A terrific TRINITY Scripture passage

[Free]

I don’t think you have recognised the magnitude of the problems facing your interpretation of John 1: 1 -12

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NKJV)

The word 'the' is absent. It is in 'a' beginning. So which one?

Of course the word "the" is missing but this in no way means that it should be "a" beginning. The word for "beginning" is arche, meaning:

1. beginning, origin
2. the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3. that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4. the extremity of a thing
   1. of the corners of a sail
5. the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
   1. of angels and demons

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/arche.html

So the use of "the" comes from the arche itself. This is a clear reference to the beginning of Creation in Gen 1:1.

No-one on the trinitarian side ever seems to bother asking 'which beginning' is he talking about? They just assume that its Gen 1.1.

There is no other beginning, so there is no point to asking "which one." There is only more than one beginning if one presumes such and reads that into the text.

It is obvious that he is alluding to Gen 1.1 - but why? Is he saying that Jesus was present at the creation of the world, and made it all?

Yes, in the very least John is saying that Jesus, or the Word, was already existing at the start of all creation, whether one argues that he created or everything was created through him is irrelevant.

It would be most irrational for someone writing for Jews to say such a thing. Why? Because they all knew their scriptures, and knew full well that God made the world.

Using this same logic we can then conclude that much of what Jesus said whether directly quoted from the OT or alluded to, would be irrational.

If Jesus had made the world, Genesis would have said so quite clearly - it is too important a point to miss out - but it doesn't.

Begging the question.

Therefore the allusions to creation are made because there is a New Creation going on here, and Christ is the Author and Perfecter of it. It is the spiritual creation that is being referred to here. And that is a provable statement.

No, this clearly is not the case.

He is the beginning of the creation of God. (Rev 3.14)

However you may understand that, it is clear that God created Jesus and put Him at the Head of the New Creation.

Begging the question. This verse in no way means that Jesus was created.

Proof:

We first note that only light and darkness are mentioned. No trees, animals, birds, planet - anything physical. Why not?

Because those things have no relevance to the message he is trying to get across. Light and darkness - anybody could see what that meant - and it wasn't literal light and literal darkness.

No idea what you're saying here.

So why do you think that logos is a physical entity? In the spiritual context, it simply cannot be.

There is no spiritual context.

That may be so, but I draw your attention to the fact that John the Baptist was in no less an 'intimate' situation - and you would be VERY hard pressed to maintain that he was literally in the position described:

There was a man sent from God = παρα θεου (para theou). Para means alongside, by the side of:

NAS:
παρα para; a prim. prep.; from beside, by the side of, by, beside:--

Now to assume that John the Baptist was also literally in heaven, at the side of God, is to be absurd.

No Jew would even dream of thinking so, and certainly neither John did either.

So consistency demands that pros ton theon be also regarded non-literally. We cannot be literal and non-literal by whim or doctrinal fancy.

The only safe way to find out what the phrase really means is not by consulting the theologians, but by examining how it is used in the NT, particularly in John’s writings. After all, he probably knew what he meant.

Unless you have been formally trained in Greek, your understanding of it is useless and will not be accepted if you do not consult theologians.

The first startling thing we notice, is that the predominant meaning of pros is to and unto. I’ve lost count of the number of times it is translated like that in the NT.

pros as translated in the KJV: unto 340, to 203, with 43, for 25, against 24, among 20, at 11, not translated 6, miscellaneous 53, vr to 1

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/pros.html

The number of times a word is translated in one way or another is largely irrelevant to how it is translated in a given text.

4314. προς pros; a prim. prep.; advantageous for, at (denotes local proximity), toward (denotes motion toward a place):--

From Strong's:

G4314
πρός
pros
pros
A strengthened form of G4253; a preposition of direction; forward to, that is, toward (with the genitive case the side of, that is, pertaining to; with the dative case by the side of, that is, near to; usually with the accusative case the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, that is, whither or for which it is predicated): - about, according to, against, among, at, because of, before, between, ([where-]) by, for, X at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), + together, to ([you]) -ward, unto, with (-in). In compounds it denotes essentially the same applications, namely, motion towards, accession to, or nearness at.

‘WITH’ is a completely misleading translation: because NOWHERE ELSE in John’s gospel, not even in the same chapter, is pros translated ‘WITH’.

Irrelevant.

So I’m afraid your idea of ‘intimacy’ is somewhat misplaced and needs to be shelved immediately.

Again, since this is based on what you say, and since I have consulted theologians and the like, my understanding stands.

The rest of your post hinges on that meaning, which you can now see cannot be sustained.

The rest of my certainly does not hinge on that meaning and it certainly can be sustained.

 

[reba]

Some folks read Scripture with their heads some with their hearts.

 

[Potluck]

From what I've seen in this thread is a trend toward editing scripture. A word may have more than one meaning therefore scripture is fair game as far as making it say what you want it to. Don't like it? Change it to another meaning. Simple. After all, who were those old fuddy duddy translators anyway? We are much more knowledgeable, they didn't have the internet to do research as is available to us along with all the technical expertise we have so we are better prepared, able and qualified to select the proper meanings for a more "accurate" translation. It's our commission to set the records straight. After all truth is the focus and our truth must be more apparent because we know so much more today than so many years ago.

This leads me to think that only those "in the know" can rightly understand the Word of God. That being the case all others who take Holy Scripture as written miss the mark and cannot partake of the true message of God. They must be enlightened, shown the truth, shown the error of their beliefs due to a lack of intelligent research, proper interpretation of words and logical conclusions drawn once scripture is set aright to fully grasp the Gospel of Christ. Otherwise they're misunderstanding keeps them separated from the truth and eternal life because scripture as written has been translated wrong. Those who adhere to scripture as written are sorely deceived.

 

[patience7]

The relationship is not built WITH what we say or anyone else says. I don't have a relationship with my wife's words. Her words reflect who she is. The relationship is built WITH another person.

The Word of God is Personified. In other words (sorry for the pun), we can atttribute personal adjectives to "The Word".

The Word cried.
The Word was hungry.
The Word was angry.

Words, as you describe them, are not personal. They have no feelings of themselves. They have no ability to love back or feel.

Nor is a relationship made BETWEEN a word and a person. Thus, philosophically minded people, whether from now or the 2nd century BCE, realized that the Word of God was a Person with personal charecteristics, not just an utterance. A mere utterance does not love the one who emits the utterance. My words don't love me back...

This will be the last I will respond to the word "logos" because it is getting a little redundant! We all know that the gk word for "word" is "logos" which means a word, speech, or matter. When interpreting words in scripture you always refer to the first time it is used. The first time "logos" appears in the NT is in Matthew 8:8: The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the "word" only, and my servant shall be healed. Used here it is not indicative of a person, it did not cry, it was not hungry, and it was not angry none of which "words" can do. They can express these things but they can not do these things. The centurion knew that if Jesus would just speak the "speak" the "word"; his servant would be healed. What words did Jesus speak?

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the "word" (logos) whichye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

John 17:14a I have given them thy "word" (logos);

And no I do not have a relationship with my husband's words, but I have a relationship with my husband through his words. His words themselves do not have dreams, hopes, emotions, integrity but they portray these things in and through him. What kind of relationship can anything have if no words are spoken between them?

And thus, we recognize that the Word of God WAS God - and the Word of God became flesh. Jesus. Thus, if you do the math, Jesus = God.

Yes, Jesus Christ was God's words in the flesh. John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

First of all, the son of every being we can point to is of the same nature as the father, correct? If your father was a frog, you are a frog. If you are a human, you are not a frog. If your father was God, you must share in that nature of divinity. While men are called 'sons of God', it is meant in an adoptive sense, since Jesus is called the ONLY Son of God. This is a big difference.

Yes, Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, born of a woman and of God. We are sons/daughters by adoption. When children are adopted in a family; they receive everything that the original children have, including an inheritance and belong in that family. Just as we have been adopted by God, we have become a part of his family, Jesus being our brother (Hebrews 2:11). (He cannot also be our Father) We are therefore heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.

And thus, Christians believe that Jesus was God. Otherwise, what truly is the point of a man dying on the cross? If Jesus was just like us, a "son of God" in the same sense as you and me, HOW does that effect ME 2000 years later??? How does this person like you and me free us from sin, 2000 years later???

That is the core belief of Christians - that that Man's work was and is vital for all those who believe IN Him. Scripture is clear that we put our trust in God - and yet, Jesus tells us over and over to put our trust in HIM. If Jesus is not God, He was either a liar or deranged. Regards

Jesus had to be a man in order to redeem us (Romans 5:12-19) - he had to be a man to be tempted and touched with our infirmities and endure obedient to the cross (God cannot be tempted). Jesus Christ is our example of how we should live; but only he was the perfect sacrificial lamb because he perfectly obeyed his Father. We put our trust and faith in both.

I believe that the core belief of Christians is: For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. That Christ died for us bringing us forgiveness of sins and that he was resurrected becoming the firstfruits of them that slept (1 Co. 15:20) so that we can have hope toward God that there will be a resurrection (Acts 24:15, 1 Peter 1:3) to eternal life.

 

[Potluck]

Just as we have been adopted by God, we have become a part of his family, Jesus being our brother (Hebrews 2:11). (He cannot also be our Father) We are therefore heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.

I don't know about that. My father wasn't a Christian but if he was could I then say he would be a brother?
Yes, of course.

 

[francisdesales]

This will be the last I will respond to the word "logos" because it is getting a little redundant! We all know that the gk word for "word" is "logos" which means a word, speech, or matter. When interpreting words in scripture you always refer to the first time it is used.

The word "logos" means much more than just "a word, speech, or matter"... in Scriptures.


Used in Greek philosophy, it means "the rational principle that governs and develops the universe". It was believed that humans also had a portion or spark of this divine emanation/reasoning within them. (no doubt, "abide in me and I in you" spoken by Jesus took on an obvious sense to those familiar with Greek philosophy). Early Christian writers from the turn of the second century call Jesus "the thought of the Father". This goes beyond "speech"...


Considering the context it is used in Sacred Writ, it seems obvious that we must apply this deeper meaning - especially when the "Word" is personalized, and not just sound waves emiting from the mouth.

The first time "logos" appears in the NT is in Matthew 8:8: The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the "word" only, and my servant shall be healed.

I hope you are aware of the fact that words can have different meanings when used in different contexts? "Faith", "salvation", "rock", and "word" all take on different meanings, regardless of how it was used "the first time it appears". Clearly, the centurion is addressing Jesus as another man, a miracle worker, but certainly not as God in the flesh. He was not applying the term "logos" as used in Greek philosophy to Jesus. It is only after the resurrection to the Apostles conclude that Jesus was God in the flesh and that the term "Logos" - in ALL its most profound meaning - can be applied to the Word.

Used here it is not indicative of a person, it did not cry, it was not hungry, and it was not angry none of which "words" can do.

Do you deny that Jesus is the Word, as per John 1?
Do you deny that Jesus cried, was hungry, thirsted, etc?

Do the math. The Word cried, was hungry and was thirsty. These are personal experiences that cannot be felt by a spoken word or thought. Thus, the Word of God was personalized - as a person, COULD experience hunger and pain.

And no I do not have a relationship with my husband's words, but I have a relationship with my husband through his words.

Of course, but that inconsequential to this discussion. We have a relationship with a PERSON, not WITH words. Christians have a relationship WITH God/Jesus. NOT the "words" of God, such as the commandments. We don't have a relationship with commands or promises of God. We can love the acts of God, His Law, for example as mentioned in the Psalms. But that Law doesn't love us back. There is no reciprocal relationship. Only between the Lawgiver and us.

His words themselves do not have dreams, hopes, emotions, integrity but they portray these things in and through him. What kind of relationship can anything have if no words are spoken between them?

Again, you are taking your eyes off the focus here. Do we have a relationship WITH the WORDS of those we love? Or do we love THE PERSON? Certainly, we learn about another PERSON through self-revelation. Done through words and actions. But we love the person behind the act.

Yes, Jesus Christ was God's words in the flesh. John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Yes, Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, born of a woman and of God. We are sons/daughters by adoption. When children are adopted in a family; they receive everything that the original children have, including an inheritance and belong in that family. Just as we have been adopted by God, we have become a part of his family, Jesus being our brother (Hebrews 2:11). (He cannot also be our Father) We are therefore heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.

Jesus had to be a man in order to redeem us (Romans 5:12-19) - he had to be a man to be tempted and touched with our infirmities and endure obedient to the cross (God cannot be tempted). Jesus Christ is our example of how we should live; but only he was the perfect sacrificial lamb because he perfectly obeyed his Father. We put our trust and faith in both.

We put our trust in God, so says the Scriptures. Not in a man. That Jesus told His Apostles to trust HIM is a subtle indicator that He saw Himself as God, especially in what He was telling the Apostles to trust in Him to do - to answer prayers, to send God's own Spirit to them. These are things that a man cannot do. A man, no matter how good, can send God's Spirit - and certainly not after "I have gone away" due to death.


Jesus, being God AND man, certainly could have His human will tempted from external sources. Jesus was not God in a man suit, nor was Jesus just a man.

I believe that the core belief of Christians is: For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. That Christ died for us bringing us forgiveness of sins and that he was resurrected becoming the firstfruits of them that slept (1 Co. 15:20) so that we can have hope toward God that there will be a resurrection (Acts 24:15, 1 Peter 1:3) to eternal life.

That is the Christian proclamation - but it is important to know what "only Begotten Son" means - since a man dying on the cross doesn't win salvation for anyone, unless that man is something more than "just a man". What we are to believe in is that Jesus IS Divine as God's only begotten Son, the Word Who came in the flesh. God became flesh to save us. GOD saves in Scriptures. Jesus, by His own power, rose from the dead and promised us (as only God Himself can) that we, TOO, can inherit eternal life and become one with Him, drawn into the Blessed Trinity.

Regards

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]It seems that your stock answers are 'begging the question', 'irrelevant' and 'you should consult the theologians'! With respect, my views stand on the way words and phrases in scripture are used there, not on anyone's opinions.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]May I ask you as kindly as possible to refrain from using ‘begging the question’ and ‘irrelevant’ unless you comment on why you’re saying so? That’s only fair. Thanks.

I am forced to depend on translators, since I don't know any Greek and Hebrew - but if they've done their job properly, and by and large I have to assume they do, then it's difficult to make serious mistakes.

In this case, however, there is a glaring set of errors, brought on by the theological preconceptions.

With respect again, Free, you are in the same position I'm in - knowing no Greek or Hebrew, and therefore dependent on translators. Unhappily, you add the theologians to that list, and have problems seeing the problems.

Of course the word "the" is missing but this in no way means that it should be "a" beginning.

The grammarians tell me that the absence of the definite article ('the') means that a quality is being described, not a thing. The presence of the article makes it definite (hence 'definite' article).

The absence of the article MUST mean something. I think it means that he is not referring to the specific 'the beginning', which would clearly indicate Gen 1.1.

That is the moot point here, and accusations of 'question begging' do not further the cause of our understanding very much, because you are doing the exact same thing!

The case must stand or fall on its own merits.

Here, the context, always the context, must decide, and we ignore it at our peril. So what is the time context here, I ask you?

(BTW, where's Drew these days? I'm sure he'd like to get his teeth into this point! He just loves allusions!)

So the use of "the" comes from the arche itself. This is a clear reference to the beginning of Creation in Gen 1:1.
[…]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There is no other beginning, so there is no point to asking "which one." There is only more than one beginning if one presumes such and reads that into the text. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
As you can see, you are cheerfully doing quite a bit of question begging yourself - by assuming that there is no other beginning besides Gen 1. The word 'beginning', especially 'a beginning' as here, can refer to any beginning at all. Here are a few examples from the OT:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ge 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ge 13:3 And he went on his journeys from the south even to Bethel, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai;[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ge 41:21 And when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill favoured, as at the beginning. So I awoke.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ge 49:3 Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ex 12:2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The above quotes demonstrate quite clearly that there ARE other beginnings, and only the context can decide which one is being referred to.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So we’re back to the context question.

I ask you again, from the rest of the chapter, what is the time context of these words? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you do a powerful bit of context yanking, then yes, ‘the beginning’ could refer to Gen 1.1, I agree. But try putting in the time markers we have in Jn.1 itself, and suddenly you have no case at all.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So what time markers do you see in John 1?

[/FONT]

 

[John Zain]

John Zain ... Doubting my salvation?

Nope, this has nothing to do with salvation.
Billy Graham didn't know what had happened to him for 6 months.
Ditto for moi.
6 months!
If you had any idea what I was talkin' about, you'd realize that
I was referring to your not knowing for sure that God even existed.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Originally Posted by Free

“Of course the word "the" is missing but this in no way means that it should be
"a" beginning.â€

Patience:

“The grammarians tell me that the absence of the definite article ('the') means
that a quality is being described, not a thing. The presence of the article
makes it definite (hence 'definite' article).â€

NT Grammarians tell us (and I have found a number of examples proving it) that when a noun is modified by a preposition or part of a prepositional phrase, the use of the article is often ambiguous. That is, it may be absent when the noun is definite (so “in beginning†may mean “in the beginningâ€) and it may even be present when the noun is indefinite.

I believe that in most cases of “in the beginning†or “from the beginning†you will find the article (“theâ€) is missing in the NT Greek text - e.g., John 1:2; 6:64; Acts 11:15; 26:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; etc. This is in line with many other “prepositional†constructions where the article is understood.


The absence of the article has nothing to do with “qualitative†nouns as some Trinitarian scholars wish (for John 1:1c only). I have proof of this, but, of course, I am not allowed on this forum to refer you to my lengthy study. It can be found, however, in an earlier post here (#73) where Potluck mentioned it. If you should look for the 'qualitative' study there, it will be called “Harner: JBL ‘Qualitative’ Article Refuted†or “QUAL (€˜Qualitative’ John 1:1c - Wallace).â€

 

[Former Christian]

John Zain

Your right. I haven’t a clue what you're talking about.

FC

 

[Asyncritus]

Reply to Free (cont'd)

Yes, in the very least John is saying that Jesus, or the Word, was already existing at the start of all creation, whether one argues that he created or everything was created through him is irrelevant.

Can you see the number of titanic assumptions you’re making here?

1 Jesus = the word (not the ‘word made flesh’ as later in the chapter).
2 ‘ beginning’ = the start of all creation

Both of these assumptions, with no proof at the back of them, are debatable from scripture as I’m showing.

Using this same logic we can then conclude that much of what Jesus said whether directly quoted from the OT or alluded to, would be irrational.

Some proof please?

If Jesus had made the world, Genesis would have said so quite clearly - it is too important a point to miss out - but it doesn't.

Begging the question.

With due respect Free, that is hardly an answer. We have as facts:

1 Gen 1, which is the creation account, does not say that Jesus did any creating: unless you choose to beg the question by insisting that Jesus is ‘God’ who did the creating.

2 It is an extremely important point, and nothing is said about it.
Given those 2 facts, I cannot be accused of begging any question, merely seeking an explanation of those FACTS.
So try again.

Therefore the allusions to creation are made because there is a New Creation going on here, and Christ is the Author and Perfecter of it. It is the spiritual creation that is being referred to here. And that is a provable statement
No, this clearly is not the case.

Why do you say so? You do acept that there is a New Creation, don't you? Let me remind you that if any man is in Christ, he is a new creation.
2Co 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

He is the beginning

of the creation of God. (Rev 3.14)

However you may understand that, it is clear that God created Jesus and put Him at the Head of the New Creation.

Begging the question. This verse in no way means that Jesus was created.

Then what does it mean?
As I see it, you have 2 options before you:

1 As above, Jesus was created as ‘the beginning’ ie the first thing that WAS created or

2 Jesus was appointed as the ‘beginning’ or the Head of the Creation of God, because ‘beginning’ (arche) can sometimes mean chief, principal or other such meanings.

There may be others, but I can’t think of any. Can you?
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Reply to Free (final instalment)

[FONT=&quot]

No idea what you're saying here.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I’m saying that John 1 does not refer to the physical creation at all. The only 2 things there that could be physical are light and darkness. But he is not talking about the physical, since Jesus is described thus:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5 ¶ And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7 The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9 There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So this is spiritual, figurative, non-literal language – whose meaning is obvious to the dimmest reader.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Therefore, and I say it again, the section is not to be read literally, because it is speaking of the spiritual, not the literal.

There is no spiritual context.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Surely the above must give you grounds to doubt that statement?

Unless you have been formally trained in Greek, your understanding of it is useless and will not be accepted if you do not consult theologians.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How sad a statement is that! You and I are to abandon our native gifts of intelligence and common sense, and hand them over to the theologians to do with as they please![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No, I won't do that, but I will proceed as intelligence dictates.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As I’ve said, my first port of call is to ascertain how the word/phrase is used in scripture itself. Second, I consult the linguists if any doubts remain – and to be fair, there often isn’t any doubt left at the end of the first stage examination. Third, I examine the context carefully.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why don’t you try the method yourself? It yields some beautiful fruit.

pros as translated in the KJV: unto 340, to 203, with 43, for 25, against 24, among 20, at 11, not translated 6, miscellaneous 53, vr to 1 […]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here’s your biggest problem, Free. You’ve listed the Strong’s definitions etc. You should have seen the truth of what I said: that pros very, very rarely, if ever, means with. So it is a very suspicious translation in Jn 1.1 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Check it out for yourself, and see for yourself.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The translators didn’t quite know what it means, but were determined to import a trinitarian bias into the passage, and dragged ‘with God’, kicking and screaming into their version. But the simple fact remains that ‘with’ is not correct, not really.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Especially in view of the fact that pros is used several times in the VERY SAME CHAPTER, and is NOT translated as ‘with’. (see my previous post).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You don’t need to be a great Greek scholar to make that simple observation - the first century readers were certainly not such - common intelligence is all that is needed.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] I’ve made it – and it was a great surprise to me, because I had accepted its correctness without question so far. You can make the same observation too, and I encourage you to check it out for yourself. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But if correct, it does cast doubt on that ‘with God’ translation in 1.1, doesn’t it?

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]So what does the phrase really mean then?[/FONT]

 

[Former Christian]

Francisdesales

“That's the problem with relativism. It all depends upon subjective "truths", rather than accepting objective truths that are not subject to our own personal opinions. In other words, everyone is right. To me, that doesn't make sense. But I understand its allure and popularity today - the modern culture that you told me earlier to avoid...!”

The fact that you believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church is based on a subjective decision. Unless you were taught to believe the Catholic Church is the true Church, you determined that it’s the true Church on your own. That’s a subjective determination. If you were taught it, then you’re believing in someone else’s subjective determination. We as humans are capable of nothing more than subjective determination based on whatever facts we can gather and understand. And how we put the facts together is the truth as best we can determine and understand it. Since we’re all different in all kinds of different ways, the truths we believe are different. To think that we can know objective truth is sheer arrogance on our part.

FC

 

[Free]

Since we’re all different in all kinds of different ways, the truths we believe are different. To think that we can know objective truth is sheer arrogance on our part.

FC

Certainly you must be generalizing. If we cannot know objective truth then we cannot have saving faith.

 

[theLords]

The Catholic church discussion ends here. Let's get back on topic.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Free wrote:

“Unless you have been formally trained in Greek, your understanding of it is
useless and will not be accepted if you do not consult theologians.”

Does that apply to your definition for en (‘in’) and hn (‘was’) which theologians define differently (Q&A Forum - ‘Can 3 Persons Be One God?’)?

And considering John 1 (for future reference), do you agree with the following theologians concerning theos/elohim (a god/gods)?

The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, says about ‘gods’:

"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1.



And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this trinitarian study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).”



The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:

“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia
explains that elohim [‘god, gods’] is, of course, applied to God. But it is also applied “to those who represent the Deity (Jgs 5 8; Ps 82 1) ...” - p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984 printing.

W. E. Vine tells us:

“The word [theos, ‘god’ or ‘God’] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34” - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

And Barnes’ Notes tells us in commenting on John 10:34, 35:

The scripture cannot be broken. See Matthew 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside. The meaning is,
'If, therefore, the Scripture uses the word "god" as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It can not, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the Messiah.' -Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.

Young’s
Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:

“65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28....”

The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

Elohim: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97:7...”

Angels are clearly called gods (elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know this because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels” is used (in place of elohim in the OT) in NT Greek. The New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6 -
“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

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

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

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

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
(John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

(also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV;

And, of course the popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/“a god” about the same time the NT was being written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.” And, as we saw above, many highly respected NT scholars of this century agree.

All of this shows the scriptural understanding (as well as the same understanding by Christian writers of the first centuries) of “god” as applied to angels and certain men who were trying to follow God or who were representatives or ambassadors for God. Just because it sounds strange to our modern ears is no reason to ignore the facts. And no reason to take advantage of that fact by claiming that only two understandings of the words theos and elohim are possible: “God” and “false gods.”

The words elohim and theos are simply titles or descriptions (like “lord”) signifying more than usual power, might, authority, etc. It may be applied on many levels. But when it is applied on the highest (“Most High”) level it is understood in an exclusive sense: there is no other individual that is even remotely equal to this one. This does not mean that the same title, description is not used for lesser ones. To distinguish, when there could be confusion, the Most High God will usually be described as “the god” (ha elohim, Heb. or ho theos, Gk.) which, when translated into modern English will be distinguished by a capital letter (“God”) since in our idiom we seldom use the definite article with “God.”



Any cut-and-paste material is from my own original files. These files which I have originated have also been posted at numerous places on-line at various times over the past 15 years.

 

[theLords]

Here's my copy/post contribution!

TRINITY: The Trinity is the view that the three persons mentioned in the Bible: Father, Son (i.e., Jesus) and Holy Spirit are one God. They are distinct in their Personhoods, yet they maintain unity of substance as one God. The Watchtower correctly defines the “Trinity” doctrine in some of its statements regarding it, but in many other statements, the way it is presented often leads people to believe that the Trinity consists of three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in one person, but such is an inaccurate concept of the doctrine. The following examples demonstrate some of the ways the Watchtower misrepresents this doctrine in its literature:

“Here Jesus shows that he and the Father, that is, Almighty God, must be two distinct entities, for how else could there truly be two witnesses? …Was God saying that he was his own son, that he approved himself, that he sent himself? No.…To whom was he praying? To a part of himself? No....To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself or to part of himself? …If you appear in someone else’s presence, how can you be that person? You cannot. You must be different and separate.…Someone who is ‘with’ another person cannot also be that other person.” —Should You Believe in the Trinity?, pp. 17-19, 27
​

We would agree that several passages demonstrate the distinction between the Person of the Father and the Person of the Son, but such arguments have no bearing against the Trinity doctrine because it teaches, “there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost… For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic [Christian] Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords.” (The Creed of Athanasius) Since the Trinity teaches the distinction of each of the “Persons” of the Godhead, all arguments demonstrating this are invalid.
Another argument proposed by the Watchtower that becomes inconsequential when the Trinity doctrine is accurately defined is the claim that Jesus cannot be “equal” to the Father if He is in subjection to Him. The Watchtower asserts, “The Bible’s position is clear. Not only is Almighty God, Jehovah, a personality separate from Jesus but He is at all times his superior….And this is why Jesus himself said: ‘The Father is greater than I.’—John 14:28” (Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 20)
Here again, the Watchtower arguments fail when the Trinity doctrine is accurately defined. Concerning the nature of Jesus Christ, the Creed of Athanasius notes, “Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.” When Jesus made the claim that “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), was He here on earth operating under the limitations of His “manhood”? Or was He in Heaven operating in His divine essence? Context reveals that Jesus was speaking of His human nature when He claimed that the Father was in a “greater” position than He.
Furthermore, the fact that Jesus is “subject” to God, His Father, does not indicate that He is any less “God” than His Father is. At Luke 2:51, Jesus was “subject” to Mary and Joseph. Are we to argue that Jesus is “inferior” in nature to Mary and Joseph because He was “subject” to them? Of course not! We believe that just as a “son” is no less human than his father is, so Jesus being “God’s Son” is no less “God” than His Father is.

For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:18, NIV)​

For more information concerning the “Trinity” doctrine and responses to common Scriptural verses used against it as well as an expose’ of the faulty Watchtower claim that the doctrine was derived from paganism, see “Is the Trinity a Biblical Concept?”

About Us: Are we Jehovah's Witness apostates? | FAQs

http://4jehovah.org/help-jw-letter.php

 

[theLords]

1 - This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act.

Statement of Faith

We consider Paul's writings to be part of the inspired Word of God. This is a Christian forum and any posting(s) that is intended to purposely distort Paul's writings will not be tolerated.

Active promotion of sinful behavior will not be permitted. This includes promotion of homosexual behavior. Individual restrictions may apply on a Forum to Forum basis. Please check the announcements and stickies at the top of each Forum.

3 - No active promotion of other Faiths is allowed:

You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Biblical and historical Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Discussing these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted. This includes Universal Reconciliation, Universal Salvation, Serpent seed, Dual Seed or Two-Seedline doctrine which are only allowed in the 1 on 1 Debate Forum. This is a Christian Forum as the name suggests.

Only scripture from accepted Christian bibles will be allowed to be posted on this board. The New World Translation is not considered Christian material on this site. Discussion about other scripture, documents, writings or material is acceptable but will not be permitted to be used as a basis of support within a debate or discussion.

Discussion of Catholic doctrine will be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs. Do not start new topics elsewhere or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is Catholic in nature.

 

[theLords]

.:IS THE TRINITY A BIBLICAL CONCEPT?

“...we worship one God in Trinity, Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal....So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.†—Athanasian Creed
​

While the Watchtower Society admits that the doctrine of the Trinity “has been the central doctrine of the churches for centuries.â€â€”Should You Believe in the Trinity, p. 3, they deny that it has any basis in the Bible. They argue: “Moses reminded the Israelites that ‘Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.’ (Deuteronomy 6:4) Jesus Christ repeated those words. (Mark 12:28-29) Therefore, those who accept the Bible as God’s Word do not worship a Trinity consisting of three persons or gods in one. In fact, the word ‘Trinity’ does not even appear in the Bible.â€â€”KNOWLEDGE That Leads to Everlasting Life, p. 31
Notice how in trying to refute the Trinity doctrine, the Society misstates it (“three...gods in oneâ€). While it is true that the word “trinity†is not found in the Bible, this does not mean that it is not a Biblical concept. The word “theocracy†is not found in the Bible, yet it is a Biblical concept found prevalent in the history of the nation of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament.
Although the doctrine of the Trinity was not formulated into liturgical worship until it was codified in the creeds of the fourth century, the concept of the Trinity can be found throughout the Old and New Testaments and in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. In the Scriptures, we read that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:6,8; 45:21-23; 46:9), and yet the Father is called “God†at 1 Peter 1:2, the Son is called “God†at John 20:28, and the Holy Spirit is called “God†at Acts 5:3-4. The Scriptures also reveal that each member of the Trinity has the attributes of Deity and performs activities that only God can perform.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit....â€â€”Matthew 28:19
​

Notice that the word “name†is singular (not plural i.e., “namesâ€). Also, the definite article “the†is placed in front of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, thus implying plurality within unity. The Trinity is not Modalism—the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one person; nor is it Tritheism—the view that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate Gods. Although the Trinity cannot be totally comprehended, it can be apprehended and seen illustrated in the world of nature. Take, for example, an illustration involving three candles. Even after lighting each candle, they are still separate and distinct. However, when one combines each of the three flames together, they become one flame. In the same way, each member of the Trinity is separate and distinct, yet they are one God. As Walter Martin founder of the Christian Research Institute put it:

“God is not triplex (1+1+1)—He is triune (1X1X1), and he has revealed Himself fully in the Person of our Lord, Jesus Christ (Col. 2:9, John 14:9).†—Christian Research Institute tract,Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Trinity
“Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance....And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.†—Athanasian Creed

​

IS THE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSON?
​

• He testifies about Christ (John 15:26).
• He intercedes for believers (Romans 8:26).
• He teaches believers (John 14:26; Revelation 2:7; 1 Timothy 4:1).
• He has a “will†and issues commands (1 Cor. 12:11; Acts 8:29; 13:2-4; 16:6).
• He guides believers (John 16:13; Romans 8:14).
• He has a “mind†and “searches all things†of God (Romans 8:27; 1 Corinthians 2:10-11).
• He has emotions and can “grieve†(Ephesians 4:30; Isaiah 63:10).
• He is treated as a person and can be lied to (Acts 5:3), blasphemed (Matthew 12:31), and tempted (Acts 5:9). How can an “impersonal force†do things that only a person can do?

THE JEHOVAH WHO WAS SEEN BY OLD TESTAMENT BELIEVERS IS JESUS.​

• “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.†—John 1:18

• “In the year King Uzziah’s death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted...Woe is me, for I am ruined!...For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.†—Isaiah 6:1, 5

• “...yet they were not believing in Him; that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled....These things Isaiah said, because he saw His glory, and spoke of Him. Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him....†—John 12:37, 41-42

“He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, ‘Show us the Father’?†—John 14:9

THE JEHOVAH WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE “ALL ALONE†IS THE JESUS WHO CREATED EVERYTHING THAT HAS EVER EXISTED.​

• “I the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone.â€â€”Isaiah 44:24

• “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.†—John 1:3

IS JESUS YOUR “ONLY LORDâ€?​

• “And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.†—John 17:3

If Jesus is not the “only true God,†but is rather just a “second God†under the True God, according to this passage, He must be a false God. While all other so-called “gods†(1 Cor. 8:5) are not “gods†“by nature†(Gal. 4:8), Jesus is by “very nature God†(Phil. 2:6).

• “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him....For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.†—Colossians 1:19; 2:9

• “For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me....I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.†—Isaiah 46:9; 48:12

• “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.†— 1 Timothy 1:17

• “...do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth.†—Exodus 23:13

• “If you ask Me anything in My name, I wildo it.†—John 14:14

• “...ungodly persons who...deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.â€â€”Jude 4

Is The Trinity A Biblical Concept? | Jehovah's Witness Beliefs Exposed

http://4jehovah.org/jehovahs-witness-trinity.php

 

[Free]

Free wrote:



Does that apply to your definition for en (‘in’) and hn (‘was’) which theologians define differently (Q&A Forum - ‘Can 3 Persons Be One God?’)?

And considering John 1 (for future reference), do you agree with the following theologians concerning theos/elohim (a god/gods)?

The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, says about ‘gods’:

"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1.



And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this trinitarian study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).”



The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:

“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia
explains that elohim [‘god, gods’] is, of course, applied to God. But it is also applied “to those who represent the Deity (Jgs 5 8; Ps 82 1) ...” - p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984 printing.

W. E. Vine tells us:

“The word [theos, ‘god’ or ‘God’] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34” - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

And Barnes’ Notes tells us in commenting on John 10:34, 35:

The scripture cannot be broken. See Matthew 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside. The meaning is,
'If, therefore, the Scripture uses the word "god" as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It can not, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the Messiah.' -Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.

Young’s
Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:

“65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28....”

The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

Elohim: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97:7...”

Angels are clearly called gods (elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know this because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels” is used (in place of elohim in the OT) in NT Greek. The New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6 -
“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

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

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

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

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
(John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

(also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV;

And, of course the popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/“a god” about the same time the NT was being written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.” And, as we saw above, many highly respected NT scholars of this century agree.

All of this shows the scriptural understanding (as well as the same understanding by Christian writers of the first centuries) of “god” as applied to angels and certain men who were trying to follow God or who were representatives or ambassadors for God. Just because it sounds strange to our modern ears is no reason to ignore the facts. And no reason to take advantage of that fact by claiming that only two understandings of the words theos and elohim are possible: “God” and “false gods.”

The words elohim and theos are simply titles or descriptions (like “lord”) signifying more than usual power, might, authority, etc. It may be applied on many levels. But when it is applied on the highest (“Most High”) level it is understood in an exclusive sense: there is no other individual that is even remotely equal to this one. This does not mean that the same title, description is not used for lesser ones. To distinguish, when there could be confusion, the Most High God will usually be described as “the god” (ha elohim, Heb. or ho theos, Gk.) which, when translated into modern English will be distinguished by a capital letter (“God”) since in our idiom we seldom use the definite article with “God.”

Is there a point in this somewhere? Yes, theos is used in different ways. However, John's point is abundantly clear that the Word, the Christ, is very much God in nature, equal to the Father but not the Father. There is only one true, living God; only ever has been one and only ever will be one.