God The Father God The Son

[Runningman]

...............................................
NT Greek Grammar proves John 1:1c is properly translated: "and the word was a god."

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html
or
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2013/02/seven-lessons-for-john-11c-a.html

The absence of the article (“the”) before “God” in the Greek makes the word “God” qualitative, which can be understood as “the Word had the character of God,” meaning that it was godly. The word isn't literally another god or God because the word (logos) is literally a word, speech, or divine utterance.

You might like the Revised English Version. It was translated by Unitarians and clears up the contradictions Trinitarians put in modern Bibles. The New Testament is done, they're still working on the Old.

John 1 (REV)
1In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and what God was the word was.

 

[Free]

From what I understand. LOL
Go to most any denominational or group Greek expert, and you will find their theology is supported by their Greek language department.

How can there be so many ways to understand what the Greek says?

I started a Greek class once. A strange subject came up. I asked if another denomination Greek class would be the same. They tried to dodge the question. I asked again and the final answer was (No).

End of Greek experts. Oh I know - but our Greek is right. I Still look up words at times, but I don’t argue about correct Translation and parsing.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

I wouldn't go quite that far. Koine Greek is far more precise than English, although not as precise as classical Greek, and grammatically it shouldn't make much difference denomination wise. It shouldn't make much difference with lexical semantics either, but that is likely where most of the issues lie. Even then, it isn't so much an individual word meaning; it's the relationship between the words that determines meanings. It's the same with English where words can have different meanings based on context.

The issue is that, yes, theology can drive the use of certain meanings of words and how they are best translated. That is the issue here with John 1:1c, with the anarthrous theos ("God" without the definite article, "the"):

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

Directly translated from the Greek it reads: "In beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and God was the Word."

In English, we add the first "the"--In the beginning--because it is grammatically incorrect and makes it odd without it. When we come to 1:1b, we leave out "the" because it is grammatically incorrect and makes it odd with it. But, no harm, no foul; neither change the meaning one bit. However, when we get to 1:1c, theos (God) doesn't have the definite article, which makes the reference ambiguous. At least, it does until we consider the context of the verse--the Word is already said to be eternally existent in 1:1a--and the greater context of Scripture--that there was and always will be only one God or god. Then we can see that it can only have a qualitative meaning--that the Word is in nature God. When we consider that the Word is God in nature, the same way that the Father is God in nature, then we can legitimately say that "the Word was God," since only God can have the nature of God.

Other problems do exist, though, like with the NWT having been "translated" according to doctrine, not the Greek text. Not only is the translation committee behind it kept secret, and generally known to not have been well trained, if at all, in Hebrew or Greek, they add words in to completely change the meaning of a verse. Col 1:16-17 is the main example.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Note what the NWT does and the progression from 1985 to 2013:

16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist (NWT 1985)

16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist, (NWT 2013)

At first, "other" had the square brackets, to indicate that it isn't in the Greek text. But then they just went all out and removed the brackets to make it appear as though that is what the Greek states. Which is exceedingly odd since the Kingdom Interlinear Translation doesn't have "other" in the Greek:

16 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ
because in him it was created the all (things) in the heavens and upon the earth, the (things) visible and

τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ
the (things) invisible whether thrones or lordships or governments or authorities; the all (things) through him

καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· 17 καὶ αὐτὸς ἔστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ
and into him it has been created; and he is before all (things) and the all (things) in him

συνέστηκεν,
it has stood together,


The Greek may not be that far off from any Greek text (I don't know what they base their Greek text on) and largely agrees with legitimate translations, such as the ESV. Clearly, "other" never makes an appearance. To me, that is exceedingly dishonest on the part of the NWT translation and an obvious effort to change the plain meaning of the text based on doctrinal presuppositions. So, yes, those things do happen, but at least here it isn't an issue of the Greek.

 

[Free]

The absence of the article (“the”) before “God” in the Greek makes the word “God” qualitative, which can be understood as “the Word had the character of God,” meaning that it was godly. The word isn't literally another god or God because the word (logos) is literally a word, speech, or divine utterance.

It means much more than just that. Perhaps you can explain how "a word, speech, or divine utterance" can be in intimate union and communion with God, as stated by John 1:1b.

You might like the Revised English Version. It was translated by Unitarians and clears up the contradictions Trinitarians put in modern Bibles.

What contradictions are put in modern Bibles by Trinitarians?

John 1 (REV)
1In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and what God was the word was.

That supports the Trinity... Or, put another way, since you say that "the word (logos) is literally a word, speech, or divine utterance," it necessarily follows then that God must only be "a word, speech, or divine utterance." If God is more than that, then it necessarily follows that the Word is more than that.

 

[Runningman]

It means much more than just that. Perhaps you can explain how "a word, speech, or divine utterance" can be in intimate union and communion with God, as stated by John 1:1b.

Sure, the logos refers to the mind of God. His plans and foreknowledge.

What contradictions are put in modern Bibles by Trinitarians?

Oh boy, where to begin. First thing that comes to mind is Isaiah 9:6 that says the child will be called "Everlasting Father" and then Jesus was never called that. Actually, he rejected being called the Father in Matt 23:9.

That supports the Trinity... Or, put another way, since you say that "the word (logos) is literally a word, speech, or divine utterance," it necessarily follows then that God must only be "a word, speech, or divine utterance." If God is more than that, then it necessarily follows that the Word is more than that.

Or if God is more than a word, speech, or divine utterance then the word is not God, but rather possibly a demi-god, god-like, or godly. Hence "...what God was the word was" can be understood as something God has that the word shares, but isn't itself God.

We can also draw more scripture on the matter. Such as 1 John 1:1-2 that says the "word of life" is an it.

 

[tigger 2]

Here, again, are all the examples which are truly parallel to John's usage of John 1:1c:

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations

H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all [16]

H,W 4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all

H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all

H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all

H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all

H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all

H,W 10 John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all

[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

………………………………................................

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”) - all

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”) - all

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”) - all

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”) - all

18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
And, possibly,

H,W 19. 1 John 2:4 - liar (he) is.

H = Also found in Harner's list of "Colwell Constructions"

W = Also found in Wallace's list of "Colwell Constructions"


So when all the proper (those most closely equivalent to the actual usage found at John 1:1c) examples found in John's writings are examined in various trinitarian Bibles (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, etc.), we find they are always translated with indefinite concrete nouns such as "you are a prophet" (Jn 4:19) which perfectly corresponds with a rendering of John 1:1c as "The Word was a god"!

So will someone take these 19 scriptures from trinitarian-translated Bibles and show that they are translated by them as definite ("the ....") or qualitative instead of anarthrous ("a ....").

https://www.biblegateway.com/

 

[F345T]

God The Father God The Son:

Some, who deny that Jesus Christ is Almighty God, and coequal with the Father in the Eternal Godhead, use the argument, that there is no place in the Bible, where we read of “God the Son”.

However, there is a verse in the Second Letter of John, where it is clear, that we have God the Father and God the Son.

"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not remain in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever remains in the teaching has both the Father and the Son" – verse 9

Here we read of those who do not remain in the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, who are said “not to possess God (θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει).

We would have expected John to continue, “whoever remains in the teaching, has God”

However, John instead says, that those who do “remain in the teaching” of Christ, they “have both the Father and the Son (καὶ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει).

It is not uncommon for the Greek particle, “καὶ”, to mean BOTH, as is clear in John 15:24, “but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father (καὶ ἐμὲ καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου)”

It is very clear from this verse, that the ONE use of “GOD”, includes BOTH The Father AND The Son. There can be no doubt from what John writes here.

Nor can there be any doubt about the distinction of “Persons”, between the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ. In the Greek, it reads: “τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει”, where the article “τὸν” is used with both nouns, and connected by the particle “καὶ”, it shows that “The Father”, is a distinct Person, from “The Son”, and they are not “identical” Persons. Both “Father” and “Son” are “personal” nouns, and cannot be used for something that is “impersonal”.

We have a very similar passage in the Book of Acts, which is a clear Testimony on the Deity of the Holy Spirit. In chapter 5, verse 3 we read:

“But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον) and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?”

Here we have the “Personality” of the Holy Spirit, as He is LIED (ψεύδομαι, to deceive, cheat) to, which cannot be said, IF, as some, heretically believe, that, the Holy Spirit is “impersonal”, like a mere “force”.

Then, in the following verse, Peter goes on to say;

“While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God (τῷ θεῷ)”

What Ananias had done in lying to the Holy Spirit, was in fact lying to God, and not to “a human” (ἄνθρωπος). Here it is clear that the Holy Spirit is Almighty God. Note the definite article in the Greek, with God (τῷ θεῷ), so it cannot read, “god”, or “a god”.

The essential Unity between God the Father and God the Son, is also clear in other places in the Writings of the Apostle John.

In his Gospel, we read in chapter 10, Jesus says:

“ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν”, which is literally in English: “I and the Father One We are”

John is very careful not to write, “εἷς”, which is the masculine, and can mean, “one Person”. The neuter, “ἕν”, is literally, “One thing”, as in “One Nature”, or, “One Essence”. The masculine plural, “ἐσμεν”, “We are”, also shows the Unity of both the Father and the Son.

Some argue that all Jesus means here, is, that He was “one”, with the Father, as He was doing His will on earth. This is true, but not what Jesus is saying here. We have to go back to verse 28, where Jesus says that He gives to His Sheep, eternal Life, as He is the Source of all Life. He then assures them, that, “neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand”. In the following verse, Jesus goes on to say, “no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand”. Which is followed by the words in verse 30. What Jesus is here saying, is, that He has the SAME Power as the Father, which is what the words in verses 28 and 29 mean. Note that Jesus here places Himself before the Father. In the Old Testament Book of Deuteronomy, we read; “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.” (32:39). Again, in the Prophet Isaiah we read, “Also henceforth I am He; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?” (43:13). No doubt that the Almighty Power of God is meant.

Again, in the Gospel of John we read, in the Original and best attested reading on 1:18

“θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο”

Literally, “God no one has ever seen, the Unique God Who is always in very close relation with the Father, He will make Him known”

Here, we have both uses of “θεὸς”, without the Greek article. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, who deny that Jesus Christ is God, while accepting the reading, “μονογενὴς θεὸς”, have, as they do in verse 1, corrupted the actual reading, by rendering the sentence, “No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god”. Their DISHONESTY is very clear here. WHY and on WHAT basis, can they justify, the first “θεὸς”, when used of the Father, as “God”, and then the SAME use, without the Greek definite article, have “god”, for Jesus Christ! This is blatant WICKEDNESS!

Jesus is UNIQUE as GOD, because, unlike God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit, as the Apostle Paul says, “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16. Original reading). Jesus Christ as His Incarnation, became The God-Man.

There are verses that throw a pretty big wrench in this perspective though.

John 14:21 Jesus says that He will manifest HIMSELF unto those who love Him and keep His Commandments (which are the Father's 10 Commandments [Jn. 15:10; Matt. 23:1-3]). When asked to clarify what He means by this in verse 22, Jesus reiterates by explaining that when He says He will manifest "HIMSELF" to us, what He means is that He and the Father will come to make their home with us. Note: zero mention of a Holy Spirit because God IS a spirit and Rom. 8:9-11 makes the case that JESUS is the Holy Spirit. (Jesus is God and God is a spirit [Jn. 4:24])

This blows the idea of the Father and Son being separate right out of the water. If God were three persons, Jesus would have certainly mentioned the 3rd "person" somewhere, some way, in John 14:21-23.

 

[Free]

There are verses that throw a pretty big wrench in this perspective though.

John 14:21 Jesus says that He will manifest HIMSELF unto those who love Him and keep His Commandments (which are the Father's 10 Commandments [Jn. 15:10; Matt. 23:1-3]). When asked to clarify what He means by this in verse 22, Jesus reiterates by explaining that when He says He will manifest "HIMSELF" to us, what He means is that He and the Father will come to make their home with us. Note: zero mention of a Holy Spirit because God IS a spirit and Rom. 8:9-11 makes the case that JESUS is the Holy Spirit.

This blows the idea of the Father and Son being separate right out of the water. If God were three persons, Jesus would have certainly mentioned the 3rd "person" somewhere, some way, in John 14:21-23.

There is no verse that "blows the idea of the Father and Son being separate right out of the water." Nor should we presume what Jesus would have said based on a preconceived notion we have. Context is everything and one verse taken on its own, disregarding everything else that is said about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is being taken out of context. I have found that that is the main issue with anti-Trinitarians--verses are taken one a time, piecemeal, but that is mere proof-texting.

Consider what Jesus says right in John 14, verses 16-17:

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
Joh 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. (ESV)

Repeated in verse 26:

Joh 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (ESV)

First, notice that the language of "another Helper" means one that is similar to but distinct from Jesus himself. Second, we see all three persons mentioned distinctly in verse 26. Indeed, throughout the whole NT, all three persons are continually and consistently mentioned as separately, which would make no sense and be pointless if they weren't all actually distinct from each other.

Now notice verse 28:

Joh 14:28 You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (ESV)

And, on it goes with the distinction of Father and Son being maintained, throughout the whole NT:

Joh 15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.
…
Joh 15:8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.
Joh 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.
Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
…
Joh 15:21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.
…
Joh 15:23 Whoever hates me hates my Father also.
Joh 15:24 If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.
…
Joh 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. (ESV)

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
Joh 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
Joh 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
Joh 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;
…
Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Joh 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Joh 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
…
Joh 16:17 So some of his disciples said to one another, “What is this that he says to us, ‘A little while, and you will not see me, and again a little while, and you will see me’; and, ‘because I am going to the Father’?”
…
Joh 16:23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.
…
Joh 16:25 “I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father.
Joh 16:26 In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf;
Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
Joh 16:29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!
Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”
Joh 16:31 Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe?
Joh 16:32 Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me. (ESV)

Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Joh 17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
Joh 17:6 “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.
Joh 17:7 Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you.
Joh 17:8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. (ESV)

There is simply no way to understand what Jesus says in these passages other than that the Father is not the Son and neither are the Holy Spirit. Jesus repeatedly states that he "came from God" and is going "to the Father." Notice in John 15:24 Jesus says, "both me and my Father," and in 16:32 that "I am not alone, for the Father is with me." The plain meaning of those verses is that they cannot be the same person.

John 17:5 is interesting considering what Yahweh says in Isaiah 42:8:

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. (ESV)

We must take all verses together as a complete whole and then make sense of what they say, for the full revelation of who God is.

 

[tigger 2]

Here, again, are all the examples which are truly parallel to John's usage of John 1:1c:

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations

H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all

H,W 4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all

H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all

H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all

H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all

H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all

H,W 10 John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all

[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

………………………………................................

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”) - all

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”) - all

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”) - all

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”) - all

18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
And, possibly,

H,W 19. 1 John 2:4 - liar (he) is.

H = Also found in Harner's list of "Colwell Constructions"

W = Also found in Wallace's list of "Colwell Constructions"


So when all the proper (those most closely equivalent to the actual usage found at John 1:1c) examples found in John's writings are examined in various trinitarian Bibles (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, etc.), we find they are always translated with indefinite concrete nouns such as "you are a prophet" (Jn 4:19) which perfectly corresponds with a rendering of John 1:1c as "The Word was a god"!

So will someone take these 19 scriptures from trinitarian-translated Bibles and show that they are translated by them as definite ("the ....") or qualitative instead of anarthrous ("a ....").

https://www.biblegateway.com/

For example, #2 above is John 4:19. This scripture has the predicate noun ('prophet') coming before its verb and is not one of the exceptions. It is translated as "I see that you are a prophet." This is not definite (Colwell's Rule) nor is it "qualitative." It is clearly translated, as are all the other proper examples, as an indefinite predicate noun.

Can anyone find an exception to this rendering ("a prophet") by trinitarian Bible translators? Or of similar translations of any of the other proper examples which are truly parallel to John 1:1c? They're all indefinite aren't they?

 

[F345T]

There is no verse that "blows the idea of the Father and Son being separate right out of the water." Nor should we presume what Jesus would have said based on a preconceived notion we have. Context is everything and one verse taken on its own, disregarding everything else that is said about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is being taken out of context. I have found that that is the main issue with anti-Trinitarians--verses are taken one a time, piecemeal, but that is mere proof-texting.

Consider what Jesus says right in John 14, verses 16-17:

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
Joh 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. (ESV)

Repeated in verse 26:

Joh 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (ESV)

First, notice that the language of "another Helper" means one that is similar to but distinct from Jesus himself. Second, we see all three persons mentioned distinctly in verse 26. Indeed, throughout the whole NT, all three persons are continually and consistently mentioned as separately, which would make no sense and be pointless if they weren't all actually distinct from each other.

Now notice verse 28:

Joh 14:28 You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (ESV)

And, on it goes with the distinction of Father and Son being maintained, throughout the whole NT:

Joh 15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.
…
Joh 15:8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.
Joh 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.
Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
…
Joh 15:21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.
…
Joh 15:23 Whoever hates me hates my Father also.
Joh 15:24 If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.
…
Joh 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. (ESV)

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
Joh 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
Joh 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
Joh 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;
…
Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Joh 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Joh 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
…
Joh 16:17 So some of his disciples said to one another, “What is this that he says to us, ‘A little while, and you will not see me, and again a little while, and you will see me’; and, ‘because I am going to the Father’?”
…
Joh 16:23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.
…
Joh 16:25 “I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father.
Joh 16:26 In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf;
Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
Joh 16:29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!
Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”
Joh 16:31 Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe?
Joh 16:32 Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me. (ESV)

Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Joh 17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
Joh 17:6 “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.
Joh 17:7 Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you.
Joh 17:8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. (ESV)

There is simply no way to understand what Jesus says in these passages other than that the Father is not the Son and neither are the Holy Spirit. Jesus repeatedly states that he "came from God" and is going "to the Father." Notice in John 15:24 Jesus says, "both me and my Father," and in 16:32 that "I am not alone, for the Father is with me." The plain meaning of those verses is that they cannot be the same person.

John 17:5 is interesting considering what Yahweh says in Isaiah 42:8:

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. (ESV)

We must take all verses together as a complete whole and then make sense of what they say, for the full revelation of who God is.

Well constructed post.

I just don't find any definitive teaching of God being three persons. I see many references to a Trinity concept, but I have a hard time getting past the absence of an explanatory teaching of the Trinity.

It's okay though. This is a matter of opinion that will never be resolved. It's just an endless back and forth on all Forums.

Merry Christ-mas!

 

[SolaScriptura]

Here, again, are all the examples which are truly parallel to John's usage of John 1:1c:

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations

H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all

H,W 4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all

H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all

H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all

H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all

H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all

H,W 10 John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all

[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

………………………………................................

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”) - all

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”) - all

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”) - all

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”) - all

18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
And, possibly,

H,W 19. 1 John 2:4 - liar (he) is.

H = Also found in Harner's list of "Colwell Constructions"

W = Also found in Wallace's list of "Colwell Constructions"


So when all the proper (those most closely equivalent to the actual usage found at John 1:1c) examples found in John's writings are examined in various trinitarian Bibles (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, etc.), we find they are always translated with indefinite concrete nouns such as "you are a prophet" (Jn 4:19) which perfectly corresponds with a rendering of John 1:1c as "The Word was a god"!

So will someone take these 19 scriptures from trinitarian-translated Bibles and show that they are translated by them as definite ("the ....") or qualitative instead of anarthrous ("a ....").

https://www.biblegateway.com/

For example, #2 above is John 4:19. This scripture has the predicate noun ('prophet') coming before its verb and is not one of the exceptions. It is translated as "I see that you are a prophet." This is not definite (Colwell's Rule) nor is it "qualitative." It is clearly translated, as are all the other proper examples, as an indefinite predicate noun.

Can anyone find an exception to this rendering ("a prophet") by trinitarian Bible translators? Or of similar translations of any of the other proper examples which are truly parallel to John 1:1c? They're all indefinite aren't they?

This is complete rubbish!!!

The Greek construction of the grammar in John 1.1c, is that the subject "the Word" takes the definite article, whereas the predicte "God" omits the article

The exact same is in John 8.54, where the "Father" is the subject and "God" as the predicate omits it. No one would say, "My Father... He is your god"

Bible versions like that New World by the Jehovahs Witnesses is twisted to suit their heretical teachings on the Person of Jesus Christ

 

[SolaScriptura]

There are verses that throw a pretty big wrench in this perspective though.

John 14:21 Jesus says that He will manifest HIMSELF unto those who love Him and keep His Commandments (which are the Father's 10 Commandments [Jn. 15:10; Matt. 23:1-3]). When asked to clarify what He means by this in verse 22, Jesus reiterates by explaining that when He says He will manifest "HIMSELF" to us, what He means is that He and the Father will come to make their home with us. Note: zero mention of a Holy Spirit because God IS a spirit and Rom. 8:9-11 makes the case that JESUS is the Holy Spirit. (Jesus is God and God is a spirit [Jn. 4:24])

This blows the idea of the Father and Son being separate right out of the water. If God were three persons, Jesus would have certainly mentioned the 3rd "person" somewhere, some way, in John 14:21-23.

John 15:26 blows your THEORY right out of the water!!!

"When the Helper comes, Whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me"

The Speaker is the Lord Jesus Christ. He is speaking of "The Helper" (ho paraklētos), "Whom" (hon) "I will send to you from the Father" (para tou patros). "the Spirit of Truth" (to pneuma tēs alētheias). "Who proceeds from the Father" (ho para tou patros ekporeuetai). "He will Testify about Me" (ekeinos marturēsei peri emou).

Now for some important lessons in Greek grammar, and Pneumatology.

Here we have The THREE DISTINCT Persons in the Eternal Godhead, in this one verse.

We know that the Speaker is the Person, the Lord Jesus Christ. He here refers to The Holy Spirit, as "ho paraklētos", which is in the MASCULINE gender, as not used the neuter, even though "The Spirit", Who Jesus is referring to, is in the NEUTER, "to pneuma". In chapter 14, verse 16, Jesus calls the Holy Spirit, "allon paraklēton", that is, "Another Helper". Note, Jesus does not say, "heteron paraklēton", which is "different" to Jesus Christ, but, another LIKE HIM. Note also the use of the MASCULINE "hon" (Whom), which is PERSONAL and not NEUTER! We then have Jesus say twice, that the Holy Spirit, is "FROM" the Father. The Greek preposition here is "para", which means, "by the side of", used for a DISTINCT Person, from both Jesus Christ and the Father. We also have the definite Greek article used with "Father" (tou patros), which also shows a clear DISTINCTION from Jesus Christ, Who is the Speaker, and the Holy Spirit, Who is Sent. Again, Jesus says of the Holy Spirit, "He will Testify about Me". "He" in the Greek, is not, "ekeino", which is neuter, and grammatically, would agree with "to pneuma". Instead, Jesus says, "ekeinos", which again is, MASCULINE, meaning, "This PERSON", not "THING"! The PERSON of the Holy Spirit, will HIMSELF be a WITNESS (marturēsei), to Jesus Christ, which is also PERSONAL!

Without any doubt, to the honest person, here we have a very clear Testimony to THE THREE DISTINCT PERSONS, Who are ALMIGHTY GOD.

 

[BeyondET]

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

which was finished or was it?

Who can make this claim?
Well the Almighty can.
Can anyone else?
No, an angel cannot make this claim.
John cannot make this claim.
Only God.
But we have another issue to resolve.
When was God "pierced?"

Do you not believe a vessel made in the likeness and image of God can be pierced?

Then we throw in this further explanation.

Revelation 1:17-18 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

This is clearly not an angel.
This is God.
He is the first and last.
He holds the keys of hell and death.

Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead.

That makes sense because no man has seen God and lived.

Ah, Houston; we still have two big problems:
When was God pierced?
How can God die?
Who now fits this description?

Man was created in God's likeness and image

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Jesus will bring His reward with Him.

The Alpha and Omega

John 1:2-3 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.

And verse 1:1,

Jesus is the offspring of David through Mary.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Then John makes it clear who is speaking with in verse 20.

Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

John knew to whom he was speaking.
I know because John tells me here.
You can see this for yourself.
May you now have ears that hear.
Good discussion tigger 2.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[F345T]

John 15:26 blows your THEORY right out of the water!!!

"When the Helper comes, Whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me"

The Speaker is the Lord Jesus Christ. He is speaking of "The Helper" (ho paraklētos), "Whom" (hon) "I will send to you from the Father" (para tou patros). "the Spirit of Truth" (to pneuma tēs alētheias). "Who proceeds from the Father" (ho para tou patros ekporeuetai). "He will Testify about Me" (ekeinos marturēsei peri emou).

Now for some important lessons in Greek grammar, and Pneumatology.

Here we have The THREE DISTINCT Persons in the Eternal Godhead, in this one verse.

We know that the Speaker is the Person, the Lord Jesus Christ. He here refers to The Holy Spirit, as "ho paraklētos", which is in the MASCULINE gender, as not used the neuter, even though "The Spirit", Who Jesus is referring to, is in the NEUTER, "to pneuma". In chapter 14, verse 16, Jesus calls the Holy Spirit, "allon paraklēton", that is, "Another Helper". Note, Jesus does not say, "heteron paraklēton", which is "different" to Jesus Christ, but, another LIKE HIM. Note also the use of the MASCULINE "hon" (Whom), which is PERSONAL and not NEUTER! We then have Jesus say twice, that the Holy Spirit, is "FROM" the Father. The Greek preposition here is "para", which means, "by the side of", used for a DISTINCT Person, from both Jesus Christ and the Father. We also have the definite Greek article used with "Father" (tou patros), which also shows a clear DISTINCTION from Jesus Christ, Who is the Speaker, and the Holy Spirit, Who is Sent. Again, Jesus says of the Holy Spirit, "He will Testify about Me". "He" in the Greek, is not, "ekeino", which is neuter, and grammatically, would agree with "to pneuma". Instead, Jesus says, "ekeinos", which again is, MASCULINE, meaning, "This PERSON", not "THING"! The PERSON of the Holy Spirit, will HIMSELF be a WITNESS (marturēsei), to Jesus Christ, which is also PERSONAL!

Without any doubt, to the honest person, here we have a very clear Testimony to THE THREE DISTINCT PERSONS, Who are ALMIGHTY GOD.

God (Jesus) bless.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

God The Father God The Son:

Some, who deny that Jesus Christ is Almighty God, and coequal with the Father in the Eternal Godhead, use the argument, that there is no place in the Bible, where we read of “God the Son”.

However, there is a verse in the Second Letter of John, where it is clear, that we have God the Father and God the Son.

"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not remain in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever remains in the teaching has both the Father and the Son" – verse 9

Here we read of those who do not remain in the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, who are said “not to possess God (θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει).

We would have expected John to continue, “whoever remains in the teaching, has God”

However, John instead says, that those who do “remain in the teaching” of Christ, they “have both the Father and the Son (καὶ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει).

It is not uncommon for the Greek particle, “καὶ”, to mean BOTH, as is clear in John 15:24, “but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father (καὶ ἐμὲ καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου)”

It is very clear from this verse, that the ONE use of “GOD”, includes BOTH The Father AND The Son. There can be no doubt from what John writes here.

Nor can there be any doubt about the distinction of “Persons”, between the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ. In the Greek, it reads: “τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει”, where the article “τὸν” is used with both nouns, and connected by the particle “καὶ”, it shows that “The Father”, is a distinct Person, from “The Son”, and they are not “identical” Persons. Both “Father” and “Son” are “personal” nouns, and cannot be used for something that is “impersonal”.

We have a very similar passage in the Book of Acts, which is a clear Testimony on the Deity of the Holy Spirit. In chapter 5, verse 3 we read:

“But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον) and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?”

Here we have the “Personality” of the Holy Spirit, as He is LIED (ψεύδομαι, to deceive, cheat) to, which cannot be said, IF, as some, heretically believe, that, the Holy Spirit is “impersonal”, like a mere “force”.

Then, in the following verse, Peter goes on to say;

“While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God (τῷ θεῷ)”

What Ananias had done in lying to the Holy Spirit, was in fact lying to God, and not to “a human” (ἄνθρωπος). Here it is clear that the Holy Spirit is Almighty God. Note the definite article in the Greek, with God (τῷ θεῷ), so it cannot read, “god”, or “a god”.

The essential Unity between God the Father and God the Son, is also clear in other places in the Writings of the Apostle John.

In his Gospel, we read in chapter 10, Jesus says:

“ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν”, which is literally in English: “I and the Father One We are”

John is very careful not to write, “εἷς”, which is the masculine, and can mean, “one Person”. The neuter, “ἕν”, is literally, “One thing”, as in “One Nature”, or, “One Essence”. The masculine plural, “ἐσμεν”, “We are”, also shows the Unity of both the Father and the Son.

Some argue that all Jesus means here, is, that He was “one”, with the Father, as He was doing His will on earth. This is true, but not what Jesus is saying here. We have to go back to verse 28, where Jesus says that He gives to His Sheep, eternal Life, as He is the Source of all Life. He then assures them, that, “neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand”. In the following verse, Jesus goes on to say, “no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand”. Which is followed by the words in verse 30. What Jesus is here saying, is, that He has the SAME Power as the Father, which is what the words in verses 28 and 29 mean. Note that Jesus here places Himself before the Father. In the Old Testament Book of Deuteronomy, we read; “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.” (32:39). Again, in the Prophet Isaiah we read, “Also henceforth I am He; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?” (43:13). No doubt that the Almighty Power of God is meant.

Again, in the Gospel of John we read, in the Original and best attested reading on 1:18

“θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο”

Literally, “God no one has ever seen, the Unique God Who is always in very close relation with the Father, He will make Him known”

Here, we have both uses of “θεὸς”, without the Greek article. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, who deny that Jesus Christ is God, while accepting the reading, “μονογενὴς θεὸς”, have, as they do in verse 1, corrupted the actual reading, by rendering the sentence, “No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god”. Their DISHONESTY is very clear here. WHY and on WHAT basis, can they justify, the first “θεὸς”, when used of the Father, as “God”, and then the SAME use, without the Greek definite article, have “god”, for Jesus Christ! This is blatant WICKEDNESS!

Jesus is UNIQUE as GOD, because, unlike God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit, as the Apostle Paul says, “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16. Original reading). Jesus Christ as His Incarnation, became The God-Man.

Most people fail to grapple onto the concept of Jesus's two roles - not son of man and son of God, but son of Joseph and son of David. The first is his first coming as a suffering servant who died for the sins of the whole world, that's "God the son"; the second is a conquering king who will judge the whole world and its sins, that's "God the Father". These two roles seeming oppose to each other, which creates a false dichotomy that leads to denial of Jesus's humanity, deity or both. As long as you're preoccupied with this false dichotomy, no amount of bible hermaneutics matters, you have to get rid of this stinking thinking and accept him as both. A good example is the adultress in John 8, Jesus didn't convict the woman of adultery, neither did he acquit her; he essentially dismissed the case as a mistrial since the mob didn't follow the instructions in Deuteronomy.

Ironically, in the first century during his minitry, most Jews only sought for the son of David to liberate them from the Roman occupation; these days, though, at the end times close to his second coming, most Christians only know Jesus as the son of Joseph, while his imminent return as the son of David is "spiritualized" among many mainstream denominations. If you preach his bodily return on mount Olives in near future, such as in the 2030s, you'd mocked and dismissed as a nutjob, a doomsday cultist. That is such a tragedy.

 

[Free]

Well constructed post.

I just don't find any definitive teaching of God being three persons. I see many references to a Trinity concept, but I have a hard time getting past the absence of an explanatory teaching of the Trinity.

Personally, I wouldn't expect to find an explanatory teaching, which is why I do believe the KJV rendering of 1 John 5:7 is a late addition. Of course, if any original author would have written that, it would have been John. The whole Bible is base on progressive revelation about who God is and his unfolding plan of salvation of humans and redemption of creation. When Jesus comes and claims to be God in the flesh, that is a new and shocking revelation. So much so, that some of the Jews wanted to stone Jesus more than once for making that claim.

John's gospel was the one of the last books written (all his books were the last ones written) so it isn't surprising that he has a more developed Christology. His prologue is foundational to everything else he says about who the Son of God is, being reaffirmed by Thomas's exclamation to Jesus: "The Lord of me and the God of me" (literally in the Greek).

Remember, it took Jesus's followers a long time to understand his mission (post-death they still didn't understand). So, in my opinion, we see what we should expect as Jesus's followers undoubtedly wrestled with this new revelation, especially in the light of his resurrection: all the foundations of the Trinity without an explicit or fully developed explanatory teaching.

It's okay though. This is a matter of opinion that will never be resolved. It's just an endless back and forth on all Forums.

I think it's more than a matter of opinion. Who we believe God to be is the most important belief we have.

Merry Christ-mas!

Merry Christmas to you as well!

 

[Free]

Sure, the logos refers to the mind of God. His plans and foreknowledge.

So, how is it that God's plans and foreknowledge can be in intimate relationship with himself? How does that logically make sense?

As Vern S. Poythress says in his book Logic:

"Logos in the Greek has a range of meaning, including reason, law, word, speaking, declaration. The meaning "reason" explains why the study of reasoning came to be called logic. The meanings related to communication and discourse are mot pertinent to understanding the word logos in John 1:1. In John 1:1 the phrase "In the beginning" alludes to Genesis 1:1. And John 1:3 explicitly says that "all things were made through him," alluding to God's work of creation in Genesis 1.
. . .
John 1:1-3, by reflecting back on Genesis 1, indicates that the particular speeches of God in Genesis 1 have an organic relation to a deeper reality in God himself. The particular speeches derive from the One who is uniquely the Word, who is the eternal speech of God. God has an eternal speaking, namely, the Word who was with God and who was God. Then he has also a particular speaking in acts of creation in Genesis 1. This particular speaking harmonizes with and expresses his eternal speaking."

Oh boy, where to begin. First thing that comes to mind is Isaiah 9:6 that says the child will be called "Everlasting Father" and then Jesus was never called that. Actually, he rejected being called the Father in Matt 23:9.

I don't understand how that is a contradiction "put in modern Bibles by Trinitarians." The text of Isaiah 9:6 says what it says, and "everlasting Father" has nothing to do with God the Father. While in Matt 23:9 Jesus never rejects being called the Father, as the Son of God he rightly would reject being called the Father--precisely because he is the Son and not the Father.

Or if God is more than a word, speech, or divine utterance then the word is not God, but rather possibly a demi-god, god-like, or godly. Hence "...what God was the word was" can be understood as something God has that the word shares, but isn't itself God.

Only God has the nature of God, so if the Word was what God was, then the Word is also God in nature. We can't start arbitrarily picking and choosing which properties and attributes are meant by such a statement. The statement is exhaustive: "what God was the Word was."

More than that, though, before we get to that clause, we read that "the Word was with God;" that is, as I've stated, in intimate relationship and communion with God. And, Jesus confirms this himself:

Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.” (ESV)

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
...
Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. (ESV)

Putting those together, we see that Jesus, as the Son of God, existed prior to his birth. More importantly though, is that he says to the Father, "you loved me before the foundation of the world."

1Jn 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
...
1Jn 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (ESV)

John clearly says that "God is love." For that to be true, love has to be an attribute intrinsic to God; it is his nature and he cannot not love. However, if God is not a Trinity (or at least a "binity"), then God cannot be love. The highest and fullest expression of love is that from one person to another (such as in John 15:13). If God's nature is love, then it necessarily must have always been expressed in the highest and fullest expression towards another. If not, then God needed creation in order to become love and, therefore, he could not be love; love could not be intrinsic to his nature.

The logical conclusion is that there must be at least two persons within the one Being that is God, living in intimate relationship and communion. It's a very consistent message from John.

We can also draw more scripture on the matter. Such as 1 John 1:1-2 that says the "word of life" is an it.

As long as you remember that "it" doesn't appear in the Greek; it's just what some translators have added. Quite possibly because "life" is feminine in gender but not so in English. Either way is fine, since "it" in English is likely just to make sure the reader knows that what they "have seen" and "testify to" is the "word of life." Some translators don't put anything there, which would be the more literal way.

1Jn 1:2 and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was revealed to us— (LEB)

 

[tigger 2]

This is complete rubbish!!!

The Greek construction of the grammar in John 1.1c, is that the subject "the Word" takes the definite article, whereas the predicte "God" omits the article

The exact same is in John 8.54, where the "Father" is the subject and "God" as the predicate omits it. No one would say, "My Father... He is your god"

Bible versions like that New World by the Jehovahs Witnesses is twisted to suit their heretical teachings on the Person of Jesus Christ

....................................
This is completely false and anyone can prove it for himself.

First, as trinitarian grammarians will tell you, John 1:1c (Lit. "and theos was the word") has the predicate noun theos coming before its verb. In fact, this is what trinitarians have falsely used to pretend that the predicate noun has "the" understood. And this is what my study clearly disproves whether you ignore it or not.

Second, John 8:54 has in the literal Greek: "theos of you is." This use of the attached genitive noun ("of you" humon) makes the use OR NON-USE of the article in doubt (one of the exceptions listed by noted trinitarian NT Greek grammarians cited in my study which is ignored by those who insist on remaining ignorant of the truth here).

So, you see, I can honestly say of your post, "This is complete rubbish!!!"

 

[SolaScriptura]

....................................
This is completely false and anyone can prove it for himself.

First, as trinitarian grammarians will tell you, John 1:1c (Lit. "and theos was the word") has the predicate noun theos coming before its verb. In fact, this is what trinitarians have falsely used to pretend that the predicate noun has "the" understood. And this is what my study clearly disproves whether you ignore it or not.

Second, John 8:54 has in the literal Greek: "theos of you is." This use of the attached genitive noun ("of you" humon) makes the use OR NON-USE of the article in doubt (one of the exceptions listed by noted trinitarian NT Greek grammarians cited in my study which is ignored by those who insist on remaining ignorant of the truth here).

So, you see, I can honestly say of your post, "This is complete rubbish!!!"

Your "Greek" is complete RUBBISH!

 

[Free]

First, as trinitarian grammarians will tell you, John 1:1c (Lit. "and theos was the word") has the predicate noun theos coming before its verb. In fact, this is what trinitarians have falsely used to pretend that the predicate noun has "the" understood.

Which Trinitarians?

 

[tigger 2]

Which Trinitarians?

.....................................

See for yourself in the Greek:
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf