The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

[tigger2]

How do you figure Psalm 82:6 KJV which speaks of men or angels as gods. How can men or angels be God, god, or gods? Yet the Bible says they can be. How is that?
"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

God and gods

The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 clearly recognizes the truth about the lesser meaning of theos and elohim ('a god'):

"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1.

And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this trinitarian study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).”

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:

“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187.

The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:

“The word [theos, ‘god’ or ‘God’] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34” - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:

"Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart." - http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/john/johnson/john10.htm

Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:

“65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28....”


Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing,

“430. [elohim]. el-o-heem’; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, ... x (very) great, judges, x mighty.” - p. 12, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.”


The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

Elohim: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97 7 ...”



Angels are clearly called gods (elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know this because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels” is used (in place of elohim in the OT) in NT Greek.

The trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6 -

“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”


Some of these (mostly) trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133 (angels, judges), Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208 (angels, judges), Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, (angels, judges, kings) Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.

29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.

30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.

(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV; TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)

And, of course, the highly respected and highly popular Hellenic Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/“a god” about the same time the NT was written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected scholar Origen (see DEF note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF study); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

And, as we saw above, many respected NT scholars of the twentieth century agree.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Oeste wrote:
"We need go no further than to the Watchtower own writings, vis-a-vis the 1970 Kingdom Interlinear to show their is no "a god" at John 1:1:

Of course, the WT tries to breathe in separation by demoting God with a small "g" and they introduce a number of theological problems (of their own making) with "god was the Word", but at least the Kingdom Interlinear doesn't bother to insert a non-existent "a" although the New World Translation does."

Please look at John 1:1 in "The Emphatic Diaglott", by Benjamin Wilson.

Why have translations you trust, put "the" in John 1:1, as in "In the beginning"? It's not there in the Greek text, yet every Bible adds the word.

It's necessary for understanding the text in English.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Maybe reread the Psalms or the Song of Solomon. Maybe reread the Book of Revelation that uses massive amounts of symbolism. Maybe reread Paul's letters as he uses such symbolism a great deal, largely as a result of his Greek education. If you are eating the "Body of Christ" and drinking the "Blood of Christ", does it really taste like human flesh and human blood?

When reading any historical and/or religious literature, one needs to be aware of the cultural milieu of the region at that time plus the idiosyncrasies of the language being used. Eretz Israel was heavily Hellenized at Jesus' time, especially Galilee and the northern coastal region, and we know Jesus relied on what we call the "Socratic method", which was especially used with his many parables.

If you study the issue of what Jesus was vis-a-vis God in the very early Church, the one thing that comes out is this: confusion. Did Jesus have a "Divine nature", for example? If so, how? If not, then why is it recorded in the Gospels that he was borne like no other person was borne? How is it that he goes well beyond any prophet mentioned in the Bible? How is it that he is viewed as having a very special relationship with God, more so than any other person?

I don't have the answers to those questions, and neither did the Church in the 1st century, but the Church did at least try to make sense of it all. Did they bat 1000? I doubt it very much. But do you bat 1000 on this? How could we know if you do? How could you know if you do?

I appreciate your amiable, well-thought-out post.
Just keep in mind (because many appear not to), "Divine" simply means "of God", or "from God"....it doesn't mean 'God'. God-like, maybe.

So, Adam started out as divine. Angels are divine. The planet Earth is divine.

Take care.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Oeste , FYI, this "a god" of John 1:1 is not a WT construct...you seem to imply it is.
Here's proof it isn't:


1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

▪ 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)

▪ 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)

▪ 1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)

▪ 1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)

▪ 1867: "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

▪ 1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)

▪ 1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)

▪ 1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)

▪ 1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago

▪ 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.

▪ 1956: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation[15]

▪ 1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958)

▪ 1966, 2001: "...and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible

▪ 1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" – The Revised English Bible

▪ 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany

▪ 1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

▪ 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin

Have a good day, my cousin.

 

[tigger2]

Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

And trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

The reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upset his trinitarian interpretations of the rest of John’s Gospel!

Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.


(Of course if you carefully examine my study of John 1:1c, you will find that the grammar really shows that ‘The Word is [or “was” in John 1:1c] a god’ is what John intended.)

Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God.

And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:

“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.
..............

"But if you stick to examples like John 1:1c itself (theos unmodified by the above) in all the writings of John (and the other Gospel writers), you will find that he always uses the article (ho, 'the') when it refers to the Most High God (the Father).

"Please show me your examples which show otherwise in John's writings."

Whenever you have finished your 'list,' I will give a list of all the places where ho theos is used by John for the only true God.

 

[YoursTrue]

God and gods

The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 clearly recognizes the truth about the lesser meaning of theos and elohim ('a god'):

"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1.

And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this trinitarian study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).”

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:

“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187.

The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:

“The word [theos, ‘god’ or ‘God’] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34” - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:

"Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart." - http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/john/johnson/john10.htm

Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:

“65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28....”


Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing,

“430. [elohim]. el-o-heem’; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, ... x (very) great, judges, x mighty.” - p. 12, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.”


The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

Elohim: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97 7 ...”



Angels are clearly called gods (elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know this because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels” is used (in place of elohim in the OT) in NT Greek.

The trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6 -

“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”


Some of these (mostly) trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133 (angels, judges), Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208 (angels, judges), Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, (angels, judges, kings) Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.

29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.

30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.

(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV; TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)

And, of course, the highly respected and highly popular Hellenic Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/“a god” about the same time the NT was written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected scholar Origen (see DEF note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF study); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

And, as we saw above, many respected NT scholars of the twentieth century agree.

Well, then, one has a choice of understanding what the word God, god, a god, or gods means. Thank you for a rather detailed reply.

 

[kjw47]

Then maybe you should do that and obey his teaching of "judge ye not...".

I share--FACTS. Eternal life is on the line, one MUST serve The Father in spirit and truth. (John 4:22-24

 

[kjw47]

We need go no further than to the Watchtower own writings, vis-a-vis the 1970 Kingdom Interlinear to show their is no "a god" at John 1:1:

View attachment 30285
​

Of course, the WT tries to breathe in separation by demoting God with a small "g" and they introduce a number of theological problems (of their own making) with "god was the Word", but at least the Kingdom Interlinear doesn't bother to insert a non-existent "a" although the New World Translation does.

So a literal, word by word translation doesn't have "and a god was the Word".

It's hard to conceive why they introduce a new God or god into the verse, but that's what they do, and though we have waited most patiently, we have yet to hear why the WT never published a "and god was the Word" in the New World Translation.




Why would it?

Of course some people thought differently back then, just as they do today.
:
This may seem strange to JW's, but the important thing about Nicene is that both sides had a chance to present their case. It's not a matter of what any group thought, it's simply a matter of what scripture states. Lies do not conquer truth. Arianism lost, won, then lost the argument again. It's unfortunate you do not present a balanced view of Nicene or Constantine but the history is there for anyone to read it.

Witnesses would blame Constantine rather than poor Arian Christology but the truth is Constantine was most likely an Arian (as a general rule you don't get baptized by someone you have major theological disagreements with). In any event the theological problems of (polytheism) confronting Arians back then haven't gone anywhere and still exist today.



Well this is easy. Let's go to the Watchtower's own publication again. We're going to look for "ho theos", which according to @tigger2 , always means the Most High God:

We see "ho theos" at John 20:28:

"ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou" or literally "The Lord of me and the God of me". To confirm, let's look at the Kingdom Interlinear:

View attachment 30299

So far, so good. So how is "ho theos" translated? Is it translated "The Lord of me and a god of me"? Of course not. It's translated "The Lord of me and the God (ho theos) of me!" right there in the Watchtower's Kingdom Interlinear.

So the "rule" @tigger2 cited, where "ho theos" is ALWAYS translated "A god" is simply inconsistent as are most things Watchtower. Christ is "the God" and not "a god" of Thomas.

But stand back @74x12. I suspect we'll shortly hear that "ho theos" is always translated "a god" except when it always is not.

The teachings of Jesus says no capitol G GOD belongs in the last line.
As you can see in the kingdom interlinear--Ho theos =The God is in the second line, plain theos is in the last line. It DID NOT call the Logos Ho theos. All true followers can see the Father in Jesus. That is what Thomas was meaning. In that sense. Jesus lives 24/7 365 to do his Fathers will( John 5:30) As do the true followers( Matthew 7:21)--Why does just the Fathers will gets done? Why did Jesus have to be taught everything? Why did he have to be appointed king( Daniel 7:13-15) When God is king of eternity? Why does he have to hand back the kingdom and subject himself?( 1Corinthians 15:24-28)
Paul has it 100% correct-1Corinthians 8:6--There is one God to all, the Father.
Jesus warned that people wouldn't know him-John 15:20-21

 

[tigger2]

I have given the Trinitarian references for my quotes in my History of the Trinity study. Your disagreement is with them.

[Repeat of post #397 above]:

If you would have actually read all that I wrote about the exceptions to article usage, you would see that your example [John 20:28] is one of those exceptions: the nominative count noun (theos) is modified by a genitive ('of me' mou).

No, ho theos is always written in John's writings (and the other Gospel writers) when he means the one true God. Please try again.

Since the NT Greek text itself does not use a non-existent (in Greek) indefinite article, some interlinears do not add it in the Greek-English page, but in the translation page they will properly add it. So it is in the NWT Interlinear. However, the popular Zondervan Parallel Testament in Greek and English by noted Trinitarian scholar Dr. Alfred Marshall is one of those which also adds it in the Greek-English page. For example, in John 1:6, (and John 7:46) Marshall has the anarthrous anthropos (man) with an added 'a' in the interlinear section, whereas the NWT interlinear, of course, does not.
Bible Gateway passage: John 1:6 - Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament

 

[Muffled]

I agree--One in purpose as all true followers are as well. They live now to do Jesus Fathers will-Matthew 7:21-- Jesus teaches--The Father is greater than I. He warned all, they wouldn't know him-John 15:20-21)

I believe you should point out the "in purpose" phrase in this verse: John 10:30 I and the Father are one.”

 

[Muffled]

Why are you separating Jesus from men? Was he an angel?

Also, when did you become a "Red letter" Christian?

I believe he means he pretends to listen to Jesus when he is actually listening to the leaders of the JW's.

 

[Muffled]

Red-Letter Christian - Wikipedia


While many Christians throughout church history have defined themselves as emphasizing the teachings of Jesus, this modern movement was initiated by Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo, who felt the religious right spend too much time on two issues: abortion and homosexuality.

They believe Christians should be paying attention to Jesus' words and example by promoting biblical values such as peace, building strong families, the elimination of poverty, and other important social justice issues.[1]

They believe that these are the issues that Jesus spoke of directly, and therefore these issues should be social and political priorities. Other issues such as the question of homosexuality and abortion are viewed as important but over-emphasized by both liberals and conservatives.

I believe Jesus never proposed the elimination of poverty and in one statement the concept is that it can't be done. He even makes it clear that helping the poor is not the highest priority.

 

[metis]

I believe Jesus never proposed the elimination of poverty and in one statement the concept is that it can't be done. He even makes it clear that helping the poor is not the highest priority.

It was definitely one of his highest priorities according to the Sermon On the Mount and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats (Matt. 25).

 

[tigger2]

John 1:6 for starters. God is mentioned but no "ho" Theos.

As I pointed out earlier on in the thread; some supposed and assumed grammatical rule for an ancient document written before you even decided there was such a rule is not enough proof to make the claim that John is setting forth two Gods in John 1:1. So you need more of an argument than that. You don't have context on your side.

Unfortunately, you don't have facts on your side. Now that we are nearing the actual evidence (which anyone can look up) stage, you quit without looking it up.

Show me a list of places John has used the anarthrous theos (minus Trinitarian-noted exceptions) for the only true God. When you do, I'll give the places I have found where he has used ho theos.

The way this has been going, I seriously doubt you will even try.

 

[74x12]

Unfortunately, you don't have facts on your side. Now that we are nearing the actual evidence (which anyone can look up) stage, you quit without looking it up.

Show me a list of places John has used the anarthrous theos (minus Trinitarian-noted exceptions) for the only true God. When you do, I'll give the places I have found where he has used ho theos.

The way this has been going, I seriously doubt you will even try.

I say it's a bogus rule that doesn't really exist except in your imagination. Because you imagine that the authors of the Bible followed this rule. And there is no ancient Greek grammar book that lists such a rule. In fact they had many gods so that would be nonsense to them. Therefore, you're simply asserting that the Biblical authors followed this "rule" because you say so and you think it fits some kind of pattern maybe. But that's really flimsy evidence to say the least.

With a quick google search I found this webpage. Which shows us more than one scripture from the New Testament/Septuagint that do not follow your imaginary Greek grammatical rule.

John 1:18
Nahum 1:2
Isaiah 37:16
Isaiah 41:4
Jeremiah 23:23
Ezekiel 45:9

 

[74x12]

Unfortunately, you don't have facts on your side. Now that we are nearing the actual evidence (which anyone can look up) stage, you quit without looking it up.

Show me a list of places John has used the anarthrous theos (minus Trinitarian-noted exceptions) for the only true God. When you do, I'll give the places I have found where he has used ho theos.

The way this has been going, I seriously doubt you will even try.

Prove this is an actual rule and not just you claiming that pattern recognition means it is so without any other evidence.

 

[tigger2]

Prove this is an actual rule and not just you claiming that pattern recognition means it is so without any other evidence.

T2:

How many times have I specified that we are looking for John's uses of theos?

"Show me a list of places John has used the anarthrous theos (minus Trinitarian-noted exceptions) for the only true God. When you do, I'll give the places I have found where he has used ho theos."

74:

"Prove this is an actual rule and not just you claiming that pattern recognition means it is so without any other evidence."

T2: Ridiculous! The way scholars come up with their rules is by examining the Greek text and finding how the NT Greek is used. Unfortunately, even the most-praised scholars often don't do a complete job, ignoring numerous other uses which would disprove their 'rules.' Colwell, for example, formed his erroneous 'law' by omitting many of the proper examples and using, instead, mostly improper examples.

I, instead, have looked at all the examples of theos in all of John's writings. I have proved that John always used ho theos when he intended the meaning of 'God.'

Are you ever going to look up all the uses of theos in John's writings? (The other Gospel writers have also used ho theos when they intended 'God.')

Will you show me which of them disprove what I have found?

John 1:18 uses either theos or kurios depending on which NT Greek text is used. In either case it refers to Jesus not God (like John 1:1c.)

Greek Concordance: θεός (theos) -- 311 Occurrences

 

[74x12]

T2: Ridiculous! The way scholars come up with their rules is by examining the Greek text and finding how the NT Greek is used. Unfortunately, even the most-praised scholars often don't do a complete job, ignoring numerous other uses which would disprove their 'rules.' Colwell, for example, formed his erroneous 'law' by omitting many of the proper examples and using, instead, mostly improper examples.

I, instead, have looked at all the examples of theos in all of John's writings. I have proved that John always used ho theos when he intended the meaning of 'God.'

Are you ever going to look up all the uses of theos in John's writings? (The other Gospel writers have also used ho theos when they intended 'God.')

Will you show me which of them disprove what I have found?

John 1:18 uses either theos or kurios depending on which NT Greek text is used. In either case it refers to Jesus not God (like John 1:1c.)

Greek Concordance: θεός (theos) -- 311 Occurrences

Check John 1:18 "No man has seen God" It isn't "ho theos".

 

[tigger2]

Check John 1:18 "No man has seen God" It isn't "ho theos".

Did you even read my reply you have just 'quoted'?

"John 1:18 uses either theos or kurios depending on which NT Greek text is used. In either case it refers to Jesus not God (like John 1:1c.)"

Furthermore, you have referred to theon, not theos. There is a use of theos (without the article) in the same verse, but it refers to Jesus, not God.

Please try again.

P.S. If you use the link I've given you, you won't be fooled by theon, theou, etc.

Greek Concordance: θεός (theos) -- 311 Occurrences

 

[Clear]

1) HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND NOT GREEK GRAMMAR WILL DETERMINE THE MEANING OF JOHN 1:1, THIRD PHRASE ("A" GOD OR "THE" GOD)

ALL Bible translators add 'a' or 'an' to most count nouns which don't have the article (anarthrous) in NT Greek. This is subject to the same exceptions as given above. (See Jn 3:4; 3:27; 7:46; 9:16; 9:24; 10:33; etc. in an interlinear and all of the major Bibles).

I don't know the Greek well enough to debate grammatical rules like this. '

@tigger2 : You are quite right that that a NON-CONTEXTED anarthrous Greek of John 1:1 grammatically reads “the word was A God”. It is ONLY the early context of the writer which can tell us IF he meant “THE God” or not. There are NO “rules” of Greek which can solve this meaning, instead the meaning will depend entirely upon the authors’ context.

Thus, depending upon the historical, doctrinal, CONTEXT, then, “και θεος ην ο λογος" COULD mean either “a God” or “the God”. However IF one wants to write “the word was A God”, then it MUST be written as John wrote it, in the anarthrous form. Other than a change in word ORDER, There IS no other way to write "the Word was A God" other than using the words John wrote in Jn 1:1.

While I think “74X12” is to respected for admitting “I don't know the Greek well enough to debate grammatical rules like this.”, yet he still makes up and attempts to adds an incorrect rule “Just reading in Greek we are not allowed to add an "a" at all.” (#375) This is obviously silly and incorrect since, the only way one CAN add “a” is with an anarthrous noun. Greek grammer doesn’t HAVE another way to do it that I am aware of. I think he is simply assuming HIS context is the same as the ancient context.

My base point is that you are, grammatically, correct in your strictly grammatical translation of “a God” in the NWT and one is left to argue historical context to produce “the” God.


2) REGARDING JOHN 1:18, I don't think there is an extant manuscript that reads "Kurios"

John 1:18 uses either theos or kurios depending on which NT Greek text is used. In either case it refers to Jesus not God (like John 1:1c.

While John 1:18 Greek manusripts refers to “the only begotten God” (ironically, IT IS anarthrous, AND therefore an example of EITHER contextually an "a" or "the".....)
"θεον ουδεισ εωρακεν πωποτε, μονογενησ θεοσ ο ων εισ τον κολπον του πατροσ εκεινοσ εξηγησατο.",
"No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Fatehr, he has made him known"
While some manuscripts read "only begotten SON", I do not know of any manuscripts that use only begotten "LORD" (“kurios/κυριοσ”). I am guessing you actually meant “ο μονογενης θεος” or “ο μονογενης υιος” and Not “kurios/κυριοσ”? If I am mistaken, please let me know.

I think the earlier version referring to God being “begotten’ was part of the discomfort in using the earlier text and replacing it with “son”. .

In any case, I hope your various journeys are pleasant the fruitful.

Clear
σεσεφιφυω