Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Talk to a JW: NWT

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
So, it easy to see why even some noted trinitarian scholars reluctantly admit that John 1:1c can be literally and grammatically as “and the Word was a god.”
To interrupt the grammar lesson for a moment...to translate (within the context of the complete passage) John 1:1 as "a god" would not only render the passage gibberish, but to do so shows a complete lack of understanding of the idiomatic usage of Koine Greek in light of the culture extant when this Gospel was written.

The question must arise: Why did John use the word logos (the written word) instead of rhema (the spoken) word?

In fact, if John meant that there was a separate god, then perhaps logikos or even apaggello (admittedly a stretch) would have been a better choice...yet he uses logos.

Why?

The answer is found in the writing of the Gospel itself. John's Gospel is unique in that it is a "universal" Gospel to the world at large...a world that has been deeply influenced by Greek philosophy and thought. Anyone who has studied John's Gospel in depth can not (I feel) fail to be struck by the abundant usage of Greek thought patterns, contrasts, and idiom used in this Gospel alone.

Contained herein is found the reason for the choice of the word logos in the opening passage of the Gospel.

John's concern was that in his presentation of Jesus, that Jesus would not simply be "another" god...for there were plenty of gods extant within the pantheon of Greek deity. He wanted to show the uniqueness of Jesus as God, so he used a word (logos) that had a widely known and accepted synonymous meaning based on the already familiar Greek philosophy.

Circa 500BC there was a Greek philosopher named Heraclitus. Heraclitus observed that everything is in a constant state of flux, a constant state of change; nothing remained the same.

He wondered what it was that kept all this change from descending into chaos. He saw that all the change was ordered and orderly...that day and night followed each other, that the seasons were always in order, etc.

His solution to the problem of orderly change was what he termed "the logos" which he defined as the reason/mind of God. It was the logos that kept everything orderly and prevented chaos.

Once the stoics embraced this they never let it go, to the point that by the 1st century the universally recognized and accepted synonymous meaning of logos was: The mind/reason/fullness of God.

Therefore: In the beginning was the logos...who was and is God...the logos became flesh and dwelt among us.

So to translate "the word was a god" is to throw out 700 years of cultural idiomatic usage as well as inserting an indefinite article where no indefinite article is indicated within the overall construction of the sentence or text as a whole.

If one wishes to adopt an anti-trinitarian view, I feel that attempting redefine John 1:1 is a very weak attempt and can not stand in light of culture, grammar, common usage, or accepted Greek scholarship.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Culture, grammar, common usage, and honest Greek scholarship verify the “a god†interpretation at John 1:1c.

The common scriptural understanding of the word “god†shows it to be applied to false gods as well as angels and men who were appointed by God to a certain task. There are numerous trinitarian scholars who admit this.

An exhaustive study of all John’s uses of constructions truly parallel to John 1:1c shows the predicate noun to be indefinite: “a prophet,†“a man,†“a king,†etc. To render the predicate noun at John 1:1c as “God†(“the god†ho theos) violates John’s usage in all the rest of his writings.

It’s amazing that one would think John would adopt and adapt the pagan Stoic philosophical concept of the Logos.

It is generally recognized that John was writing his Gospel for Hellenized (Greek-influenced) Jews (who would be most familiar with the Logos concept of Philo of Alexandria).

“The outstanding Alexandrian Jew is, of course, Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.-A.D. 50). .... It has been said rightly that the history of Christian philosophy ‘began not with a Christian but a Jew,’ namely Philo of Alexandria.†- p. 35, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.

Words in brackets [ ] have been added by me.

“The idea of a Logos, an immanent reason in the world, is one that meets us under various modifications in many ancient systems of thought, - Indian, Egyptian, Persian. In view of the religious syncretism of the second century, it is barely possible that these extraneous theologies may have exercised some influence on the Fourth Evangelist, but there can be little doubt in regard to the main source from which his Logos doctrine was derived. It had come down to him through Philo, after its final development in Greek philosophy.†- p. 146.

“…. every verse in the Prologue offers striking analogies to corresponding sayings of Philo. We have seen reason to believe that John had acquainted himself directly with the works of the Alexandrian thinker, and consciously derived from them.†- p. 154, The Fourth Gospel, Its purpose and Theology, E. F. Scott, D.D.

After discussing all other trinitarian-proposed origins of John’s concept of the Logos (including, of course, those of the Stoics; the OT Wisdom concept; etc.) and rejecting them all, a respected trinitarian work concludes:

“In the question of the origin of the Logos-concept [by John], pre-eminent significance is therefore to be attributed to Hellenistic Judaism [Philo].†- p. 1117, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.

“Philo, the famous Jewish philosopher, .... is the most important example of the Hellenized Jews outside Palestine... he believed wholly in the Mosaic scriptures and in one God whose chief mediator with the world is the Logos†- Philo, vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1988.

Even the noted Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics tells us that John must be referring to Philo’s conception of the Logos:

“It is clear from the tone of the Prologue [John 1:1-18] that Philo’s conception of the Logos, or something akin to it, was already familiar to those for whom the Evangelist [John] wrote. No explanation of the word Logos is given [anywhere in the entire Gospel]; and almost every verse in this Prologue might be paralleled from Philo [and only Philo].†- p. 136, vol. 8.

Philo (who lived in Alexandria Egypt about 20 B.C. - 50 A.D.), the best-known, most-respected Hellenistic Jewish theologian by those living in the first and second centuries, clearly and repeatedly taught that the Logos is a god (one lesser than God) and showed this in his writing by using theos (θεὸς) without the definite article (“a godâ€) to refer to the Logos but used theos with the definite article ( θεὸς) when referring to God ('the god,' ho theos).

Since John clearly based much of his Logos statements on Philo’s concept, we might expect him also to use theos without the aticle (“a godâ€) to refer to the Logos. And that is exactly what he did at John 1:1c!
 
felix,

If you go back a few posts here, you'll find my post on "God and gods." This should give you a good idea of the scriptural understanding of 'god.'
 
felix,

If you go back a few posts here, you'll find my post on "God and gods." This should give you a good idea of the scriptural understanding of 'god.'

That post does not provide the definition of "god".

(Isa 41:23a) Show the things that are to come hereafter, That we may know that you [are] gods;

A god is someone who knows the future.

(John 1:1-3) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

If there was "a god" in the beginning, was Christ created as a god by another god?

As I already mentioned, you never addressed, if a human sacrifice can change the decision and make the god of JW take back his word. You also never addressed how the salvation plan of god of JW is, because he seems to lie from the beginning and does not keep the word which he spoke in the beginning. what a liar.... if you aren't sure... the god of JW spoke "you shall surely die" and somehow he is taking back his word... by accepting a human sacrifice of someone subordinate to him. hmmm... so, can I do another human sacrifice to make god of JW make another decision ??? If god of JW wants a sacrifice acceptable to him, why the hell did he create someone to kill him? and how does that killing him provide you life? what kind of stupid plan is that? how does that even provide salvation or escape death?
 
Culture, grammar, common usage, and honest Greek scholarship verify the “a god” interpretation at John 1:1c.

The common scriptural understanding of the word “god” shows it to be applied to false gods as well as angels and men who were appointed by God to a certain task. There are numerous trinitarian scholars who admit this.

An exhaustive study of all John’s uses of constructions truly parallel to John 1:1c shows the predicate noun to be indefinite: “a prophet,” “a man,” “a king,” etc. To render the predicate noun at John 1:1c as “God” (“the god” ho theos) violates John’s usage in all the rest of his writings.

No, it doesn't...and contextually (as I stated earlier) to render it as "a god" simply can not be done. Not only is Colwell's rule ignored by such a rendering, but it also conflicts with the rest of the passage, to wit (Excerpt John 1:1-14):

V2-4: The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

V10: He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

V14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us....

Who is the creator of the world and the giver of life? The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob; or some lesser god?

Or perhaps John as a Jew really didn't understand the concept of monotheism? For to (full circle) translate John 1:1 as "a god" is to declare that there is another, separate god with all the creative and life giving powers of the true God.

I'm afraid that this is a case of straining a gnat while swallowing a camel.

It’s amazing that one would think John would adopt and adapt the pagan Stoic philosophical concept of the Logos.
Why so? Are you not aware that Paul in his epistles quotes Greek philosophers to make his point? It does us no good to explain something to someone unless we put it into a form using terms that they can understand. Even today (as an example), the Waodani refer to the bible as "God's carvings", Christianity as "God's trail" and death as "jumping the great boa".

It is generally recognized that John was writing his Gospel for Hellenized (Greek-influenced) Jews (who would be most familiar with the Logos concept of Philo of Alexandria).

The outstanding Alexandrian Jew is, of course, Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.-A.D. 50). .... It has been said rightly that the history of Christian philosophy ‘began not with a Christian but a Jew,’ namely Philo of Alexandria.” - p. 35, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.
An equal number of scholars would say that John was writing to the gentile (sic Greek) world at large, but really it's a moot point. The salient point is the extensive use of Greek concept found throughout the Gospel as a method of presenting the Christ.

Words in brackets [ ] have been added by me.

“The idea of a Logos, an immanent reason in the world, is one that meets us under various modifications in many ancient systems of thought, - Indian, Egyptian, Persian. In view of the religious syncretism of the second century, it is barely possible that these extraneous theologies may have exercised some influence on the Fourth Evangelist, but there can be little doubt in regard to the main source from which his Logos doctrine was derived. It had come down to him through Philo, after its final development in Greek philosophy.” - p. 146.
Immanent reason...the mind/reason of God...the rest is speculation, and the main source is not Philo but the stoics.

“…. every verse in the Prologue offers striking analogies to corresponding sayings of Philo. We have seen reason to believe that John had acquainted himself directly with the works of the Alexandrian thinker, and consciously derived from them.” - p. 154, The Fourth Gospel, Its purpose and Theology, E. F. Scott, D.D.
Metzger, Bruce, and Lightfoot would probably take exception to the last sentence...One scholar does not a majority make.

I would also point out that both in this and the previous quote that historically, there is no evidence that the Apostle John had any contact with Philo. In fact, considering that Philo was a Hellenistic Jew in Alexandria Egypt who is barely received or mentioned within Judaism, who alienated the Hebraic Jews by terming them: "The sophists of literalness", and who died in AD 50...It is highly unlikely that he would have had any influence on John the fisherman growing up in Galilee, nor upon John the Apostle who drew his theology from both his Hebraic Jewish upbringing and a man he personally knew: Jesus.

Although John undoubtedly was familiar with this in his later time in Ephesus, John's logos and Philo's logos are sufficiently different enough to cast doubts on John "borrowing" from Philo.

After searching a bit, I found a discussion here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/logos.html

Philo appeals to certain Christians, but was not well though of in his own time among the Hebraic Jews.

After discussing all other trinitarian-proposed origins of John’s concept of the Logos (including, of course, those of the Stoics; the OT Wisdom concept; etc.) and rejecting them all, a respected trinitarian work concludes:

“In the question of the origin of the Logos-concept [by John], pre-eminent significance is therefore to be attributed to Hellenistic Judaism [Philo].” - p. 1117, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.

Philo, the famous Jewish philosopher, .... is the most important example of the Hellenized Jews outside Palestine... he believed wholly in the Mosaic scriptures and in one God whose chief mediator with the world is the Logos” - Philo, vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1988.

Even the noted Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics tells us that John must be referring to Philo’s conception of the Logos:

“It is clear from the tone of the Prologue [John 1:1-18] that Philo’s conception of the Logos, or something akin to it, was already familiar to those for whom the Evangelist [John] wrote. No explanation of the word Logos is given [anywhere in the entire Gospel]; and almost every verse in this Prologue might be paralleled from Philo [and only Philo].” - p. 136, vol. 8.
All that I see here is a validation of my earlier assertion as to the synonymous meaning of logos.

Philo in fact, being heavily influenced by Greek stoic philosophy went even further in assigning meaning of logos to include "the wisdom of God".

Here when you write:

No explanation of the word Logos is given [anywhere in the entire Gospel]; and almost every verse in this Prologue might be paralleled from Philo [and only Philo].”
I must point out that the phrase is "might", and the the insertion of [and only Philo] is your opinion only. Once again, the common cultural usage of logos pre-dates Philo by several hundred years, and is found both in the writing of Plato and Aristotle who influenced Philo to the point that he (Philo) is considered a Middle Platonist Philosopher.

Philo (who lived in Alexandria Egypt about 20 B.C. - 50 A.D.), the best-known, most-respected Hellenistic Jewish theologian by those living in the first and second centuries, clearly and repeatedly taught that the Logos is a god (one lesser than God) and showed this in his writing by using theos (θεὸς) without the definite article (“a god”) to refer to the Logos but used theos with the definite article ( θεὸς) when referring to God ('the god,' ho theos).

Since John clearly based much of his Logos statements on Philo’s concept, we might expect him also to use theos without the article (“a god”) to refer to the Logos. And that is exactly what he did at John 1:1c!
So then, you are saying that we must accept that Philo the Jewish apologist rejects the concept of monotheism in favor of polytheism; and furthermore that we must accept ex nihilo that John bases his use of logos solely on Philo's interpretation?

I must say...that's a real stretch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW Teddy...

Just want you to know that I'm not trying to be in any way rancorous...and that I'm enjoying our exchange.

Not sitting at a table sharing a cup of coffee, it's easy to come off the wrong way on a message board. :biggrin

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.... :thumbsup
 
The Watchtower in their publications misued A MANUAL GRAMMER OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT on John 1:1 and had been doing so for years. Dr. J.R. Mantey, co-author of the manual wrote to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society demanding that the Watchtower no longer reference the Manual. He charged that (1) the Watchtower quoted out of context; (2) demanded that the Watchtower cease quoting the manual including all of their publications; ( 3 ) demanded that the Watchtower publically apologise in the Watchtower magazine; ( 4 ) demanded that the Watchtower "write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my 'rule' ".; ( 5 ) reminded the Watchtower that the MANUAL was copywrited; ( 6 ) asked for a copy of their permission to so quote the MANUAL, and, (7) if the Watchtower did not "heed these requests'' they would "suffer the consequences."
 
First part of alleged letter from Dr. Mantey, 11 July 1974 (when he was 84!):

Dear Sirs:

I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.

(1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1," There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1.

A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity.

B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language.

C. You[r] quotation from p. 148 (3) was a paragraph under the heading: "With the subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article, theos signifies divine essence...'theos en ho logos' emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and TED [TEV?]: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in you[r] letter to Caris.

……………………………


The letter’s first concern was with John 1:1c. The complaint that the WT Society improperly used Mantey’s book to support their translation is odd.

It’s undoubtedly true that he didn’t intend anything in that book to support a non-trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1. (The Watchtower Society never claimed he did.) But the fact is that it does support it nevertheless! The quote by the Society refers to an example used by Mantey in his book which is grammatically identical to John 1:1c (articular subject after the copulative verb and anarthrous predicate noun before the copulative verb) and which Mantey has translated as, “and the place was a market†- an exact parallel to the NWT’s “and the Word was a god.â€

Here is the quote from the appendix of the 1951 NWT which the letter writer so strongly objects to:

     Pages 773, 774 in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (NWT), 1951 ed.: After a listing of trinitarian Bibles that translated Jn 1:1c as “The Word was divine,†we read,
 
“Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality [like ‘divine’] about someone.  That is what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks on p. 140, paragraph vii [also see p. 149]. [There are no quotation marks used here in the NWT, so this is a paraphrase of what D-M write on p. 140 (and p. 149).] 
“Accordingly, on p. 148, paragraph (3), this same publication [by D-M] says about the subject of a copulative sentence:

 

" 'The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence.  In Xenophon’s Anabasis, 1:4:6, [emporion d’ en to chorion], and the place was a market, [my emphasis - remember this is Dana and Mantey’s own translation of the Greek example they just provided],  we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1 [that is, the anarthrous predicate noun emporion (‘market’) comes before the verb, and the articular subject to chorion (‘the place’) comes after the verb exactly as in John 1:1], καὶ θεὸς ἦν λόγος [kai theos en ho logos], and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples.  Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with θεὸς [theos].'

 
     “Instead of translating John 1:1 and the word was deity [as Mantey did in the accurate quote above], this Grammar could have translated it, and the word was a god, to run more parallel with [Dana and Mantey’s own translation of] Xenophon’s statement, and the place was a market.†- - [Emphasis and bracketed material added and Greek characters changed to English equivalents by me.]

I have a copy of D-M’s A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, and I can verify that the NWT appendix quote from it is entirely accurate!

Whoever wrote the letter was incorrect and misleading.
 
Mac: “So then, you are saying that we must accept that Philo the Jewish apologist rejects the concept of monotheism in favor of polytheism….â€

TT: Philo was truly a monotheist (unlike trinitarian Christians). “A god†to him is to be understood as it was by most Jews and Christians of that era: one lesser than God and appointed by God to a certain task. Please read my post #11 on page one above.

Mac: “and furthermore that we must accept ex nihilo that John bases his use of logos solely on Philo's interpretation?â€

TT: ex nihilo? See below. Can you find any other (other than Philo that is) single writer before John wrote his Gospel who has so many significant parallels to John’s descriptions of the Logos (Jesus)?

“but there can be little doubt in regard to the main source from which his Logos doctrine was derived. It had come down to him through Philo, after its final development in Greek philosophy.†- p. 146.

“…. every verse in the Prologue offers striking analogies to corresponding sayings of Philo. We have seen reason to believe that John had acquainted himself directly with the works of the Alexandrian thinker, and consciously derived from them.†- p. 154, The Fourth Gospel, Its purpose and Theology, E. F. Scott, D.D.

Philo also (unlike the pagan Greek Stoic philosophers) “gives the Logos the titles of Son of God [John 1:34], paraclete [‘Comforter,’ ‘Advocate,’ ‘Helper’ - 1 John 2:1], and mediator between God and man [1 Tim. 2:5].†- Americana, 1957, v. 21, pp. 766, 767.

Philo also “differentiates the Logos from God as his work or image [2 Cor. 4:4].†Philo’s Logos is also “first-born son .... divine [a god - Jn 1:1] but not God, is with God [Jn 1:1], is light [Jn 1:4],...manna [Jn 6:31-51],...and shepherd [Jn 10:11].†- Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 251, vol. 14, 1968. (Cf. Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 8, p. 135.)

“Philo describes the Logos in terms which often bear striking resemblance to NT descriptions of Christ .... Philo distinguishes God as the cause by which [and]..., the Logos as that through which (di’ hou),... the cosmos originated†[Jn 1:3] and “even as qeoV [‘a god’] in a subordinate sense†[Jn 1:1] and one “from which drawing water one may find eternal life instead of death [Jn 4:14].†- A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 135, vol. 3, Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.

“Philo....made use of it [Logos] on the basis of such passages as Ps. 33:6 to express the means whereby the transcendent God may be the Creator of the universe and the Revealer of himself to Moses and the Patriarchs. .... On the side of biblical exegesis the Logos is identified with the Angel of the Lord .... Advocate (Paraclete) [1 John 2:1] and the son of God [Jn 20:31].†- p. 703, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House, 1982.

We even find Philo saying: the Divine Logos “has been anointed†[Messiah/Christ means the ‘Anointed One’] and “his father being God, who is likewise Father of all†- p. 69, Philo, vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press.

John, unlike the other NT writers (none of whom call Jesus the Logos) repeatedly calls Jesus “the light [phos]†(e.g. Jn 1:9). It is significant that in Philo’s concept of the Logos the Logos is light [phos]. - p. 493, TNIDONTT, vol. 2, Zondervan, 1986.

And the trinitarian The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Inter-Varsity Press, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, says

“Only the Philonic Logos-teaching [Philo’s teaching of the Logos] provides a clear theological scheme in which the Word possesses a like unity with God and a like distinction from him, and in which both creative and sustaining activity in the universe and revelatory activity towards man is ascribed to it. Further, the necessarily unique concept of incarnation is nevertheless a proper development of the identification of Philo’s Logos with the Ideal Man [Jesus].†- vol. 2, p. 909 (also see the New Bible Dictionary, pp. 703-704, second ed.).

Respected Church historian Cairns (trinitarian) also tells us:

“Multitudes were later mentioned as becoming a part of the Church (Acts 5:14). It is rather interesting that many of these were Hellenistic Jews (Acts 6:1)†- p. 60, Christianity Through The Centuries, Zondervan, 1977.

So there were many Hellenistic Jews who had become Christians and were, therefore, very familiar with Philo’s Logos at the time John wrote his Gospel.

In fact, we are told at Acts 6:7, 9 that there were Alexandrian Jews in Jerusalem when Stephen was martyred. And Acts 18:24 tells us that even Apollos was an Alexandrian.

John would not have used a strictly pagan Greek philosophy as a basis for his ‘Logos.’ As popular trinitarian New Testament scholar Dr. William Barclay tells us,

“John thinks in Jewish categories because he could do no other.†- p. 80, The Letters of John and Jude, 1976 ed.

Many terms and expressions in the Gospel of John can only be explained by acknowledging the fact that John was writing this Gospel for those familiar with Judaism! One of many such examples is the use of the expression “the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world†(Jn 1:29). This, like “the Word was a god,†goes without further comment by John who had to know that his readers already understood it. Yes, they were already very familiar with the Old Testament, the Law, and the traditions of the Temple, whereas other people would not understand.

These Christian Jews knew that until the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., “Every morning and every evening a lamb was sacrificed in the Temple for the sins of the people (Exodus 29:38-42)†- Barclay. Therefore, the expression, “the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world†needed no background information to be clear to these Jews. This was a person whose sacrificial death would be great enough to take away the sin of the entire world.

And the Universal Standard Encyclopedia, p. 6596, vol. 18, 1954d., tells us that “[Philo is] considered the greatest Jewish philosopher of his age.†And, “To Philo the divinity of the Jewish law was the basis and test of all true philosophy.â€
 
Just a comment here:

John would not have used a strictly pagan Greek philosophy as a basis for his ‘Logos.’ As popular trinitarian New Testament scholar Dr. William Barclay tells us,

“John thinks in Jewish categories because he could do no other.” - p. 80, The Letters of John and Jude, 1976 ed.
Barclay also writes:

On the other hand, there is no gospel which sets before us such a view of the deity of Jesus.
(a) John stresses the pre-existence of Jesus. "Before Abraham was," said Jesus, "I am" (8:58). He talks of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was made (17:5). Again and again he speaks of his coming down from heaven (6:33-38). John saw in Jesus one who had always been, even before the world began.
The Gospel of John vol 1, The Daily Bible Study Series Revised Edition Page 14.

And, after 12 pages detailing both Jewish and Greek concepts of logos; he writes:

"The word," said John, "became flesh." We could put it another way--"The Mind of God became a person." ibid pg 36

But setting this aside for a moment, I read carefully your post #11, and there is much with which I agree....The translation of Elohim as "judges" for example.

Where I face difficulty is the application that you use.

What I see is somewhat along the lines of: "Chevrolet is a car, therefore all cars are Chevrolets". The door is then open to the acceptance of, and operation within a paradigm in which there are no false gods if Jehovah has "endowed" them with power to act as gods in His (Jehovah's) stead....without limitation.

According to such a paradigm Satan, who is referred to as "the god of this age"...who has been given permission to operate within the world and empowered to tempt people...who in the past had been given power to send demons to possess people...If we draw the primary assumption to its logical conclusion...is not a "false god". After all, Satan operates within the limitations and power granted to him by Jehovah.

I would consider such a dangerous paradigm indeed.

So let me approach you with this question:

What attributes or power (indeed, if any) does Jehovah reserve solely to Himself?

Along with this, Felix asked a question that if you answered, I missed. I'd like to see your take on his question for it ties in directly to my own: (Portion in bold font for emphasis)

If God spoke man to death in garden of Eden, every man will die without question. Who has the power to break God's Words and redeem man from death? If anyone below or subordinate than God, can break God's words, then anything God had spoken can be broken, expect, IF Christ who redeemed us is God and He Himself is YHWH in flesh and His name is Everlasting Father!

Can anything that God has declared be changed by anyone other than Jehovah Himself?

Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Where I face difficulty is the application that you use.

"What I see is somewhat along the lines of: "Chevrolet is a car, therefore all cars are Chevrolets". The door is then open to the acceptance of, and operation within a paradigm in which there are no false gods if Jehovah has "endowed" them with power to act as gods in His (Jehovah's) stead....without limitation."


I don’t understand how you got such an idea. What is the statement in my post which is parallel to your Chevrolet example?

I thought it was clear that there are many false gods (those whom God has not approved), and there are angels and men (including judges and kings) who have been appointed by God for His work and who are called ‘gods’ and ‘sons of God.’ Satan has certainly not been appointed as a god by Jehovah, but has usurped his powerful position over the earth until Jehovah will have him destroyed by means of Jesus Christ. Satan then is a false god (although one with power of his own).

….

"Can anything that God has declared be changed by anyone other than Jehovah Himself?"

I thought my post #18 was sufficient explanation. Note the answer from felix in #19.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Can anything that God has declared be changed by anyone other than Jehovah Himself?"

I thought my post #18 was sufficient explanation. Note the answer from felix in #19.

Hmm,... So, you accept that god of Jehovah lies. So, how is that whatever he said is actually truth? If he is the father of lies not able to fulfill his curse if death which he said from the beginning, how is your father of lies going to save you?
 
"Where I face difficulty is the application that you use.

"What I see is somewhat along the lines of: "Chevrolet is a car, therefore all cars are Chevrolets". The door is then open to the acceptance of, and operation within a paradigm in which there are no false gods if Jehovah has "endowed" them with power to act as gods in His (Jehovah's) stead....without limitation."


I don’t understand how you got such an idea. What is the statement in my post which is parallel to your Chevrolet example?

I thought it was clear that there are many false gods (those whom God has not approved), and there are angels and men (including judges and kings) who have been appointed by God for His work and who are called ‘gods’ and ‘sons of God.’ Satan has certainly not been appointed as a god by Jehovah, but has usurped his powerful position over the earth until Jehovah will have him destroyed by means of Jesus Christ. Satan then is a false god (although one with power of his own).

This statement was what led me to that opinon:

Some Trinitarians insist that there are only God and false gods (polytheism). Therefore, in their ignorant opinions, The Word could not be “a god,†but only “God.â€

What we have here (obviously) is a fail-ure to comm-un-icate (with apologies to Cool Hand Luke ;) )

A definition of use is probably necessary here.

When I state that there is only one true God, and all other gods are false gods...I am speaking in terms of deity alone. Jehovah therefore is the only True God, and Zeus, Ba'al, Thor, et.al. are false gods.

I am not in anyway referring to men whom God has granted a measure of authority (e.g. Judges) to do His will.

Ontologically speaking there are certain attributes and prerogatives which are reserved to God alone.

What in your opinion would some of these attributes and prerogatives be?

….

"Can anything that God has declared be changed by anyone other than Jehovah Himself?"

I thought my post #18 was sufficient explanation. Note the answer from felix in #19.

Saw that in re-reading your post...simply missed it first time around.
 
Ontologically speaking there are certain attributes and prerogatives which are reserved to God alone.

What in your opinion would some of these attributes and prerogatives be?

Yes, Jehovah (YHWH), the Father alone, is Almighty. He is above all else. There is no other God!

However, when finding the words theos, elohim, etc. in scripture, we must be aware of the different meanings which were understood by the writers (and readers) of that time.

Therefore, in understanding scriptures such as John 1:1c, we need to know that theos can mean God (with the article), a false god, or anyone who is appointed by God (such as the angels and certain men).

And Philo used that term to apply to his concept of the Logos. Even Origen (ca. 185-254 A.D.) wrote that John intended such a meaning for John 1:1c (Origen's Commentary on John, Book 2, Ch. 2 and 3).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, Jehovah (YHWH), the Father alone, is Almighty. He is above all else. There is no other God!

However, when finding the words theos, elohim, etc. in scripture, we must be aware of the different meanings which were understood by the writers (and readers) of that time.

Therefore, in understanding scriptures such as John 1:1c, we need to know that theos can mean God (with the article), a false god, or anyone who is appointed by God (such as the angels and certain men).

And Philo used that term to apply to his concept of the Logos. Even Origen (ca. 185-254 A.D.) wrote that John intended such a meaning for John 1:1c (Origen's Commentary on John, Book 2, Ch. 2 and 3).
The context of John 1 simply does not allow for such an interpretation. End of story.
 
And Philo used that term to apply to his concept of the Logos. Even Origen (ca. 185-254 A.D.) wrote that John intended such a meaning for John 1:1c (Origen's Commentary on John, Book 2, Ch. 2 and 3).

I must take exception here, for Origen wrote (in Chapters 1 & 2 respectively):

And perhaps it was because he saw some such order in the Logos, that John did not place the clause "The Word was God" before the clause "The Word was with God." The series in which he places his different sentences does not prevent the force of each axiom from being separately and fully seen. One axiom is, "In the beginning was the Word," a second, "The Word was with God," and then comes, "And the Word was God." The arrangement of the sentences might be thought to indicate an order; we have first "In the beginning was the Word," then, "And the Word was with God," and thirdly, "And the Word was God," so that it might be seen that the Word being with God makes Him God.

And:

Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other.


Now while I agree that one must of needs be familiar with idiomatic usage as well as possible translational issues...I also must point out that one's particular bias can many times force an interpretation that is outside of the original intent of a passage or verse; and John 1:1c would fall into this category.

Textually, contextually, culturally, grammatically and idiomatically (as Origen points out): "And the Word was God," so that it might be seen that the Word being with God makes Him God.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s too bad that you didn’t quote the next two chapters which I specifically referred you to. Even in the trinitarian translation we are both reading it becomes clear that what I wrote above about Origen’s understanding of John 1:1c as being “a god” (not the only true God) is true.

However, even when we look at the part you quoted last, we find in Brooke’s Greek text (which was used by the trinitarian translators), we find:

“… καὶ τρίτον τὸ, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, διὰ τοῦτo ἵνα, δυνηθῆ ἀπὸ τοῦ πρὸς
τὸν θεόν ειναι ὁ λόγος [noethenai] γινομένος θεὸς, ….”

“… and third, ‘and theos was the Word.’ Through this, so that it might be seen from the Word being with the God that the Word is [or becomes, ginomenos] a god [anarthrous p.n. theos coming AFTER the verb], ….”

Ginomenos is the nominative singular masculine present middle participle. The literal meaning is ‘the one becoming, he who becomes.’ (Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament, by William Hersey Davis, page 103) – [e.g., see Gen. 18:18 in Sept.]

So, yes, Origen is speaking of the Word as someone who ‘becomes’ theos [anarthrous theos AFTER verb] as the result of being ‘with’ or in the presence of God.

Remember, the translation you quote is by trinitarians who WANT John 1:1c to say “and the Word was God.” However, the actual Greek text of Origen’s Commentary shows that an anarthrous theos is used where the translators have rendered “God.” And if you read the two chapters I referenced, we find that Origen clearly explains what an anarthrous theos means at John 1:1c (and in his statement quoted above).

Textually, contextually, culturally, grammatically and idiomatically (as Origen points out): "And the Word was a god" (a lesser one than God Himself) and the Word is head over the OTHER gods.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mohrb:


Another topic that very often came up is the validity of one translation over
another. For example,
Colossians 1:15 uses the word "PasEs" ... most
translations render this "over" although the literal translation in any
interlinear is "of." The NWT keeps "of" and translates it as showing the son
being the firstborn of creation (indicating that Jesus was a part "of"
creation). However, most translations interpret it as the firstborn "over"
creation, indicating that he is excluded from creation.
Of the 29 English Bibles listed on BibleStudyTools.com -




http://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/1-15-compare.html - we find the following renderings for ‘PasEs’ at Col. 1:15 -

‘Of every’/‘Of all’ - used 16 times including KJV; ASV; Douay; NASB; RSV; NRSV.

[Also, well-known trinitarian Bibles from my personal library which agree with the above: Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; New American Bible (’70); New American Bible (‘91); and Modern Language Bible.]

And only 11 Bible translations which use “Over all creation†(or its equivalent).

“Firstborn OVER†is unscriptural, ungrammatical, and simply wishful thinking by some trinitarians who don’t like the literal meaning of Col. 1:15.

All uses of “Firstborn†followed by a preposition (“of,†“over,†etc.) in scripture as listed for NASB in http://unbound.biola.edu/ :

Genesis
10:15; 22:21; 25:13; 27:19; 27:32; 35:23; 36:15; 38:6, 7; 46:8; 49:3

Exodus
4:22, 23; 6:14; 11:5; 12:12; 12:29; 13:13, 15; 22:29; 34:20

Numbers
1:20; 3:40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 50; 8:16, 17, 18; 8:15, 17; 26:5; 33:4

Deuteronomy
12:6, 17; 14:23; 15:19; 33:17;

Joshua
6:26; 17:1 - Judges 8:20 - 2 Samuel 3:2 - 1 Kings 16:34

1 Chronicles
1:13, 29; 2:3, 13, 25, 27, 42, 45; 4:4; 5:1, 3; 8:1, 30, 39; 9:31, 36

Nehemiah
10:36 - Job 18:13 - Psalm 78:51; 105:36; 135:8; 136:10

Jeremiah
31:9 - Ezekiel 20:26 - Micah 6:7

Luke
2:7 - Romans 8:29 - Col. 1:15, 18 (firstborn out of the dead) - Revelation 1:5 (firstborn of the dead).

Some of the above are translated with possessive nouns or pronouns (“his firstborn,†“Joseph’s firstborn,†etc.). But the literal statement in such cases is “the firstborn of him,†“the firstborn of Joseph,†etc.

Yes, some (not most) trinitarian Bibles translate Col. 1:15 as “firstborn OVER all creation.†Those same Bibles, howevr, never use “firstborn OVER …†anywhere else in their translation!
 
Back
Top