Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus is God 1 John 5:20 John declared: "he (Jesus Christ) is the true God and eternal life" John 20:28 Thomas addressed the physically risen Jesus as "my Lord and my God" Titus 2:13 Paul speaks of: "the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," Romans 9:5 Paul declares: Christ (the Messiah) ... is God over all, forever praised.
To state otherwise is Arianism heresy.
Tell that to Jesus who clearly teaches--John 17:1-6,26--The one who sent him=Father-John 5:30) is THE ONLY TRUE GOD-- verse 6= YHWH(Jehovah) 26= YHWH(Jehovah)
that is fact.
Trinity translations are twisted to teach false council teachings.= 100% fact---BELIEVE Jesus.
Jesus is God 1 John 5:20 John declared: "he (Jesus Christ) is the true God and eternal life" John 20:28 Thomas addressed the physically risen Jesus as "my Lord and my God" Titus 2:13 Paul speaks of: "the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," Romans 9:5 Paul declares: Christ (the Messiah) ... is God over all, forever praised. To state otherwise is Arianism heresy.
1 John 5:20 ....' even in His Son .... His is God, Son is Jesus ( two )
John 20:17 (which is before verse 28) says I (Jesus) ascend to 'MY' Father and your Father,and to 'MY' God and your God.
So, what doubting Thomas was saying in verse 28 was calling out to God in front of Jesus.
Just as we see on the news a person says, " Oh, my God " in front of a reporter, but the reporter is Not his God.
Doesn't the resurrected Jesus still think he has a God over him according to Revelation 3:12
Titus 2:13 uses the word ' and '. The word ' and ' is a conjunction between two or more persons.
Romans 9:5 Yes, Christ is Messiah, and Christ's flesh is over all. Over all the natural Jews at that time.
And then, Christ is over all the ' spiritual Jews ' after that because Jesus is Messiah - Romans 2:28-29
Arius taught: " God is un-begotten and without a beginning. The Son, because he is begotten can not be God in the sense that the Father is. The Son did Not exist from all eternity but was created and exists by the will of the Father ".
Interesting to me that Revelation 3:14 says about the pre-human Jesus that Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God.
Qualitative refers to measuring or describing the quality of something. In John 1:1c the Word is stated to both be with God, and to Himself be God. The only way that the Word can Himself be God is by having the nature of God.
Since in John 1:1c the Word is stated to be God, it of necessity means that the Word has the nature or essence that is inherent of God.
You agree that Θεὸς John 1:1c is not definite. If it were definite it would mean that the Father was the same person as the Word which is clearly not the case since the Word is contrasted with the Father.
But you have not addressed the fact that if Θεὸς was indefinite John would have been teaching polytheism - the belief in more than one God. But John was not polytheistic. He did not believe that Jesus was a god, or another god. Or, you would be implying that the Word was some created divine being who created all that has been created. But it was God, not some created divine being that created the heavens and the earth.
I will address a little at a time as I have minimal time available right now.
First Polytheism is the religious worship of more than one el/elohim/theos. The Bible already speaks of more than one el/elohim/theos as the angels are also called elohim/theoi. So identifying Jesus as divine is not Polytheism. Identifying Jesus as like God is not Polytheism. In fact translating the word "theos" with an upper case "G" is an indication it is Definite. This is done all the time in Scripture and translated as such by ... Trinitarian scholars. They just ignore that grammatical principle when it comes to John 1:1c. Bias.
Using an indefinite class noun is common in translations of John 1:1c and as you missed many of the Trinitarian scholars translated it that way. They did not let theology bias their translation.
WHY is there no consistency among Trinitarians, let alone some acknowledging that a god, etc., is also proper grammar?
In John 1:1 c the word is not stated to be "God" that is the question. He is said to be:
1. The God/God - Definite
2. god/ a god - Indefinite Class
3. Like God, a god, divine, a divine being - Indefinite Qualitative.
Note in Greek there are no upper or lower case letters so the word "God" is actually inaccurate in English unless Definite. Examples
1. The kings gathered. Here "kings" is Indefinite class
2. The King or King Richard gathered with the other kings - Here we have Definite combined with Indefinite class.
3. He was like a king - here is Indefinite Qualitative. Just as she was an angel, is qualitative as to character.
The effort to use the "G"od in the translation is an obvious bias as normally, like the example of John 1:14 you used, the word is not capitalized. "flesh" not "Flesh". It exposes the sloppy translation of capitalizing theos as God in John 1:1c. Well sloppy or biased.
Your bias clouds what you see. Plus you seem to have not read what I wrote in total, and I structured it that way, to show you ignored Recognized Scholars who are Trinitarians and who translate it "a God/a god or a divine being". The acceptance of Indefinite Qualitative is not total and many disagree with good reason.
Questionable scriptures should NEVER be used to prove anything.John 1:1 c is questionable even among Trinitarian scholars.
In fact one of the earliest translations into another language, Coptic, uses Indefinite Class (a god) in John 1:1c and this is important as it was the only language at that time that used the indefinite article and these Greek speaking scholars used "a god" and they knew Greek better than Wallace or any other scholar alive today.
Your argument is circular, the word "God" is used therefore it means nature, and because it means nature the word "God should be used.
However even the Definite can be used in John 1:1c if we recognize that agency/Shailach principle that was used then, where an agent sent by God was called God. Even Jesus used the principle that a representative sent by someone is addressed as that person NOT who they actually are. This is common throughout scripture and ignored by those who believe in the Trinity.
Qualitative refers to measuring or describing the quality of something. In John 1:1c the Word is stated to both be with God, and to Himself be God. The only way that the Word can Himself be God is by having the nature of God.
Since in John 1:1c the Word is stated to be God, it of necessity means that the Word has the nature or essence that is inherent of God.
You agree that Θεὸς John 1:1c is not definite. If it were definite it would mean that the Father was the same person as the Word which is clearly not the case since the Word is contrasted with the Father.
But you have not addressed the fact that if Θεὸς was indefinite John would have been teaching polytheism - the belief in more than one God. But John was not polytheistic. He did not believe that Jesus was a god, or another god. Or, you would be implying that the Word was some created divine being who created all that has been created. But it was God, not some created divine being that created the heavens and the earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
I will address a little at a time as I have minimal time available right now.
First Polytheism is the religious worship of more than one el/elohim/theos. The Bible already speaks of more than one el/elohim/theos as the angels are also called elohim/theoi. So identifying Jesus as divine is not Polytheism. Identifying Jesus as like God is not Polytheism.
Yes, in fact I went into some detail in post #224 about those to whom the word elohim applies. That's why I said to you that if the apostle John did not mean to say that Jesus is God, then he would either be saying that Jesus was another god (polytheism), OR he would have been saying that Jesus was some created divine being that created the heavens and the earth. But that would mean that someone other than God created the heavens and the earth. However, the Bible is clear that it was Yahweh who created the heavens and the earth. The Bible is equally clear that it was Jesus who created the heavens and the earth.
As I've mentioned earlier on this thread, the writer of Hebrews quoted Psalm 102:25-27 which is part of a prayer addressed to Yahweh. In Psalm 102:25-27 Yahweh is said to have founded the earth and the heavens. But the writer of Hebrews quotes what is said about Yahweh founding the heavens and the earth, and applies it to Jesus in Hebrews 1:10-12 in which the Father is speaking to the Son, calling the Son God, and stating that the Son laid the foundation of the earth and that the heavens are the works of the Son's hands. What is said of Yahweh in Psalm 102:25-27 is said of Jesus in Hebrews 1:10-12. The writer of Hebrews clearly understood Jesus to be true God just as the Father is. Jesus is not some created divine being. He is the God who brought all things into existence. He is Yahweh just as the Father is.
Quote:
In fact translating the word "theos" with an upper case "G" is an indication it is Definite. This is done all the time in Scripture and translated as such by ... Trinitarian scholars. They just ignore that grammatical principle when it comes to John 1:1c. Bias.
Using an indefinite class noun is common in translations of John 1:1c and as you missed many of the Trinitarian scholars translated it that way. They did not let theology bias their translation.
WHY is there no consistency among Trinitarians, let alone some acknowledging that a god, etc., is also proper grammar?
In John 1:1 c the word is not stated to be "God" that is the question. He is said to be:
1. The God/God - Definite
2. god/ a god - Indefinite Class
3. Like God, a god, divine, a divine being - Indefinite Qualitative.
Note in Greek there are no upper or lower case letters so the word "God" is actually inaccurate in English unless Definite. Examples
1. The kings gathered. Here "kings" is Indefinite class
2. The King or King Richard gathered with the other kings - Here we have Definite combined with Indefinite class.
3. He was like a king - here is Indefinite Qualitative. Just as she was an angel, is qualitative as to character.
The effort to use the "G"od in the translation is an obvious bias as normally, like the example of John 1:14 you used, the word is not capitalized. "flesh" not "Flesh". It exposes the sloppy translation of capitalizing theos as God in John 1:1c. Well sloppy or biased.
Your bias clouds what you see. Plus you seem to have not read what I wrote in total, and I structured it that way, to show you ignored Recognized Scholars who are Trinitarians and who translate it "a God/a god or a divine being". The acceptance of Indefinite Qualitative is not total and many disagree with good reason.
Questionable scriptures should NEVER be used to prove anything.John 1:1 c is questionable even among Trinitarian scholars.
Scholars argue about just about everything. There's probably very little in which there is 100 percent agreement. But John 1:1 is actually quite clear both textually and theologically that the Word is God and not just some created divine being.
The use of capitalization in the English simply reflects the understanding of the translators who understand that John is stating that Jesus is just as much God as the Father is. He is not the Father, nor is He a mere created divine being. He is the Second Person of the Trinity.
Quote:
In fact one of the earliest translations into another language, Coptic, uses Indefinite Class (a god) in John 1:1c and this is important as it was the only language at that time that used the indefinite article and these Greek speaking scholars used "a god" and they knew Greek better than Wallace or any other scholar alive today.
Your argument is circular, the word "God" is used therefore it means nature, and because it means nature the word "God should be used.
However even the Definite can be used in John 1:1c if we recognize that agency/Shailach principle that was used then, where an agent sent by God was called God. Even Jesus used the principle that a representative sent by someone is addressed as that person NOT who they actually are. This is common throughout scripture and ignored by those who believe in the Trinity.
The article cannot legitimately be used in John 1:1c because John himself did not use it. If he had, he would have been saying that the Father was the Word. Since the article was used with the Father, John could not use it for the word since it would have been implying that the Word and the Father the same Person.
John wrote it the way he did to show that while the Word is God, He is not the Father. John did not believe that a created divine being created the Heavens and the earth. He believed that the true God is the creator. And the true God is the Triune God.
The fact that the Coptics chose to translate the Greek of John 1:1c as indefinite does not mean that John intended to say that the Word was merely a created divine being.
You talk about my bias clouding what I see, while ignoring the fact that the same thing can be said about you. Everyone has bias to greater or lesser degree. It is necessary to be as objective as possible.
And no, my argument is not circular. You asked for another verse similar to John 1:1c in the book of John where the same structure is used, a PVPN, AND qualitative AND nature/essence is meant and translated and understood that way. I gave you John 1:14 which is structured the same as John 1:1c and which in fact speaks of the Word becoming flesh which plainly refers to the Word taking the nature of man. This is the counterpart to John 1:1c in which the Word has the nature of God because He is God. Because He has the attributes of God. Because He had the omnipotence to bring into existence all that exists. Because He is omnipresent which is why He can indwell all believers. No created divine being is omnipotent. No created divine being is omnipresent. Those are attributes that belong to God alone. Those attributes belong to Jesus.
Yes, in fact I went into some detail in post #224 about those to whom the word elohim applies. That's why I said to you that if the apostle John did not mean to say that Jesus is God, then he would either be saying that Jesus was another god (polytheism), OR he would have been saying that Jesus was some created divine being that created the heavens and the earth. But that would mean that someone other than God created the heavens and the earth. However, the Bible is clear that it was Yahweh who created the heavens and the earth. The Bible is equally clear that it was Jesus who created the heavens and the earth.
As I've mentioned earlier on this thread, the writer of Hebrews quoted Psalm 102:25-27 which is part of a prayer addressed to Yahweh. In Psalm 102:25-27 Yahweh is said to have founded the earth and the heavens. But the writer of Hebrews quotes what is said about Yahweh founding the heavens and the earth, and applies it to Jesus in Hebrews 1:10-12 in which the Father is speaking to the Son, calling the Son God, and stating that the Son laid the foundation of the earth and that the heavens are the works of the Son's hands. What is said of Yahweh in Psalm 102:25-27 is said of Jesus in Hebrews 1:10-12. The writer of Hebrews clearly understood Jesus to be true God just as the Father is. Jesus is not some created divine being. He is the God who brought all things into existence. He is Yahweh just as the Father is.
Scholars argue about just about everything. There's probably very little in which there is 100 percent agreement. But John 1:1 is actually quite clear both textually and theologically that the Word is God and not just some created divine being.
The use of capitalization in the English simply reflects the understanding of the translators who understand that John is stating that Jesus is just as much God as the Father is. He is not the Father, nor is He a mere created divine being. He is the Second Person of the Trinity.
The article cannot legitimately be used in John 1:1c because John himself did not use it. If he had, he would have been saying that the Father was the Word. Since the article was used with the Father, John could not use it for the word since it would have been implying that the Word and the Father the same Person.
John wrote it the way he did to show that while the Word is God, He is not the Father. John did not believe that a created divine being created the Heavens and the earth. He believed that the true God is the creator. And the true God is the Triune God.
The fact that the Coptics chose to translate the Greek of John 1:1c as indefinite does not mean that John intended to say that the Word was merely a created divine being.
You talk about my bias clouding what I see, while ignoring the fact that the same thing can be said about you. Everyone has bias to greater or lesser degree. It is necessary to be as objective as possible.
And no, my argument is not circular. You asked for another verse similar to John 1:1c in the book of John where the same structure is used, a PVPN, AND qualitative AND nature/essence is meant and translated and understood that way. I gave you John 1:14 which is structured the same as John 1:1c and which in fact speaks of the Word becoming flesh which plainly refers to the Word taking the nature of man. This is the counterpart to John 1:1c in which the Word has the nature of God because He is God. Because He has the attributes of God. Because He had the omnipotence to bring into existence all that exists. Because He is omnipresent which is why He can indwell all believers. No created divine being is omnipotent. No created divine being is omnipresent. Those are attributes that belong to God alone. Those attributes belong to Jesus.
Hi MIke,
Sorry for not responding sooner but life has not been good the last few days.
I am also communicating with several scholars and researchers on these subjects and will be posting information on one issue at a time and probably starting with John 1:14.
Sorry for not responding sooner but life has not been good the last few days.
I am also communicating with several scholars and researchers on these subjects and will be posting information on one issue at a time and probably starting with John 1:14.
Hi Expat. No problem. You said you had a couple of surgeries done, and recuperating from them takes precedence (especially when neither of us is going to convince the other one anyway. ). Get your rest and get better.
Hi Expat. No problem. You said you had a couple of surgeries done, and recuperating from them takes precedence (especially when neither of us is going to convince the other one anyway. ). Get your rest and get better.
Hi MIke,
Thanks.
It isn't just the surgeries. A good friend died, a friend in another Country died, an employees mother died and my son in law went to the hospital with chest pain and .. well a long list and 2017 has not been a good year, and it is just starting.
No, we may not convince each other. I have a guide. Paul and Barnabas. Paul after his change went to Jerusalem and the congregation was afraid of him. Barnabas stepped up and helped Paul become the apostle Paul.
I do not care if I am a Barnabas and help another become a Paul or if a Barnabas helps me be a Paul.
I also discuss such subject for the benefit of others who read them.
It isn't just the surgeries. A good friend died, a friend in another Country died, an employees mother died and my son in law went to the hospital with chest pain and .. well a long list and 2017 has not been a good year, and it is just starting.
No, we may not convince each other. I have a guide. Paul and Barnabas. Paul after his change went to Jerusalem and the congregation was afraid of him. Barnabas stepped up and helped Paul become the apostle Paul.
I do not care if I am a Barnabas and help another become a Paul or if a Barnabas helps me be a Paul.
I also discuss such subject for the benefit of others who read them.
I hope to be able to post tomorrow.
It's rough when people that are in your life die. I'm sorry for your loss. Hopefully, the rest of the year gets better.
John 1:1 4 contains a PVPN as does John 1:1 yet it does not contain an “a” in English translations or is not translated with a word other than “flesh”. Does this impact the meaning of John 1:1c
[CENTER][CENTER]KJV John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth[/CENTER][/CENTER]
The answer is actually very simple. While a PVPN is normally considered “Qualitative” that is not the only consideration when it comes to Greek grammar and an understanding of the meaning. We also must look at other aspects of the clause/
John 1:14 finds SARX (flesh) as a MASS NOUN or NON COUNT NOUN. (A noun one cannot count, like "air.") That is not saying words like "air" can't be a COUNT NOUN, as in "I despise the AIR he breathes." Context is always king.) In John 1:1c the word “theos” is not a mass noun, rather a count noun. This difference is critical.
The contextual usage of SARX/Flesh here is indeed dealing with "nature or essence" as it is joined with GINOMAI (made). The word became something, namely FLESH! Something it was not prior!
Wherein THEOS, GOD in 1:1, is a COUNT NOUN, that is, a noun you can count, 1 god, 2 gods, 3 gods...
Yes, BOTH are PREVERBAL PREDICATE NOMINATIVES, but DIFFERENT *TYPES* of nominatives or nouns.
Theos is Indefinite Qualitative telling us: hO LOGOS is in the CATEGORY of others that are also considered to be gods. (Ps. 8:5) AND is telling us something ABOUT the subject (hO LOGOS), namely that he is a godlike individual. (Some translations use the adjective "divine" which is misleading, as, well it is an adjective, and not a Count noun like THEOS)
SARX in John 1:14 is simply telling us what the word BECAME, namely FLESH, not "a flesh," as again SARX here is a MASS or NON COUNT NOUN.
This reminds me of what Paul wrote about the different types of flesh in 1Cor. 15:39. He wrote that the "flesh of cattle is different from the flesh of mankind which is different from the flesh of birds which is different from the flesh of fish," etc., but is is STILL ALL FLESH!
These differences show why the idea of nature, as in flesh, does not apply to John 1:1c. Nature is not in view and in fact how can we know what John was thinking beyond the terms he used. By using a Count Noun we are left with either Theos as the sole individual, or a member of the class known as Theos, which even the angels are. While the “qualitative” aspect claimed for the clause is popular it really turns a Count Noun into an adjective.
That eliminates any potential for an ontological nature in view. If he had said the word “is divine”, which some translations prefer though “divine” in Greek is another word, it could be applied to physical/ontological nature, but would still fall short of any equality. Just as in John 6:70 someone is called “diabolos” (Count Noun) and the clause is a PVPN we do not see it translated one of you “is Devil”, rather one of you is “a devil”. It does not indicate that the word “devil” used here refers to any sharing or partaking of the same ontological “nature” rather some characteristics of the Devil. John would know this and know that a PVPN using a Count Noun, does not indicate any equality of Ontological Nature rather a sharing as it were of certain traits.
John 1:14 by using a mass noun has minimal impact on John 1:1c as when we look at the basics we see that a PVPN does not indicate Ontological Nature unless the word chosen is a mass noun and contextually speaks, as John 1:14 does of “being made” flesh. When a mass noun is used nature can be in sight, and a mass noun is not used in John1:1c.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). Get your rest and get better. 
