Trinity – Is 1:18's Proof Text #3

[Is 1:18]

It just wouldn’t be right to not include John 1:1 in my allotment of six proof texts in this debate. It’s a watershed verse, probably the most contentious verse in the entire Bible in trinitarian/antitrinitarian discussions. I thought I had developed a basic understanding of the verse a few years ago but in researching for this post it soon became clear that that there are nuances that had escaped me then. Nevertheless, what I have learnt has only strengthened my opinion that this one verse unequivocally refutes t8’s position, as defined in his writings found HERE. BTW t8, I note that few of paragraphs in your article bear a striking resemblance to some of the material on this website. Curiously, there was no sign of an acknowledgement of your source.

In this post I will be drawing extensively from the aforementioned article as in it t8 has codified his henotheistic views pertaining to John 1:1. And as my primary objective in this debate is to disprove henotheism it’s logical that I go to the best source. This post will be subdivided into three sections. In the first section I’ll informally critique T8’s article (mentioned above). In the next section I’ll give my own understanding of this verse and follow with a summary in the third and last section. So the headings for the sections will be as follows:

1. T8’s interpretation of John 1:1c
2. My interpretation of John 1:1c.
3. Summary

Oh BTW, apologies in advance to those who are adverse to long and technical posts, unfortunately this verse lends itself to a lexical argument and a short post wouldn’t do the verse justice. I’ll try to keep my points concise (if I can)….

1. T8’s interpretation of John 1:1c
T8 laid his henotheistic cards on the table by the way he rendered John 1:1 (twice) in his article “Who is Jesus” (emphasis mine)

Quote

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.

This verse mentions God as a person, except for the last word ‘god’ which is talking about the nature of God. i.e., In the beginning was the Divinity and the Word was with the Divinity and the word was divine. The verse says that the Word existed with God as another identity and he had the nature of that God.

(source)

The ascription of a lower case “g” to “God” in John 1:1c is colossally significant, it’s t8’s not-so-subtle way of telling us that in His opinion the subject described in the second clause is not “the God”, but a secondary, lesser one. I also note in your article that you also quoted John 1:1 from the NIV but unlike the rendering found there you used a little “g” for God. I think the translators might be upset if they knew you have so blatantly misquoted them. I’ll leave it up to your conscience to correct that error. The last time I checked “theos” is capitalized in the all 20 English versions offered on BibleGateway.com and all 11 versions offered on Blueletterbible.org. This shows that there is a strong consensus of opinion that disagrees with t8’s little “g” ascription. T8 may argue that the ratio simply reflects the disproportionality of translators with a trinitarian bias’ but I think most sound-thinking people would agree that the impetus of the scholars that translated the versions listed on the aforementioned websites mentioned was to preserve the integrity of the original texts and not to promote their own doctrinal axioms. And let’s bear in mind that these English versions were translated by teams of the world’s expert New Testament Greek scholars:

New International Version Bible – translation committee of 115 scholars.
King James Version – translation committee of 54 scholars.
New King James Version – 119 scholars.
New American Standard Bible – 54 scholars
Contemporary English Version – 100+ scholars
English Standard Version – 100+ scholars

The checks and balances used in the translation process is designed to eliminate the possibility of a radical influence dictating the mishandling of a particular verse (i.e. making it say something other than the original Greek annotated). Would these hundreds of Kione Greek-English grammarians have universally blundered by falsely translating “theos” with a capital ‘G’ in John 1:1c? I think the odds on that having occurred in every single English version offered on BibleGateway and the Blueletterbible English Bible lists are infinitesimally-small, it’s absurd to even imagine this could happan. The preponderance scholarly opinion on the correct case of the word God (theos) in John 1:1c issue falls on solidly the side of capitalisation

And there are good reasons why they favour this view…..hopefully I can represent them lucidly in this post. Here is the NASB version in both English and Greek, broken down into its three constituent clauses:

1. John 1:1a. “In beginning was the word…”
(en    arche   en  ho  logos)

2. John 1:1b. “and the word was with the God…”
(kai  ho  logos  en  pros ton theon)

3. John 1:1c. “and God was the word” – or properly translated:  “the Word was God.”*
(kai theos en ho logos)

The third clause, the subject of this post, is in predicate nominative construction. The predicate nominative is the noun following a linking verb that restates or stands for the subject (source).

 

• ho theos (“the Word”) – nominative (subject) noun
• en (“was”) – linking or equating verb
• theos (“God”) – predicate noun

 

Some may have been noticed that the nouns as they read in the Greek have been reversed in English. This is because when there is a single definite article in a clause where two nouns are in nominative form, the noun with the article is the subject. Therefore the nouns are switched by the English translators to place the subject at the forefront of the statement and therefore make it read more smoothly.

I first want to address the issue of the missing article in the third clause. In his writings, T8 has gone on record stressing the importance of this and word order (which has already been refuted) to the interpretation of the clause (emphasis is mine):

Quote

Moving on we seee In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (the). That article is before all other instances of the word ‘God’ and ‘Logos’ in John 1:1. (E.g., the Word, The God.) There is an understanding among Greek scholars that in Greek sentence construction, if a noun doesn’t have a preceding article, (e.g., the) it can be read as an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative).

cellspacing=”0″>
QuoteThe 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. But that doesn’t rule out the fact that Satan is the Devil because it is not saying that Judas was the actual Devil. Rather Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite), (Satan is); he was not an actual devil (indefinite), he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, Satan. If a definite meaning were desired the word order would be, ‘is the devil’; if an indefinite meaning were desired the word order would be, ‘is devil’. Since the word order is, ‘devil is’, and a form of “I am”comes after the noun, the meaning is qualitative, as it is in John 1:1c

So in essence t8 is postulating that the “theos” in John 1:1c is adjectival (or qualitative) by virtue of it being anarthrous (lacking a definite article). This is pure sophistry. These arachronistic notions been debunked decades ago by the cream of Greek scholarship. No self respecting grammarian would affirm what t8 has, the weight of NT evidence against it is formidable. Broadly speaking, there are three possible ways to interpret the predicate noun “theos” in the third clause of the above verse. These are:

1. Qualitative/adjectival – e.g. “divine”

2. Indefinite – e.g. “a god”

3. Definite – e.g. “God”

E. C Colwell, in his excellent study, proved that nouns can be made definite irrespective of whether they are arthrous (used with the article) or anarthrous (i.e. article-less). His analysis showed that pre-verbal predicate nominatives are NORMALLY definite. In actual fact he discovered that 87% of definite PNs before the verb were anarthrous in the NT. Based on his findings he offered the rule that “definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article”. If “theos” does not have an article, it can and often does still mean “God” not “a god” or “divine” as t8 would have everyone believe. Now it’s important to put this rule in it’s proper context, you cannot use Colwell’s rule in and of itself to prove the rendering of John 1:1c one way or the other. It’s made definite, indefinite or qualitative BY THE CONTEXT of the text into which it is placed. The utter irrelevancy of the article to the intended meaning of the predicate noun in John 1:1c is made clear by examining other instances where theos is used in John. Consider these verse from the very same chapter in John’s gospel:

John 1:6
There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.

No one would argue that this John intended to identify God, but there is no article attached to theos in this verse

John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

Again the noun “theos” is manifestly definite, but no article here either.

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Or here…….

If an anarthrous noun demands a qualitative rendering, why is this rule not evoked in these scriptures? It should be abundantly clear by now that the absence of the definite article can not be used as lexical proof that the noun “theos” defaults to a ‘qualitative’ rendering. This principle also applies to texts that are in predicate nominative construction, like John 1:1c. But an important point needs to be made at this stage, which is  – had an arthrous predicate noun construction been used by John in John 1:1c it would have forced a convertible proposition (i.e. a fully reversible statement), thereby affirming Sabellianism. Why? Because in Kione Greek, if an article precedes both case nouns in PN construction then the statement reads the same both ways.

J.R. Mantey, alluding to this, wrote:

If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1, the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that “the Word was with (the) God” (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing, he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate personalities. An Open Letter by J.R. Mantey – A Grossly Misleading Translation.

If, however, the author only wants the sentence to read one way then the article is dropped from the predicate noun. To make this point clear, here some examples where the subject is made plain by the article and the predicate without it:

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

It would be unintelligible had this read “Flesh became the Word”. Therefore, John uses the anarthrous predicate nominative to avert the possible misinterpretation of the text.

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

It would be unintelligible had this read “spirit is God”. Therefore, John uses the anarthrous predicate nominative to avert the possible misinterpretation of the text.

3. 1 John 1:5
“God is light” – theo esti phos

It would be unintelligible had this read “Light is God”. Therefore, John uses the anarthrous predicate nominative to avert the possible misinterpretation of the text.

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

It would be unintelligible had this read “Love is God”. Therefore, John uses the anarthrous predicate nominative to avert the possible misinterpretation of the text.

It’s also notable that in examples 2, 3 and 4 above the predicate noun “theos” are all overtly definite, if you read “theos” to mean ‘godliness’ or ‘divine’ these verses they fail to make any sense…..

Moreover, there are also biblical passages where the word “theos” appears twice, once with the article and once without, with absolutely no obvious shift in meaning (e.g. John 3:2, 13:3, Romans 1:21, 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Hebrews 9:14, 1 Peter 4:10-11).

So it should be abundantly clear that the article as it pertains to definiteness/indefiniteness/qualitativeness to PNs is a red herring. Not only is the missing article redundant to the interpretation of John 1:1c, grammatically John COULD NOT have legitimately used it without forcibly affirming modalistic thought. Therefore t8 was, at best, unintentionally misleading to his readers when he wrote:

“There is an understanding among Greek scholars that in Greek sentence construction, if a noun doesn’t have a preceding article, (e.g., the) it can be read as an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative)”

and;

“If a definite meaning were desired the word order would be, ‘is the devil’; if an indefinite meaning were desired the word order would be, ‘is devil’. Since the word order is, ‘devil is’, and a form of “I am”comes after the noun, the meaning is qualitative, as it is in John 1:1c.”

There is no question that T8 argues in his article that the qualitative emphasis is very much at the weak end of the divinity spectrum, relative to that of the Father. This is made obvious in this paragraph:

h=”95%” cellpadding=”0″ cellspacing=”0″>
Quote The most natural reading of John 1:1 shows that there are two beings here (not three): God and a second who was ‘theos’ but this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over which the second is defined. They are not presented as two coequal gods. 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! The LOGOS is unique. This one is further identified as “a son from a father,” as “begotten”, and as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word THEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “god.” So either there were two equal Gods talking to each other or there was one godlike individual with the Almighty God. . When we read all the scriptures we see that the scriptures including the Book of John backs up the second view, that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Father is the only God and the Son is the image of The God .

Just by way of a quick response to this assertion “the Father is greater than the Son”, it should go without saying that these affirmations were all uttered by Jesus post incarnation. So it’s curious that t8 has even cited them in a discourse on John 1:1, which is patently pre-incarnation in context. Yes the Father was greater that Yeshua while He was on Earth. That is not in contention and is completely irrelavent to this subject. The allusion to Yeshua being the image of God is also used out of context, NT passages that invoke this theme (e.g. 2 Corinthians 4:4, Col 1:15, Heb 1:3) are speaking of the post-resurrection Jesus, not the pre-incarnate one. I wonder if t8 can produce a scripture where the Logos is presented as the subservient, or the image?

It would also be enlightening to hear (figuratively speaking) t8 explain exactly what he meant when he wrote: – “but this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over which the second is defined”. T8, would you be so kind as to elucidate this sentence? What is it about John 1:1 that has led you to conclude that this is the “most natural reading”? Because I would say that the exact opposite is true, considering language used in John 1:1-3.

There are some reasons for this (note: some of these theme will be further developed later in later section of the post);-

 

• The subject noun “Ho Logos” in John 1:1c is placed by John in the emphatic position (i.e. in front of the predicate noun). In Kione Greek word order is insignificant, except for emphasis. So John intended to lay the stress on the predicate noun “theos” in the statement. There is no question that John would not have done this if he wanted to somehow diminish the semantic force of “theos”.  The opposite is true.
• John chose to describe the subject of John 1:1c with the Greek word “theos”. If John intended his readers to understand that Ho Logos had an attenuated divinity he could easily have achieved this by simply choosing a Greek word other than theos. The word “theios”, for instance, can be used to denote an attribute of godliness. This word choice certainly would have removed the potential misinterpretation due to lexical ambiguity. So in using “theos” John made a poor word choice. I cannot think of a single instance in the entire NT where the Greek word “theos” manifestly conveys the diminished divinity that t8 has presented, but perhaps he might know of one?
• John used the imperfect tense verb “en” (was) three times in relation to “ho Logos” in the fist 2 verses of John 1 (v1a,c and v2). “En” denotes continuous action, so this grammar forcibly affirms the Logos eternality, that He was without a beginning. So again John has made a very poor word choice if his aim was to present the subject as a lesser divinity. On the other side of the coin its what you would expect to see if absolute was in view.I would be interested to see t8 substantiate this hypothesis:

  “but this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over which the second is defined”

  ….by responding to my arguments here, point by point, and showing that the grammar support his statement. It will be interesting to read what t8 has to say for himself here…

  In an attempt to impute some validity to the statements quote above, T8 then goes on to cite the views of scholars that ostensibly concur with his view. For instance:

  Quote

  This is why the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible translate this passage, “what God was, the Word was.” The TEV (1976) translates it, “the Word was the same as God.” Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” And Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine.”

  The big problem here for t8, though, is that at least in the case of Moffatt, his definition of divinity was  in stark contrast to his own. Moffatt subscribes to the highest possible definition, strongly equating it with absolute deity, the deity elucidated in the early Christian creeds:

  “’The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,’ simply means he 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 ….” James Moffatt – Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61

  So, although t8 appealed to these scholars to support his position (that “theos” in John 1:1c should be interpreted as qualitative), at least one of the scholars in question does not share his inherently weak definition of it. But instead upholds the “Chalcedon definition” which intended to present Jesus as “present Jesus” as “truly God”.

  Here is the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D), BTW:

  Quote

  Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

  
  In my research I was unable to ascertain Goodspeed’s (a liberal theologian) understanding. However, given that t8 has cited
  this scholar’s translation in order to fortify his position then it incumbent on him to ascertain whether this man’s definition of “divine” aligns with his. I think it’s unlikely that Goodspeed’s view is compatible with t8’s given that he would be in an infinitesimally-small minority. The veritable who’s who of Greek scholarship more or less agree with Moffatt’s concept of divinity, these include Wallace, Mantey, Robertson, Metzger, Nida, Bruce, Carson, Wuest and Ehrman. J. R Mantey, for instance, wrote this about John 1:1c:

  Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and that nature is the highest in existence, namely divine…. The apostle John, in the context of the introduction to his Gospel, is pulling all the stops out of language to portray not only the deity of Christ, but also his equality with the Father. He states that the Word was in the beginning, that He was with God, that He was God and that all creation came into existence through him and that not even one thing exists that was not created by Christ. What else could be said that John did not say? An Open Letter by J.R. Mantey – A Grossly Misleading Translation.

  So many high calibre Greek experts are sympathetic to t8’s view that “theos” is qualitative, but unlike t8 they ascribe the highest possible value to this noun. They quite evidently hold to the view that “ho Logos” was the supreme being, YHWH. Which raised the question of t8 – exactly what kind of being was the prehuman Jesus? He answered this question in this manner:

  Quote

  So what kind of being is Jesus? The answer according to John 1:1 is that he is a divine being. He is a being with God’s nature. A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but the the image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn. He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time.

  
  WOW – that’s an astonishing admission. To insist that beings other than YHWH are called elohim or theos in the Bible in a positive sense (i.e. they are not false gods) is one thing, but to ascribe a divine nature to one is another thing entirely. The statement above is henotheism in its purest, full-blown form. If it isn’t already obvious there is a dilemma facing t8. His admission that two divine beings existed “in the beginning” flies in the face of the monotheism explicitly expounded by the OT and NT authors. The Bible is emphatic in declaring that there is only one God:

  Psalm 118:27
  The LORD is God, and he has made his light shine upon us. With boughs in hand, join in the festal procession up to the horns of the altar

  Deuteronomy 6:4,5
  Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

  Isaiah 43:10-11
  10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

  Isaiah 45:5,14,18,21,22
  5I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:… 14Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God… 18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else…. 21Tell 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 Saviour; there is none beside me….. 22Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

  Ephesians. 4:4-5
  4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

  1 Timothy 1:17
  17Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

  James 2:19
  Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

  Also see: Deu 4:35, 39, 6:4-5; 32:39, 2Sa 22:32, 1 Kings 8:60; 2 Kings 19:15,19; Isa 37:20; Joel 2:27; Joh 5:44; Rom 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cr 8:4-6; 1 Ti 2:5; Jud 1:25….

  So I take from these scriptures that there is only ONE God – YHWH is in a metaphysical category alone, and all other “gods” are in fact false gods and have no deity at all. There is unequivocally only one ‘eternal’ God and everything else (“all things” – Col 1:16) is His ‘temporal’ creation. Yet it seems that t8 denies what is perhaps the most fundamental of all Christian doctrines. But it gets worse for him, as Isa 44:6 and 46:9 it is not only assert that there a single God but it is YHWH personally who declared in unambiguous language there is no God beside YHWH and moreover NO beings even like Him:

  Isaiah 44:6,8
  6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. 7And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. 8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

  Isaiah 46:9
  Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

  In these verses, in particular, we see the position t8 has taken with respect to the preincarnate existence of Yeshua collapse. It’s scripturally-untenable to express a belief in the existence of two separate divine beings co-inhabiting the pre-creation, timeless environ of “the beginning” in light of these declarations. In taking this viewpoint, the default position is polytheism.

  Another problem with t8’s argument (the Son has the Father’s nature but is not “co-equal” with ton theon) is that the two primary precepts manifestly contradict each other. To assert that one being confers nature to another via reproductive generation (which is implied in the quote) is to uphold equivalency in ontology. One being cannot legitimately “beget” a lesser being (i.e. a clone), as the biblical principal ‘like begets like kind’ dictates that they would be, as to their essence/nature, identical. Dogs beget dogs, human beings begets humans, God begets [fill in the space]. So the rationale is inconsistent and confusing. Moreover, t8’s whole argument rests solidly on the premise that the Logos was begotten before His incarnation. But no where is this point substantiated by t8. I
  f YHWH procreated the Logos then this should be quite easily found in the Bible. But it is not, there is not even a vague allusion to this supposed event. Instead the Bible affirms an eternal Logos (this idea is further developed in the second section of this debate). I would be interested to see t8 make a case for the pre-incarnation begettal in his rebuttal in order to validate his view.

  In an effort to give credence to the precarious position t8 is placed himself by advocating that two divine personages co-existed “in the beginning”, I imagine he will extend this explanation, which was also outlined in his article:

  Quote

  The word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ in scripture are used in reference to God (YHWH), Christ, Man, angels, Satan and idols. So when we see the word ‘theos’ or ‘elohim’, we should ask ourselves what kind of god is being referenced. The god of this age? The Most High God? The Almighty God? The mighty god? A false god? A human? An angel? We must also understand that the word ‘theos’ proceeded by an article (the) is talking of a noun and without the article, it can be an adjective or used to decribe a quality.

  
  This argument is common argument used by henotheists when confronted with their polytheism. T8 argues that although there is one Almighty God there exists other lesser divinities, rightly called “gods”. The problem with this though is that nowhere in the Bible do we find the ascription of divinity to these “gods”. Included in the semantic scope of both “elohim” and “theos” is the concept of authority. Satan is described as the god of this world because he temporarily usurped that authority from YHWH. But does this ascription in any sense imply divinity? No, of course not. Satan is a fallen creature, he most assuredly does not have godly nature.

  Similarly, at times men are described with these terms in a representative sense or even an ironic/sarcastic sense, with the Israelite magistrates in Psalms 82:1-6 being a good example of both. Again, it’s patently obvious from the context of this Psalm that elohim was not intended to denote divinity, verses 3 and 7 bear this out unmistakably. So if t8 want this contention to have any validity then it’s requisite that he fronts up with a Bible verse where theos or elohim are used in reference to a being other than Yeshua and YHWH where divinity is implied in the context. I think he will find this very difficult. Especially given that not only do the Bible writer’s go to great pains in attesting to the existence of only One true God (YHWH), they are also equally emphatic in dichotomising YHWH from all other gods (who are therefore, by default, false gods). For instance – Deuteronomy 32:21, 1 Samuel 12:21, Psalm 96:5, Isaiah 37:19; 41:23-24, 29, Jeremiah 2:11; 5:7; 16:20, 1 Corinthians 8:4; 10:19-20, Galatians 4:8, 1 Thessalonians 1:9…

  So it should be quite apparent that when it comes to “Gods” the Bible places them into only two categories; true and false. There are no “true gods” aside from YHWH. YHWH, the Creator is in a metaphysical class alone. YHWH has no ontological contemporaries. There is the eternal YHWH and all else is His temporal creation. This is biblical monotheism.

  T8 may also use 2 Peter 1:4, where man are said to become partakers in the divine nature”, to try to add credibility to the notion that Yeshua is a lesser god with YHWH’s nature. But this verse cannot be used this way without reading far too much into it’s conveyance. Being a “partaker” in the divine nature does not, to my mind, intimate that the divine nature is to be permanently and irrevocably conferred on the believer, that it will become intrinsic to us. It seems to me that the very word he used (partakers – koinonos) argues against this notion. Someone does not become, or take on, the thing in which they “partake” in. When Paul warns the Corinthians against being “participants” with demons, it’s obvious from the context that he does not imagine there is a tangible risk that that demonic nature would become intrinsic to them. And certainly the semantic range of “koinonos” does allow for the idea of participating, or fellowshipping in, something temporarily. Being a “partaker” in the context of 2 Peter 1:4 may simply mean that believers would one day experience YHWH. Alternatively, it may very well be a present-tense reference to believers taking on the qualities and attributes of Christ, by virtue of us being “born again” into Him. I think this later interpretation is supported by the later part of the verse:

  “For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.”

  The past tense word “escaped” denotes something that has already taken place. Peter, far from anticipating something, appears to be affirming that the “participation” provides a means of escape in this life from the “corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”. This theme that is pressed even further in the next verse – “Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge”. The context here switches to the present tense, the here and now, and the verbs Peter used were manifestly present tense. Many scholars hold to this view. At any rate there is more than enough doubt in the verse as to invalidate it’s viability as a supporting crutch for t8’s overtly Mormonesque view that we will be become divine beings in the next life. We are human and will always be as such. This notion of the post-resurrection deification of believers runs completely counter to biblical revelation on monotheism. So an appeal to this verse as a means of equating Yeshua’s “divine” nature with ours, and thereby down playing it, is also evokes polytheism, only from another angle.

  Another further way t8 may try to extract himself from the awkward position he finds himself in is to use his identity/nature argument:

  Quote

  To understand the important difference between identity and nature, take a look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, 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. But that doesn’t rule out the fact that Satan is the Devil because it is not saying that Judas was the actual Devil. Rather Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite), (Satan is); he was not an actual devil (indefinite), he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, Satan

  
  T8 has set up a false dichotomy here, he had tried to present these two terms (nature and identity) in a way in which they are in mutually exclusive categories. But identity and nature are not mutually exclusive at all – they are strongly interrelated. Consider, for instance, the example of human beings. Their identity and nature cannot be separated, even in the word human being bears this out – it’s a fitting designation for both our category (we are human beings) and our nature (we are human beings. In fact if we have human nature intrin
  sic to us we are by definition human. It’s not aspects of our external selves that makes us human, it’s our nature, our nature is unique to us. So I think t8 may be confusing personal nature (i.e. personality), which is unique to individual humans, with human nature (i.e. ontology), which is unique to our category of being. So the argument t8 uses is again completely insufficient in dealing with the gravity of dilemma he faces.

  Just to finish this section, let’s presume for a moment that t8 is absolutely correct in his conclusion that John intended an exclusively qualitative conveyance in using “theos” in John 1:1c. If this is true then it logically follows that the divine qualities intrinsic to “ton theon” in John 1:1b (we both agree this is the Father) are also predicated of the Son. In other words, as to His nature “ho Logos” (the pre-incarnate Jesus) possessed the qualities and attributes attendant with true deity in the same sense that qualitatively the word “man” describes human attributes, not an individual human’s. The semantic force of the predicate noun in John 1:1c therefore does not pertain to the personal characteristics of the two individuals in view, but the generic attributes of their ontology. This is a key point as unwittingly (I’m assuming) t8 has given a trinitarian argument here. Trinitarians are absolute in affirming these truths. They strongly acknowledge both ontological equivalency and personal distinction between the Father and pre-incarnate Son. So even though t8 has read his own weakened form of divinity into “theos” in John 1:1c, the logical outworkings of his grammatical argument undermine and betray him.

  2. My interpretation of John 1:1c
  I do favour a definite rendering of the predicate noun “theos” in John 1:1c, but accept that a qualitative meaning is plausible too. It’s also grammatically conceivable that there is one primary semantic force (i.e. the stress is laid on definiteness, for instance) while a secondary emphasis coexists along side it (i.e. an element of qualitativeness exists). It can quickly become an argument of semantics and there are certainly very good scholars on both sides of it. But before I get accused of hedging my bets here I better quickly add that it’s actually a moot point. Because regardless of whether “theos” in John 1:1c is interpreted as having a definite or qualitative conveyance, the subject (ho Logos – the preincarnate Yeshua) is unambiguously presented in John 1:1c as an divine figure in the absolute sense. If it is definite then he is “The God” (YHWH), but not the same person as “ton theon” (the Father). If it is qualitative then the Logos has ascribed to Him the qualities/attributes attendant with absolute deity, or as Kenneth Wuest rendered it “And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity”. So either way the Logos is presented as YHWH in John 1:1. This conclusion becomes inescapable when the context of the passage is considered.

  Here is John 1:1c in the immediate context in which it is placed by John in the prologue.

  John 1:1-4
  1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
  2The same was in the beginning with God.
  3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
  4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

  In the beginning was the Word
  The “beginning” is a reference to a period before creation. There are, of course strong elements of parallelism between the prologue and Genesis 1 (i.e. references to beginning, life, light…), and I don’t think it was a coincidence that John started his Gospel with the Hellenistic equivalent of the Hebrew “In the beginning….”. The first, and most obvious fact that needs to be made here is that ALL things were created during the creation week. The universe is a continuum of time, space and matter, and all three are irrevocably interlinked, i.e. no one of which can have a meaningful existence without the other two. So before the creation of matter, space and energy there was no time. Since “ho Logos” was in existence then it naturally follows that He must have transcended time altogether and therefore was, by definition, time-less. This proposition is supported by the grammar in the first clause. The verb “was” (Gr: en) is the imperfect tense verb for “eimi”. That denotes a continuous action. On this point A T Robertson, probably the world’s foremost Greek grammarian, wrote this

  Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse John 1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos.
  (source)

  So the language used by John makes explicit that whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning, The Logos is origin-less, He had no beginning, He is time-less. Robertson also made mention of the juxtaposition of the two words used to describe the pre-incarnate existence of the Word and His incarnation is, I think. The Greek word “en” which denotes continuous action of the Logos existing in the past is in contrast to the aorist verb “egeneto” which John used to describing the incarnation (v 14), which happened at a fixed point in time. This contradistinction in terminology underscores the fact that John was delineating the eternal Logos from the temporal nature of the “things” (or flesh) He created.

  and the Word was with God
  In the second clause John’s language was typically precise and nuanced, he deliberately invoked a distinction in the two persons of “ton theon” and “ho Logos” and at the same time presented a new dynamic, they were coexisting in relationship. The significant word in the clause is “pros”, when used with the accusative it is widely regarded as being Greek shorthand for proswpon prov proswpon, which means face to face (in relationship). Here is how Robertson exegetes this clause:

  With God (prov ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhqeiav, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
  (source)

  So it’s in this clause that we have the John’s fullest expression of the type of relationship two subjects shared “in the beginning”. The Logos always existed in intimate fellowship with “ton theon” (The Father). Then in verse 3 a bombshell is dropped….

  3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
  Here we hav
  e it explicitly stated that the Logos was involved in Creation. The statement “All things were made by him” is an astonishingly high statement to make of the Logos, and would have shocked his Jewish readers to the core, who would have understood YHWH was solely responsible for Creation, and no one outside of YHWH had any part in it. Now they are asked by John to accommodate a second person into their concept of YHWH, one distinct from the Father. There are many clear proclamations made by YHWH in the OT where He uses the creation to authenticate Himself as the One true God, and to separate Himself from the heathen’s false gods. Jeremiah 10:10-12, for instance:

  Jeremiah 10:10-12
  10But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King
  At His wrath the earth quakes,
  And the nations cannot endure His indignation.
  11Thus you shall say to them, “The gods that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.”
  12It is He who made the earth by His power,
  Who established the world by His wisdom;
  And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens.

  Again in Isaiah 44:24 He uses even stronger language in affirming that no one other than YHWH was involved:

  Isaiah 44:24
  Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb,
  “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things,
  Stretching out the heavens by Myself
  And spreading out the earth all alone,

  Job 9:8 also reiterates this:

  Job 9:5-8
  5″It is God who removes the mountains, they know not how,
  When He overturns them in His anger;
  6Who shakes the earth out of its place,
  And its pillars tremble;
  7Who commands the sun not to shine,
  And sets a seal upon the stars;
  8Who alone stretches out the heavens
  And tramples down the waves of the sea;

  What else could “by myself” and “all alone” possibly mean? I don’t see how these statements by YHWH leave room for an agency outside of YHWH to be involved in Creation in any capacity. So John’s statement in which he ascribes to the Logos the role of Creator is significant beyond measure.  Verses such as 1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2 add weight to the notion that the Logos was involved in the Creation. Hebrews 1:10 takes this notion to a whole new level. As I wrote in my first proof text:

  Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 24 2007,13:10)

  Psalm 102:25 is a verse quite obviously written about YHWH, but according to the Hebrews’ writer it was, in reality, an utterance spoken by the Father to the Son. The Hebrew’s writer affirms that it was the Father Himself Who personally addresses His Son as THE Creator of the Universe! So here we have a clear elucidation of the Son’s exact role in the creation. To me this shows that the descriptive language in the OT dealing with YHWH’s act of Creation is, in the mind of the author, perfectly APPLICABLE TO the Logos.

  Q) In what sense was Yeshua the Creator of the Heavens and Earth?

  A) In the sense that was attributed to YHWH in Psalms 102:25!

  Hebrews 1:10 shows that the pre-incarnate Jesus was the actual executor of all creation.
  

  (Proof text #1 – Hebrews 1:10)

  So it’s quite fitting that the personage described as having a continuous existence “in the beginning”, as being in intimate relationship with “ton theon” in second clause of the first verse, as possessing all the qualities/attributes attendant with absolute deity (at the very least) is ascribed the role of Creator of “all things” two verses later.

  He was in the beginning with God
  This is a reiteration of the statement John made in John 1:1a (“in the beginning was the Word”), in the Jewish language repetition of a statement serves to emphasis the point. For instance when Yeshua wanted to make a strong point to his listeners in He would say “I say unto you”. When He wanted to make the statement more emphatic he would say “verily, I say unto you”. But if He wanted to make it exceptionally emphatic He would say “verily, verily I say unto you” (as an aside, it’s interesting to note that this is the exact way he chose to make His statement in John 8:58!). So the double mention of the ho Logos existing “in the beginning” is telling. John really wanted to emphasis something here. This verse is also the third usage of the imperfect tense verb “en” (was) in the space of only two verse, with all three directly relating to the subject, the prehuman Jesus. So the second mention of the theme in combination with the verb “en” functions to stress John’s view of the Logos eternality VERY strongly.

  3. Summary
  John 1:1 properly exegeted is devastating to the henotheistic notion of Yeshua preexisting as a lesser divinity, a demigod. Not only are they forced to contend with grammar that is problematic for them but they are also faced with a context that also undermines their perspective, context in which these sentiments are expressed:

   

• The Logos perpetually existed “in the beginning” (v1a and 2)
• The Logos was in intimate communion with “ton Theos” (v1b)
• The Logos always was “theos” (v1c)
• The Logos was Creator
•  

  It’s a formidable prospect to have to explain away even some of these assertions, but the level of difficulty is ramped-up exponentially when face with the full expression of deity applied to “ho Logos” in John 1:1c. In this clause the prehuman Jesus is explicitly called God (YHWH). This is true irrespective of whether the noun is read as being definite or qualitative. The qualitative position is not a refuge for t8, as this functions to impute the divine nature in it’s fullest sense to “ho Logos” (could “divine nature” be considered any other way?). In other words; if “theos” is qualitative then ALL the attribute and qualities of God in John 1:1b belong to the pre-incarnate Son. The Watchtower have long recognised the predicament t8 has placed himself in and have sought to escape the full impact of this verse by adopting a position where the predicate is said to be an indefinite semantic force with a qualitative emphasis. However, this does not alleviate the dilemma for them either They have to somehow explain why a lesser deity is described as perpetually existing “in the beginning” and being involved in creation in any capacity. The weight of scholarly opinion, the grammar (including verb tense), and the context encompassing the John 1:1c clause, all support the notion that John was presenting the prehuman Jesus as LORD (YHWH). This is why John 1:1 is fiercely contested in trinitarian/antitrinitarian circles. It’s such a powerful witness of Yeshua’s true identity, something that is simply impalitable for some. It’s not contested because what it conveys is ambiguous, it’s not, there is only one inescapable conclusion to draw from the language.

  Now some questions for you t8:

  Q1) Can you explain how your notion that two divine beings existed “in the beginning” (i.e. pre-creation and before the advent of time) is compatible with biblical monotheism? [Note: Could you please address Isa 44:6-8 and Isa 46:9 as part of your answer]

  Q2) Can you find another verse from the NT where the Greek word “theos” denotes an attenuated form divinity?

  Q3) In reciprocation to what I have written in my post, can you show how the gr
  ammar and context of John 1:1-3 supports your view that the prehuman Jesus (ho Logos) was a lesser divinity than the Father (ton Theon)?

  Blessings
  

  reason for 13/06 edit – spelling
  reason for 16/06 edit – formatting, removing redundant language, spelling
  reason for 11/07 edit – added reference

 

[Admin]

This discussion is locked till t8 is ready to reply.

[Proclaimer]

OK here is my response. It is what I put forward. I have not attempted to answer all Isaiah’s questions because I think such an exercise would take way to long to complete and would also make this post too long. I also doubt that anyone would read such a long post, and if they did, they might perhaps switch off from time to time when reading it. So my rebuttal is simply the case that I make and I will endeavor to at least answer some of the questions he has posed to me in later posts. That said, there are answers to some of the questions that stood out to me in his post.

I would like to start with quoting John 1:1 as we read in most bibles.

John 1:1
1a: In the beginning was the Word,
1b: and the Word was with God,
1c: and the Word was God.

Before getting into my rebuttal, I would like to lay just a little bit of groundwork for those who will read this.

A lot of the debate is around the use of articles and lack of them. If you are not sure what an article is, I will give a quick description below.
In English we have the following:

 

• THE = (definite article), e.g., “the Devil”
• AN = (indefinite article), e.g., “an angel”A = (indefinite article), e.g., “a devil”

 

Okay that was English. Greek is different in that there is no ‘indefinite’ article, i.e., there is no ‘a’ or ‘an’. So where ever you see an indefinite article in your New Testament, you can bet your bottom dollar that a translator added it in to give meaning in English or complete the thought in an intelligible manner that is perhaps demanded by the English language.

Now, I do not claim to know Greek, in fact I know very little, but it is easy to look up the rules regarding this language. I have discovered that articles in Greek identify and a lack of article can and certainly do ‘qualify’. Isaiah also points out that a lack of article can still identify, but only that the sentence construction in some instances does not allow the article to be used. However in the scriptures he quotes, they seemed to be talking about the nature or qualities of God, e.g., God is light, etc. These verses are mainly about what God is, rather than who God is. I am not sure if this is the case with all scriptures that do not have the article, but they are somewhat different to John 1:1c in that Isaiah is saying that Jesus is identified as God himself, compared with God being describes as light. The difference again is identifying someone as opposed to describing someone.

Anyway, moving on with the groundwork, if you said “river” (no article) to a Greek he would ask “What is a river?” He would want a definition or a description. He would want you to tell him what a river is like: “A river is a flowing body of water, etc.”
If you said “the river” (article) to a Greek he would ask “Which river? Are you talking about the Nile or the Jordan?”  He would want you to identify and specify which river you were referring to.

As many are aware, the words for both ‘God’ and ‘Word’ are preceded with the definite article (THE), indicating that we are identifying God and the Word too, except of course for John 1:1c. If the Word didn’t have a preceding article, it would be possible like some people/unitarians to interpret that as an attribute or quality of God instead of a person, (ignoring the fact that the Word was WITH God too). Anyway given that John 1:1c doesn’t have an article, it is at least grammatically possible at this point to state that the last word “theos” is being used in a qualitative way, rather than an identifying way as Isaiah has already admitted in his post above. So it seems clear to me that I need not spend too much time explaining this possibility as he has already conceded that it is possible. What I would like to do however, is to explain the qualitative stance for the benefit of those who will read this debate in order to give a fair representation of this possibility.

The main options for interpreting John 1:1c that I have come across are as follows:

• The Word was God (no article – because of language constraints but capitalized to identify God like the other instances of God in John 1:1 that have an article in order to suit the translators point of view or bias)
• The Word was a god (indefinite article –  because there is no such thing as an indefinite article in Greek it is added in to give meaning in English to the translators bias or point of view)
• The Word was divine (no article and left without an article in order to convey the point that this is used in a qualitative sense, usually a word like ‘divine’ suffices to complete this thought which is also a point of view or bias)
• The word was God (interpreting the word ‘word’ with no article even though there is, and treating God as “the God” even though there isn’t an article preceding John 1:1c in order to also strengthen a point of view or satisfy a bias.

 

Because John 1:1c does not have an article it seems that we can delete the second option. However translators often add in the word “a” or “an” in other scriptures to make it intelligible in English, so it shouldn’t just be written off so mercilessly if we are to be open to teaching and truth.

So for now I would like to give some possibilities with the 4 points above.

• Word is God – is certainly identifying the Word as the God, no exception from what I can see. Capitalising God in English is like putting an article before God in Greek.
• Word is a god – can be fairly interpreted as saying that he is a second and/or lesser god, but if you think about it, it could also mean that the Word was God because God is a god too. What kind of god, well the Most High God.
• Word was divine (or had divine nature) – is strictly talking about a quality. It can be interpreted as another being with divine nature or a being like God, but to be fair, even that option doesn’t rule out that he is God himself as God is divine. In fact many Trinitarians actually take this stance, i.e., that it is talking about nature or essence and yet still also believe that it is saying that Jesus is God himself because only God has divine nature. Isaiah opposes this view vehemently. So he is also an opponent of some Trinitarians (like himself), but who believe in the qualitative view (unlike himself). I wonder if he classes them as heretics.

• The word was God – is saying that the plan was in or with God himself. So this view denies the word as any kind of identity or life and makes the word ‘word/logos’ an attribute rather than an entity. The article before the word ‘Word’ obviously does not identify the Word because they say the Word is an attribute, plan, or a quality of God himself.

Further explanation from me will not go into the second and last points for time restraints and to also focus this debate.

The third view which I think is the correct option (as even some Trinitarians do too) is explained by Trinitarians in a similar manner as written below:

“When the article is not used, divine essence is signified (all that God is). The Word (Christ) is here described as being GOD (with the emphasis upon all that God is and all that God is like)”.

But in all honesty which of the above views definitely supports the Trinity Doctrine? The answer is that NONE OF THE ABOVE views absolutely support the idea that Jesus is part of a Trinity.

The biggest problem with John 1:1 as a support text for the Trinity doctrine is that it never mentions the so-called third member.

WHERE IS THE THIRD MEMBER OF THE TRINITY?

After all this is talking about the beginning (before creation). At most and at a stretch, you could imply that it is teaching a BINITY, but you cannot say it teaches the TRINITY.

In fact the Trinity doctrine actually started off as a Binity, and the Holy Spirit as being a 3rd member of the God substance, was added later on.

A theology of the Holy Spirit developed slowly, largely in response to controversies over the relation of Jesus Christ to God the Father. In 325, the Council of Nicaea condemned as heresy the Arian teaching that the Son was a creature, neither equal to, nor coeternal with, the Father. ………Later pronouncements brought only one important doctrinal change, the 9th-century addition of filioque to the creed of Constantinople. That addition, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son, has been a source of discord between Eastern and Western Christianity ever since.
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. 

So John 1:1 as a proof text for the Trinity is not really a good scripture as it doesn’t teach the Trinity at all. Even worse for Trinitarians who use John 1:1 as a proof text is the fact that even if the Word was God it still could be possible to interpret that as meaning that there was God then the Word, then everything else. In other words it doesn’t say the Word IS God.

The Word came from God and before that there was only God. This would be a possibility if we could also say the woman was the man. In other words if we could say that Eve was once Adam, or part of Adam, then we could say that the Word was once God or part of God or an attribute of God.

In other words there still lies the possibility that Isaiah’s view is simply saying the same thing as the following scripture:

1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

i.e., God > Christ/Word > Man > Woman

Anyway, as I said before, John 1:1c appears to me to be the (or one of the) strongest verses that Trinitarians use to prove their doctrine. If we are honest however, we can plainly see that it actually does not teach a Trinity at all. It doesn’t say “In the beginning was the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”, nor is it saying “in the beginning was the substance that spawns 3 persons”. It simply identifies a Binity at most, that is if we apply Isaiah’s wisdom to the verse. This is all hypothetical anyway. I only say these things because I am looking at it through Isaiah’s eyes and looking at the possibilities that he must be faced given the limitations of the doctrine that he has chosen to believe, teach, and defend.

Now I will move on to explaining the qualitative view for the sake of the readers who up to this point have been given a rather negative view from Isaiah in my opinion.

To start, please read the 2 examples below and guess which one is correct:

1)
a) In the beginning was the woman,
b) and the woman was with the man
c) and the woman was the man

2)
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, as it is written.

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’ in the above correct example.

But in Isaiah’s way of thinking regarding ‘God’ and the ‘Word’, he chooses number 1, so he sees it like this:

a) In the beginning was the Word 
   In the beginning was the woman,       
b) the Word was with (the) God
   the woman was with the man        
c) and the Word was God (himself)
   and the woman was the man (himself)

 

I am not saying that he is saying that there is a definite article in the Greek text in John 1:1c, but that he interprets it as if it were in the same sense as the other instances of ‘theos’ in John 1:1. He says it is not there only because it would be impossible in the grammatical makeup of this text in Greek to include it, without diverging into error or a completely different meaning.

Regarding the Word and God example next to the woman and the man example above, it is clear that it is wrong because adding the article (or identifying the man) means that the woman is the man in identity and Isaiah argues similarly that the Word is God in identity.

Now if the woman was the man, then we are left with ridiculous questions like “Who is Adam” if Eve is the Man, in other words confusion. (Similarly, if the Word was God, then how could the Word be with God?) 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 back to the woman/man 1) and 2) examples above. If we were to actually believe example 1, we would surely know that it is not logical. But we could attempt to make it sound feasible by could inventing a doctrine to explain this. Let us call it the “Doctrine of the Triune Man”. This exercise is purely to demonstrate how foolish the thinking of man can get and only reflects that which we hear about God, from Trinitarians. The theory could go something like this:

“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.”
Flesh is the substance and that substance contains a man, woman, and the spirit of the man which is in the woman too.

Is it starting to sound familiar?

Is this not the same thing that Isaiah is doing to John 1:1 and does it not reflect some of the comments that he has said and taught in these forums with other scriptures?

Anyway, back to Greek articles and what they can mean. To understand the important difference between identifying or qualifying something, take a look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer, Judas Iscariot, 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, and as I said before, Greek does not have an indefinite article, but most translators deem it necessary to add the “a” to complete the thought. So it really says “one of you is devil”. In other words, Judas was diabolical, like the Devil, he had the qualities of the Devil or a devil. He was not the Devil (definite), Satan is; he was not even an actual devil (indefinite), demons are, rather he was ‘devil’ (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition or nature of the Devil or a devil/demon.

I believe that this is how John 1:1c should be read. It is a qualitative statement. Remember that John 1:1c does not have either a definite or an indefinite article, so it is the translator who decides whether to add an article (definite or indefinite) or capitalize the word God.

To show this as a viable option, it should be pointed out that not only are there many scholars who see it this way, but we actually also have bibles that choose this interpretation too. The New English Bible and the Revised English Bible translate this passage, “what God was, the Word was.” The TEV (1976) translates it, “the Word was the same as God.” Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine.”

I would say at a guess and with observation that probably most bibles were translated by scholars who had a Trinitarian bias due to the fact that it has been and is a foundational doctrine of most denominations. Many of those who opposed the trinity doctrine were probably burned at the stake anyway in an attempt to snuff out there voice. I would also imagine that Trinitarians prefer to translate the “Word as God” himself due to their preconceptions and bias. The NWT stands on its own however and chooses to put in the indefinite article making Jesus out to be “a god/God” because of their bias or belief.

So what kind of being is Jesus? Well if we take the qualitative, Trinitarian, and NWT stances, then the answer seems to be that he is a divine being. The only view that I know of that denies this, is the Unitarian view that says that the ‘Word’ really means plan and is not speaking of another person or identifying anyone.

So is the qualitative view heretical as Isaiah argues? Well Isaiah has admitted that a qualitative view is grammatically possible, so if he admits that, then he could hardly accuse me of being heretical on this point alone. It would only be heresy if the context or teachings in the rest of the bible completely contradicted it. I will look into context later in this post.

Both myself and Isaiah are not Greek scholars, and to argue too deeply about a language that neither of us can speak would be foolish. So all I can really do is explain some of the rules of the Greek language and also quote from others who have a better knowledge of Greek than myself and Isaiah. So let us look at what some others have said regarding the Logos being divine, or theos in a qualitative sense. I am not saying that I agree with everything that all these men ever wrote. I only point out that the qualitative view of ‘theos’ in John 1:1c is not a new thing that I created or something that only ignoramus’s conclude. No, there are many who see it this way, from the Church fathers, to people today. Some are Trinitarians as well as some who believe that the Father is the true God. This shows me that given the differing doctrinal views of those who see this view as the correct one, that it is at least a valid possibility especially given that it is not preached by just one group or persuasion. Obviously people who come to this conclusion do not come to it from a creed or denominational doctrine. Rather it is the language in John 1:1c itself that lends men of differing persuasions to see this view. Below are some quotes from others who have a better understanding of Greek than Isaiah and me.

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

pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.
“Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all’, as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the preexistent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false…. A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone’, and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not’. When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea.” e.a.]

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

-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.
The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.

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

-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.
As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.

Isaiah says I am being deceptive for saying such a thing as what these men above also say. But the reality is that he has already admitted that John 1:1c can be read as qualitative from a grammatical standpoint, so it is hardly deceptive. However, he also says that the contextual view point supports his view and I think that when you look at context without bias, you will find that it actually doesn’t support the Trinitarian doctrine that Isaiah is promoting and proclaiming. I believe that context shows otherwise.

The first obvious point is that the Logos was WITH God and that is the immediate context of John 1:1.  Further the conclusion and context to the whole book of John is actually defined in the book. In John’s own words he says in John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John wrote this gospel so that we should conclude that Jesus is truly the Christ and the Son of God. In addition to this important truth, we are told that we may receive life through his name. So this conclusion is not to be taken lightly and nor are we to replace it with the Trinity doctrine. Trinitarians seem to apply belief in the Trinity doctrine as essential to having life in his name, when in fact it is really belief that Jesus is the messiah and the son of God that enables us to have life in his name.

The Trinity doctrine is NOT the conclusion that one should draw from the Book of John. Such a thought is not written or implied. Belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son is the correct conclusion and context and is the foundation of true faith, In fact Jesus built his Church on this truth.

Matthew 16:16-18
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Even John himself confirms what Matthew wrote in 1 John 5:1:
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

It is clear that the Trinity Doctrine is not the true foundation and we would do well to listen to the true shepherd and not be drawn away from the truth by men, who because of pride, try to get men to follow false creeds and doctrines. It is our faith and belief that Jesus is the Messiah and the son of God, which is crucial. There are no scriptures that say that Christians are required to believe in the Trinity, or that they have to believe that Jesus is God.

Isaiah on the other hand seems to disagree and he preaches that you need to believe Jesus is God in order to have life in his name. In fact his signature (at the time of this writing) which is listed at the bottom of all his posts, says the following:

“Yeshua said: “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM He [ego eimi], you will die in your sins” (John 8:24)”

Of course this is a true scripture, but somehow I think what he is implying is that we will die in our sins if we do not believe that Jesus is YHWH.

Anyway, for Isaiah’s sake I would like to quote some Trinitarian scholars who also argue that John 1:1c’s usage of theos is qualitative. Isaiah said himself the following:

Quote

“So many high calibre Greek experts are sympathetic to t8’s view that “theos” is qualitative”.

 

And he is correct in saying that. Here are some who agree, although I do not know if they are truly experts because I am not an expert myself.

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)

James Moffat:
“‘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 the Same. Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945, p. 61)

B.F. Westcott:
“The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv. 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. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958 reprint, p. 3)

Henry Alford:
“Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,–not ho theos, ‘the Father,’ in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God–but, as in sarx engeneto, 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 must 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 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.

Now obviously I do not agree with the above quotes in whole, but I am simply showing that some of Isaiah’s fellow Trinitarians understand that the Word was ‘theos’ is not talking about the Word was God (himself), rather that the Word was in quality God or had God’s nature.

Isaiah obviously disagrees with them and myself and for him to say that John 1:1c doesn’t teach that the Word was not divine or having God’s nature, or qualitatively God is only really his opinion. There are many who disagree with him. Many include some notable Trinitarians, not that I hold Trinitarian thought in high esteem. I only quote from such to show that even some who believe as he does, agree that John 1:1c is not saying that the Word was God (himself).

But Isaiah also said

Quote

“, but unlike t8 they ascribe the highest possible value to this noun. They quite evidently hold to the view that “ho Logos” was the supreme being, YHWH. Which raised the question of t8 – exactly what kind of being was the prehuman Jesus?”

 

The point I need to bring out now, is once you agree that the Word had the nature of God, from a scriptural standpoint, then you cannot use that to say that Jesus is God himself. If so, John 1:1 is then not teaching that the Logos that was with God and who became Jesus, is God himself. To actually be identified as someone, you CANNOT be talking about a class of being or nature, because you are qualifying instead. With the exception of ‘theos in John 1:1c, John 1:1’s other uses of ‘theos’ are not referring to ‘theos’ as nature or a quality but are identifying both God and the Word as two, in that the Word was WITH God.

I remind Isaiah of the Adam and Eve models above.

Was Adam actually Eve, or was she man?
She was man because God made man, male and female.

Eve is actually a separate identity to Adam even though she came from Adam. She shared Adam’s nature, which is human nature. So it is not hard to grasp that if one shares or inherits or has the same nature as another that they are not that other in identity. (Usually a different name denotes this and hence we have Adam as the male, and Eve as the female. Similarly, we see that God is YHWH and his son is Yeshua.)

1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

God > Christ > Man > Woman

Moving on we know that the Logos was divine, the Logos partook of flesh, and his name is Yeshua and in Greek is Jesus. Is this conclusive proof that the Logos was God himself if he had divine nature? Of course not. If you agree that the Word is divine as opposed to being God himself, and then say that divine nature or God’s nature is exclusively a nature that he doesn’t share or let others partake in, and therefore on account of that, he must be God himself, then I would like to say that such an opinion is not taught in scripture. On the contrary, Peter says in 2 Peter 1:4:
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the ‘divine nature’ and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Even given such a promise, I know that we will never be God himself just as Jesus partaking in human nature did not make him Adam (himself). When Jesus partook of the flesh/human nature, he humbled himself to become a man, not Adam himself but another, the second Adam in fact. Likewise his divine nature does not make him God, rather he is like God or is a divine being. What would you expect if God is his father or if he is the only begotten.

I have said all along that if the Trinitarians (who spend hours putting people’s beliefs down in these forums) actually understood the difference between identity and nature, then they would not make such bold assumptions that divine nature is the exclusive realm of God himself. For it is written, that we can be born of God and will be like Christ. We are sons and Jesus even calls us brothers. From what I understand, brothers are brothers because they are of like kind. Do you call your dog your brother? No, your brother is that who is related to you in either the flesh, or the spirit. If Jesus is God himself as Isaiah argues, then surely we couldn’t be God too. The truth is, we know that God is our FATHER and not our brother, and guess what? Jesus calls God his Father, even now. So just as Jesus is not God himself, we will not be either. It is that simple and it is not an issue at all, but only to those who have succumbed to the Babylonian doctrine called the Trinity.

I think that Isaiah has failed to conclusively prove from a grammatical and contextual view point that Jesus is God himself and part of a Trinity. It seems to me that if this is his best understanding of John 1:1c for proving the Trinity and if John 1:1c is considered by many Trinitarians to be the strongest proof of the Trinity or for Jesus being God himself, then I can only pity him for having so little in order to conclude so much. He teaches these things and they are not even convincing. In fact, most of his post does not contain good arguments in my opinion, rather he seems to be more interested in bad mouthing what I have said in the past. I know that those who focus on their opposition too much, actually do not put out a good product, because they are too busy looking at someone else and not at what they think they should be doing.

From what I can see, Isaiah has failed to show conclusively that the Word was God (in identity) by grammar or context because he admits that grammatically speaking it can be ‘qualitative’ and the context and conclusion written in the book of John itself is that Jesus is the Son of God and the messiah. I most certainly hold to this and I know that the conclusion is certainly not “Jesus is God” as Isaiah says.

I conclude with scripture which says it best:

Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the form of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

Firstly, the above scripture is talking of two, Jesus and God.

My understanding is that his form/nature was of God (who else?). He however humbled himself and became a man. He then returned to the glory he had with the Father, before the creation of the world.

If I am a heretic for believing this then it would be because the bible was a heretical book or that the translations were completely dodgy and deceiving in this issue. I am only repeating that which is in English bible translations with some digging here and there to look at the meaning of Greek words used. I do not claim any special revelation and what I have said is in scripture for all to see.

My argument relies solely on scripture. You do not need any special indoctrination first in order to see it, as you do with Isaiah’s argument.

The 3 questions from Isaiah.

 

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 13 2007,23:26)

Q1) Can you explain how your notion that two divine beings existed “in the beginning” (i.e. pre-creation and before the advent of time) is compatible with biblical monotheism? [Note: Could you please address Isa 44:6-8 and Isa 46:9 as part of your answer]

To answer this I first need to say that I can only go by what scripture says. I wasn’t there and nor were you. So if you want me to connect the dots then it would mean that I would have to base some of my answer on assumption, which I am not really willing to do.

Scripture teaches me that God is obviously the oldest being in existence or the source of all (which I think is the same thing), and that God has a son. So it would make sense in the very meaning of Father and son that the Father is the source of the son.

However in John 1:1 it simply says that the Word was with God in the beginning. We know that God doesn’t have a beginning and we know that before the creation of all things there was God and the Logos that was with him.

Now if the Logos was with God then did the Logos exist along with God forever before the beginning? Well that would seem to imply 2 Gods wouldn’t it, and this kind of thinking cannot be backed up by scripture. It is really just a theory at best.

Nowhere is it written that I know of that the Word existed WITH God as another for all eternity WITH God or was eternally generated. It only says that in the beginning the Word was with God. So I think that God is interested in showing us things after that and not before, (at this stage – anyway).

I can certainly see from what I have read that all things could easily have been an attribute of God such as wisdom, truth, light, etc. Now if God begat another, then it would stand to reason that the begotten would have or even be those attributes of God. For what else and where else did God begat another? And if he begat his son through a woman, then he would certainly have the attributes of human nature too.

We know that all things that live begat after their own kind and if Jesus is the son of God, then he most certainly would be like God and share his attributes and one could assume, also his nature which we can also partake of.

I think the real point here is that we are not really told what it was like before creation and why should it? No creed in the world is sufficient in answering this because it didn’t come from the spirit of God. We can only know as much about God as he chooses to reveal. We cannot fathom him or work him out, or use a telescope as a time machine to view him. For me to go back before creation, I could only rely on scripture and scripture is scant on this subject at best.

Even evolutionists are honest in that they may think they have all the answers or are at least on the right track as to explaining the origins of life, but when you ask them about the period before the universe, they acknowledge that they know nothing and that it is certainly possible there that the cause of all was God or a god.

Anyway, we are created beings and God speaks to us of things that are relevant to us. He hasn’t inspired a Prophet or Apostle to write a book about what God was doing before he created the physical universe. The closest thing we have I think is John 1:1 which is a few sentences which by the way never mentions the so-called 3rd member the Holy Spirit. It also seems kind of funny to me that when it says “The Word was with God” that Trinitarians automatically assume that the Word was with the Father. But if there was a 3rd member around at that period and he is also God, then why don’t they assume that the Word was with the Holy Spirit? Numerically speaking the 3rd member has as much chance as the first as the one who was with God.

Anyway, we know that God is the source of all including his son and even the Word who later became flesh and dwelt on earth who is the son.

Now if it is true that Yeshua is the greatest except for God himself, has the most authority except for God, is even the oldest except God, and if he came from God, then what kind of being would he have been and is. Well the answer is that he is probably the most like God.

So I think John 1:1 is saying that he is divine. I am open to being wrong. If he wasn’t divine, then I will at least listen to what people say. Scripture will convince me, not creeds or vain imagination. Imagination isn’t a bad thing, but what we imagine must be based on scripture otherwise it is vain imagination.

So where is it written that only God has or partakes of divine nature? Where does such a notion come from? I would suggest that the Trinity doctrine assumes a lot of things and from these assumptions it judges other people’s views harshly and is even hostile toward any other view. But the point is that the Trinitarian point of view is only one of thousands (if not millions) of views about what God is like and yet it is logical to assume that of all the contradicting views out there, that only one or even none of them are correct.

For me it is scripture that has the truth about God. So this is where I prefer to stay and if scripture doesn’t have the full answer, then it is most likely because it is not that important for me to know right now.

Isaiah. Certain things in life are a mystery and they are that way for a reason. If God allows us to glimpse a mystery, then we should never go beyond what God shows us because everything that we add (from our own understanding) will surely be a vain attempt.

So to answer your question I again point to the following order.

God > Christ > Man > Woman.

God is first and third is man.

That is 2 natures. Divine nature and flesh/human nature.

Christ seems to be somewhere in between God and Man.

Christ is called the son of God and the son of man. He seems to me at least to have partaken in both at different times.

So what kind of being is he? Well he is like God and he came in the likeness of men. And one day we will have a new body we will be like him. We will also be like the angels.

Anyway, we know that there exists today God > Christ/Word > Man > Woman
Before that there was only God > Christ/Word > Man
Before that there was only God > Christ/Word.
Before that?

We are not told before that are we? So it is a mystery as far as I know. I know that certain creeds claim to have the answer, but on what authority? The authority of man and not God.

That is why I do not listen to such things.

Romans 16:25-26
25 Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,
26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him

 

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 13 2007,23:26)

Q2) Can you find another verse from the NT where the Greek word “theos” denotes an attenuated form divinity?

The closest I can come to that is when Jesus said “Ye are gods”.

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods (theos)’

He was supposedly quoting Psalms 82:6
“I said, `You are “gods” (Elohim); you are all sons of the Most High.’

Notice the reference in Psalms that says: “you are all sons of the Most High”.

The word “theos” or “elohim” were used in reference to being sons and to confirm this, look at what Christ says when the Jews accused him of blasphemy for making himself out to be God.

John 10:33-36
33″We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? 
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy-
because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

In other words ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ is also applied to sons and the son of God and we know that we can partake of divine nature and so if we can, then how much more the son of God? Angels are also called sons and they to are called ‘elohim’.

Jesus wasn’t saying he was God as Trinitarians think and what the Jews thought, rather he was saying all along that he is the son of God.

So is it possible that the same error made by the Jews is being made by you?

Angels too are called sons and look at the following scripture:

Psalm 97:7
All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols; worship him, all you gods (Elohim)!

Now let’s look at this same question but using a different identity/nature.

Q2) Can you find another verse from the NT where the Greek word “devil” denotes a diabolical nature?

John 6:70
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”

Jesus wasn’t saying that Judas was the Devil himself and he wasn’t saying that he was a demon either. Rather he was saying that he had the characteristics of the Devil or a devil. Probably characteristics like lies and murder.

It is not unusual for words like God, Devil, Angel, to be used to describe nature. In English today, we often say things like “you are an angel” do give a description of one’s character, and it is understood that you are not saying that such a person is an actual angel. Likewise people say “Speaking of the devil” when referring to a person.

Both elohim and theos can be used in a qualitative sense. So if Logos is theos, then it can be interpreted in a qualitative way.

Of course I remain open and teachable toward other options.
But Logos (Christ) is God (YHWH), I cannot agree with and it not only contradicts the Book of John, but also John 1:1 itself, for it says that the Logos was with the God.

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 13 2007,23:26)

Q3) In reciprocation to what I have written in my post, can you show how the grammar and context of John 1:1-3 supports your view that the prehuman Jesus (ho Logos) was a lesser divinity than the Father (ton Theon)?

Scipture makes it clear that Jesus taught that his Father was greater than himself.

We know that we can partake in divine nature and yet I wouldn’t be so arrogant to say that we are equal to God because of that.

2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

So where does Christ fit in?

1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

God > Christ > Man >

Christ is also the mediator between God and man.

I don’t need to prove that Christ is not as great as God, scripture teaches this clearly. The onus is on you to prove that he is as great as God and so far you haven’t proven this.

Now as far as the grammar for John 1:1 goes, it must first agree with what we read in scripture. If our interpretation contradicts it, then it must be a wrong interpretation.

John 1:1 says that the Logos was theos. So it can mean that the Logos had divine nature as some bible translations actually say. If this is the case, then having divine nature is one thing and being the Divine is another.

The Divine is greater than any creature or son who partakes or has divine nature. The reason is clear. One is the source and the other/s are the recipients.

John 5:30
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

John 5:26
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

James 1:17
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

---

[Proclaimer]

To Isaiah.

I would like to at least give a little in defense regarding some of the accusations in your opening post.

1) I have never visited the website you says I plagiarized, from what I can remember at least (bearing in mind that we shouldn't swear by heaven and earth about anything). I wrote my paper in 2000 and the document you refer to was written and updated between 1996 and 2002. So at least to an unbiased and scientific viewpoint, it is quite possible that the author quoted me or quoted someone else who quoted me, but I guess that you must be biased to automatically think it was the other way round. BTW: it is such bias that I often am coming up against such as bias against scripture in favour of mens creeds. To say that you have no bias wouldn't be true given this small example would it? Anyway the fact is that many have copied and pasted what I wrote and posted it elsewhere and especially in other forums. I say this only to show that something I originally wrote could easily have been copied by others from any number of sources on the Web. I in fact encourage this and likewise I too learn from others and if they can say something better than me, then I don't mind using their skill in communication to prove a point.

Anyway in saying that I cannot ever remember visiting that web page that you say I copied, this is also not a declaration from me saying that I am the originator of every word in my paper. I have never stated that I wrote my article by direct revelation from God, so given that, it is obvious that I would take ideas from here and there, after all that is how we all learn. God never meant for the Church to be a one man band, but wants us to be knitted together in unity of his spirit.

My writings started as a conviction in my heart and were brought out by a prophecy that I was to write what God had put in my heart. From that conviction and prophecy, I came to know what I do today, and also from reading scripture and reading what others have said. I have learned a lot too by debating in these forums.

Regarding what I have written, I admit to cutting and pasting a sentence from here and there. If that gets the point across clearer or saves me a lot of time, then I don't mind doing that and I have also included substantial work which is quoted. You can see some examples here, (the font is usually blue):
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-06.htm

Anyway the ironic thing is that you appear to quote somebody (which I have no problem with) and you give no reference (which you have a problem with).

You said the following: “The predicate nominative is the noun following a linking verb that restates or stands for the subject.”
Now look at the first sentence under the heading “THE PREDICATE NOMINATIVE” at the following URL:
http://grammar.uoregon.edu/nouns/predicateN.html

Of course you may not have copied it directly from here, but I say “shame on you” if you did copy it. Not because of the act of you copying someone else, but because you harshly judge a man for this very thing and it appears you did it yourself. If you say you didn't then I guess that it is possible and that it is just a pretty big coincidence as it seems unlikely given the timing of your reply that the author of that web page quoted you, or quoted someone else who quoted you.

Not that I really care because I would like to think that I am, not petty. I truly only point this out because your accusations and judgements in this debate allow an answer or defense which is within the framework of debating and to also show others the wisdom of pointing the finger at someone if you are not clean yourself. Such actions often mean the finger gets pointed back because it shows a double standard. But in truth if you cut and paste 50% of your post it wouldn't worry me, so long as you understood that which you were copying and it also truly represented that which was in your heart. After all, this is not a competition about who can write the best is it? It is about a hunger and search for truth and an examination of what is in my heart and yours.

[Proclaimer]

To Isaiah.

Another defense I would like to give, (because it is not time consuming), is your idea that I am completely wrong in using the word 'Theos' as 'god'.

Quote

The ascription of a lower case “g” to “God” in John 1:1c is colossally significant, it’s t8’s not-so-subtle way of telling us that in His opinion the subject described in the second clause is not “the God”, but a secondary, lesser one.

Your above quote is unreasonable. I didn't use an article neither definite or indefinite. Your quote would be correct if I used the indefinite article, but I didn't. So you are way off track. If I was implying a lesser god, then I would need to use the indefinite article 'a' god. Worse still you you even admit that John 1:1c could be qualitative given the sentence structure and you are also aware that there are quite a number of scholars who are sympathetic to that view too.

I am sure that you know that often a translator capitilises in English where a definite article is used, to denote a person rather than a quality and to save them from translating things like “The Word was with THE God”, to “the Word was with God”.

Often times it just comes down to what the translators believes when confronted with sentences that have multiple meanings and given the amount of Trinitarians that have translated bibles, we can assume that if they were faced with a verse that had 2 possible meanings and one of those meanings gave more weight to their predefined belief, then they would hardly choose the other meaning would they? But as a truth seeker, that is not good enough for me and I like to dig a bit deeper than just trusting scholars and translators. Especially given the warnings in scripture about what was going to happen and the general message about scholars and wise men of this world. The lack of using a capital letter is the same in the Greek and it is rather that I do not add it, because I believe not that it is saying that the Logos is God the person.

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?

My use of 'god' is not meant to be demeaning in anyway, rather it is saying that it is neither God (as a person) or a god (as another god). So all that stuff about me being completely wrong or saying that Jesus is a god is not warranted. It also doesn't add up with the fact that you even admit that John 1:1c sentence structure makes it grammatically possible that the word “theos” to be qualitative.

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (t8 @ July 08 2007,22:26)

To Isaiah. I would like to at least give a little in defense regarding some of the accusations in your opening post. 1) I have never visited the website you says I plagiarized, from what I can remember at least (bearing in mind that we shouldn't swear by heaven and earth about anything). I wrote my paper in 2000 and the document you refer to was written and updated between 1996 and 2002. So at least to an unbiased and scientific viewpoint, it is quite possible that the author quoted me or quoted someone else who quoted me, but I guess that you must be biased to automatically think it was the other way round. BTW: it is such bias that I often am coming up against such as bias against scripture in favour of mens creeds. To say that you have no bias wouldn't be true given this small example would it? Anyway the fact is that many have copied and pasted what I wrote and posted it elsewhere and especially in other forums. I say this only to show that something I originally wrote could easily have been copied by others from any number of sources on the Web. I in fact encourage this and likewise I too learn from others and if they can say something better than me, then I don't mind using their skill in communication to prove a point. Anyway in saying that I cannot ever remember visiting that web page that you say I copied, this is also not a declaration from me saying that I am the originator of every word in my paper. I have never stated that I wrote my article by direct revelation from God, so given that, it is obvious that I would take ideas from here and there, after all that is how we all learn. God never meant for the Church to be a one man band, but wants us to be knitted together in unity of his spirit. My writings started as a conviction in my heart and were brought out by a prophecy that I was to write what God had put in my heart. From that conviction and prophecy, I came to know what I do today, and also from reading scripture and reading what others have said. I have learned a lot too by debating in these forums. Regarding what I have written, I admit to cutting and pasting a sentence from here and there. If that gets the point across clearer or saves me a lot of time, then I don't mind doing that and I have also included substantial work which is quoted. You can see some examples here, (the font is usually blue): https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-06.htm Anyway the ironic thing is that you appear to quote somebody (which I have no problem with) and you give no reference (which you have a problem with). You said the following: “The predicate nominative is the noun following a linking verb that restates or stands for the subject.” Now look at the first sentence under the heading “THE PREDICATE NOMINATIVE” at the following URL: http://grammar.uoregon.edu/nouns/predicateN.html Of course you may not have copied it directly from here, but I say “shame on you” if you did copy it. Not because of the act of you copying someone else, but because you harshly judge a man for this very thing and it appears you did it yourself. If you say you didn't then I guess that it is possible and that it is just a pretty big coincidence as it seems unlikely given the timing of your reply that the author of that web page quoted you, or quoted someone else who quoted you. Not that I really care because I would like to think that I am, not petty. I truly only point this out because your accusations and judgements in this debate allow an answer or defense which is within the framework of debating and to also show others the wisdom of pointing the finger at someone if you are not clean yourself. Such actions often mean the finger gets pointed back because it shows a double standard. But in truth if you cut and paste 50% of your post it wouldn't worry me, so long as you understood that which you were copying and it also truly represented that which was in your heart. After all, this is not a competition about who can write the best is it? It is about a hunger and search for truth and an examination of what is in my heart and yours.

to all please read t8 explanation of John 1:1 I know its long but just take your time.

BLESSINGS….gene

[Proclaimer]

After talking to Gene in another forum regarding Sir Isaac Newtown, he pointed me to a project to publish all his papers on the Internet.
http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts….malized

While there I found this quote from Sir Isaac Newton:

But to return to the prayers of the Saints: You heard how Gregory compared them for their sighs teares groanes & crying to a city broken up in war by an enemy. This was the face of the city at his installment, but with what inward greif they bare it afterward, he tells you thus.

By the greatness of their agony you may guess at the more then ordinary fervour & constancy of their secret prayers. Nor was it a wonder this change should afflict them so considering how much they abominated the religion of the invaders for they looked upon them coequal trinity a as a doctrin of many Gods, as indeed it is in reality especially according to the language of the Greeks.

He supposedly didn't believe in the Trinity doctrine and his above comment seems to support that.

Be well.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 08 2007,21:46)

OK here is my response. It is what I put forward. I have not attempted to answer all Isaiah’s questions because I think such an exercise would take way to long to complete and would also make this post too long.

I have some comments to make about this. But first I want ask something of you. T8, have you been completely honest in reasons you gave about why you have not answered the questions in you rebuttal?

As YHWH is your witness, are these the real reasons why you didn't answer the three questions?

Quote

because I think such an exercise would take way to long to complete and would also make this post too long.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 08 2007,22:26)

You said the following: “The predicate nominative is the noun following a linking verb that restates or stands for the subject.” Now look at the first sentence under the heading “THE PREDICATE NOMINATIVE” at the following URL: http://grammar.uoregon.edu/nouns/predicateN.html

It was a definition.

[Is 1:18]

T8, here is a discussion we had about the debate leading up to it's start, it's from pages 609-610, Trinity thread:

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 11 2007,07:34)

Okay lets make a deal. You cite what you believe are the three foremost proof texts that refute the trinity. I'll address them and attempt to explain them for a trinitarian viewpoint. But then I will cite my top three proof texts which I think challenge the henotheistic model (yes t8, whether you care to acknowledge it or not, you are a henotheist), and it's your turn. It'll be fun. Keen?

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 11 2007,21:06)

Sure why not…

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 11 2007,21:12)

But t8 reassure me now that you are going to be just as enthusiastic when it's your turn to do some answering….. I'm skeptical.

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 11 2007,21:19)

Sure I will be enthusiastic. My problem is not enthusiasm, it is time. I work full-time, have a home business, and a young child. So I don't like to waste what little precious time I have on fruitless arguments and ontology.

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 11 2007,21:24)

It won't be fruitless if you take it seriously and don't shirk the questions.

Looks like I had good cause to be skeptical….

[Worshipping Jesus]

t8

Why did you not answer the questions and spend so much time skirting around Jn 1:1?

Could you answer the questions or is it as I have heard you say that if you dont respond then it probably means you dont have an answer?

Heres the questions again from Is 1:18 to you…

June 13 2007,23:26

Now some questions for you t8:

Q1) Can you explain how your notion that two divine beings existed “in the beginning” (i.e. pre-creation and before the advent of time) is compatible with biblical monotheism? [Note: Could you please address Isa 44:6-8 and Isa 46:9 as part of your answer]

Q2) Can you find another verse from the NT where the Greek word “theos” denotes an attenuated form divinity?

Q3) In reciprocation to what I have written in my post, can you show how the grammar and context of John 1:1-3 supports your view that the prehuman Jesus (ho Logos) was a lesser divinity than the Father (ton Theon)?

Blessings

Valid questions which I am sure that with a Henotheistic view you cant answer!

[Proclaimer]

To Isaiah.

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 09 2007,18:54)

Quote (t8 @ July 08 2007,21:46) OK here is my response. It is what I put forward. I have not attempted to answer all Isaiah’s questions because I think such an exercise would take way to long to complete and would also make this post too long. I have some comments to make about this. But first I want ask something of you. T8, have you been completely honest in reasons you gave about why you have not answered the questions in you rebuttal? As YHWH is your witness, are these the real reasons why you didn't answer the three questions? Quote because I think such an exercise would take way to long to complete and would also make this post too long.

I didn't want to make the post bigger than it already was. Your post was quite long and to answer everything would require a much longer post, even 2 or 3 times as long. I think that unusually large posts are a waste of time. People look at them and are put off immediately. People who post long posts obviously expect an even longer post to adequately answer them. Answers are usually much longer than questions. Often people frown upon long posts that ask lots of questions as it is seen as a way to try and win an argument by overwhelming the opponent. There is a name for this I have heard in other BBS's but the name escapes me right now.

So I made my case which you focussed a lot of your post on anyway and this helped keep the rebuttal as small as reasonably possible. I will however pick the other stuff later for reasons of keeping things simple and easy to read. You can see that I have already started answering some of the questions you asked. So be patient and it will come in good time. I believe that my rebuttal adequately answers your proof text and argument anyway, as your main attack was on what I had written back in 2000, so I stated the case clearly which answers the majority of what you were presenting and accusing me of.

Also given the commotion from a previous discussion regarding the amount of time it took me to post, you would think that me having to answer all your questions in one post would only repeat that exercise. I think under the circumstances I did the best thing, don't you?

In the future if you wish to have all your questions answered in one post, wouldn't it be logical to ask less questions and focus on the topic as apposed to bad mouthing something I wrote back in 2000 and then expecting me to defend all that you have said? The debate is about John 1:1, not about making out that that t8 is a bad person, or that he supposedly wrote a rubbish web page .paper back in 2000. The debate was about John 1:1, plain and simple. My rebuttal was about John 1:1 plain and simple. All the other stuff is really just bad press to try and sway people to you. Did you not expect me to make a defense against those accusations? Anyway, people should decide on the merits of what you are teaching, not by bad mouthing what your opponent has said in the past.

My rebuttal is also written for the benefit of the readers. In fact that is the only reason I even bother debating with you. I believe that your heart is so hard on this issue that even if God spoke to you and corrected you, you still wouldn't believe. I don't mind if you to prove me wrong on that assumption. Anyway, if it was just you and me having a debate, with no listeners, I truly wouldn't even bother.

That said, I thank you for your post and giving me the opportunity to show people the options they have. I believe that choice is important. If we try to hide one side of the debate, then that would be the same as God not having the Tree of Good and Evil present. We need a choice in order to truly show who we are. Your role here makes this possible and that is useful.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 09 2007,18:56)

Quote (t8 @ July 08 2007,22:26) You said the following: “The predicate nominative is the noun following a linking verb that restates or stands for the subject.” Now look at the first sentence under the heading “THE PREDICATE NOMINATIVE” at the following URL: http://grammar.uoregon.edu/nouns/predicateN.html It was a definition.

A definition which where you didn't quote the source.

Like I said before, I truly do not care. But you were the one who brought up the idea about citing sources. It wasn't me.

[Is 1:18]

T8,
So those were the only reasons that you chose not to answer the three questions?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 10 2007,10:28)

A definition which where you didn't quote the source. Like I said before, I truly do not care. But you were the one who brought up the idea about citing sources. It wasn't me.

When someone writes a definition it's quite plain that they are not claiming it as an original thought. Therefore, a reference is redundant. I would have thought that would have been obvious….

[Proclaimer]

Correct.

I will answer them. I have no problem with that.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 10 2007,10:33)

Quote (t8 @ July 10 2007,10:28) A definition which where you didn't quote the source. Like I said before, I truly do not care. But you were the one who brought up the idea about citing sources. It wasn't me. When someone writes a definition it's quite plain that they are not claiming it as an original thought. Therefore, a reference is redundant. I would have thought that would have been obvious….

No it isn't obvious. If you require a citation from a source, because the words are not your own, then please cite. Or is it, do as I say, not as I do.

You should know that citing something is there so people can check on it's validity. A definition is no different. How do we know that it wasn't your personal interpretation or a definition given by a Satanist?

That is why you cite.

Now as I said before, I don't require it, but you do.

So please cite it in accordance with your own rules.

[Is 1:18]

T8,
You must, must, must, answer questions in a debate. Otherwise it has not integrity. You reassured me that you would do it in the debate

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 11 2007,21:12)

But t8 reassure me now that you are going to be just as enthusiastic when it's your turn to do some answering….. I'm skeptical.

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 11 2007,21:19)

Sure I will be enthusiastic. My problem is not enthusiasm, it is time. I work full-time, have a home business, and a young child. So I don't like to waste what little precious time I have on fruitless arguments and ontology.

You gave you word here that you would be “enthusiastic” in answering questions in the debate, that was your reassurance to me. But it seems that you are happy to not honour your word and want to make the rules up as you go along. This isn't fair or honest. If this debate is to have any value and credibility you need to edit your post and answer the questions. There are only three of them and two of them do not require a lengthy answer. The last question may require some length but I gave my answer to this question in the first post, so it's not too much to ask.

Thanks.

[Proclaimer]

Isaiah.

I get the feeling that you don't like me.

I also think you are acting like a kiddie. MUST MUST MUST.
If not, I will start using words like ontological. WHA WHA WHA.

These debates are about putting you best foot forward Isaiah with your interpretation on the proof text. I don't remember anyone ever saying that you must answer all the questions ever asked. Such a promise would be silly wouldn't it. And as I said before, I am answering your questions anyway, but because you asked so many and accused me of so many things, then that was obviously never going to fit in one post was it? I am working through it and if I dedicated my rebuttal post to answering all your questions, then I wouldn't have had the opportunity to share my understanding and it would have been left for the readers to go on your negative comments alone.

So be patient and stop the demanding. Show some fruit like patience for example.

I have personally not engaged in asking lot's of questions to you, (maybe not even one, I am not sure) so I gave you a fair go and I didn't engage in dragging your name through the mud like you have done to me. I have given you my understanding of a proof text, which is the primary mission in these debates and freed you up to give your posts without dictating what you have to write.

That said I have already said I will answer your questions anyway, so I remind you again to be patient and stop demanding. Show some maturity. Yes we are to be like children, but that doesn't mean childish.

Now how about the citation for the definition in your post? Thanks.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (t8 @ July 08 2007,21:46)

OK here is my response. It is what I put forward. I have not attempted to answer all Isaiah’s questions because I think such an exercise would take way to long to complete and would also make this post too long. I also doubt that anyone would read such a long post, and if they did, they might perhaps switch of from time to time when reading it. So my rebuttal is simply the case that I make and I will endeavor to at least answer some of the questions he has posed to me in later posts. That said, there are answers to some of the questions that stood out to me in his post.

Hi Isaiah.

Here is the opening of my rebuttal. Please read it carefully.
Thank you and yes I am enthusiastic still.

So don't worry, if you demand an answer to your questions, I will give what I can. You just need to be patient. My rebuttal answered most of the questions and accusations, and I answered another 1 or 2 in other psots. I will endevour to answer some more in good time.

Isaiah, you can't have everything you want when you want. You need to act in a mature way if you are a follower of Christ.

You appear to have a control problem and get upset when I freely express my understanding. You spend too much time attacking me personally rather than teaching correctly with scripture.

Your post for example is more about putting me down and bad mouthing what I said than teaching your view point on John 1:1c. I personally don't think that was very fair, but then again, I never made a big deal about it, like you are doing now.

I just ask that you show some maturity. We are adults and childish behaviour isn't going to get you what you want.

[Author]

Posts