one could have an incorrect concept to who Jesus is and still know Jesus personally, but such a person would be in a process of being perfected by Christ himself and therefore would be in a process of learning the truth.

A disciple of Christ is one who is being disciplined by Christ. One who is being transformed into the image of Christ. One who accepts the truth. One who hears the words of Christ and accepts them.

Now you told me that you are entitled to your view and I agree, but you must also realise that I am also entitled to mine and that should also be respected.

Rather than just kind of giving up here, why don't you prove my conclusion on Oneness wrong. I would really like to be wrong if it puts you in a better light. But the Truth is greater than both of us and I think that we should lay our lives down for the truth and me being tough on your doctrine is not a bad thing. If your doctrine can survive scrutiny then that is good for you. If your doctrine cannot survive, then that is good too. It is an indicator of where you need to change in order to come in aligniment with the truth.

[e man]

haven’t been here in a awhile, and too busy now. i’m posting this simply in the hope that, by making a reply to this thread without opting for email notification of futures replies to this thread, I will stop getting the notifications in my email. I want to be able to not worry about getting my email account over-loaded, and this thread keeps getting so many replies that if I did not keep deleting the notices, my email account would be over-loaded by now. I tried once to see if there was a ‘thread-unsubscribe’ feature on this board, but saw none.

So, talk to you all later, maybe. I’m amazed at how many replies this thread has.

[Proclaimer]

Yeah this is an annoying feature of this BBS software.
I will be upgrading the Forum at some stage, which will solve the problem, but that involves converting the Posts into a MySQL database and is a bit involved. Also the New software is rich in features and has a MS Word type interface, but I think it is a little busy and looks complicated.

Not sure if or when I should do it.

Also: I don’t choose the email notification of replies option and that seems to fix it.

[Proclaimer]

To dmateo,

Your quotes are in gray.

But as I understand it, In the Beginning there was the Word. It said explicitly that in a certain point of time, there was the Word. And the word was with God. And the Word was God.

I think you are correct here. The Greek word for beginning, in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word”  is “arche” and this word  means the following:

1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demons  

Below I will show you a verse where the word “beginning” or  “arche”  is also mentioned and I think you will agree that it is rather obvious from this verse that it does not mean eternity or eternal. The verse is John 8:44 (English-NIV)

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.

I think the word beginning is referring to the creation. In the beginning was the Word, means that the Word was there before the beginning, and the beginning that is being spoken of is creation, therefore the Word existed before creation.

Anyway with regard to God being a person or class, I would like to say that  God is a person and those who are like God/made in his image are classified as gods. One is the source/originator, the others are the image who reflect the source/originator.

We are like prisms that reflect light and God is that light. We take invisible light and reflect it's colours to make it visible. That is why Jesus said “If you have seen me you have seen the Father”. Jesus reflects God. We reflect God in part.

We know that God is invisible, but only Jesus Christ can declare him. From that declaration we can declare God too. Jesus is the image of the invisible God and we are the image of Christ who is the image of God. So we to are the image of God.

I believe that God is a person, namely the Father. However God has a Son, who has his nature. He is Godly, like God, the Image of God. Therefore we can say that Jesus is god/divine. But the Father is The Divine/God. Same with us, we are divine and made in the image of God, but we are not that God. So we are gods, but not The God.

There is One God, but there are many who are like him.

Ephesians 3:14-15
14 For this reason I kneel before the Father,
15 from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.

In regards to Jesus statement “Before Abraham, I am”, this word can be interpreted in alot of way other then interpretation of him refering to himself to be God. Trying to relate God's word “I AM who I AM”, is a bit forced I believe. Never in my lifetime I couldl've come to that conclusion has I not learned it from other people. I'm not saying this is wrong, but I'm not also seeing it as by saying “Before Abraham, I am” Jesus is claiming him self to be God, The Father. Which is also contradicts again, as they should be a separate entitiy, which is of the same substance. But the one who said that word is believed to be God the Father. If by saying 'I Am” Jesus is refering himself as God the Father than it will again break the personality of each person of that one substance. As far as I understand “I Am” stood for identifying a person identity not his gender or classification.

When Jesus said “Before Abraham I am”. He was simply saying that before Abraham he existed. That is why the Jews were so upset, because he was claiming to be greater than their beloved Abraham.

I am not sure if you have read this but I point you to
http://heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity-5.htm#iam
It goes into great depth with the “I Am” argument.

Global and T8 and all others thank you for this wonderfull discusion. I believe this discussion has strengthen many people in their believe (Trinitarian or not), and their understanding of the Bible

Your welcome.

Your other points were excellent too and I agree with them. You come across as one who searches for truth and is not biased toward doctrines and creeds of men. May God bless you richly in your faith.

[Proclaimer]

To dmateo,

I am not sure if you have read about the Wisdom and Word comparison, but if not I have posted it below for your review.

Proverbs 8:22-30 (English-NIV) talks about the concept of wisdom, then to wisdom himself:

22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, {[22] Or ; or } {[22] Or ; or } before his deeds of old;
23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, .

So from this verse we can see the following points

• This person was brought forth as the first of Gods works.
• This person was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
• This person was given birth before creation.
• This person was the craftsman at his side and rejoiced in his presence before creation.

Some say that Wisdom isn't Christ, rather this is just wisdom in a conceptual sense and it is true that wisdom is being spoken of in that way. But from verse 22 onward (quoted above) it changes tempo. With terms like I was given birth, I was the craftsman at his side and I was filled with delight, we have to admit that it seems to be talking about a person. Now have a look at the following verses:

1 Corinthians 1:24 (English-NIV)
but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1 Corinthians 1:30 (English-NIV)
It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Let's look at some other concepts that Jesus personifies:

• Jesus is the Truth. Yet truth is also a concept. E.g. Please tell me the truth.
• Jesus is the Way. Yet the way is also a concept. E.g. Which way is it to the beach?
• Jesus is the Life. Yet life can also be a concept. E.g. He has a life threatening disease.

Please note that there can be a big difference between saying the way compared to way, the truth compared to truth, the life compared to life and the wisdom compared to wisdom. When we use the word 'the' we are normally talking about a person.

Anyway if we go back to Proverbs 8:22-30. We can also see very strong similarities with the next 3 verses that talk about Jesus Christ.

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

Compare with
“The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works” and “I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began”.

Hebrews 1:5-6 (English-NIV)
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.”

Compare with
“When there were no oceans, I was given birth”.

Colossians 1:15-16 (English-NIV)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

Compare with
“Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,”.

Notice that Wisdom was given birth before creation.

[global]

Hello everyone, I now have access to a computer again.

I’m trying to catch up on the discussion and will post replies to T8 and anyone who asked me a question soon.

Thanks for your patience, be well.

[Proclaimer]

Hi,

2 weeks without a computer. That happened to me once. Were you on a mission trip to the Amazon?

[global]

Hi T8, ha ha, no not a mission trip,   I have moved country (Spain to England) to begin a course and didn’t have a new connection set up until now.

As I see you haven’t had time to answer any more of my Biblical arguments yet I will only limit myself to answering specific questions to avoid creating a huge “backlog”.

Regarding your last post, you said –

“You concentrate a lot on the supposition that we shouldn’t render John 1:1 as anything less than Jesus being "the God". I couldn’t disagree more. You basically say that the lack of an article is not significant and doesn’t denote a difference from the other uses of GOD with the article in John 1”

I concentrate on this because it is the view of the majority of World recognised Greek scholars, and I regard this as being more than just a supposition.

You said –

“I disagree”

You are entitled to your opinion, but I believe the majority of reasonable people will accept the opinion of the World renowned Greek scholars.

You said –

“I have posted some quotes from other writers and scholars who hold a similar view to myself”

Unfortunately the people you have quoted are either not scholars or do NOT support your view.

Let us look for example at your use of the Greek scholar Barclay.

When you read my biblical arguments regarding Jn 1.1 you will notice that he is a Trinitarian who supports the Trinitarian interpretation of Jn 1.1, your use of his quote in the book  “Who is Jesus” shows that you do not understand the theological point he is making, (which is understandable because he is not exactly clear here).

This argument  from “Who is Jesus” is virtually identical to the argument he makes in the book “Many Witnesses” –

"In a matter like this, we cannot do other than to go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Theos is the Greek word for God, en for was, ho for the, logos for word. Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say, "James is the man," then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind; but if I say: "James is man", then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would have definitely identified the Logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, "The Word was in the same class as God, belonging to the same order of being as God." The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who has: "The Word was as to his essence essential deity." But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely accurate rendering: "What God was the Word was." John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God’" (William Barclay; Many Witnesses, One Lord, p23-24)

It was this quote which the Jehovahs Witnesses misused  to support their own heresy.

When Barclay was informed of this by Donald Shoemaker of Biola College he wrote the following letter to Shoemaker –

Dear Professor Donald Shoemaker,
Thank you for your letter of August 11th. The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that he is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves.
If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N.E.B., they missed the whole point.
It was good of you to write and I don’t think I need say anything more to make my position clear.
With every good wish.
Yours Sincerely
William Barclay.

So when Barclay says in his book, Many Witnesses, One Lord: "John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God", Barclay is refuting Modalism. Modalism states that the Father and the Son are the same person. Barclay is saying, "John is not here identifying the Word with God [the person of the Father]. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God [the person of the Father]".

Barclay emphasises this in his letter to Shoemaker by his approval of Wuest’s translation –

"The Word was as to his essence essential deity."

And the NEB –

"What God was the Word was."

Likewise your use of a quote from the Anchor Bible by Raymond E Brown is similarly mistaken since Raymond Brown is a Catholic priest and theologian and certainly believes in the Trinity, and the quote you use from him in no way supports your position.

The other writers you quote can hardly be regarded as “authorities” on New Testament Greek either.

For example you quote J Gwyn Griffiths who is neither a theologian nor a Greek scholar but an Egyptologist who believes that the Christian religion derives from Egyptian religions. He cannot be regarded as a suitable source of information for any Christian.

I really must repeat at this point –

There are no respectable Greek scholars who will arrive at any other interpretation of Jn 1.1 than that the Word is the one true God.

You said –

“They are not presented as two equal gods”

This is a misrepresentation of the Trinity as you well know that I do not believe in two equal Gods. I believe in one God with three equal persons.

You said –

“Obviously, in John 1:1 we have one individual with the characteristic of THEOS who is "with" TON THEOS, thus he cannot be the God he is with!”

Please reread the views of some respectable Greek scholars on this, especially Barclay, you will see that the whole point of this passage is to distinguish the two persons.

Yes, you are right that the Word cannot be the person he is with, the Son is not the Father, but he is still God. That is what this passage is precisely affirming. It distinguishes them as persons but says they are both divine.

To Dmateo –

You said –

“The trinitarian translation is the only consistent and correct treatment of John 1:1 => where did this come from ? I believe this is personal.”

Please see my Biblical arguments on Jn 1.1 where I deal extensively with the correct interpretation of this passage as accepted by Greek scholars today. You will see that it is not my personal opinion.

My next post will be to GJG regarding the Holy Spirit and the body.

Be Well.

(Edited by global at 12:32 pm on Sep. 23, 2003)

[Proclaimer]

Hi Global,

You mention that Scholars agree that Jesus is God and that John 1:1 is saying that Jesus is God. But that alone doesn't prove it. Probably most scientists in the field of science believe in Evolution. And we know that God sees the wisdom of the wise and the scholar as foolishness. This of course doesn't mean that they are all wrong, it just means that it is possible for most to be wrong. I must also note that a lot of those who did not hold to Jesus being God, were persecuted and even murdered and thus such violence made it more difficult for men to freely debate anything outside of the trinity in the past and this didn't allow the easy development of a man made infrastructure based on a non-trinitarian foundation. I actually see this as a good thing though. We shouldn't be rebuilding the true foundation, we should be building on top of the one that Jesus and the Apostles left us. We already have the foundation and the Trinity Doctrine is not that foundation.

Anyway I invite you to read the page that Kel mentioned earlier.
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/theology/deity/Jn1_1.html

It has quotes from scholars and others that Trinitarians quote, yet some say that Jesus is not God in person, rather in nature. Quotes from people like Origen.

The conclusion drawn from the author of this page is as follows:

1. The brilliant theologian Origen and respected Trinitarian scholars today indicate the presence or absence of the definite article in John 1:1 is significant and is present in the first instance of theos and not at the other for a reason. Although Trinitarians scholars acknowledge this, Trinitarian translators and apologists continue to mistranslate John 1:1 anyway and mislead uninformed readers.

2. The presence of the definite article in John 1:1 indicates the word theos in the first instance is used in a quantitative sense (referring to “that” person or “who” the Word was with) and the absence of the definite article in the second instance indicates that the word “theos is used in a qualitative sense (referring to “what” the Word was).

3. If John had indeed used the definite article in the second instance he would have been telling us that the Word was “the God” in the same sense that we would say “God was the Word” which would mean that only the Word was God and no one else. Trinitarian scholars admit this to be the case and the absence of the definite article is required to indicate the Word was something that God also was.

4. John is telling us that the Word was divine or that the Word was deity or “the Word was god” where all three translations intend the same sense. The capital 'G' is extremely misleading as it suggestively invites English readers, accustomed to English capitalization conventions, to assume John is telling us “who” the Word was which is most definitely not the case, and such translations violently do injustice to truth.

Anyway you mention that the majority of Christian scholars hold the view that Jesus is God, but I think you will find that many of them say that he is has the nature of God (God in class) I think that you even hold this view. But he is not God the person, otherwise most NT verses in the bible that mention God would be unintelligable. You have even admitted that the word 'God' is talking about the Father in John 1:1 and 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.

What I have been saying all along is that the word God is always talking about the person of the Father, unless the adjectives say otherwise because he is the one true God.

This is why we see time and time again verses like

Colossians 1:2-3 (English-NIV)
2 To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colosse: Grace and peace to you from God our Father.
3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,

Philemon 1:3 (English-NIV)
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The NT is full of such verses and I have quoted 100 such verses @ https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-8.htm as you are already aware. In every verse the Father is God. Jesus is referred to as Lord, the Son, the Christ. He is of God, not God himself.

God became a Father when he begat a son. Jesus is the Son. He is like God, has the nature of God, but is not the one and only true God. Likewise we should have the nature of Christ, but we are not Christ.

God is a who, not 3 who's.

[Proclaimer]

To Global,

Trinitarians in general say that God is a class and that class contains 3 persons, namely the Father first and then the Son and the Holy Spirit.

But I and many others believe that God is a person not a class and that person is the Father, he is the one true God. God begat a Son in his likeness, the likeness of himself,  (Image of God, firstborn). Then through his Son he made creation and us. The plan is to unite man with God and his Son in spirit. We are also in God's likeness, then we have been born through the Logos to live forever with God. So Jesus will call us brothers and we are the Sons of God. In class we may be god including the Father and we are referred to as gods. But in person the Father is the one true God.

Now you mention that some of the people I quoted do not hold my view. But if they agree that John 1:1 means that the Word was god in a qualitive sense then I have made my point. It doesn't matter if they are Trinitarians. It just proves that even Trintarians believe that.

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

Now we know that the Word cannot be with the God if the Word is The God, so we agree that it is saying that the God being referred to is the Father.

So can we say “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Father, and the Word was the Father.”

Absolutely not. Then can we say “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Trinity, and the Word was the Trinity.”

Absolutely not. Can we say “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the class of God, and the Word was the class of God.”

Absolutely not. Can we say “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Father, and the Word was like the Father (divine). Well many seem to think so, including some writers, some scholars and even some Trinitarians.

[global]

Hi T8,

You said

“You mention that Scholars agree that Jesus is God and that John 1:1 is saying that Jesus is God. But that alone doesn’t prove it. Probably most scientists in the field of science believe in Evolution. And we know that God sees the wisdom of the wise and the scholar as foolishness. This of course doesn’t mean that they are all wrong, it just means that it is possible for most to be wrong.”

Yes, it is possible that they are all wrong, it is possible that the Bible is a forgery, it is possible that planet Earth is being controlled by a secret government of extra terrestrials.

The point is, unless there is credible evidence that they are all wrong, why should we doubt them?

Why do you doubt them T8?

You say that there are some writers that support your position, but the fact is that you have been unable to show the credibility of any of those writers.

Even if they were credible, the vast majority of academic opinion still doesn’t hold their opinion.

Why would any reasonable person not wish to accept the reasonable and sound opinion of the majority of respected academics and choose to put more weight in an unproven minority position? Why do you T8?

You said

“Anyway you mention that the majority of Christian scholars hold the view that Jesus is God, but I think you will find that many of them say that he is has the nature of God (God in class) I think that you even hold this view. But he is not God the person, otherwise most NT verses in the bible that mention God would be unintelligable.”

When they say he has the nature of God, or is in the class of God, they mean that he is as much God as the Father, i.e affirm the Trinity (or here at least affirm 2 persons in God). Barclay said as much in the quotes I posted above.

You are guilty here of the same thing the Jehovahs Witnesses did by trying to put a meaning in their words which they clearly do not intend to have.

This is like your argument that Jesus could be divine, but not the one true God, which is a nonsensical proposition since to be divine necessarily implies that you are the one true God.

You said

“God became a Father when he begat a son.”

This implies that before he begat Jesus he was not a Father and after he was.

But we know from the Bible that God is unchanging and eternal, he cannot ever be something which he was not before.

This is why the Trinitarian belief that Jesus is “eternally begotten” of the Father is the only possible explanation to account for the generation of the Son from the Father.

You said

“Absolutely not. Can we say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Father, and the Word was like the Father (divine). Well many seem to think so, including some writers, some scholars and even some Trinitarians.”

What is your point here?

You know full well that when scholars say that the Word is divine they say it with a capital “D” i.e he is fully Divine i.e he is the one true God as much as the Father. Some Trinitarians don’t say this, ALL Trinitarians say this.

If you are again trying to claim that some say he can just have the nature of God but isn’t actually God, again I challenge you to produce a reputable scholar who says this T8. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this argument, without evidence it is worthless.

Can we say “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (the Father) and the Word was God (a person distinct from the Father)?

Yes, absolutely, that is exactly what scholars like Barclay say it means.

Be Well.

[Proclaimer]

To Global,

Ok, so you deny that the statement 'god' without the article is referring to nature of God, but some Trinitarians believe this or at least quote from scholars, theologians and others who hold this view.

The following is taken from
<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/theology/deity/Jn1_1.html

It” target=”_blank”>http://www.angelfire.com/space&#8230;.ml

It is very plainly given to us by John in his epistle that by the first instance of the word theos in John 1:1 he is referring to the person of the Father. Obviously, the second occurrence of the word theos is not a reference to the Father, unless of course one wants to argue for Sabellianism similar to the Oneness Pentecostals. So if the first instance of theos with the definite article, here and in verse 2, is a reference to the Father, then what does the word theos refer to in the second instance in John 1:1 without the definite article? It is here to this question we turn our attention.

A point of contention concerning this passage has been the signficance of the absence of the definite article ho (“the”) with the second occurrence of the word theos. John says “the word was with the theos and the word was theos” but he does not say “the word was the theos.” In Koine Greek it was conventional to precede a person's name or title with the definite article when referring to that person. So in Koine Greek it was conventional to refer to “God” as “the god,” unlike our English convention. However, the second occurrence of the word theos does not have a definite article. What John actually wrote was “and the word was with the god and god was the word” or “and the word was with the deity and deity was the word” where the Greek syntax tells us that the word “deity” belongs to the predicate of the sentence and not the subject. So a literal English translation ends with “and the word was deity.” John cannot be saying “[the person] God was the Word” even though this is the order of the words in Greek. Word order in Greek has less importance than English and what is meant is determined by the syntax of the words which tell you which noun is the subject and which the predicate. Now because the second occurrence of theos does not have the definite article, we know this is a reference to “what” the Word was rather than “who” the Word was. In other words, if John had said, “and the Word was with the Light and the Word was Light,” we would understand that John is saying that the Word was with a person (“who”) called “the Light” and the Word was himself the essence of Light (“what”). “The Light” refers to “who” he was with, but the second instance of the word “Light” in our sentence, refers to “what” he was.

One of the most brilliant theologians to have ever walked on Christian feet had something to say on this matter of the definite article, the theological genius, Origen who wrote in the early 200's A.D.

“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.”

(Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)

While Trinitarians love to quote Origen and appeal to his wisdom for other purposes, they tend to avoid this particular quotation for obvious reasons. Origen is very insistent that the absence of the definite article in the second instance of the word theos at John 1:1 is indeed extremely significant. And who would comprehend the Greek language of John's gospel better than Origen? He was an expert in the language of the day. Notice that Origen distinguishes between “the god” or “God” as the creator of all things, and his Word which he does not consider to be the creator, and which he does not consider to be “God” but “god” in the sense that the Word is deity by essence but not “God” by identity. This is precisely what was taught by the early Christian writers, Tatian, Athenagoras, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian although Trinitarians will attempt to tell us otherwise. Also take careful note of Origen's interpretation of John 17:3, “that they may now you the only true God” as a reference to the Father excluding Jesus from that title. Now let us be careful about what Origen is not saying. He is not saying that Jesus is “a God” or “a god” in addition to the Father. He is saying, along with all his contemporaries, that the deity (“what”) of the Word is derived from the person “God” but only the Father should be identified as “God” (“who”). Nor is he saying that the Word is “the God” that created the universe; in fact he is insisting the opposite is true (the Word is not the Creator but “of” the Creator). Origen is saying that the Word is deity (“god”) because he is “of God” and derives his deity from “The Deity,” the Creator of all things who is the Father. Origen understands that the Word has a God but God the Father does not. God Most High, the Father, is “autodeity”, or “autogod” which is a fancy way of saying his deity is derived from himself. But Origen says that the deity of the Word is not derived from himself and this is why the definite article is absent in the second occurrence of theos at John 1:1. The Word of God is not “The Deity” but deity in essence
because the Word is “of The Deity”, that is, “of God” but is not “The God.” Put another way, he is saying that the Word is divinity of the Divinity or god of God or deity of the Deity but is not himself “The Deity,” the entity we know as the Creator, God Most High. Origen emphasizes his point by quoting John 17:3 where Jesus indicates his Father is the only true “Deity”, that is, “The Deity” and “The God” by identity as opposed to simply being “deity” in essence. Essentially, what Origen is getting at is that the definite article is used to indicate identity and is always and only used to refer to the Creator who he understands to be the Father who created alone through (by means of) his Word, and the absence of the article indicates “what” the Word is to distinguish “who” the Word is from God – the Word is deity of The Deity but is not The Deity.

If we translate the passage as “the Word was God,” we dishonestly mislead people because in our language a capital “G” implicitly indicates we are referring to an identity, a person, and answering the question “who?” because a capital letter is intended to take the place of the purpose of the definite article by directing our attention to a specific person. Indeed, in Greek one would say “the john” rather than “John.” In John 1:1, the first occurrence of the Greek word theos (“god”) does indeed refer to an identity, God the Father, because it has the definite article ho theos and therefore should be written as capital 'G' “God” but the second occurrence of the Greek word theos (“god”) does not have the definite article and is not a reference to “who” the Word is but to “what” the Word is and must be written as small 'g' god where the word “god” here refers to the divine nature of God, that is, the nature of deity.

[Proclaimer]

Quote

Can we say  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (the Father) and the Word was God (a person distinct from the Father)? Yes, absolutely, that is exactly what scholars like Barclay say it means.

So the Word was with a specific God, that is  the Father and then suddenly God is the Word.  

If theos as well as logos is preceded by the article the meaning would be that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also “with God”.

In other words you feel at liberty to chop and change the meaning of the word 'God' and the words 'the God' to suit your theology and you don't say that the article is significant. Yet the only thing that suffers from this is the truth.  But I am at least consistant in that the God is always the Father just as the scriptures plainly point out unless the adjective points to a different God.  e.g The God of this age.

Also if the article is missing it can be used to describe something like God, although 'the God (the person) has the nature of God too. That is obvious because he is the source of that nature. That is why Jesus said in Mark 10:18

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone.

In other words Jesus goodness comes from God, not himself. Jesus is not the source of good, God is. This is not my opinion, this is the clear teaching of Christ himself. Yet you deny this. Also Jesus is not the source of all knowledge, God is. That is obvious from scripture as Jesus doesn't know all things. Yet the Trinity doctrine denies this.

Who is God? The Father. Who is good, God is. Who knows all things, God does. Jesus is different to God in that he is not the source of these things, he recieves them from the Father. The scriptures are very clear about this.

Global you are not consistent. Your stand on this doesn't make sense, just as the Trinity doctrine doesn't make sense. It is easy to catch you out in your own wisdom.  If we see the words 'the God', Trinitarians feel at liberty to replace those words with Father, Son or Holy Spirit freely using their own will. In addition Trinitarians do not have an answer to the scriptures that show that the Father is the only true God because it contradicts their doctrine.

You say that the article is not important, yet Trinitarian scholars themselves, when they think it is convenient for them, insist the definite article is indeed signficant. So they seem to have this chop and change attitude    
too when it suits, it depends on what they are arguing.

I take the following quote from
http://www.angelfire.com/space&#8230;._1.html
as I am no expert on scholars.

“And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1 John 4:16 “ho theos agape estin” can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f.”
(A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 5, pp. 4-5, underlined emphasis mine).

I think people can see how dishonest trinitarians can be in order to protect their foundational doctrine. They say the article is not important if they are saying that Jesus is the God, and the opposite to say that Jesus is not the Father.

2 Corinthians 4:2
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Also back to your comment on believing the scholars, I want to say that in science we find that most scientists believe in Evolution and most so-called Christian scholars believe in the Trinity. But I do not throw out the Bible as you suggested, just as I do not throw out science. I am just aware that this world is full of deception and under the sway of the Evil One. We also both know how much God trusts in Scholars in general.

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Again I ask you Global. Is Jesus the God or the image of God. If you say both, then you are very confused and if you say the God then you cannot see that Jesus is the Image of God and you are in turn blinded by the Devil, the God of this age.

You can not be an image and the source. You are either one or the other. E.g we are made in the image of God, but we are not God. God is the source yet we can have his nature. We are gods. We are of God. We are the image of God. We are the sons of God and it is obvious that we are not God.

Jesus is the image of God, Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus is the Wisdom of God and so it is obvious that he is not God (the source) himself.

Again Global, how can Jesus be the image of God and God at the same time. How can he be the source and the recipient at the same time. The trinity doctrine is unreasonable and God is not the author of confusion.

[global]

Hi T8,

I think you are getting very bogged down in the issue of the significance of the article etc etc.

My position has always been that as I am not a world renowned scholar of Greek I cannot comment on that in a meaningful way.

I can only look to what the Greek scholars say, and they say that the Greek means that the Word is God.

It may be that some explain this by saying that the second "theos" means "has the nature of God" or is "Divine" or in some other form of words. But it is always quite clear that their intention is to distinguish the Word from the person of the Father but at the same time saying he is of the same substance.

None of them say that he is "divine" in the sense of being a lesser type of being than the one true God.

They all say that Johns intention here is to distinguish the persons but emphasise the absolute deity of both.

That view also happens to accord perfectly with the tradition of the Church and the vast majority of Christian denominations over the last two thousand years and I have no reason to doubt it.

I believe that you only doubt it because it does not "fit in" with your existing ideas.

Be Well.

[Proclaimer]

You know what my idea is Global, it is that Jesus is the Image of God. But is that really my idea or did I get that from scripture?

You see, my template is the scripture itself. Your template is the creeds written by men thereafter.

I believe the scriptures. God is the source, Jesus is the recipient. God is the Father, Jesus is the Son. God is the Originator, Jesus is the one who follows.

Jesus is not the source; Jesus doesn’t know all things; Jesus doesn’t follow his own will; Jesus is not the source of good. What more proof do you want.

Jesus never said he was the God. The Devil nor the demons said he was the God. The Apostles and believers never said he was the God. The Father never said he (Jesus) was the God.

HE IS THE SON. That is the true testimony of the TRUE FAITH. That is what the Father says, the Son says, the TRUE Church says and even the Devil and demons acknowledge it.

I know that Jesus is like God and has his nature, just as a son should. Likewise we believers are also sons and images and we should also have the nature of God. We are not the source we are not the Originator, we are recipients too. We can choose our human nature or God’s nature. What we choose determines our destiny. We are gods, not the God. Jesus is the Son, not the God. We are gods, Jesus is the mighty God, the Father is the Almighty God, (the God of gods).

Jesus recieves everything that he has and is from his Father just as we do. He is not co-eternal and co-equal with God just as the giver is greater than the reciever. He is not one member of a trinity just as we aren’t. He is the Only begotten Son OF GOD and we are the Sons of God begotten through the Word/Son. Jesus is not the God that he is the son of. Any clear thinking person can tell you that.

We are the sons, Jesus is the Son and God is the invisible Spirit. It’s simple and scriptural and to deny this truth is to deny the faith.

You cannot deny this Global because there are too many scriptures that you have to write off in order to deny the truth that the Son is of God and not God HIMSELF.

Also, I am not bogged down in the article issue in John 1:1 as you say. I am simply answering your questions and accusations. I would way prefer to move on and discuss other things, but I will defend the truth till I die.

[global]

Hi T8,

You seem to be basing your rejection of the accepted translation of Jn 1.1 on the ground that it is not compatible with your other beliefs which you base on other passages of the Bible.

You say that because there are so many other passages which you believe show a different view of the Divinity of the Word that the accepted translation of Jn 1.1 must be wrong.

There are two problems with that approach –

1)The scholars are saying that there is only one correct translation of Jn 1.1, therefore if we wish to interpret Jn 1.1 in another way we would have to have exceptionally good evidence about ancient Greek and grammar which showed that the scholars are wrong.

At the moment we do not have such evidence, this suggests that it is not the translation of Jn 1.1 which needs to be revised, but rather your understanding of the other passages which you find hard to reconcile with Jn 1.1

2)Before saying that the accepted translation of Jn 1.1 is faulty we would have to actually have a lot of other passages which are incompatible with it.

As I have shown in my answers to your summary, the passages which you use to object to the Trinity are not incompatible with it and none of them can prove your position.

If you wish to continue claiming that that the rest of the scriptures rule out the Trinitarian translation the onus is now clearly on you to either produce more convincing arguments or show that my arguments are incorrect, but if you cannot then your basis for rejecting the correct translation of Jn1.1
would appear to be unconvincing.

I look forward to your answers to my other Biblical arguments to see if you can do this.

Be Well.

[tribbles7]

I am not trinitarian in any way shape or form but I have looked at the theories posted here and am saddened by the number of people that deny the Deity of JESUS CHRIST .

In Zechariah 12:10 JEHOVAH said " they shall look upon ME whom they have pierced ."

What many of you are believing is so far from the truth of scripture it is very sad .

Here is a study that you need to take serious consideration of .

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ;

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior.

Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me.

Hos 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no savior beside me.

Looking at these scripture we find that JEHOVAH said " they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced."

We also find that GOD purchased the flock with HIS own blood not the blood of someone else .

We find that JESUS is the Great GOD and our Savior

And that JEHOVAH said " beside ME there is no Savior."

It is clear that GOD came to this earth to die HIMSELF for the sins of the world .

We know HE came meek and lowly , HE humbled HIMSELF and loved us so much that HE became the perfect sacrifice so we could be reconciled to HIM.

2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

It says HE was reconciling the world unto HIMSELF not someone else.

GOD became man to become sacrifice to become Savior to the whole world !

I can use the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures if you prefer because it will prove also that GOD Almighty became man and died for the sins of the world .

We can leave the italicized words out of all translations including King James and NWTHS .

Unto which of the angels did HE say " Thy throne , Oh GOD is a scepter of righteousness. "

I am a ONE GOD believing Christian that knows JESUS CHRIST was and is and is to come , the Almighty . And that HE is the Mighty GOD and the Everlasting Father .

[global]

Tribbles7, as I understand T8’s argument, he does not deny the divinity of Jesus, but he appears to believe that he is a lesser type of divinity. (actually I think that T8 sways between saying that Jesus is divine, and saying that he has the nature of God in the sense of just being morally like God, he is never too clear precisely what his position is, but it seems to be that Jesus is actually divine)

This is, I believe, why his argument is illogical because he denies that he is polytheistic, yet by applying the term divine or deity to Jesus MUST either make him The God, or mean that there are two gods i.e polytheism.

Your own position is similarly incorrect because while you are correct in recognising that Jesus is the One True God, you deny the clear distinction made in the Bible between the persons of the Father and the Son.

Be Well.

[Proclaimer]

To Global,

I don’t know who you are kidding, but I think that you are definately kidding yourself.

I do not have a problem with John 1:1 at all. As you know, I was searching for it’s meaning and searching out how it compliments other scriptures that talk about God and his Son. Then I find that truth and I backed it up with sound reasoning in the Greek. In addition I also quoted from others including your beloved scholars that believe John 1:1 to say the same thing as I said.

Now what I have written is under scrutiny by anyone who reads it and many have and they commend me on my diligent work. The readers can make up their own mind, after they have read the discussion or the trinity writing @
<a href="https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity.htm

It” target=”_blank”>https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity.htm

It is written that if one rose from the dead, they still wouldn’t believe because of the hardness of their hearts. Likewise I quote <b>100</b> scriptures that demonstrate that God is the Father and Jesus is God’s Son. In addition to that I have shown clear teaching from Jesus, Paul, Peter and John that show that The Father is the true God and he has a Son called Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, who has his Fathers nature and is his image and even that is still that is not good enough for you. I also demonstrate clearly the scriptures that are used as so-called proof of the Tinity, are not that at all, (such as John 1:1) and you still you turn your head away in shame.

You deserve to remain deceived. Light has come into the world, but men prefer the darkness to the light and truth is revealed to the humble and teachable for this is the Father’s will.

You are welcome to the rewards of men and promotion within man-made organisations. I seek the reward from above the only reward of any value, and if I have to suffer and be hated on account of the truth, then I consider it a priveledge.

Anyway I still plan on answering your earlier questions and criticisms when we have stopped debating John 1:1 and other scriptures. I will answer them, not for you, but to convince others as I doubt that anything could turn you away from the traditions of men and toward truth, but I would be happy to be proven wrong with this one.

I will probably incorporate your rebuttals as links in the trinity writing and also include the replies for the sake of those who seek Yeshua, the truth.

[Proclaimer]

To tribbles7,

I take it that you follow the Oneness doctrine?
I plan on producing a writing that shows Oneness to be incorrect, and I appreciate your contributions which will aid in this writing.

[Author]

Posts