John 1:1

[Rise]

The idea that theos gets translated as "a god" in John 1:1 is not something that holds up to linguistic scrutiny.

Telling is that although the jehovah's witnesses will translate John 1:1 that way, they don't apply that standard to the rest of the new testament when translating theos.
Their own internal logic isn't even consistant with the rest of their translations.

How does that support your point?

Because understanding our intended relationship to God is based on our understanding Christ's relationship to God.
If you have a skewed idea of who Christ was and what his relationship to the Father was, then risk not having the kind of relationship with the Father that he intends and wants from you.

Ah, you believe that Genesis 1:26 is God talking to Himself? Most early Midrash agrees it was God talking to the Angels who were in fact called "gods" seemingly even by Josephus.

Rabbinical midrashes are not more authoritative on the subject of who Christ was than the words of His first disciples.
They are the equivalent of Christian theological doctrines put forth by men trying to make sense of things they don't fully understand, but which are later found out to be lacking or incorrect upon further revelation by the Holy Spirit.

 

[kjw47]

The bible doesn't say the Word is just a tool. It says the Word is personified as God, and through Him all things were created.



According to what?
That's not what it actually says.


The bible disagrees with you.

The Word is God, and Christ was the Word made flesh.
He may be a human representation of who and what God is, but he is still God himself.



Your own logic is not the basis for concluding what God can and cannot be. The bible says he he is simultaneously God and Christ at the same time, different representations of the same thing - They are both the Word. That is why God can be the Word and have the Word be with him.


Miracles happen all the time at my church. I've seen a few personally.

When you come into agreement with what God wants to do in a situation, then the power of his Spirit moves to make it happen.

Jesus settled it for all--- John 17:1-6--- while praying to his Father in heaven Jesus told everyone that the one who sent him is THE ONLY TRUE GOD( John 5:30) verse 6 = Jehovah) and that is why this is truth John 20:17,,rev 3:12--Jesus has a God--Paul backed up Jesus at 1 cor 8:6) To keep Gods word in harmony an a belongs in the last line of John 1:1

 

[Shermana]

Rise:

The idea that theos gets translated as "a god" in John 1:1 is not something that holds up to linguistic scrutiny.

I guess you should write to all those non-church aligned scholars who translate it as such this. I asked you a question if you knew what Anarthrous means. Now do you think all those Greek scholars and professors on that page got this linguistic fact wrong? What doesn't hold up to scrutiny however is the traditional rendition. Even prominent Trinitarian translators have used "word was Divine". This argument has been decisively proven on this forum several times before, so don't think you'll discredit it by merely saying "Nuh uh".

Telling is that although the jehovah's witnesses will translate John 1:1 that way, they don't apply that standard to the rest of the new testament when translating theos.

This argument falls flat because there are different forms of Theos in question. And yes, the JW translation is not consistent. Good thing I'm not using JWs as the source of my argument. What's VERY telling is that it seems most Trinitarians are completely unaware (or intentionally straw man) that this is NOT a JW invention or exclusive position. It's a very accepted position in the non-church aligned scholarly world. The only people who accept the "Word was God" translation are.....Trinitarians. It just so happens they are the majority of Conservative church-aligned scholars, which goes to show that there is in fact bias in play. They even resort to inventing fabricated rules like Colwell's around the time that the "A god" translation really starts making the waves due to more widespread independent acceptance.

I think this switch to discussing JWs among Trinitarians is deliberately meant to steer away from the fact that this was a scholarly position well before their time, this little fact is not as easy to tame as is a statement about JWs.

Their own internal logic isn't even consistant with the rest of their translations.

Okay, but we're not talking about the JWs, we're talking about the massive amount of independent non-church aligned linguistic scholars here.

Because understanding our intended relationship to God is based on our understanding Christ's relationship to God.

And so is my understanding. I see no reason to believe why the Trinitarians understand God and Jesus better than I do just because they want to insist that their Theology is right, in the face of all the evidence against it.

If you have a skewed idea of who Christ was and what his relationship to the Father was, then risk not having the kind of relationship with the Father that he intends and wants from you.

And I can go ahead and say that Trinitarians have the skewed idea of Christ.

Rabbinical midrashes are not more authoritative on the subject of who Christ was than the words of His first disciples.

The words of his disciples in no way back your opinion when read correctly and free from Trinitarian bias.

They are the equivalent of Christian theological doctrines put forth by men trying to make sense of things they don't fully understand, but which are later found out to be lacking or incorrect upon further revelation by the Holy Spirit

And when read correctly, it's the Trinitarian translations and itnerpretations that are found to be lacking and incorrect. Now do you assume that orthodox theologians have such revelation?

 

[Rise]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/121296-john-1-1-anarthrous-theos-big.html

I don't see you offering up a sigificant rebuttal to mark's treatment on the subject of john 1:1 and the idea of "a god".

If the original greek were intended to be read that way, then you would expect the septuagint to reflect that in it's treatment of the hebrew text, and for the pe****ta to reflect the intention behind the greek john, but they don't.

 

[Shermana]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/121296-john-1-1-anarthrous-theos-big.html

I don't see you offering up a sigificant rebuttal to mark's treatment on the subject of john 1:1 and the idea of "a god".

If the original greek were intended to be read that way, then you would expect the septuagint to reflect that in it's treatment of the hebrew text, and for the pe****ta to reflect the intention behind the greek john, but they don't.

That's Mark2020's article, he wrote that in response to our arguments on the "Did Jesus say he was God" thread on this very forum. It was thoroughly debunked there, and he seemed to quietly leave after that. The article itself is a lie and based on misunderstandings and deliberate falsifications. We have also looked at how ALL the Pe****ta translations are by Trinitarians, some who even deliberately add things into the text. As I mentioned, this falsified understanding is based on comparing to other forms of the word like "Theou". Dirty Penguin did an excellent job showing the blatantly biased mistranslations of the Aramaic in those. Did you even read the responses on that thread?


Daniel 2:47, which many translations spuriously add a "The" to or ignore that it's anarthrous.

Young's Literal Translation
The king hath answered Daniel and said, 'Of a truth it is that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, since thou hast been able to reveal this secret.'

Would you like to translate Acts 12:22? That one even the Trinitarian translations are forced to admit its anarthrous.

New International Version (©1984)
They shouted, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man."New Living Translation (©2007)
The people gave him a great ovation, shouting, "It's the voice of a god, not of a man!"
English Standard Version (©2001)
And the people were shouting, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!”
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
The people kept crying out, "The voice of a god and not of a man!"
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.


The Septuagint DOES reflect this concept, the word "Elohim" as well as Theos are translated as "a god" in this context in many places. Do you even understand why there's articulation of the word in the first place?

Once again, this is not just my opinion, this is the opinion of numerous Greek language professors and specialists who aren't Church affiliated. The only Greek language specialists who insist on this ARE affiliated with the orthodox church. There's a clear bias that anyone can see when it comes to this. The independents pretty much ALL say no, the Orthodox pretty much all say yes. It's pretty clear cut.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't see you offering up a sigificant rebuttal to mark's treatment on the subject of john 1:1 and the idea of "a god".

Rise, what is your thought about the inserted 'a' at Acts 28 v 6 B or at 12 v 22 B ?
Was there an 'a' inserted there in the original ?

According to Scripture was God from everlasting ?_______ [Psalm 90 v 2]
Meaning: God had No beginning.
However, according to Scripture Jesus had a heavenly pre-human beginning [Rev. 3 v 14]
So, only God was before the beginning. Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning. That is why Jesus is in the beginning, but Not before the beginning.

 

[Rise]

John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Thomas calls Jesus "my God", and the word he uses for God here is "o theos", along with "o kyrios" for Lord.
He calls him THE Lord and THE God in unequivocal terms.

 

[Shermana]

John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Thomas calls Jesus "my God", and the word he uses for God here is "o theos", along with "o kyrios" for Lord.
He calls him THE Lord and THE God in unequivocal terms.

Not really, as I've said, even in the dark ages this was understood to be a "Claim of exclamation directed towards God" (Not Jesus). I.e. an early equivalent of OMG, which would kinda fit the context of being totally shocked. To say it is defacto Thomas calling him God and Lord as opposed to making a "Statement of exclamation" would be reading it out of context and trying to see it from a Trinitarian angle.

Also, notice that "O theos" can apply to Satan as well (2 Cor 4:4) when it's in the "god of" usage as it is here, just to add. In other words, "The God of" is not the same as "The god" even if its the same intended recipient, whether that's relevant or not. But when read without a Trinitarian lens, it almost certainly is in the "OMG!!!" context, as it was understood by many even in the early days.

Very telling is how few used this phrase in Trinitarian defenses. Even Athansisus appears to have not used it in his debates against Arius.

And according to some like Bernard Muller, the entire Doubting Thomas episode was a later addition, but that's another story.

 

[Rise]

What is your actual historical or linguistic basis for claiming that it is only an exclamation?

 

[Walkntune]

Not really, as I've said, even in the dark ages this was understood to be a "Claim of exclamation directed towards God" (Not Jesus). I.e. an early equivalent of OMG, which would kinda fit the context of being totally shocked. To say it is defacto Thomas calling him God and Lord as opposed to making a "Statement of exclamation" would be reading it out of context and trying to see it from a Trinitarian angle.

Also, notice that "O theos" can apply to Satan as well (2 Cor 4:4) when it's in the "god of" usage as it is here, just to add. In other words, "The God of" is not the same as "The god" even if its the same intended recipient, whether that's relevant or not. But when read without a Trinitarian lens, it almost certainly is in the "OMG!!!" context, as it was understood by many even in the early days.

Very telling is how few used this phrase in Trinitarian defenses. Even Athansisus appears to have not used it in his debates against Arius.

And according to some like Bernard Muller, the entire Doubting Thomas episode was a later addition, but that's another story.

Are you sure he was using his name in vain?

 

[Shermana]

Are you sure he was using his name in vain?

The phrase OMG is not really breaking the 3rd commandment, which is more or less to not swear falsely, as in make an actual vow. I still try to avoid it nonetheless because it's tiresome and annoying and used for anything but extreme situations of calling out to Him.

Also, God is not His actual name.

According to this, using the phrase THE LORD instead of YHWH is taking his name in vain.

http://www.eliyah.com/3rdcom.htm

 

[URAVIP2ME]

John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Thomas calls Jesus "my God", and the word he uses for God here is "o theos", along with "o kyrios" for Lord.
He calls him THE Lord and THE God in unequivocal terms.

Doesn't doubting Thomas answer in verse 28 ?______
Please notice at John 20 v 17 Jesus already made it clear he was going to his Father and 'his God'..... Jesus going to Jesus' Father, and Jesus going to Jesus' God.
- Rev. 3 v 12.

We often here an exclamation of 'Oh my god' in front of news reporters.
That does not make the news reporter 'god' just as Thomas' words do not make Jesus as Jehovah [ YHWH ] -Psalm 83 v 18 KJV

Please also notice how John concludes chapter 20 that 'he' John wrote [ are written ] that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God........

 

[Rise]

John 10:30
"I and the Father are one.”

I'll ask again: What historical or linguistic basis do you have for claiming he was making an exclamation?
You can't take modern conventions of speech and apply them to hebrew culture 2000 years ago, for no other reason than it's the only excuse you have left to deny the diety of Christ.

 

[Walkntune]

I could be wrong but this is my own interpretation.Jesus was God in the flesh and the father is God in Spirit.Jesus was subject to God as the flesh is subject to the Spirit.The fullness of the father dwelled in Jesus as flesh.Just as Jesus died we are called to pick up our cross( die to the flesh) and follow Christ.I am flesh and and spirit as well and I submit my flesh and die to my flesh daily as to live in the spirit.The more I do so the more i am one with Christ who is one with the father.

 

[Shermana]

John 10:30
"I and the Father are one.”

I'll ask again: What historical or linguistic basis do you have for claiming he was making an exclamation?
You can't take modern conventions of speech and apply them to hebrew culture 2000 years ago, for no other reason than it's the only excuse you have left to deny the diety of Christ.

John 17:21 Let them be one as we are one. Key word: "As".

The concept is "one in purpose and mindset". Not far removed from a sports team saying "We are one".

This is recognized even by Trinitarian scholars like Barclay:

Trinitarian Professor William Barclay writing in his popular Daily Study Bible Series, The Gospel of John, Vol. 2, The Westminster Press, 1975, pp. 74, 75, 76 says:

“Now we come to the supreme claim [of John 10:30]. ‘I and the Father are one,’ said Jesus. What did he mean? Is it absolute mystery, or can we understand at least a little of it? Are we driven to interpret it in terms of essence and hypostasis and all the rest of the metaphysical and philosophic notions about which the makers of creeds fought and argued? Has one to be a theologian and a philosopher to grasp even a fragment of the meaning of this tremendous statement?

“If we go to the Bible itself for the interpretation,” continues Barclay, “we find that it is in fact so simple that the simplest mind can grasp it. Let us turn to the seventeenth chapter of John’s Gospel, which tells of the prayer of Jesus for his followers before he went to his death: ‘Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one’ (John 17:11). Jesus conceived of the unity of Christian with Christian as the same as his unity with God.”

“Here is the essence of the matter”, says Barclay. “The bond of unity is love; the proof of love is obedience. Christians are one with each other when they are bound by love, and obey the words of Christ. Jesus is one with God, because as no other ever did, he obeyed and loved him. His unity with God is a unity of perfect love, issuing in perfect obedience.[2]

So thus, by using John 10:30 and your definition of "one", you're also saying the Disciples were the same being as God.

Examining the Trinity: ONE - John 10:30

Now as for what historical basis for making a statement of exclamation, once again it was recognized even in the Dark Ages as such.

Examining the Trinity: MYGOD

Again, some scholars have interpreted John 20:28 as merely “an exclamation of astonishment” by Thomas. And, although a few modern trinitarians would like us to believe that such exclamations as this are really only modern idioms and were not used in ancient times, that is simply untrue. For example, Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia (350-428 A.D.) was “an early Christian theologian, the most eminent representative of the so-called school of Antioch. .... he was held in great respect, and took part in several synods, with a reputation for orthodoxy that was never questioned.”

This respected Bishop of Mopsuestia was a very early trinitarian and a friend of John Chrysostom and of Cyril of Alexandria. - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., Vol. 22, p. 58. This highly-respected, very early trinitarian wrote, 1600 years ago, that Thomas’ statement at John 20:28 was “an exclamation of astonishment directed to God.” - p. 535, Vol. 3, Meyer’s Commentary on the New Testament (John), 1983, Hendrickson Publ. [2]

As we know from the examples of angels, prophets, and kings, persons who represent God are sometimes addressed as God Himself. Or as the preface in Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible states: “What a SERVANT says or does is ascribed to the MASTER.” In that sense, also, the words, “My Lord and my God” could be addressed to the only true God through his servant, Jesus Christ. - “God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first ...” - Acts 3:26, RSV.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

John 10:30
"I and the Father are one.”

John 17:21 Let them be one as we are one. Key word: "As"

Which is an odd key word, given that it doesn't appear in either John 10:30 or John 17:21. In the former, the Greek reads literally "I and the father we are one" and in the later we have the subjunctive (third person plural) along with the preposition "en"/in, making the two more than a little different. John 10:30 is rather clear and to the point (there's a reason it's called the indicative mood): I and the father are one [thing/entity/being/etc.]". Not "in me one" or "and in I you one". Just "we are one one."

 

[Shermana]

Well, I guess Young's got it wrong too:

Young's Literal Translation
that they all may be one, as Thou Father art in me, and I in Thee; that they also in us may be one, that the world may believe that Thou didst send me.

Are you defending the Trinitarian context of John 10:30 there? You think Barclay was wrong too? Please elaborate.

Unless I misunderstand you, as Kathos is most clearly in John 17:21.

http://biblesuite.com/greek/2531.htm

However, as to what I quoted exactly, I meant 17:11. Even though the "as" is still in 17:21 to define the full context. So would you like to discuss 17:11 then?

And please provide a link on this indicative mood concept of which you think most definitely says that he is claiming to necessarily be the same being, I'd like to see more on this how necessarily equates to a defacto "same being" concept, it would be quite educational. I've not once heard anything about this in any argument about this verse. And particularly I'd like something that's not from a Trinitarian-aligned grammar guide regarding this issue. Perhaps some other examples too.

And are you saying that Kathos means something else in 17:21 or did it just elude you there?

 

[cataway]

Well, I guess Young's got it wrong too:

Are you defending the Trinitarian context of John 10:30 there? You think Barclay was wrong too? Please elaborate.

Unless I misunderstand you, as Kathos is most clearly in John 17:21.

Strong's Greek: 2531.

However, as to what I quoted exactly, I meant 17:11. Even though the "as" is still in 17:21 to define the full context. So would you like to discuss 17:11 then?

And please provide a link on this indicative mood concept of which you think most definitely says that he is claiming to necessarily be the same being, I'd like to see more on this how necessarily equates to a defacto "same being" concept, it would be quite educational. I've not once heard anything about this in any argument about this verse. And particularly I'd like something that's not from a Trinitarian-aligned grammar guide regarding this issue. Perhaps some other examples too.

And are you saying that Kathos means something else in 17:21 or did it just elude you there?

how does 12 in one support the Trinitarian concept ?

 

[Shermana]

how does 12 in one support the Trinitarian concept ?

Exactly. It doesn't.

I'm still curious where he got this "indicative mood" concept in appliance to that verse, and why he says "As" isn't even in 17:21 (though I quoted 17:11 which is of the same concept). From what I understand, the Indicative mood is merely a statement of fact. How he gets it to mean that it indicates necessarily and defacto they are the same being as opposed to other uses of "One" as defined in 17:11 and 21 is beyond me, perhaps he can explain and provide a scholarly link, especially one that's one from an objective source.

Let me google that for you

I guess Barclay never heard of it either.

 

[Rise]

　

John 17:21 Let them be one as we are one. Key word: "As".

The concept is "one in purpose and mindset". Not far removed from a sports team saying "We are one".

John 17
21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

"that they also may be in us". We are in union with God through union with Christ. This is why he uses the analogy of himself as the bridegroom and us as the bride.
　

We are in Christ:
John 14
20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

John 17
23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.

Ephesians 2
5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

2 peter 1
4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.
　
1 John
20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life
　
　

John 14:
23 Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him

Here He not only links both He and the Father together, but He links both of them together with the Holy Spirit that will dwell within us as a temple and tabernacle. A concept you can find elsewhere:
　



　
Jesus refers to his body as a temple:

John 2
18 The Jews then responded to him, "What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
20 They replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

Paul says our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit:

1 Corinthians 6
19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?
1 Corinthians 3
16 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.
　


His Spirit dwells within us:

Colossians 1
19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,

Romans 8
9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus[d] from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

Acts 2
2 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested[a] on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

1 Corinthians 6
19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

2 Timothy 1
14 Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

1 Corinthians 3
16 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.