• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

We will get to them in a later lesson. How about concentrating on lesson A?
But they're immediately relevant. This is the problem with examining each issue in isolation.

"the Word was with God, and the Word was god-like"
I would say the more nuanced translation is "the Word was divine." Most would not dispute such a translation, unless they're KJV-onlyists. This fully accounts for the nuance in 1:1c. He does not say ho theos as if to imply that the logos is the Father, which is heretical, but he uses word order to place emphasis on the divinity of the logos as theos, that is, a divine person.

And John further said, "No one has ever seen God." Yet, thousands saw Jesus.
The Church Fathers taught that Jesus used his humanity to veil his divinity.
 
Last edited:

tigger2

Active Member
But they're immediately relevant. This is the problem with examining each issue in isolation.


I would say the more nuanced translation is "the Word was divine." Most would not dispute such a translation, unless they're KJV-onlyists. This fully accounts for the nuance in 1:1c. He does not say ho theos as if to imply that logos is the Father, which is heretical, but he uses word order to place emphasis on the divinity of the logos.


The Church Fathers taught that Jesus used his humanity to veil his divinity.

Please show me how anything more than the irregularity of 'preposition-modified' nouns (which you are aware of) is "immediately relevant" in the search for John's uses of theos.

If you use the concordance link I gave you, this should be quick and simple.
 
Please show me how anything more than the irregularity of 'preposition-modified' nouns (which you are aware of) is "immediately relevant" in the search for John's uses of theos.
It's not as simple as his use of theos. We should look at how he uses the definite article in general.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
This is not surprising. The WT also argues the fall of Jerusalem occurred in 607 BCE despite every encyclopedia, document, book and historian stating differently. In order to arrive at 1914 the WT needs the fall to occur in 607 BCE so our encyclopedias simply have it wrong and will continue to have it wrong until and unless their Governing Board has "new light".
(Apparently you don't know history as well as you may think.)
1914 is not the reason! The fact is, we'll trust the Scriptures over any **supposed** understanding of fallible secular historians. And the Bible in Jeremiah said the captivity would last 70 years.

Now, among historians the only undisputed date (what is called an 'absolute date') related to this, that far back, is 539 BCE. when Cyrus entered Babylon. After gaining control and getting his infrastructure organized, he released the Jewish prisoners two years later. Now, count 70 years back. Fulfilling prophecy!

Or would you rather believe the Scripture is wrong?
 

tigger2

Active Member
It's not as simple as his use of theos. We should look at how he uses the definite article in general.
How disappointing! I was beginning to think someone would actually follow me through the 5 lessons. I expected questions and examples that were consistent with each lesson. But it appears you don't want that.
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
The Church Fathers taught that Jesus used his humanity to veil his divinity.

Correct.

And John further said, "No one has ever seen God." Yet, thousands saw Jesus.

Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (John 14:9)

Since seeing Jesus is the same as seeing God the Father, then how is it anyone was able to see Jesus? Do you see this as a contradiction? If not, then JW's already know how someone could see God and live to tell of it...it's just been veiled by the Watchtower.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Correct. No one has seen God in His pre-incarnate or spiritual state.

You're spinning. The Scripture says "ever", period. It doesn't say 'in his pre-incarnate or spiritual state.'
You shouldn't add to the text.
Which reminds me....when Jesus was speaking to the Samaritan woman in John 4, Jesus said, "God is a spirit". Jesus was then flesh. He didn't say, "right now, part of God is human.'

Anything to take credit away from Jehovah God, completely discrediting the 1st Commandment in Exodus 20
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Correct.



Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (John 14:9)So you are saying Scripture contradicts itself?

2 Corinthians 4:4...Jesus "is the image of the invisible God."

Do you have a photograph of someone? Then you've seen them.

Since seeing Jesus is the same as seeing God the Father, then how is it anyone was able to see Jesus? Do you see this as a contradiction? If not, then JW's already know how someone could see God and live to tell of it...it's just been veiled by the Watchtower.
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
1914 is not the reason! The fact is, we'll trust the Scriptures over any **supposed** understanding of fallible secular historians. And the Bible in Jeremiah said the captivity would last 70 years.

Now, among historians the only undisputed date (what is called an 'absolute date') related to this, that far back, is 539 BCE. when Cyrus entered Babylon. After gaining control and getting his infrastructure organized, he released the Jewish prisoners two years later. Now, count 70 years back. Fulfilling prophecy!

This would get us off thread theme. I'll just take your response as a confirmation of my earlier post.

Or would you rather believe the Scripture is wrong?

I take scripture as correct. However what the scripture states and what the WT states are not one and the same, as is evidenced by their many new "truths".

Once the WT changes the date I'm sure most will be on board in a jiffy. In fact, they'll probably chuckle and wonder how they could have possibly believed anything else and treasure this "former truth" as much as they treasure all the others. It's something we've seen happen time and again with other dates.

For others, it will be the "straw". They will be shunned.
 
Last edited:

Oeste

Well-Known Member
You're spinning. The Scripture says "ever", period. It doesn't say 'in his pre-incarnate or spiritual state.'
You shouldn't add to the text.

Then by your understanding Jesus was wrong.

They couldn't possibly see the Father by seeing Jesus.

Which reminds me....when Jesus was speaking to the Samaritan woman in John 4, Jesus said, "God is a spirit".

God is Spirit, not "a spirit".

Jesus was then flesh. He didn't say, "right now, part of God is human.'

I think scripture's pretty clear that at any point Jesus made a claim of Deity the Jews were likely to pick up stones.

But more pointedly to your response, God does not have "parts".

Anything to take credit away from Jehovah God, completely discrediting the 1st Commandment in Exodus 20

God came in the flesh and died for us! How is that discrediting Him??? Christ our Savior is the same Savior of the Old Testament. We do not have two different Saviors...one for Israel and another for everyone else. But if you have a second god that Christians are suppose to give "obeisance" to...that's not only ignoring history, it also taking away from the true God.

What does Exodus tell us?:
“You shall have no other gods before me."

So the WT simply stuffs all their gods behind Him, and as long as He doesn't turn around...:cool:

You know, "Church Fathers" were Catholic, right? I thought you were Protestant.

Lol, that was funny and one of the reasons I enjoy talking with you Hockeycowboy...even when we so often disagree :)
 
How disappointing! I was beginning to think someone would actually follow me through the 5 lessons. I expected questions and examples that were consistent with each lesson. But it appears you don't want that.
As I said, it's impossible do this subject justice by treating each particular issue in isolation. Your lessons may be self-contained, but if we're deconstructing them, we're obviously going to broach other issues.
 

tigger2

Active Member
John's use of the article with theos to indicate God, here are all his uses of the nominative theos:


There are 50 such uses of theos by John (17 in the Gospel of John, 13 in First John, 20 in Revelation). Here is the list of every theos (nominative case) used by John. If it has the definite article, “art.” has been written after the verse number. If it does not have the definite article, “an.” (for “anarthrous”) has been written before the verse number. If it appears to be applied to Jesus, “Jesus” has been written after the verse number.


an. John 1:1c - - - Jesus

an. Jn 1:18 - - - Jesus (W&H, Nestle, UBS - [Received Text and Byzantine Text have art. "Son"])*

Jn 3:2 art.

Jn 3:16 art. [context shows it refers to the Father]

Jn 3:17 art. [context shows it refers to the Father]

Jn 3:33 art.

Jn 3:34 art.

Jn 4:24 art. [context shows it refers to the Father]

Jn 6:27 art.

Jn 8:42 art. [context shows it refers to the Father]

an. Jn 8:54 - - -“God of you”

Jn 9:29 art.

Jn 9:31 art.

Jn 11:22 art.

Jn 13:31 art.

Jn 13:32 art.

Jn 20:28 art. Jesus (?) “God of me” - see ‘My God’ study

1 John 1:5 art.

1 Jn 3:20 art.

1 Jn 4:8 art.

1 Jn 4:9 art. [context shows it refers to the Father]

1 Jn 4:11 art.

1 Jn 4:12 art.

1 Jn 4:15 art.

1 Jn 4:16 art. (3 occurrences)

1 Jn 5:10 art. [context shows it refers to the Father]

1 Jn 5:11 art. [context shows it refers to the Father]

1 Jn 5:20 art. [“true”]

Revelation

Rev. 1:1 art.

Rev. 1:8 art.

Rev. 4:8 art.

Rev. 4:11 art. “the God of us”

Rev. 7:17 art.

Rev. 11:17 art.

Rev. 15:3 art.

Rev. 16:7 art.

Rev. 17:17 art.

Rev. 18:5 art.

Rev. 18:8 art.

Rev. 18:20 art.

Rev. 19:6 art. “the God of us”

Rev. 21:3 art.

an. Rev. 21:7 ---- “God to him” (modified by a dative - "prepositional")

Rev. 21:22 art.

Rev. 22:5 art.

Rev. 22:6 art. “the God of the spirits”

Rev. 22:18 art.

Rev. 22:19 art.

We can see that out of at least 47 uses of theos for the only true God (all those apparently not applied to Jesus), 45 of them have the definite article. And the only two exceptions are, again, "prepositional" (modified by a dative and a genitive).

So, again, John (as have the other Gospel writers) always uses the article with theos in proper examples to denote "God"! And he has used theos without the article to denote the Son (John 1:1, John 1:18) - 'a god.'

Nouns used as subjects or predicate nouns (i.e. the nominative case), if they are part of a prepositional phrase (e.g. “the God of me,” “the God of Israel,” etc.—meaning “my God,” “Israel’s God,” etc.), may or may not take the article. The use of the article under those conditions appears to be purely arbitrary and is used at random with little or no significance.


So we find that if we exclude all the “prepositional” and possessive constructions (only 6 for theos in all of John’s writings) as we should, then all of the remaining 44 instances of theos follow the rule (theos with article = “God,” and theos without article = “god”).

Yes, 42 of these 44 proper examples of article usage with the nominative “theos” refer to the only true God, and all 42 of them use the article! Can you guess which of the 44 are the only 2 which do not use the article (and, therefore, should properly be translated “god”)? That’s right, the only 2 which obviously refer to Jesus: John 1:1 and John 1:18!


* Note: John 1:18 is a disputed scripture. Trinitarian scholars and translators themselves are strongly divided as to whether the original writing here was an anarthrous or articular “only-begotten son (huios)” or an anarthrous or articular “only-begotten theos.”

If it were an articular “only-begotten theos,” then, perhaps, we could render it as “The only-begotten God” (although the modifier “only-begotten” would preclude it being the eternal God who had no beginning). If, however, John did intend to write “only-begotten god,” to agree with the opening of his Prologue (“the Word was a god”), how would he write it in the NT Greek? The answer can only be an anarthrous “only-begotten theos”!

The texts I have used for this study (Westcott and Hort; United Bible Societies; and Nestle) use that very phrase for John 1:18: an anarthrous “only-begotten theos.” That is why I have listed John 1:18 in the list of John’s uses of the nominative theos. However, it must be noted that so many Trinitarian scholars and translators have decided that “the only-begotten son,” was the original writing that I cannot be absolutely certain as to whether I should list John 1:18 as being one of John’s uses of theos! As I said, it is a disputed scripture and maybe I should have omitted it.
...................................................
Really difficult, huh?

You win. I won't spend all my time going after off-target posts. It's difficult enough to actually learn the necessary details on this subject.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Yes! So read the context. Which interpretation agrees?: "The Word was with God, and the Word was God", or, "the Word was with God, and the Word was god-like"?

And John further said, "No one has ever seen God." Yet, thousands saw Jesus.

I'm really surprised you would bring up context in support of your pov!
Your argument would be great, if you reversed the persona of who you are calling the main god. In other words, if you said, that is referring to 'god', however not referring to Jehovah, who, if you read the Bible, makes Himself known all over the Bible, and if Jesus was noted in the Old Testament, then so was Jehovah, [same Scriptural context.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
John 5:37
'Nor heard His voice', , referring to the father.


• what is modern christianity telling me again?
Jesus just said they, those He is talking to, had never Heard the fathers voice.

Hmm interesting, that doesn't seem to come up when the churches talk about the god of the shared text religions.
 
Last edited:

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
I take scripture as correct.

That’s good! But I’ll tell you, secular historians don’t.

So if Cyrus defeated Babylon in 539 BCE (an ABSOLUTE date), how was Jerusalem to “remain desolate for 70 years” to be fulfilled, beginning in 587 BCE?

Read Revelation 12:9, then tell me this world isn’t being misled by Satan.
 

tigger2

Active Member
I intend to finish the five lessons without requesting further comments. Answer if you wish.

This first lesson (A.) deals only with all John's uses of theos. Later lessons deal with meaning of 'a god' to the original writers of scripture, word order, examples, etc.
 

tigger2

Active Member
B.

John 1:1c in NT Greek (cont.):

1. The next step in finding John’s intended meaning of John 1:1c is to look up the meanings of theos in a good NT lexicon. Numerous Trinitarian scholars [see footnote] admit that this word was also used in scripture for angels, certain human kings, and God-appointed men such as judges in Israel. In such cases it is usually rendered into English as ‘gods’ or ‘a god.’ And it was used that way in the Greek in the writings of early Christians up to the time of Augustine at least.


2. So, why wouldn’t John 1:1c be rendered ‘the Word was god’ rather than ‘the Word was a god’?

3. For this part of the analysis, we need to remember that there are exceptions where the article (‘the’) may be used irregularly as seen in part A. above. So we are trying to find how John intends the lack of an article with a noun (like god, man, cave, etc.). Such nouns must be “count nouns.” That means, using the example of ‘man,’ it must be capable of being counted (a ‘count noun’): one man, two men, three men, etc. It also must be capable of using the English indefinite article (‘a,’ ‘an’): ‘a man.’

4. It is basic knowledge, even for NT Greek beginners, that there is no indefinite article in the Greek. So a count noun without the article (anarthrous) in the Greek is properly translated into English with an indefinite article (‘a,’ ‘an’).

5. So, again, with a good interlinear and concordance try finding uses of ‘man’ in John’s writing. I know you will find some that do not have the article (ho - ὁ in Greek) used with them. So look up in all the translations you can find to see how those have been rendered into English. I found anthropos or ἄνθρωπος (‘man’) at John 1:6; 3:4; 3:27 (and many more) did not have the article () used with them, so they were rendered as “a man” in all the Bibles I checked.

6. For example, look at John 10:33.  The predicate noun "man" (anthropos) comes before its verb ὢν ("being") in the NT Greek text (ἄνθρωπος ὢν), and yet we do not find it consistently translated, even by trinitarian scholars and translators, as: "you, being human" (qualitative) or "you being the man" (Colwell's Rule").


7. If they truly believed the "qualitative" rule or "Colwell's Rule," the following trinitarian-translated Bibles certainly would not have rendered it "you, being a man," (indefinite) as they so often do:

8. See The Wycliffe Bible (1395); The Tyndale Bible (1534); The Coverdale Bible (1535); The Great Bible (1540); The Bishop’s Bible (1568); The Geneva Bible (1587); Douay-Rheims (1610); KJV (1611); ASV; ESV; ERV; NKJV; MKJV; NASB; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; JB; NJB; AT; LB; GNT; NLT; ISV; KJIIV; NAB (’70); NAB (’91); CEV; BBE; LEB; NLV; WYC; ABC; ACV; Third Millennium Bible; 21st Century KJV; GOD’S WORD Translation; Updated Bible Version 1.9; World English Bible; C.B. Williams; Darby; Holman; Lamsa; Lattimore; Moffatt; Mounce; Phillips; Rotherham; Webster; Wesley’s; William Barclay; William Beck; Weymouth; Young’s.


9. So by now we should be able to see that in John 1:1c (‘theos was the Word’) the word theos does not have the article ( or ‘ho’) and, according to John’s usage of such nouns, it would normally be translated as ‘a god.’


………………………………..........

Footnote for Lesson B.:


Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Scriptures actually describe men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's holy 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 & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, 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; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

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

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 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, 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 & 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.

(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 theos about the same time the NT was written. - See my LOGOS study.

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. And, as we saw above, many respected NT scholars of this century agree. For example, “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’. …. 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.

To Be Continued
 
Top