Jesus is not God ..... Part 3

[Ben57]

I have been reading through the posts on Jesus not God – 2 and find it getting rather long and confusing, so I decided to start 3.



Bellow I have copied something that I was sent some time ago. I hope it does not offend any one. It is what some would class as a light hearted look at one aspect of the Trinity.



In my personal experience with discussing the Trinity, I have noticed 2 distinct versions of the doctrine. The first explanation of the Trinity I came across was where it is felt that Jesus actually is God so that every time some one talks about God they are referring to Jesus and the other where Jesus is said to be a distinct person but part of a “committee” of 3 that make up a “Godhead” where Jesus is separate, the Father is separate and the Holy Spirit is separate but act as one, and all three are equal in age bur not necessarily equal in knowledge.



This particular piece is directed at those that believe that Jesus is actually and the Holly Ghost is actually God and the Father is actually God. I am copying this as I received it.





THE TRINITY - A MYSTERY



Those that teach the doctrine of the trinity claim that it is a mystery. They claim that the father is God, the Son is god, and the Holy Spirit is God. How can they be three separate persons, yet not three persons; is something they can not explain, yet they insist that any who want to be saved must accept by faith, because this is a mystery beyond our comprehension.



Could this be the reason why they label it a mystery?



Luke 1

; 36 say Mary and Elizabeth are relatives, in fact first cousins, and that John the Baptist is six months older then Jesus. This makes John and Jesus second cousins.



Luke 3:23 says Jesus was 30 tears old when he was baptized by John – and here is where the mystery begins.



The Trinity claims Jesus is God. This immediately makes John the Baptist God’s second cousin and makes John six months older then God. Therefore ma must have been on earth many thousand of years before God was born.



This is ridicules but it gets even better when you read Luke 3:21 & 22. John had the unspeakable privilege of baptizing his Creator, who was his second cousin, but remembers John was six months old – before his Creator was born.



The Trinity teaches that the Holy Spirit is also God. So now while John is standing there in the water – he sees God come down from heaven and sit his (that is Jesus’s) own head. That is not all. John now gets a good look at God. God is either a dove sitting on top of what looks like a man (the second cousin of John called Jesus) or, was it God (the one being baptized by John) having the dove sit upon him?



Then to his amazement John discovers that this God-dove-man is also a ventriloquist. While John stands there in disbelief, God tells a deliberate lie to the people who are watching. Obviously God doesn’t want people to know that he really is God, so he throws his voice to make it appear like someone else in heave is speaking and says “This is My Beloved Son in whom I am Well Pleased”



This is truly amazing. No wonder Trinitarians call it a Mystery and leave it at that



I hope it did not offend any one in the cynical way that it was written. When I first read it I laughed because to me it shows how silly the trinity idea is. At any rate at least it might make give some food for thought.

 

[Charles DaCosta]

I have been reading through the posts on Jesus not God – 2 and find it getting rather long and confusing, so I decided to start 3.

Bellow I have copied something that I was sent some time ago. I hope it does not offend any one. It is what some would class as a light hearted look at one aspect of the Trinity.

In my personal experience with discussing the Trinity, I have noticed 2 distinct versions of the doctrine. The first explanation of the Trinity I came across was where it is felt that Jesus actually is God so that every time some one talks about God they are referring to Jesus and the other where Jesus is said to be a distinct person but part of a “committee” of 3 that make up a “Godhead” where Jesus is separate, the Father is separate and the Holy Spirit is separate but act as one, and all three are equal in age bur not necessarily equal in knowledge.

This particular piece is directed at those that believe that Jesus is actually and the Holly Ghost is actually God and the Father is actually God. I am copying this as I received it.

THE TRINITY - A MYSTERY

Those that teach the doctrine of the trinity claim that it is a mystery. They claim that the father is God, the Son is god, and the Holy Spirit is God. How can they be three separate persons, yet not three persons; is something they can not explain, yet they insist that any who want to be saved must accept by faith, because this is a mystery beyond our comprehension.

Could this be the reason why they label it a mystery?

Luke 1:36 say Mary and Elizabeth are relatives, in fact first cousins, and that John the Baptist is six months older then Jesus. This makes John and Jesus second cousins.

Luke 3:23 says Jesus was 30 years old when he was baptized by John – and here is where the mystery begins.

The Trinity claims Jesus is God. This immediately makes John the Baptist God’s second cousin and makes John six months older then God. Therefore ma must have been on earth many thousand of years before God was born.

This is ridicules but it gets even better when you read Luke 3:21 & 22. John had the unspeakable privilege of baptizing his Creator, who was his second cousin, but remembers John was six months old – before his Creator was born.

The Trinity teaches that the Holy Spirit is also God. So now while John is standing there in the water – he sees God come down from heaven and sit his (that is Jesus’s) own head. That is not all. John now gets a good look at God. God is either a dove sitting on top of what looks like a man (the second cousin of John called Jesus) or, was it God (the one being baptized by John) having the dove sit upon him?

Then to his amazement John discovers that this God-dove-man is also a ventriloquist. While John stands there in disbelief, God tells a deliberate lie to the people who are watching. Obviously God doesn’t want people to know that he really is God, so he throws his voice to make it appear like someone else in heave is speaking and says “This is My Beloved Son in whom I am Well Pleased”

This is truly amazing. No wonder Trinitarians call it a Mystery and leave it at that

I hope it did not offend any one in the cynical way that it was written. When I first read it I laughed because to me it shows how silly the trinity idea is. At any rate at least it might make give some food for thought.

I am sorry but I had to respond to this too.

The basis for Jesus being God is not fully explained in the bible. It would appear that the bible would rather have us view Jesus as a "man." The idea of Jesus being God requires interpreting a very small number of scriptures (biblical passages) in a certant way. The idea of viewing Jesus as a man requires no interpreting, a larger number of scriptures (biblical passages) explicitly state such. Therefore it can not be blasphemous to consider Jesus a man alone.

Now as far as the arguments you presented goes: If God is all in all (as stated in Revelations) and all those other things like omi-present, -..., etc. It would be possible for God to be the younger cousin of John, be baptized and say Jesus (meaning the lump of flesh I choose to use for this purpose) is ...

If God is ... Then God can be what ever God wills to be when God wills it so. If God is, then God could actually be the whole show, and you and I are the illusions.

The mistake people make is that we tend to see a body (lump of flesh) and say that is the person, that is Tom. However, Christianity has a different perspective. You and I are living souls housed in a lump of flesh. This is why both most religions try to teach -- Don't get too attached to the lump of flesh, and don't let the desires associated with it dictate your life. Why because when the flesh passes (dies), you have to endure the side effects (e.g., heaven or hell).

 

[cosmo]

Thanks for showing us the article. I got a real kick out of it. This just shows once again that when one goes to church he is required to leave his brain at the door because no one can make any sence out of the trinity that's why it's concidered a "holy mystery". It makes no sence, but it's heretical to deny it.

It would be so much more simple to let him be who he was, a man wholly dedicated to the revival of Israel and the worship of G-d.
I don't know if this was listed or not, but a great book on the topic is "The Doctrine of the Trinity Christianity's Self Inflicted Wound". It's very thorough.

cosmo

 

[Kaspar]

I got the impression of what Charles DaCosta said that God is omi-present. He is everything, the whole world. Wait.....but didn't he create the world? Then that means he created himself. Hes like a growing organism. Dying and then reproducing. That sounds odd God reproducing.
Anyway thats opened lots of odd questions for me.
I'm going to have to go away and think about it.

 

[Ben57]

I am glad that someone has found that article I posted interesting and thought provocing. I would have liked to have seen some more replies especially from any one that actually beleives in the Trinity as to how that article affected them.



Ben57

 

[Sacredstar]

Dear Ben

My take on the Holy Trinity.

Divine parents both male and female the third is the child. We are the children of the divine parents but yet all is one. Each and every one of us are also male, female and the child within our own energetic systems connecting us to the source.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

 

[Sacredstar]

Dear Ben

St Jerome's Letter 15 He talks about the Godhead.

"Let us be satisfied to speak of one substance of three subsisting persons - perfect, equal and coeternal. Three elements of the GODhead, three elements, three natures, three hypostases and he asks to keep just one hypostases."

and it is written that Jesus said 'did I not tell you that Ye are GODs?'

So my view is that that Christ is in all of us, a seed, a divine spark that can grow and grow until it is all encompassing.......and Paul said Christ is within you and Jesus said 'the kingdom of GOD is within you'.

So Jesus carried the Cosmic Christ within him in the same way as we do too!

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

 

[tishrei5736]

I am glad that someone has found that article I posted interesting and thought provocing. I would have liked to have seen some more replies especially from any one that actually beleives in the Trinity as to how that article affected them.



Ben57

I don't think there is anything ground breaking or provocative about your article.

If you really want strong Biblical arguments against the Trinitiy, I would recommend you visit the Jehova's Witnesses' website or the Christadelphian's website. Both of these religious groups do not believe in the Trinity or the divinity of Christ.

Furthermore, their arguments are much more compelling than those of your article. Sorry.

 

[iBrian]

Welcome to CR, tishrei5736.

I've actually asked Ben not to simply paste in JW articles here - short is usually suffice to engage in actual discussion - otherwise it becomes a bit too much like throwing books at each other.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Greetings everyone

The Trinity One God Father. Son. Holy Spirit 3 aspects of God.

The Spirit of God is mentioned in Genesis1:2 as hovering over the face of the waters

John 1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God (which is Jesus) he was in the beginning with God, All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made.

heres an interesting site listing the names of God: father son and spirit listed in the bible

http://www.ldolphin.org/Names.html

Elohim was used many times in the OT which is plural.

 

[Ben57]

Hello Faithfulservant[

The Spirit of God is mentioned in Genesis1:2 as hovering over the face of the waters

The Hebrew word translated "Spirit" here and throughot the hebrew scriptures accually means wind. So it was the wind of God that moved over the waters.

John 1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God (which is Jesus) he was in the beginning with God, All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made.

The Bibles that say that the "Word was God" are not translated acording to grammer but theological bias. The contexts of John 1 shows 2 distinct individuals. Even the extra words you quote show that ..."things were made through him" shows the Wird was the agency God used in creating.

There are many modern Biblles that do not say "the Word was God" but say "the Word was devine" or "godlike" what God was the Word was" or the Word was a god". In the structure of that verse, the second word "god" is a predicate noun describing an attridute of the Word not identity. We have to decide if we accept a theologicaly buased translation or a grammatical translation.

Elohim was used many times in the OT which is plural.

It is true that the word Elohim is plural in its basic sense but does not always refer to more than one. It is also used to show show majesty.

In English grammar we use plural verbs when we are speaking in the plural. eg we do not say .... "we am going to the beach" .... we is the plural, am is singular. the correct grammar is to say ..." we are going," or "I am going".

However in Hebrew, when singular verbs are used with the plural it shows majesty. The closest to this in English is the royal WE. In old movies you might have heard Queen Victoria saying "We are not amused". She is not talking about the court not being amused bit heself only. The use of We shows he majesty over the others present. How is that relavent to the Bible? In every case where the plural Elohim is used of God almighty, it is always acompanied by singular verbs showing his majesty above all others. When Elohim is meant to show more then one god is has plural verbs acompaning the word.

Ben

 

[Faithfulservant]

Ben


The Hebrew word for spirit is actually 'ruah' and can also mean wind, breath or life-force. Please if you are going to use an argument use it thoroughly rather than taking bits of it at leisure. I will list subsequent scriptures that use the hebrew word for spirit as God's agent of creation.. Gen 1:2, Job 33:4, 34:14-15A mode of his interacting with humans Gen6:3, his agent of revelation gen 41:38 Num 24:2 I could keep going but I dont need to .. you have access to the same information as I do.. Also I looked at about 11 commentaries and study notes trying to find anyone that would say that it just meant "wind" and there was nothing so where you get this opinion or idea from is interesting to me.

Hmm I think its pretty plain to see in John 1 if you continue to read that it is referring to Jesus. Ive noticed that most ppl who argue the bible is taken out of context usually do not read it as a whole before taking it apart. It holds true for those who profess to be biblical scholars. I would also add that I read 16 different commentaries and study notes written on this, searching for your idea of these verses and none of them coincided so once again im curious as to how you came up with this.

Faithful Servant

 

[tishrei5736]

The Bibles that say that the "Word was God" are not translated acording to grammer but theological bias. The contexts of John 1 shows 2 distinct individuals. Even the extra words you quote show that ..."things were made through him" shows the Wird was the agency God used in creating.

There are many modern Biblles that do not say "the Word was God"; but say "the Word was devine" or "godlike" what God was the Word was " or the Word was a god". In the structure of that verse, the second word "god" is a predicate noun describing an attridute of the Word not identity. We have to decide if we accept a theologicaly buased translation or a grammatical translation.Ben

Hi Ben,

I don't think there was any 'theological bias' because in John 1:1 it directly translates from the Greek as 'and God was the Word':

kai Theos eimi ho logos
and God was the word

You can also check this link for the Greek interlinear translation for John 1:1:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1104234579-2298.html#1

 

[Ben57]

Greetings tishrei5736

You are absolutly correct in the rendition you give in that the literal rendering is ..... "and god was the word". The problem is in the second word "god" Most Bibles render it with a capital "G". (eg The Word was God) This makes it definate and is assigning identity to the Word. However, using the rules of Greek Gramma, the second occurence of the word "god" should not have a capital "G" because it is a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurring before the verb. The noun is god and the verb is was as in your example below.

I don't think there was any 'theological bias' because in John 1:1 it directly translates from the Greek as 'and God was the Word':

kai Theos eimi ho logos
and God was the word

Here is the complete verse with some number note points and coulerd words for easy identification of the Greek into English

En arch hn O1Logos cai OLogos hn proz Ton2 Qeon3 cai qeoz4 hn O Lagos5
In beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE GOD and god was the Word

The first thing you will notice is the word order. It is different to modern English "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Revised Standard Version)
The second thing to note is that in the Greek that the Bible was written in, there is no indefinite article. The indefinite article is the word "a". The definite article is the word "the". Look at the difference in the two Greek words for ‘the’. You will notice that they look different. O Ton. Even though these words are the same, they are rendered "slightly different" when translated into English because of the different ways Greek words are used to show what kind of word a word is. The ending of a word can express Gender, Tenses or one of five cases such as Nominative, Vocative, Accusative, Genitive and Dative. You will also notice the same difference in the words used for "God" Qeon, qeoz

Please note the slight differences in the table below of key words used in John 1:1. as per the colous and numbers I have above.

1O Nominative case of the word "The"….. Expressing the doer

2Ton Accusative case of the word "The" …. Expressing the Object

3Qeon Accusative case of the word "God" …. Expressing the Object

4qeoz Nominative case of the word "God"….. Expressing the doer

5Lagos Nominative case of the word "Word"….. Expressing the doer



WHat is the difference. Well the prase "In beginning was the Word ' is highlighting the subject of the sentece, the last part "and god was the word" is describing something about the Word not his identity.

Now illustrate what that means lets change a couple of words so as to take the text out of a Biblical setting, but leave the sentence construction the same. Note the following example:

In [the] beginning was the apprentice and the apprentice was with THE BUILDERand builder was the apprentice.

When I look at that sentence I see two individuals mentioned, the builder who is in charge, and the apprentice who takes direction from the builder. The word "builder" in lower case letters is what is known as a predicate noun, it describes a quality of the apprentice, he is doing the work of a builder without being THE BUILDER.

Just as the "builder" in lower case letters is what is known as a predicate noun, it describes a quality of the apprentice, the second occurence of the word "god" describes a quality of the Logos, so it is grammaticlay correct to say that the Word was divine or godlike or a god. To render the last part of John 1:1 as "the Word was God" goes against the rules of gramma. There are several examples where the same constuction of the sentence is used and because the context has no theological impact translatoes follow the rules.
Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb (Just as in John 1:1) with an indefinite article (the word "a" to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns:

Scripture Text

Colour Coded to show which translation is from which Bible

MARK l JKV NIV AAT RSV TEV

Mr 6:49 | a spirit a ghost a ghost a ghost a ghost

Mr 11:32 | a prophet a prophet a prophet a real prophet a prophet

JOHN |

Joh 4:19 | a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet

Joh 6:70 | a devil an informer a devil a devil a devil

Joh 8:44 | a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer

Joh 8:44 | a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar

Joh 9:17 | a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet

Joh 10:1 | a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief

Joh 10:13| an hireling a hired man a hired hand a hireling a hired man

Joh 10:33| a man a mere man a mere man a man a man

Joh 12:6 | a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief

I hope this has given some of you food for thought.

Ben

 

[tishrei5736]

Hi Ben,

WHat is the difference. Well the prase "In beginning was the Word ' is highlighting the subject of the sentece, the last part "and god was the word" is describing something about the Word not his identity.

The assumption that the missing definite article preceding "theos" automatically changes the meaning of the sentence is erroneous and there are many instances where "theos", unaccompanied by the definite article, still translates to "God". This site quotes a finding that this occurs more than 1,300 times and in very few cases does it actually translate to "godly" or "godlike". This site has various quotes from Greek scholars, most of whom would not agree with your version of the translation.

...the second occurence of the word "god" describes a quality of the Logos, so it is grammaticlay correct to say that the Word was divine or godlike or a god.

Without delving into a technical argument regarding the intricacies of Biblical Greek and the use (or not) of articles, your interpretation, while interesting, seems to be the least favoured position among scholars of various persuasions. It also seems the weakest, since it is not applied consistently as explained here and which begs the question: “Why is it that the word ‘God’ is translated as ‘a god’ in John 1:1b and 18b of the New World Translation, and yet the identical construction is rendered as ‘God’ in verses 2, 6, 12, and 13 in the same context?”

 

[Ben57]

Hello tidhrei5736

I did not mean to step on toes I should have added a little more to my post that NO English Bible is without theological bias. I was wanting to point out that we as individuals must decide if we accept a grammaticl translation or a theological translation of the texts we rerad. John 1:1 is one place that most Bibles do not follow rules of Greek gramma and translate according to theology. If you want an indepth discutionon the ruels relationg to John 1: 1 I will be more that happy to accomodate you by starting another post.

You asked....

“Why is it that the word ‘God’ is translated as ‘a god’ in John 1:1b and 18b of the New World Translation, and yet the identical construction is rendered as ‘God’ in verses 2, 6, 12, and 13 in the same context?”

The very simple answer to that is the gramma and context of those texts demand the translation given in that Bible (by the way, to emphasis what I already said NO English Bible is without theological bias)

One of your sites has old quotes that originate back in 1953 and parroted by many people because one schollar wrote a piece about John 1:1 in the NWT. This original schollar used quotes from Colwell work in 1933 which he mis quotes, and the othes followed.

Scholars from the last twenty years such as Dickson and Hartley shed new light on Colwels rule and now no notable Greek scholar will say as they used to that the second occurence of the word thoes shows identity.


I was not using the ..."assumption that the missing definite article preceding "theos" automatically changes the meaning of the sentence is erroneous and there are many instances where "theos", unaccompanied by the definite article, still translates to "God". "... The word theos preceding the verb means that the word theos is not to be used as definate but as describing a quality. It is up the the translator to detemin how he is going to show a quality. Most find it very difficult because of their trinitarian background to do so that is why some changed the ending to the "Word was devine" or "The Word was godlike" or "what God was the Word was". It then is left up to the reader to decide how to use those words. The Bibles that say "and the Word was a god" are being very literal in their translation.

I am more than able to answer anything my might bring up regarding John 1:1 and the context.

 

[Ben57]

Hello tishrei,

I am sorry that I did not complete my last post properly.

I should have added that NO Bible is without some form of theological bias. If we are serious about understanding the Bible we should not stay with just one translation. I use and compare about 25 different versions along with Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and grammar books.

So what I am also saying (and failed to make clear before) is that we as individuals, must decide for ourselves if we are going to accept a theological translation of a particular verse or a grammatical translation.

John 1:1 is possibly the main verse in the Bible that causes so much fuss, because to translate it according to the rules of grammar puts that verse at adds with the theological idea of the Trinity.

I appear to have not explained myself very well because my post was not to show

The assumption that the missing definite article preceding "theos" automatically changes the meaning of the sentence is erroneous and there are many instances where "theos", unaccompanied by the definite article, still translates to "God".

Although the lack of the definite article “the” has some bearing on the subject, I was not trying to say that just because the definite article is missing it automatically becomes indefinite. The main point is the grammar and the rules of predicate nominative nouns. The second occurrence of the word “theos” is such a noun.

Predicate= a) to affirm as a quality, attribute, or property of a person or thing !to predicate the honesty of another‘s motives" b) Logic to assert (something) about the subject of a proposition

nominative = Gram. designating, of, or in the case of the subject of a finite verb


In the phrase “god was the word” (as per the original greek) the word “god” is not giving us the identity of the Word but a “quality, attribute, or property of a person or thing” in this case “Word”

In recent times, a study of Colwell’s rule by prominent professors has reviled that Colwell's rule has abused and miss used by many theologians and scholars to make John 1:1 show the identity of the Word by capitalizing the “G” in the last instance of the word god.


You mention as a lot of people do “verses 2, 6, 12, and 13” of John 1 and say that they are in the same context. I am not sure just what “context you mean here. But I will talk about the gramma.

The words in this color are the literal translation from the Greek Blue is from RSV.

The Greek translation is sourced from on Bible software (On Line Bible)



John 1:1 god(noun) was (verb) (referring to the subject of the sentence) the Logos

Note that the grammar and construction are NOT the same.

John 1:2 “toward the God” (definite noun with the definite article the no verb following and does not refer to the “he” at the beginning of the verse)

He was in the beginning “with God”

John 1:6 “man sent from God” (no definite article but no verb following either) named (the word God not referring to the “man”)

There was a ”man sent from God”, whose name was John.

John 1:12 “granthepower children God caused to be” (there is a verb following the word God but it is not referring to the subject but an act that God did)

“But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;”

John 1:13 “but of God begotten” (again this does not reflect the grammar of John 1:1)

“who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

So although Verses 2,6,12 use the word God the context and the Grammar shows that it should have a capitalized “G”, referring to the Almighty.

I hope you can see the point I am trying to make. ALL Bibles have some form of theological bias. John 1:1 is one that most people translate on theological grounds.

Do a web search for Professor s Harley and Dickson for up to date information on Colwells rule. By the way both these two men are Trinitarian and prefer the theological bias of John 1:1 but their works show that John 1:1 is speaking of a quality or attribute of the “Word” when god is applied to it at John 1:1 and not identity.

Why is this the least favored of positions to take? Because it would mean a re think on the idea of a “Trinity”. Translators have gone against the rules of Greek Grammar in the case of John 1:1. So I ask the question, should we be in favor of theological translations of grammatical translations? The choice is yours and mine to make.

Ben

 

[tishrei5736]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your detailed response. Yes, I understand your argument that there is theological bias with some translations and that it is our choice to choose a grammatical versus theological translation.

However, I still have doubts about your grammatical arguments for the end of John 1:1:

The main point is the grammar and the rules of predicate nominative nouns. The second occurrence of the word “theos” is such a noun.

Predicate= a) to affirm as a quality, attribute, or property of a person or thing !to predicate the honesty of another‘s motives" b) Logic to assert (something) about the subject of a proposition

nominative = Gram. designating, of, or in the case of the subject of a finite verb


In the phrase “god was the word” (as per the original greek) the word “god” is not giving us the identity of the Word but a “quality, attribute, or property of a person or thing” in this case “Word”

In "god was the word", the Greek word "theos" is a nominative singular noun of male gender. How have you decided that "theos" is a predicate of "logos"? In fact, "logos" is also a nominative singular noun of male gender.
I would be more convinced of your argument if "theos" was a GENITIVE noun and not nominative. However, it is a nominative singular male noun in Greek.

If we are serious about understanding the Bible we should not stay with just one translation. I use and compare about 25 different versions along with Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and grammar books.

While having different versions, lexicons and grammar books is good, it is not enough. It is also important to look at the historical framework in which the work was written, who wrote it and why, along with the archeological studies. Also an understanding of the type of literature it is written in and who the audience was and why it was accepted into the canon of scripture. There are many different manuscripts from which the final work (which often was written many years after the event) was sourced from and these also need to be considered. One should also look at it from a 'structuralist' angle which is not only the grammar of the phrases but the grammar of the text. The end result is to be able to look at the text with the greatest number of perspectives. This also helps to understand the theological framework in which the text was actually written in its original form as opposed to the theological framework within which the more recent English tranlators have been working within.

 

[Ben57]

Greetings tishrei5736

To start with I would like to say that I fully agree with you on the following…

While having different versions, lexicons and grammar books is good, it is not enough. It is also important to look at the historical framework in which the work was written, who wrote it and why, along with the archeological studies. Also an understanding of the type of literature it is written in and who the audience was and why it was accepted into the canon of scripture. There are many different manuscripts from which the final work (which often was written many years after the event) was sourced from and these also need to be considered. One should also look at it from a 'structuralist' angle which is not only the grammar of the phrases but the grammar of the text. The end result is to be able to look at the text with the greatest number of perspectives. This also helps to understand the theological framework in which the text was actually written in its original form as opposed to the theological framework within which the more recent English tranlators have been working within.

That is why I feel that understanding John 1:1 is very important. What is the original writer saying, who were his audience, what did he believe and what did his audience believe. What does the context of John 1 imply to its audience but hew words used in it.



I am not schooled in Greek but I have read a lot of Greek grammar texts, so I am not speaking as an expert. However I have followed debates on John 1:1 on many different web sites dealing with NT Greek and looked up many works by modern scholars.

You are correct that ….

In "god was the word", the Greek word "theos" is a nominative singular noun of male gender. How have you decided that "theos" is a predicate of "logos"? In fact, "logos" is also a nominative singular noun of male gender.

It is more that that. The Greek word “theo” is not a proper noun and, generally, can not be considered in the same way as a name. It is a noun describing a class of something in the same way as the words king, queen or president do. There are several kings and queens residing over various countries around the world as there are many presidents. However, those terms can refer to one individual in given contexts. The word president for example describes a position held by the head of a company or head of State. Take for example the sentence “John is a president”. The word president here describes the work John does (possible as the head of a company or state). Now, in America the word president can be a “proper noun” under certain circumstances. When addressing Mr. Bush, it is evidently the right thing to do to address him as “Mr. President”. In that instance the word president becomes his name and every one knows who is being referred to. At other times the word president is a predicate nominative noun because it is describing a quality of the person.

By researching what scholars such as E,C. Colwell (formulated what is known as Colwell’s rule) P.B. Harner, D.E. Hartley and P.S. Dickson we see that the word theos in the second instance is a anarthrous predicate nominative noun. (for those not familiar with anarthrous this word means without the letter “a” preceding the noun)

I would be more convinced of your argument if "theos" was a GENITIVE noun and not nominative.

The “theos” here is not belonging to something, not showing ownership, but describing what the “Logos” is.

Ben

 

[Bandit]

Hello,
I am new and have been reading the threads on this and in part 2.
Everyone seems low key and not too quick to judge others which is nice.

Here are some of my beliefs.

I believe Jesus was a man with the spirit of a mortal man.
I do not see him as God, yet I see him as God manifested in the flesh and the express image of the invisible God.
I believe Jesus is all the titles and everything the bible says he is i.e., Messiah, Savior, Son of God after the spirit, son of man after the flesh, the true vine, firstborn from the dead, his eternal priesthood, the first begotten, the first and the last, etc.

I also believe Jesus is both the First Adam and the Last Adam, and that God used the same spirit in creating both men (bodies). All the empty blanks of preeminece are filled in as First Adam.
All the empty blanks are filled in as the 'Lord from Heaven', and in obedience in the Last Adam.
The empty blanks of the cross, a blood sacrifice, remission of sin, obedience and disobedience of a commandment (s), AND reconcilation is evident in both Adams.

I believe the first Adam was WITHOUT SIN and perfect, when God made him and before he fell.
I believe the Last Adam was WITHOUT SIN and learned obedience and was MADE perfect.

In Jesus dwells the fulness of the godhead bodily and there was an eternal purpose that God purposed in Jesus.

I do NOT believe in reincaranation in its common understanding, that we come back over and over as a different person.
Yet I believe that both Adams were MADE and are the same man in spirit. First man from dust and the last man from the womb of a woman.

The bible says God GAVE Jesus authority, power, glory and to be ruler over all and the head of the church.

Yet in the end, when the Son delivers the kingdom to God, he gives back the authority to God, that God may be all in all.

To my knowledge there are only two churches in the Nation who see any of this.

I see the beginning in John 1 as the beginning of the time line of man.
I see the Logos in two perspectives- a person and the spoken word.
SPOKEN as in the beginning, "God said, Let there be..."

Sorry, but I have no real interest in debating (again) the godman theories, triGod, angel theory, coequal spirts or eternal lesser gods, because the tabernacle of God is with MEN.

Plain and Simple.

I believe God is ONE entity and the seven spirits of God are his attributes which contribute to making the ONE God with one spirit, plural.



For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus;


I use the KJV for most all of my studies and greek and hebrew concordances . I believe the bible is the written and inspired Word of God. I have spent time studying the pagan myths, early rome, various godman theories and the history of the bible in the making.
I am currently asking God for more understanding in the Book of Revelations.
I do not study for head knowledge. I am a believer.

Is there anyone who has an interest in studying the man Christ Jesus?
Not his humanity, but that he was a man and was raised up from mortality to immortality. The Jesus after the seed of David.
Adam IS the root of both David and Jesus.

It is really a very neat mystery and revelation to build our faith upon.
Anyone? Anyone out there see any of what I see?
OR wanna give it a chance?

post up here or send me a PM and
Thank You and Peace.

Glory be to our Lord Jesus Christ and his Father, for ever. Amen