Five Lessons explaining the usage/grammar of John for John 1:1c.

tigger2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Or another god. Why are we taking your interpretation for this? You need to add context, and you aren't answering questions that are frankly necessary for your argument to have any religious meaning.

Oh, and the entire premise is vague.

Good job, @tigger2 .

Providing all those references....just wonderful!

And 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.

You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels - see Lesson B.

tigger2 said:

And 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.

You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels - see Lesson B.

Click to expand...

Great, however Jesus is differentiated from 'God the father', by being 'The Lord Jesus Christ'.

And there's only one Lord, for believers.
1 Corinthians 15:29
1 Corinthians 9:5
2 Corinthians 6:18
'Lord Almighty'...

Again, there is only One Lord.

Desert Snake said:

Great, however Jesus is differentiated from 'God the father', by being 'The Lord Jesus Christ'.

And there's only one Lord, for believers.
1 Corinthians 15:29
1 Corinthians 9:5
2 Corinthians 6:18
'Lord Almighty'...

Again, there is only One Lord.

Click to expand...

Really?
Psalms 110:1

Hockeycowboy said:

Really?
Psalms 110:1

Click to expand...

Who is the other Lord, in that verse?

Psalms 110:1

This is a Psalm of David, which means, Dovid is praising God, with verse.


Matthew 22:37-46

Jesus says, 'then why does David call Me Lord'?


This is why David calls Jesus 'my Lord'.

Desert Snake said:

Great, however Jesus is differentiated from 'God the father', by being 'The Lord Jesus Christ'.

And there's only one Lord, for believers.
1 Corinthians 15:29
1 Corinthians 9:5
2 Corinthians 6:18
'Lord Almighty'...

Again, there is only One Lord.

Click to expand...

Why is Jesus, “Lord”?

Because God — his Father (John 20:17) — made him such!
- Acts of the Apostles 2:36. Acts of the Apostles 5:31.

Before then, he wasn’t. He still held a prestigious position, as God’s Firstborn.

Lord
1 Peter 3:6; Rev. 7:14.

Hockeycowboy said:

Why is Jesus, “Lord”?

Because God — his Father (John 20:17) — made him such!
- Acts of the Apostles 2:36. Acts of the Apostles 5:31.

Before then, he wasn’t. He still held a prestigious position, as God’s Firstborn.

Click to expand...

Can't be, because David calls Jesus Lord, and there is one Lord, for believers. In other words, Jesus is already the Lord, in the Old Testament.

Matthew 22:37-46

Desert Snake said:

Who is the other Lord, in that verse?

Click to expand...

Are you going to answer that question? You presented the verse...

Hockeycowboy said:

Why is Jesus, “Lord”?

Because God — his Father (John 20:17) — made him such!
- Acts of the Apostles 2:36. Acts of the Apostles 5:31.

Before then, he wasn’t. He still held a prestigious position, as God’s Firstborn.

Click to expand...

...

Again, who is the other Lord, in Psalms 110:1

tigger2 said:

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of "The Epistle to Diognetus"; and even super-Trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding that a man (or an angel) can be called "a god" in a righteous sense.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. The only one who can be called a God in a "righteous sense" is God Himself. However we can tell when a WT argument has a "desperate sense"... and that's when they start quoting those formerly mocked for support.

tigger2 said:

“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps 82 [quoted by Jesus in John 10:34] is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’.

Click to expand...

The reason the corrupt judges were called “gods” is that they DID NOT administer God’s judgment as “sons of the Most High”.

tigger2 said:

On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
- See the ‘God and gods’ study.

Click to expand...

Too funny Tigger2! Where does the Watchtower come up this stuff and why are you providing us with “spiritual food” not found in the Watchtower? Are you a member of their Governing Board? What did the Watchtower say about crawling non Watchtower approved sites for spiritual food? Are you asking us to disobey the Watchtower or is the food they provide insufficient? They have you hogtied in a box Tigger2, the same way they tried to box Stafford and we know what happened to him. There’s no need for anyone to “see the ‘God and gods’ study unless it’s at JW.org.

The Watchtower has a history of taking commonly accepted terms and assigning different meanings to them. Examples include “Holy Spirit” being demoted to an “active force” or terms like “anointed” which means “inspired” to Christians but nothing more than “chosen” to Jehovah Witnesses. So the exact same words are given totally different meanings at the hands of the Watchtower. “A god” or “A God” is simply another example.

Both @Scheherazade and I have said essentially the same thing: that “a god” would not raise eyebrows (and hasn’t…as Tigger2 inadvertently demonstrates) provided it is understood that “a god“ means that “everything God was the Word was”. Instead, Tigger2 merrily goes on his way as if “a god” means something totally different…a separate distinct God or god from true God which no Trinitarian scholar postulates.

So the question to ask is this: How many of these “a god” sources actually believe in a separate distinct God from the Father? Unless they're Arian the answer most likely is none.

Tigger2 provides no context for his “a god” renderings…he simply implies to the reader “a god” means only what the Watchtower says it means which is nonsense. It’s “Holy Spirit vs. holy spirit”or “Anointed” vs. “Chosen” all over again. We provide the commonly used word like “a God” and the WT provides the misinterpretation of another separate deity.

The fact is, the ONLY God scripturally praised as God is God. No other god is praised nor do they deserve praise. The “sons of god” are in the “order of God”. This means they are godly, but are NEVER gods themselves. You cannot declare man “a god” in a “righteous sense” any more than you can claim someone a fornicator in a “righteous sense”. Moses was "as god" to Pharaoh, but never "a god".

tigger2 said:

You are very wrong.

Click to expand...

No, I was very correct.

tigger2 said:

Please read the last paragraph of Lesson B (post 59 above).

Click to expand...

I did and it changes nothing (see above). Lesson B is simply incorrect as was Lesson A, C or any other letters you've assigned to this thread

tigger2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think we've been through this before. If we were just translating John 1:1c you'd be off to the races. The problem is that when translating, the ENTIRE VERSE needs to be rendered into the the target language. For this we need context and not simply grammar.

Besides, BeDuhn's degree was in Comparative Religious Studies, not biblical languages, and he's not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in biblical Greek.

tigger2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

You really should read Young's literal translation of John 1:1: "...and the Word was God.".

Desert Snake said:

Can't be, because David calls Jesus Lord, and there is one Lord, for believers. In other words, Jesus is already the Lord, in the Old Testament.

Matthew 22:37-46

Click to expand...

David knew the Messiah (a Lord greater than David himself) was coming, from previous Scripture. (David himself was called Lord, as he was King of Israel.) David didn’t know exactly *who* his Lord would be. It was under inspiration that David said that...he prophesied many events while inspired of Yahweh!

And Jesus’ God & Father still made him the Lord.

It was only after Jesus’ resurrection, that he said at Matthew 28:18, “All authority has been given me.”

Origen (185-254 A. D.) was “probably the most accomplished Biblical scholar produced by the early Church” (Universal Standard Encyclopedia) and “the greatest scholar and most prolific author of the early church. ... not only a profound thinker but also deeply spiritual and a loyal churchman.” (The History of Christianity, a Lion Book). “Origen, the greatest and most influential Christian thinker of his age” - p. 89, A History of the Christian Church, 4th ed., Williston Walker, Scribners, 1985. “The character of Origen is singularly pure and noble; for his moral qualities are as remarkable as his intellectual gifts.” - p. 229, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. IV, Eerdmans.

Origen’s Commentary on John is “the first great work of Christian interpretation.” Origen was certainly the most knowledgeable about NT (koine) Greek of any scholar. He studied it from early childhood and even taught it professionally from his teens onward.- and this was during a time when it was a living language and, of course, well understood! - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, pp. 291-294, vol. X, Eerdmans Publ., 1990 printing.

Origen in his “Commentary on John” focused on the grammar of John 1:1c. He wrote:

“We next notice John’s use of the article [‘the’ or ho in the Greek in this case] 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’ in English or ho (ὁ) in NT Greek] and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos [ho logos or ‘the Word’], but to [theos: ‘god’ or ‘God’] he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [ho] when [theos] refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos [Word] is named [theos]. ....

"the God who is over all is God with the article [ho theos] not without it [theos] ….

"and so the Saviour says in his prayer to the Father, ‘That they may know thee the only true God [Jn 17:1, 3];’ but that all beyond the Very God [ho theos] is made [theos] by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article [ho theos]), but rather [theos] (without the article). And thus the first-born of all creation [Jesus, Col. 1:15], who is the first to be with God, and to attract to himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods [angels] beside him, of whom God [ho theos, the Father only] is the God [Rev. 3:2, 12; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 17, etc.], as it is written, ‘the God of gods...’ [Ps. 49:1, Septuagint; Ps. 136:2; Deut. 10:17] ….

"The true God [the Father alone, Jn 17:1, 3], then, is [‘the god,’ ho theos], and those who are formed after him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.” - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. X, p. 323, “Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John”, Book 2, part 2, Eerdmans, 1990 printing.

Hockeycowboy said:

David knew the Messiah (a Lord greater than David himself) was coming, from previous Scripture. (David himself was called Lord, as he was King of Israel.) David didn’t know exactly *who* his Lord would be. It was under inspiration that David said that...he prophesied many events while inspired of Yahweh!

And Jesus’ God & Father still made him the Lord.

It was only after Jesus’ resurrection, that he said at Matthew 28:18, “All authority has been given me.”

Click to expand...

It's all power of Heaven and earth, hence 'Jesus's Kingdom', and 'Gods Kingdom'.

You believe that there are two kingdoms?

There's only One Kingdom, only one God.

John 18:36
Matthew 25:31
Colossians 1:13

Hippolytus is called “the most important 3rd century [170 A.D. – 236 A.D.] theologian of the Roman Church” - p. 652, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, 1990 reprint. Hippolytus wrote, showing his understanding of the word "god" in relation to men and the Word [Logos]:

"The Creator did not wish to make [man] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel, -be not deceived,- but a man. For if He had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos." - Book X, Ch. XXIX, 'The Refutation of all Heresies' by Hippolytus as translated in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 151, vol. 5, Eerdmans.

In other words, Hippolytus considered the Logos (the Word) to be "a god."

tigger2 said:

and theos ēn ho logos

Click to expand...

This sentence means the Word has god quality. The Word is god. The Word doesn't monopolise God, that is why the article ''the'' is missing from the word ''god''.

syo said:

This sentence means the Word has god quality. The Word is god. The Word doesn't monopolise God, that is why the article ''the'' is missing from the word ''god''.

Click to expand...

See the Five Lessons (A-E) above.



The Five Lessons (A-E) are found in the OP (Lesson A); Post #59 (B); Post #61 (C); Post #62 (D); and Post #63 (E).

Yes there was a lot of obfuscation in the first 57 posts.