Did Jesus Christ exist before his birth on Earth?

Participant

Hi brother DK,
That is simple truth you just posted here. There can be only One God as Paul says in 1 Tim 2:5 and one mediator between One God and men who is the man Christ Jesus. Many are making Jesus another begotten God instead of Son which makes God of the Bible Poly and mystery.

Where have you been for so many days my brother ?
Thanks and love to you
Adam

August 13, 2008 at 10:03 pm#101260

Participant

Quote (dirtyknections @ Aug. 13 2008,11:35)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 14 2008,01:25)

Gene,
So 2 Peter 1:1 refers to another Jesus Christ?
LU

Again…this verse does not prove the trinity…The dispute in this verse is usually over whether Sharp's “article+substantive-kai-substantive” rule should apply or not.

First of all, if you check other translations you will notice that this verse is rendered differently…secondly, to render it the way you quoted would make it out of line with what Peter expressed later in those same books and the way the greek was used…note these passages:

2 Peter 1:11…11Then our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will give you a glorious welcome into his kingdom that will last forever.

2 Peter 2:20…20When they learned about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they escaped from the filthy things of this world. But they are again caught up and controlled by these filthy things, and now they are in worse shape than they were at first.

Notice the syriac translation…”SIMON PETER, a servant and legate of Jesus the Messiah, to those who have obtained equally precious faith with us, through the righteousness of Our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus the Messiah;”

If the Syriac is correct, then we should plainly see that this verse is not referring to Jesus as GOD. The Syriac is probably correct, since this is the expression that Peter used in 2 Peter 1:11; 2:20; 3:2 and 3:18.

Even if Jesus is being called “THEOS” in this verse, this would not mean that Jesus is GOD since the Greek word THEOS, based on the Hebrew words EL and ELOHIM, can take on a more general meaning than Supreme Being, or a false “god”.* Yahweh is the God and Father of Jesus. (Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; 1 Peter 1:3) The Father of Jesus is the only true God who sent Jesus. (John 17:1,3; Deuteronomy 18:15-19) Jesus is not the only true God who sent him.

Hi DK and Epistimaniac,

I wrote this about 9 days ago in the pre-existense thread and felt it would be helpful here. I am not teaching the trinity doctrine here by this info. I do not agree with that doctrine. I believe that Jesus Christ is our God (the Begotten God John 1:18 NASB) and Savior. I do not believe that He is our “Most High God”.

Quote

Look at these two lines of Greek and notice that they are exactly the same except for the second word in each line and that is consistent in each Greek manuscript.

tou qeou hmwn kai swthrov Ihsou Xristou;
tou kuriou hmwn kai swthrov Ihsou Xristou.

That was from the Nestlé-Aland 26 manuscript.

tou yeou hmwn kai swthrov Ihsou Xristou
tou kuriou hmwn kai swthrov Ihsou Xristou

The above is from the 1894 Textus Receptus manuscript. Notice again that the words are all the same in each line except the second word.

tou yeou hmwn kai swthrov Ihsou Xristou
tou kuriou hmwn kai swthrov Ihsou Xristou

The above two Greek lines are from the 1991 Byzantine manuscript. Also notice they are the same except for the second word.

yeou and qeou are both transliterated as theos, strong's number 2316.

kurio is transliterated as kurios, strong's number 2962.

Hence, In my understanding, they should be translated the same except for the second word. Let's see how they are translated in several Bible versions:

2 Peter 1:1
NET © …our God and Savior, Jesus Christ…

NIV ©…our God and Saviour Jesus Christ…

NASB ©…our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:…

NLT ©…Jesus Christ, our God and Savior…

MSG ©…our God and Savior, Jesus Christ…

BBE ©…our God and Saviour Jesus Christ…

NRSV ©…our God and Savior Jesus Christ…

NKJV ©… our God and Savior Jesus Christ…

KJV ©…God and our Saviour Jesus Christ…

2 Peter 1:11
NET ©…our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ…

NIV ©…our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ…

NASB ©…our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ…

NLT ©…our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ…

MSG ©…our Master and Savior, Jesus Christ….

BBE ©…our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ…

NRSV ©…our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ…

NKJV ©…our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ….

KJV©…our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ…

Now let's be objective about this, ok. Do you see how the KJV was not consistent? The “our” is placed in different places in that translation. Do you see how that is not the case in the NKJV? I believe it is the KJV that is in error here. Also, search your heart here, when you read “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”, do you think of the words “Lord” and “Savior” to refer both to Jesus. I do and I would bet that you have used the phrase “Lord and Savior” to refer to Jesus in your past posts, so be truthful to yourselves here.

Therefore, in conclusion “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” would also refer to the same one person and that is Jesus Christ.

I imagine that one can weasel their way out of that by claiming theos to mean “our mighty one” and not really “our God” but I don't think that anyone can remain convinced that the two words don't refer to the same being. Maybe it would be a good time to ask the Holy Spirit to show the truth here. I believe that Jesus is our God and Savior, the begotten God and Savior. That is very different than calling Him the always existent God and Savior.

God bless,
Kathi

I hope this helps,
LU

August 13, 2008 at 10:17 pm#101265

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 12 2008,23:19)

Lu…..Jesus is not my GOD and savior, I have a GOd and Savior who is the same one as Jesus had and I think He is just as capable of saving me as He did Jesus. I View Jesus as my brother who the Father placed over us because He is the first born of the Family of Humanity to fully image God the Father and The Father placed Him over us all, so i do give him that honor and believe we should all obey him, to the Glory of the Father.IMO

Hi Gene,
Why do you think that Peter has written that Jesus Christ is our God and Savior if He is not?

I believe Jesus to be my God and Savior because the one True God has exalted His only begotten God/Son to be “my” God and Savior. In no way is the Most High God, the very Father of Christ, threatened by that. Jesus knows where He is from and who is the one true God-His Father. Both are in unity and totally trustworthy to watch over and keep us.

August 14, 2008 at 3:30 am#101298

GeneBalthrop

Participant

LU………..Where did Peter say Jesus Christ is our GOD, you are altering the text to meet you preconceived ideology, If what you say is true then why did Jesus say for THOU ART THE ONLY (TRUE) GOD then?. Where did JESUS say HE was the ONLY TRUE GOD, Scripture plainly says Jesus had a GOD and it was not himself and it was this GOD he glorified on the earth and told us to also. Jesus whole ministry was to honor and reveal the Father to us all, so we would worship Him just as Jesus did. But man has replaced the Father with Jesus this is something Jesus did not ever do, WE need to follow the words of Jesus and if we do we will give the Father all the honor and Glory for everything including His work in Jesus. IMO

peace to you……………..gene

August 14, 2008 at 5:59 am#101306

Participant

Wonderful post that is my brother Gene, if they realise this truth they will be saved from making God into Poly and mystery and they can not deviate from the Monotheim of the Bible.

Thanks and love to you
Adam

August 14, 2008 at 10:00 am#101347

Participant

Quote (gollamudi @ Aug. 11 2008,20:51)

I appreciate your response to my post on Jn 1:1. But I ask you one thing; is Jesus another God besides the one God as you claim Jesus was the 'word' that was with God ?

No he is not another God. He is the Word OF God.

So he is of God.

It was he by whom God made the heavens and earth.

“Let us make man in our image.”

God wasn't speaking to God. God was speaking to the one that was with him. That one has many names and titles.

August 14, 2008 at 10:12 am#101348

Participant

So God was speaking to another person who is the 'word' ?
If so you are making two Gods who created heavens and earth as per Jn 1:1 which says “the word was God'.

Sorry to counter your thoughts my brother
Adam

August 14, 2008 at 10:16 am#101349

Participant

To gollamudi.

Quote (gollamudi @ Aug. 11 2008,20:51)

I read clearly in Jn 1:1 that “the word was God” nothing less than that. You also seem to say Jesus is not God but only Father is God then where your beliefs fit my brother as you say Jesus is the 'word' that was with God ?

But the word theos is missing the article.

Some say that the sentence construction forces this, but a lack of article is used when referring to a quality rather than an identity.
e.g., “one of you is a devil” or “one of you is devil” (as there is no “a” in Greek). Jesus said this to one of his disciples. The word devil lacks the definite article (the) which can be read as not referring to the actual devil (person). It is not even referring to a devil either, (given the context). It is referring to the nature or quality of the devil. Jesus was saying that one of you is in nature or quality like the devil.

The LOGOS was theos can be read as the Word was divine. There is no need to personalize it. It is talking about a quality and not a person. On the other hand the word Logos has the article.

Even some Trinitarian scholars admit or can see this. The argument being that it can be read either way in their view, but if you read it as saying the Word was God and that Jesus is the Word, then you are arguing that Jesus is God to the exclusion of the Father.

I assume that you are not caught out by this because you say that the LOGOS is actually God the Father (I Think). If that is your stance, then you do have the complication of explaining how the Logos was WITH THE God and also why the Logos has the article next to it, thereby removing the opinion that we are talking of an attribute or quality.

Here is one persons pre-Nicene explanation of this:

“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 [“the”], and in some he omits it. He adds the article [“the”] to logos, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [“the”], when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the logos is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article [“the], and theos without it, prevail also between logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As God who is over all is theos with the article [“the”] not without it, so also “the” logos is the source of that logos (reason} which dwells in every reasonable creature; the logos which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence “the” logos. 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 the 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…

August 14, 2008 at 10:18 am#101351

Participant

Quote (gollamudi @ Aug. 14 2008,22:12)

So God was speaking to another person who is the 'word' ?
If so you are making two Gods who created heavens and earth as per Jn 1:1 which says “the word was God'.

Sorry to counter your thoughts my brother
Adam

Not so. I am not saying that 2 Gods existed for all time together, but that before there was a creation, there was God and his Word.

God > Word > Creation.

The head of the woman is the man, the head of man is Christ, the head of Christ is God. We all agree that in a time-line sense that there was God first, then man, then the woman. Where we disagree is that you say Christ came after Adam, but I say it came in the order it is discussed in that scripture,
i.e., God > Christ > Man > Woman.

There is only one God here.

August 14, 2008 at 10:25 am#101352

pulivarthy

Participant

hi all,
word means , God used to exchange his plans etc. with his child called 'word'.God used to call him simply'word' in a lovely fashion as we do with our kids.therefore God used to having conversations with his beloved child playing/rejoicing in his bosom 'word' before creation of angels and all rest.
psb

August 14, 2008 at 11:00 am#101356

(Proof text #1 – Hebrews 1:10)

Participant

Come on brother T8, you are skipping my question, you say that 'word' is devine and there is no need to personalise it at the same time you say 'word' is the Christ that was preexisting with the Father as a separate person from Father. Is it not Trinity or Arianism who believe in literal preexistence of Jesus prior to his birth ? Of course you are right on using the definte article with “word is God” but the Greek interlinear say “God is the word”. I believe 'word' is nothing but the 'word of life' mentioned in 1 Jn 1 which is an expression of one God but not any person apart from Him. 'Your words are with you' is the common sense in placing phrases in a poetic passage in Jn 1 IMO.

Your way of showing God>Christ>Man>woman is nothing to with Jesus humanity after Adam. In fact he is the second Adam and not the first, I think you are forgetting that. Paul's way of telling the 'head of Christ is God and Christ is the head of man' is some thing to do with position and rank but not in order of birth or existence as you believe.

I hope you will see Jesus apart from God the only One as the perfect dwelling for God's 'word of life' in a human vessel Jesus.
Thanks and blessings
Adam

August 14, 2008 at 11:18 am#101358

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 14 2008,22:16)

To gollamudi.

Quote (gollamudi @ Aug. 11 2008,20:51)

But the word theos is missing the article.

The LOGOS was theos can be read as the Word was divine. There is no need to personalize it. It is talking about a quality and not a person. On the other hand the word Logos has the article.

Here is one persons pre-Nicene explanation of this:

Hi All

Here is a better and more accurate understanding of John 1:1.

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 pr
omote 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).

Quote

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. 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 Gre
ek, 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:

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 thu
s 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. If 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 fro
m 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 intrinsic 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 meaningf
ul 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 have 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.

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 statem
ent 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 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
Source.
Blessings WJ

August 14, 2008 at 1:44 pm#101365

Participant

WJ,
Holy cow! My brain hurts and may never recover. You put a lot of time and effort into that post so even though I do not completely agree with you I do appreciate all your thought and time. I hope that I am not intruding here by addressing your post since you specifically asked for t8's response. I would like to say a few things about it though.

1. I agree with you regarding the predicate nominative and therefore the reason the article is missing in the last clause of John 1:1. “Theos” is the predicate nominative, the “Logos” gets the article and is the subject that does the verb “was”.

2. I disagree than the greek word en declares eternal existence as you say here:

Quote

” 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.”

If you click on this webpage: (BTW this is a trinity based web site)
http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en

You will see the following:
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
En arxh hn (5713) o logov, kai o logov hn (5713) prov ton qeon, kai qeov hn (5713) o logov.

If you click on the number “(5713)” after the greek word “hn” on this webpage it will bring up a pop-up window that says this:

“Imperfect
The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.”

In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.”

You will notice that regarding the Greek word “en”, which is translated as “was” in John 1:1, is definitely in the imperfect tense and used as a GENERAL past tense and does NOT carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. The word “was” is a form of the infinitive “to be.”

3.If you understand the Son of God to be the true and literal firstborn of God, then you will understand that He was the first to come out of the womb of God for that is what the term “firstborn” literally means. If you understand the Son of God to be the only begotten son and not only that, but the only begotten God (God begets God, man begets man), you will see that He was not only the first to come out of the womb of God but the last as well. He is the true begotten God. He is the first and the last begotten God. If you understand Him to be the literal Firstborn of all creation, then you know that He came out of the womb of God before there was anything in heaven or on earth which places Him in the beginning with God, His very Father. This phrase calling the Son of God the “firstborn of all creation” has nothing to do with Mary, btw as some may think. Mary was not in the beginning with the Father or the Son. It also has nothing to do with Him being the “firstborn” by choice over others. The Son wasn't the second or third, etc. born of God and selected as the “firstborn”. It is clearly written over and over that He is the ONLY begotten.

I base my understanding that the Son of God was the literal “firstborn” of God because He is the prototype and the fulfillment of the ideal sacrificial lamb. To be the ideal sacrifice in the Old Testament, the lamb was an unblemished male and the first to come out of the womb of the ewe. The Son of God was made perfect and was the first to come out of the womb of God.

Now, it seems that all believers in God here recognize that the Father always existed. That alone distinguishes the Father from His Son who didn't always exist. This is a huge difference and would understandably place the Father in the position of being God in the fullest sense of the word and thus be referred to as the “one true God”. That would satisfy Is 44:7-8 and Is 46:9 for no one else is like Him, no one else always existed. So, the Father is the “One True God” and His Son is the “One True Begotten God”. Two of the same nature yet two very different and two as God but one as a Son and receiver of His position the other as a Father and always had the position. Creation exhibits this relationship nicely in the family where there are parents and children, the children are of the same nature as their parents and are also definitely separate and different individuals.

In conclusion:
If you understand the Son of God as the “Begotten God” then John 1:1 is easily read and understood. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was the (Begotten) God. John uses the term “begotten God” only 17 verses later in the same chapter. In fact, WJ you quoted this verse in your lengthy post.

Quote

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.

Thanks for bringing this up WJ,
LU

August 14, 2008 at 1:51 pm#101366

Participant

BTW, in regards to the above post, the Greek word written as “hn” in John 1:1 is transliterated as “en” and is translated as “was”. I know that might be confusing.

August 14, 2008 at 2:37 pm#101368

GeneBalthrop

Participant

T8…..Your assuming the (Word) as a Noun when in fact it is a descriptor or an attribute of the one GOD. And your references to the upper and lower cases is also wrong seeing that (ALL) original Greek is written in capital letters. Translators changes the upper and lower case lettering to meet their ideologies, which unfortunately was trinitarian and preexistences change it to meet their ideologies of a preexistent Jesus also.

If we speak word in a general sense there is no need to put in a definite artical , but if we speek of (THE) word of GOD, then there is a need to make a definite statement as the whose word we are speaking of, hence the word spoken of is and was GOD'S word and non other.

peace……..gene

August 14, 2008 at 3:20 pm#101370

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 14 2008,10:37)

peace……..gene

Hi Gene,
The word is written as a noun and not an adjective. It is not an assumption, it just is.
LU

August 14, 2008 at 7:17 pm#101390

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2008,18:03)

Quote

Look at these two lines of Greek and notice that they are exactly the same except for the second word in each line and that is consistent in each Greek manuscript.

tou qeou hmwn kai swthrov Ihsou Xristou;
tou kuriou hmwn kai swthrov Ihsou Xristou.

That was from the Nestlé-Aland 26 manuscript.

tou yeou hmwn kai swthrov Ihsou Xristou
tou kuriou hmwn kai swthrov Ihsou Xristou

The above is from the 1894 Textus Receptus manuscript. Notice again that the words are all the same in each line except the second word.

tou yeou hmwn kai swthrov Ihsou Xristou
tou kuriou hmwn kai swthrov Ihsou Xristou

The above two Greek lines are from the 1991 Byzantine manuscript. Also notice they are the same except for the second word.

yeou and qeou are both transliterated as theos, strong's number 2316.

kurio is transliterated as kurios, strong's number 2962.

Hence, In my understanding, they should be translated the same except for the second word. Let's see how they are translated in several Bible versions:

Therefore, in conclusion “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” would also refer to the same one person and that is Jesus Christ.

God bless,
Kathi

I hope this helps,
LU

Gene read the quoted posts for your answers.

Quote

Posted: Aug. 13 2008,23:30
LU………..Where did Peter say Jesus Christ is our GOD, you are altering the text to meet you preconceived ideology, If what you say is true then why did Jesus say for THOU ART THE ONLY (TRUE) GOD then?. Where did JESUS say HE was the ONLY TRUE GOD, Scripture plainly says Jesus had a GOD and it was not himself and it was this GOD he glorified on the earth and told us to also. Jesus whole ministry was to honor and reveal the Father to us all, so we would worship Him just as Jesus did. But man has replaced the Father with Jesus this is something Jesus did not ever do, WE need to follow the words of Jesus and if we do we will give the Father all the honor and Glory for everything including His work in Jesus. IMO

I have over and over shown you where Peter has called Christ our God and Savior. Why do you keep asking me to show you?

I am certainly not altering the text here with 2 Peter 1:1 but have gone to great lengths to display the consistency in 3 Greek manuscripts that Peter is referring to Jesus Christ as “our God and Savior.”

I have never said that Jesus was the only true God…never!
I continue to say over and over that Jesus is not the most high God.
Read my post and maybe you can see what I am saying.

Quote

Posted on Aug. 14 2008,09:44
WJ,
Holy cow! My brain hurts and may never recover. You put a lot of time and effort into that post so even though I do not completely agree with you I do appreciate all your thought and time. I hope that I am not intruding here by addressing your post since you specifically asked for t8's response. I would like to say a few things about it though.

2. I disagree than the greek word en declares eternal existence as you say here:
Quote

If you click on this webpage: (BTW this is a trinity based web site)
http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en

If you click on the number “(5713)” after the greek word “hn” on this webpage it will bring up a pop-up window that says this:

In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.”

You will notice that regarding the Greek word “en”, which is translated as “was” in John 1:1, is definitely in the im
perfect tense and used as a GENERAL past tense and does NOT carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. The word “was” is a form of the infinitive “to be.”

Quote
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.

Thanks for bringing this up WJ,
LU

God be merciful to you,
LU

August 14, 2008 at 10:59 pm#101413

Participant

I do not agree gol.

I gave you sound reasoning and backed it up with another instance when Jesus said “one of you is devil” (no article).

is devil
is theos

No article, then not a person, but a quality. You can argue against it all you like, but it is the way Greek works. It is said by some however that the last theos in John 1:1 is lacking the article because the way the sentence is constructed forces it to be so, but even in that case, you still cannot rule out the qualitative use of theos. Go ask an expert in Greek about the definite article and the lack of the definite article. I have. It is not a contoversy but an excepted rule in Greek that you use an article when referring to a person.

Scholars recognise what the article means in Greek, and even some Trinitarian scholars admit this is the case with John 1:1, including some bible translators too.

If you argue that the Word being God is talking about God the person, then you should be consistent and at least argue equally that Jesus said of Judas that he was The Devil/Satan. You can't chop and change things to suit your view.

Also as I said before, the article is used with the Logos, so this rules out the interpretation of reading the Logos as an attribute or quality of God.

August 14, 2008 at 11:17 pm#101420