Trinity – Is 1:18's Proof Text #3

[Proclaimer]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 25 2011,15:11)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 04 2009,10:26) Brother Seeking, I would like to submit for your consideration the following Greek grammar: Special use of the Greek article: 1. With the conjunction kai When two nouns are joined by the conjunction kai: a. If both nouns have the definite article they refer to different persons (or things). THE apostle and (kai) THE disciple. These are two different people. b. If the first of the two nouns has the article and the second does not, the two are one person (or thing). THE apostle and (kai) disciple. This is one person, (Essentials of New testament Greek, Ray Summers, Broadman Press, p. 130). Therefore, Titus 2:13 declares Jesus is God That is funny because you also say that John 20:28 proves Jesus is God and yet that has 2 definite articles. So you are not consistent with this rule KJ. John 20:28, literally says “the lord of me and the god [theos] of me”. So according to your rule, Thomas was talking to Jesus and to another called God who must then be the Father.

KJ, you never responded to this.
Is that because you are stumped?

That is funny because you also say that John 20:28 proves Jesus is God and yet that has 2 definite articles. So you are not consistent with this rule KJ.

John 20:28, literally says “the lord of me and the god [theos] of me”.

So according to your rule, Thomas was talking to Jesus and to another called God who must then be the Father.

Question: Is John 20:28 referring to two, the lord and another called God, or have you dropped your belief in that rule now?

[Proclaimer]

Quote

Yes, and the same reason he and you loose the debate because no one can show us how the Word which is God is less God qualitatively than the Father. But at this point I am beginning to believe this is not a concept that neither you nor t8 can comprehend or you are just sticking your heads in the sand.

Three question for you Mike.

Is the Devil a devil?
Are there other devils?
Are the devils less than the Devil qualitatively?

If you prefer you could use Eve instead of devil.

Is Eve man (adam)?
Are there other, adams/man/mankind?
Are other adams/man less than Adam qualitatively?

[Proclaimer]

Many people do not understand how John 1:1c is using the word “theos” qualitatively.

So I am going to to explain it in a way I have never done before.

Try answering the 3 questions below. I will even give you my answer to see that we are in agreement.

Q) Who was the first man?
A) Adam

Q)Who was the second man (as in mankind)?
A) Eve.

Q) Who is known as the second Adam?
A) Jesus Christ.

Know this.
The word for man is 'adam'. It is the same word.
For example: It is written that God made adam, male and female.
So adam is mankind or the word man in Genesis.

Now notice how the second question looks very similar to the third question, but means something completely different?

Let's compare the last 2 questions and change the wording a bit to fit the original language more closely.

Q) Who was the second adam?
A) Eve

Q) Who was the second Adam?
A) Jesus Christ.

The only difference in the 2 questions is that Adam had a capital letter and adam did not. In Greek this is distinguished not by capitals but the definite article (THE).

So THE ADAM SECOND is Jesus Christ.
And adam second is Eve.

So what does this mean for John 1:1?

Well where it written that the “Word was theos”, it doesn't have the definite article (THE) preceding theos. This is different to all other previous utterances of theos in John 1:1 which have the definite article. This is significant and should not to be overlooked.

In Greek, when you identify someone or something you use the definite article “THE” and in English, we capitalise. When you qualify, you do not use the definite article and in English we do not capitalise.

So “THE Word was theos” is qualifying the Word. It is not identifying the Word as God, but that the Word is divine or having the nature of God. In the same way, the statement “Eve is adam” is talking of Eve's nature and is not identifying her as Adam the person and thus it would be incorrect to say “Eve is Adam”.

Many Trinitarians (not all) read John 1:1c as saying that the Word was God (himself). This is not supported in the original text and reading it as such is misinterpreting it.

If you cannot grasp this, then I don't think I can make it any simpler than that.

[Shayne]

One revelation from the lord is greater than a thousand scholars ! I would wish to converse with the author of this website concerning the deep things  with respect to the nature of the “godhead”  How may I be able to contact him ?

[Ed J]

Hi Shayne,

The owner of the site posts here regularly, he goes by the name T8. And yes
I’m sure he will be glad to discuss the nature of the “Bible Godhead” with you.
Concerning the deeper spiritual things of God – I have much to say regarding this.

________________
God bless
Ed J

[kerwin]

t8,

I agree that the Word has the attributes of God, aka is divine.

My disagreement with Trinitarians is they claim divine includes the “essence” of God will I say it does not.

Note: By essence Trinitarians mean the Word’s kind is God.

[Author]

Posts