- This topic has 4,515 replies, 99 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Greetings t8,
Some comments on your post: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 does not have a preceding article, (e.g., the) it should be considered an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this, many scholars saw the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but didn't make the difference clear regarding identity and nature.
The absence of the article does not automatically make the predicate indefinite when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it, according to Colwell. I’ve already addressed the context of John 1:1c in the Trinity thread, and it’s abundantly clear that the context of the prologue (and the whole Gospel of John, for that matter) most certainly does not demand it. This is what Colwell wrote regarding this:“A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb……The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun . The absence of the article (before theos) does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in the position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas.”
Tell me t8, Do you agree with Colwell’s rule? And if not, why not?
Quote Is Theos in John 1:1c qualitative? The most likely candidate is that the last instance of 'theos' (in John 1:1c) is qualitative. This is true both grammatically and theologically.
On what do you base this conclusion t8? May I have some grammatical proof please.Quote (Also, if The Logos was God himself, then the verse would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God and no other.)
This is grossly untrue. In fact the opposite of what you’re inferring is true. In Greek the omission of an article, when the predicate is placed before the subject, circumvents the very two-way interpretive meaning you mentioned. By placing the term “theos” in the emphatic position and dropping the article John deliberately avoids making “logos” and the “theos” of John 1:1 the same person (subject), thereby affirming a modalistic God. Don’t take my word for it, here is what Julius Mantley, a venerated expert in Greek grammar, wrote on this very subject:“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. 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?”
Quote So we have 2 good reasons now for reading the last word 'God' as qualitive.
No t8. You have yet to give one.Quote An example would be when you call someone an angel. This means that we are saying you are like an angel. But if we say you are the Angel, then we are saying that you are an actual and specific angel even to the exclusion of others being that Angel. Another example would be to say “John is the man,” which identifies John with a definite and particular person of the human race; but if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is human; he belongs to the sphere/nature of man.”
While this may be sometimes true in ENGLISH (the reason I write “sometimes” is because language is dynamic and in modern day English parlance the term “the man” has changed, and can now refer to a person’s prowess, notoriety etc), it’s the rules that determine proper lexical interpretation of GREEK that matter. When interpreting the Greek in John 1:1 you should really adhere to Greek grammatical protocol. The argument that anarthrous nouns simply convey the idea of quality is vacuous.Quote To understand this further, 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 that Satan is the Devil because it is not saying that Judas was the actual Devil.
In this instance the noun is indefinite, yes. You have made my previous point exactly, the context demands that it be interpreted that way. That is simply not true in John 1:1c. Also, what are you trying to infer here? Are you trying to argue that the omission of the article always denotes an indefinite quality? Surely you are aware that there are texts in the NT where the word for God appears twice, once with the article and once without with no significant shift in the meaning? (John 3:2, 13:3, Rom 1:21, Thess 1:9, Heb 9:14, 1 Pet 4:10-11).Also, here are three verses from the very same Chapter in John when anarthrous (article-less) nouns are used to refer to God the Father:
JOHN 1:6
There came a man sent from God [anarthrous noun], whose name was John.JOHN 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God [anart
hrous noun], even to those who believe in His name,JOHN 1:18
No one has seen God [anarthrous noun] at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.If you propose this t8, then you must also accept that it’s equally valid to use this principle to refute the deity of The Father of Jesus Christ, because anarthrous nouns are used also in reference to Him (more than 200 times in the NT!).
Furthermore, here are three verses (literally translated) where the definite article is used to denote Christ:
MATTHEW 1:23
they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “the God [ho theos] with us.”JOHN 20:28
“the Lord of me and the GOD (ho theos )of me.”
Hebrews 1:8:
But of the Son He [the Father] says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD (ho theos ) IS FOREVER AND EVER. . . .” (ho thronos sou ho theos, lit. “the throne of You the God. . . .”).So you can see that the absence of the definite article in John 1:1c does not at all suggest that the noun should be interpreted qualitatively – not without invoking some uncomfortable implications for you.
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.”
The translators handling of the Greek in John 1:1c is dubious, as are the versions you quoted. I think its highly significant that NONE of the English versions listed on BGW (19) or BLB (11) render it that way.Quote Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” And Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine
Again, so what? You won’t find it translated that way in any of the BGW or BLB options. Additionally, have you checked these scholar’s definitions for the word “divine”? Do they line up with yours?Quote So what kind of being is Jesus? He is a divine being.
This is connotative terminology, not denotative. We have been through this before. The word “divine” does not denote His “kind” at all. It merely speaks of His intrinsic nature. It’s equivalent to writing we (human) are “fallen” beings – although its true connotatively it does not define our being, and does not even differentiate us for angels, for instance. It seems to me that you have simply devised a weak definition for divinity that is compatible with your Christology.Quote He is a being with God's nature.
God has God’s nature also. You make a big deal of nature and identity as if these are mutually exclusive terms. I think most sound thinking people recognise the fact that only humans have human nature, and only God has divine nature. And while we might one day partake in the divine nature I dont think Peter was alluding to us becoming Gods/gods. If you think this then why not join the Mormons.Quote A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but the the image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn.
If by “first born” you mean that the pre-incarnate Christ was somehow generated by The Father then you need to produce some scripture to back this up. Where is this mentioned or even alluded to in scripture?? It was certainly not the NT writers understanding, as is demonstrated by their applications of Ps 2:7 (Pg 25 – Holy Spirit Thread)Quote He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time.
I agree.Quote But of course such knowledge is often trampled on by swine and those who wish to distort the truth.
Are you equating this knowledge of yours with THE truth? So much of what you have written is patently false t8, you can't expect people not to critique your knowledge if you write it in a public message board anyway.[/quote]They usually think that the word 'theos' and 'elohim' always refer to YHWH. Then they take instances of their choosing to prove that Christ is YHWH. In their ignorance they cannot see that there are indeed many god (theos) and many lords, but for true believers there is one God (theos) the Father[/quote]
The problem here is that these “Lords” and “gods” are either angels and humans, Biblically-speaking hey refer to created beings. Jesus in contrast is uncreated, in fact He made ALL things (John 1:3, Col 1:13). So writing that Jesus is simply one of these Lords or gods in an ontological sense is inadequate and misleading. You simply can’t lump Christ into the same category with His creation and expect this to satisfy people who question you on this. If you are proposing that these Lords and gods are also “divine” than you are truly a polytheist.Be well
PS Yes I did notice your post to me WhatIsTrue, I will reply soon.
PPS some background to John 1:1c for those interested.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 05 2006,05:02) The absence of the article does not automatically make the predicate indefinite when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it, according to Colwell. I’ve already addressed the context of John 1:1c in the Trinity thread, and it’s abundantly clear that the context of the prologue (and the whole Gospel of John, for that matter) most certainly does not demand it. To Is 1:18,
You say that it doesn't automatically demand it, but you also didn't say that it doesn't work the way I described either. I even gave an example with Judas where there is no article in the description of him being a devil. According to your interpretation, Judas could actually be the devil himself if the context demanded it. Shall we open the door to a new teaching then? Judas is Satan. Look at the proof. He was a liar, he was a betrayer, and he came to an ungodly end. In addition there is no article before the word 'devil', so given the context are we to conclude that Judas is Satan because of Colwells rule?
Well I am sorry Is 1:18, but your method of using the lack of article doesn't work with Judas just as it doesn't work with John 1:1c. You argue that it only boils down to context, yet even context is not enough for you. Your pride is like a concrete wall, that blocks truth from entering your heart.
Let's take context of the verse as you say and judge John 1:1c with your own judgement. You said that the Book of John is teaching that Jesus is God himself, or at least that the context is that Jesus is God (YHWH). Yet even John himself disagrees with your assumption. Thankfully John actually tells us why he wrote his book and it certainly wasn't to prove that Jesus is YHWH.
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.”Where O where is the bit that says that John wrote the book to prove that Jesus was God himself? It doesn't exist Is 1:18. It exists only in the mind of blind scholars whom God has made foolish and those who are foolish enough to follow their heresies.
You see Is 1:18, I agree with John that the context, conclusion, and teaching is really about Jesus being the son of God, you on the other-hand do not.
It is really simple, Jesus is the son of God. All this other stuff that was added centuries later by Greek influenced scholars is just the pride of man trying to confound others so that they look wise. But they are really fools. Remember the king who walked down the street naked?
Quote Tell me t8, Do you agree with Colwell’s rule? And if not, why not? Quote Is Theos in John 1:1c qualitative? The most likely candidate is that the last instance of 'theos' (in John 1:1c) is qualitative. This is true both grammatically and theologically.
On what do you base this conclusion t8? May I have some grammatical proof please.To Is 1:18,
Colwell's rule cannot be used to say that John 1:1c is saying that Jesus is YHWH, so it is kind of pointless to use his rule in defence of your argument. I take your point that definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article. However you must also acknowledge that this type of sentence construction can be purposefully used to show that Judas wasn't the Devil himself or that the Word wasn't God himself.
Of course I agree that context is important, and that sentence construction can have an effect on pro-nouns, however your only real substance for saying that Jesus is YHWH seems to be the context of the Book of John. Yet the context is most certainly not 'Jesus is YHWH', rather that he is the Word of God, that he is the Son of God. That is the cold hard truth Is 1:18. The context of the book of John isn't what you make it out to be all.
Now you are very fond of quoting scholars so I have decided to quote too. The following quote was made by a scholar agruing against (not for) the New World Translation of John 1:1c. Of course I am not endorsing the New World Translation, I am simply showing you that even a Trinitarian scholar arguing against the NWT, says what I am saying.
Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject and the last word God therefore doesn't have the article, for if it did the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also “with God”. What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God.
Now I can quote you scholars to the cows come home. Even writings from those who were discipled by the Apostles or those who were discipled by the disciples of the Apostles. Try these.
“We next notice John's use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
(Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)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.
– John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.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.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.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.
-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.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.
-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.God was in the beginning, but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Word. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary basis of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone, but inasmuch as He was all powerful, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Word-power, the Word himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Word sprang forth, and the Word, not coming forth in vain, became the firstbegotten work of the Father . Him [the Word] we know to be the Beginning of the world (cf. Rev. 3:14). But He came into being by participation, not by cutting off, for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render him deficient from whom it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Word, coming forth from the Word-Power of the Father, has not divested of the Word-Power Him who begat Him.
Tatian (165 A.D)Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 05 2006,05:02) God has God’s nature also. You make a big deal of nature and identity as if these are mutually exclusive terms. I think most sound thinking people recognise the fact that only humans have human nature, and only God has divine nature. And while we might one day partake in the divine nature I dont think Peter was alluding to us becoming Gods/gods. If you think this then why not join the Mormons. To Is 1:18,
Hear what Jesus and David said:
Psalms 82:6
“I said, `You are “gods” (Elohim); you are all sons of the Most High.'John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods (theos)'Here's the thing Is 1:18, you told me that I might as well join the Mormons, and Jesus said to us that whatever they do to you they do to me. Now I say that we are gods because it is what Jesus said, and you telling me that I might as well join the Mormons. That is really the same as telling Christ that he might as well join the Mormons, isn't it?
Can I suggest for your own good that you think about what you are saying. For we are judged by our words.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 05 2006,05:02) They usually think that the word 'theos' and 'elohim' always refer to YHWH. Then they take instances of their choosing to prove that Christ is YHWH. In their ignorance they cannot see that there are indeed many god (theos) and many lords, but for true believers there is one God (theos) the Father[/quote]
The problem here is that these “Lords” and “gods” are either angels and humans, Biblically-speaking hey refer to created beings. Jesus in contrast is uncreated, in fact He made ALL things (John 1:3, Col 1:13). So writing that Jesus is simply one of these Lords or gods in an ontological sense is inadequate and misleading. You simply can’t lump Christ into the same category with His creation and expect this to satisfy people who question you on this.
To Is 1:18,You have missed the point entirely. The point is that these words are not exclusive titles for YHWH. So saying that Christ is YHWH because he is the might El, or even theos has no basis at all. It is context that shows us. E.g., Almighty God and mighty God give context. The almighty one is mightier than the mighty one. The adjective or description tells us what kind of God is being spoken of.
Another example: 'God of this age' is different to 'God of heaven' and the 'God of earth'.
Is that clear now? Or will you be looking for another accusation to throw at me?
You know Is 1:18, besides being funny, your attacks really show your maturity level. Yes we are all in the realm of accountability, but there is a big difference between accountability and being persecuted. What the Pharisees did against Jesus was persecution Is 1:18. Many of them weren't the least bit interested in the truth, but just wanted the power and the glory of men.
What is it that you want Is 1:18, is it really the truth you are after? Or is it the glory of men and the satisfaction of being right in your own eyes? In the end you have to do what is right if you are wise, as we will all have to stand before him and have our lives reviewed.
I know deep in my heart it is the truth that I am after. I love the truth and I love the one who is the Truth. (Note the article in the last sentence).
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 05 2006,05:02) If you are proposing that these Lords and gods are also “divine” than you are truly a polytheist. To Is 1:18,
Ok let's see. Jesus says we are gods (theos) and Paul teaches us that we will partake in the divine nature. So am I to conclude o great teacher that Jesus and Paul were polytheist?
Again there is egg on your face Is 1:18. For I am merely repeating Jesus and Paul's words.
I suggest strongly Is 1:18 that you read James 3:1 for your own good.
Quote You say that it doesn't automatically demand it, but you also didn't say that it doesn't work the way I described either. I even gave an example with Judas where there is no article in the description of him being a devil. According to your interpretation, Judas could actually be the devil himself if the context demanded it. Shall we open the door to a new teaching then? Judas is Satan.
I find myself repeating some things a lot here. The main thrust of my argument here is this t8:The lack of the definite article DOES NOT automatically mean the noun SHOULD be interpreteted qualitatively. Context determines this.
I happan to concur with:
1. the teams of expert scholars who translated the 18 versions listed on the Biblegateway website and the 11 versions listed on the Blueletterbible website.
2. The vast majority of Greek grammar experts who have commented on the grammar of John 1:1c.
We ALL agree that the context demands that the capitalisation of the predicate noun is appropriate (thus denoting The Word is indeed YHWH). In the same way the context of Judas/Devil passage demands a indefinite noun. It's as simple as that t8.
Also, I must again reiterate that using an article was not an option for John gramatically, because in doing so he would have affirmed modalism. Do you understand this?
Quote Shall we open the door to a new teaching then? Judas is Satan. Look at the proof. He was a liar, he was a betrayer, and he came to an ungodly end. In addition there is no article before the word 'devil', so given the context are we to conclude that Judas is Satan because of Colwells rule?
I don't think you understand Colwell's rule, or a lot of what Ive written, hopefully others have or will (my post was really written for them anyway).Quote Well I am sorry Is 1:18, but your method of using the lack of article doesn't work with Judas just as it doesn't work with John 1:1c.
Again, read my post again. What I have written is reasonable and logical and any lack of understanding is not coming from my end t8.Quote You argue that it only boils down to context, yet even context is not enough for you. Your pride is like a concrete wall, that blocks truth from entering your heart.
I don't think you know me well enough to make a personal observation. And lets remember i'm simply taking John 1:1c at face value, not trying to read something into it that isn't there. It plainly records “Word was God”, and I am conformed to that truth.Quote Let's take context of the verse as you say and judge John 1:1c with your own judgement. You said that the Book of John is teaching that Jesus is God himself, or at least that the context is that Jesus is God (YHWH). Yet even John himself disagrees with your assumption. Thankfully John actually tells us why he wrote his book and it certainly wasn't to prove that Jesus is YHWH. 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.”
We're going over old ground here again. You see “God” and “Son of God” as being antithetical terms, whereas I do not. Tell me t8 precisely when did The Word become the Son? I have asked for scriptural evidence to support your assertion that this happaned pre-incarnation but you have given me nothing. I have shown you comprehensively that the NT writers linked Ps 2:7 with the earthly existence of Jesus Christ.Quote Where O where is the bit that says that John wrote the book to prove that Jesus was God himself? It doesn't exist Is 1:18. It exists only in the mind of blind scholars whom God has made foolish and those who are foolish enough to follow their heresies.
Here:John 1:1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The biblical evidence supporting this declaration by John has been well documented in this forum.
Quote You see Is 1:18, I agree with John that the context, conclusion, and teaching is really about Jesus being the son of God, you on the other-hand do not.
I have never argued that Jesus is the Son of God. However, unlike you I think I have a understanding of this title based on scripture. Also, if John's intent was to teach in John 1:1 that Jesus was the Son in contrast to God WHY did he not simply write:In the beginning was the Son…..
Well??
Quote It is really simple, Jesus is the son of God. All this other stuff that was added centuries later by Greek influenced scholars is just the pride of man trying to confound others so that they look wise. But they are really fools. Remember the king who walked down the street naked?
When you can demonstrate to me that you understand what the title “Son of God” actually means, and that it's consistent with the NT writer's understanding then you can legitimately make a statement like this.I'll look at the other posts later on – i'm off to my church soon.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 05 2006,15:34) The lack of the definite article DOES NOT automatically mean the noun SHOULD be interpreteted qualitatively. Context determines this. To Is 1:18,
Yes and you have to admit that the article is used to define a person as it is in John 1:1a-b regarding God and Logos. The article shows us that the Logos for example exists as an identity as apposed to an attribute. Also the lack of the article in John 1:1c doesn't promote or teach that Jesus is God (YHWH) himself as you are fully aware, so using this argument doesn't hold water. But even context doesn't prove your view.
Lets look at a similar construction with Adam and Eve with Adam as the original and Eve his image.
“In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was MAN. SHE was in the beginning with MAN.”
But you are trying to convince me and others that we should read it as:
“In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was the MAN.
JWs are saying that we see it this way:
“In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was a MAN.
But I reject both versions. Again the following is the only one that makes sense contextually and even grammatically.
“In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was MAN.
Obviously Eve was Man (mankind in nature). She is not a Man, nor is she the Man.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 05 2006,15:34) I don't think you understand Colwell's rule, or a lot of what Ive written, hopefully others have or will (my post was really written for them anyway). To Is 1:18,
You are entitled to your opion, but the fact remains that Colwells rule whether it is correct or not doesn't affirm John 1:1c as Jesus being YHWH. Please do not hurry over this point. Again, it doesn't validate or teach that Jesus is YHWH. That would be misusing Colwells rule.
You said it yourself, it is context that shows us.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 05 2006,15:34) Quote You see Is 1:18, I agree with John that the context, conclusion, and teaching is really about Jesus being the son of God, you on the other-hand do not.
I have never argued that Jesus is the Son of God. However, unlike you I think I have a understanding of this title based on scripture. Also, if John's intent was to teach in John 1:1 that Jesus was the Son in contrast to God WHY did he not simply write:In the beginning was the Son…..
Well??
1) Exactly. You are not arguing that Jesus is the Son of God, that is my point. You argue that he is God himself, not his son.2) John's intent in John 1:1 is very clear. That the son of God (which is the context of the whole book) was the Logos and he was with God in the beginning and that he himself is divine, like God.
You see the Book of John is about Jesus being the son of God. This is the revelation of the Book of John. John 1:1 is an appropriate start with regards to the son of God. It takes us back to the beginning.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 05 2006,15:34) I don't think you know me well enough to make a personal observation. And lets remember i'm simply taking John 1:1c at face value, not trying to read something into it that isn't there. It plainly records “Word was God”, and I am conformed to that truth.
You said it yourself, “I read it at face value”. But face value in this instance is not enough. Any good scholar would tell you that.Jesus said we are gods (theos), do you accept that at face value, or do you need to read into it a bit and study what that means?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 05 2006,15:34) I'll look at the other posts later on – i'm off to my church soon. To Is 1:18,
You said 'my' church. But the real Church is the body and that is Christ's Church, not yours or my church. This is the whole point Is 1:18, you are more interested in your interpretation, your church and your version of God who is made up of 3 persons.
How many people really say Jesus Church or his body, and let scripture speak for itself. Are we greater than Christ? Are we greater than God? So many seem to think so.
I wonder while you were at YOUR church this morning, if you apologised for yesterdays comments, when you called Christ (and Paul) a polytheist and your statement about them joining the Mormons?
Quote Now you are very fond of quoting scholars so I have decided to quote too. The following quote was made by a scholar agruing against (not for) the New World Translation of John 1:1c. Of course I am not endorsing the New World Translation, I am simply showing you that even a Trinitarian scholar arguing against the NWT, says what I am saying. Awww. T8. Going to such great lengths to defend the Bible I use. Thankyou.
If there is any misunderstanding or unclarity about John's first words in the book of John, perhaps these things could be cleared up by his latter words:
JOHN 20:31
“But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name.”The reason John wrote what he did, wasn't so that we could know that Jesus is God, but rather so that we could know Jesus' relationship to God–that of being his Son.
Hence, John didn't write: “But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name.”
Rather, John very clearly explained why he wrote those things: That we may believe that Jesus is the SON OF God.So, while some may think that John 1:1 is unclear, John later very clearly, very unambiguously explains why he wrote what he did.
Now that we've spent several months or years looking at the unclear John 1:1, let's spend the same time looking at the very clear, very understandably John 20:31.
david
I don't think the words: “Son of” should be in front of the word God in this instance. I feel the indefinite article….
Just kidding. John is clear in saying why he wrote “these things.” That we may believe that Jesus is the “Son of,” let me say that again, the “Son of,” yep, that's what he said, he wrote what he did so that we could know and believe that Jesus is the “Son of” God. “Son,” meaning son, and “of” meaning of. We use these words all the time. They are not theological in nature, nor do they take a scholar to define.
Jesus, as John explained clearly, is the “Son of” God.david.
Quote JOHN 20:31
“But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name.”Ya, I don't know about that. Maybe by using the words “Son of,” John was saying that Jesus is the God son. That's what I think he meant.
Someone Esle.
Quote Quote
JOHN 20:31
“But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name.”Ya, I don't know about that. Maybe by using the words “Son of,” John was saying that Jesus is the God son. That's what I think he meant.
No Someone Else, John didn't say that he wrote “these things,” so that we could believe that Jesus was God, the Son. He put the word “of” inbetween the two words and had the Word “Son” before “God.”
So when John said that he wrote “these things” so that we would believe that Jesus is the “Son of” God, that's exactly what he meant.david.
Notice too, Someone Else, that John wrote what he wrote so that we may believe that “Jesus is the Christ.”
“Christ” is a word that means “anointed one,” if memory serves me.
Who anointed him? God.My dictionary says that “anoint” means: “To choose by or as if by divine intervention.”
God chose him for this purpose. Is not the one doing the anointing, greater than the anointed one? The one doing the choosing greater than the one chosen? The one doing the sending greater than the one sent?Anyway, just a thought on John 20:31.
david.
Sorry david, I have kind of lost track of what you are saying. Are you arguing with yourself, or someone else. Who is someone else BTW?
Greetings T8,
Hereis what IS 1:18 said.
Quote I have never argued that Jesus is the Son of God. However, unlike you I think I have a understanding of this title based on scripture. Also, if John's intent was to teach in John 1:1 that Jesus was the Son in contrast to God WHY did he not simply write: In the beginning was the Son…..
Well??
I do believe that what IS 1:18 is meaning, is that ( John 1:1 does not say the word “” Son “” in the verse, and that John was referring to “” the WORD “” that was with YHWH in the beginning, and that the WORD was YHWH, however, I do not believe IS 1:18 is saying that the WORD who was in the beginning with YHWH,( John 1:1) did not become flesh( John 1:14), and I do not believe that IS 1:18 is saying that Yahushua is not the Son of YHWH either.
John 1:1 is referring to who and what the WORD was and is, in the beginning with YHWH, BEFORE He became flesh ( John 1:14).
IS 1:18 knows there are many verses that say Yahushua is the Son of YHWH, and surely people on here have enough sence to know that IS 1:18 is not that scripturally illiterate.
I think people have mis-understood his words written on John 1:1.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
