JW's just came to my door

[teddy trueblood]

As is usual it appears no one will actually discuss my actual study of John's usage/grammar concerning John 1:1c.

"As usual"? It's been discussed ad nauseam [sic] in other threads.

No one has ever discussed it with me. If you have really seen answers to my study of the grammar/usage of John 1:1, please submit some of them!

As for the polytheism silliness, you are completely ignoring Lesson B and its lengthy list of scholars who admit that 'a god/gods' are used in scripture for angels, kings, and even God-appointed judges of Israel.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984 as listed in Lesson B, for example, says of the word Elohim, ‘God’: “…. it is a generic, rather than a specific personal name for Deity, as is indicated by its application to those who represent the Deity (Jgs 5 8; Ps 82 1) or who are in his presence (1 S 28 13).”

 

[teddy trueblood]

No one has ever discussed it with me. If you have really seen answers to my study of the grammar/usage of John 1:1, please submit some of them!

As for the polytheism silliness, you are completely ignoring Lesson B and its lengthy list of scholars who admit that 'a god/gods' are used in scripture for angels, kings, and even God-appointed judges of Israel.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984 as listed in Lesson B, for example, says of the word Elohim, ‘God’: “…. it is a generic, rather than a specific personal name for Deity, as is indicated by its application to those who represent the Deity (Jgs 5 8; Ps 82 1) or who are in his presence (1 S 28 13).”

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187 (also among the many sources listed in Lesson B) states: “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’. …. On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’”

 

[Free]

You are eliminating polytheism as if it is a non-existent concept. Yet many would say that Christianity is polytheistic and just playing a semantic game by using the Trinity.

I am eliminating it as a legitimate concept of the Judeo-Christian God since it clearly is not what the Bible teaches:

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Isa 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.
Isa 43:11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.
Isa 43:12 I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and I am God.

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Isa 44:8 Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
Isa 45:6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.
Isa 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Isa 46:8 "Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors,
Isa 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,

(All from the ESV). Need I continue? Christianity is monotheistic and, therefore, we can dismiss any claims to the Word being "a god".

 

[Free]

No one has ever discussed it with me. If you have really seen answers to my study of the grammar/usage of John 1:1, please submit some of them!

As for the polytheism silliness, you are completely ignoring Lesson B and its lengthy list of scholars who admit that 'a god/gods' are used in scripture for angels, kings, and even God-appointed judges of Israel.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984 as listed in Lesson B, for example, says of the word Elohim, ‘God’: “…. it is a generic, rather than a specific personal name for Deity, as is indicated by its application to those who represent the Deity (Jgs 5 8; Ps 82 1) or who are in his presence (1 S 28 13).”

Thank you, that supports what I have been saying.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187 (also among the many sources listed in Lesson B) states: “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’. …. On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’”

But Jesus is clearly not just "a god," as John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16-17 show.

 

[teddy trueblood]

As is usual it appears no one will actually discuss my actual study of John's usage/grammar concerning John 1:1c.

"As usual"? It's been discussed ad nauseam [sic] in other threads.

No one has ever discussed it with me. If you have really seen answers to my study of the grammar/usage of John 1:1, please submit some of them!

Or if that is not possible, please provide your own answers to my study of the GRAMMAR/SYNTAX of the first five lessons.

 

[iLOVE]

Just a moment ago 2 Jehovah's witnesses left my house after a brief discussion about the afterlife and hell. They told me that the Bible really teaches that we cease to exist after dying and after the judgment. Well, its interesting cause this is a hot topic on the A&T forum. Before they left I offered them a Christian tract but they wouldn't accept it. Can someone tell me what the JW's main difference in doctrine is with Christianity?

Just a reminder:

2 John 1:8-10
New International Version (NIV)

8 Watch out that you do not lose what we[a] have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them.

 

[Silenced Thunder]

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187 (also among the many sources listed in Lesson B) states: “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’. …. On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’”

The reason Zondervan says this is because it is going to retroactively force New Testament theology upon Psalms 82.

In reality, the word used for "gods" is "Elohim," the plural of "El" meaning "god." "Yahweh" is also used in this chapter, signaling in Hebrew that Yahweh and El were at one point different gods, later merged together. Both "El" and "Yahweh" are also Canaanite gods in a pantheon of gods according to Canaanite religion. So were Baal, Asherah, Mog, Yam, etc.

I am eliminating it as a legitimate concept of the Judeo-Christian God since it clearly is not what the Bible teaches:

You are treating the bible as a single unit rather than a compilation of scrolls written over centuries by different authors with different viewpoints. The bible itself teaches contradictory points. A couple of examples:

Did God create the heavens and earth from the formless deep OR did Yahweh create them from the slaying of the primaeval sea monster Leviathan/Rahab? (Gen 1:1-8 vs Ps 74:13-17, 89:11-13; Job 26:12-13)

Does man return to the dust upon his death OR is he resurrected? (Gen 3:19; Eccl 3:20; Job 14:10, 12, etc. vs Dan 12:2; 1 Thess 4:15-17; 1 Cor 15:22, 15:51-52; Acts 24:15; Mk 9:1; Jn 5:28-29, 6:40; Rev 2:7)

Were Shem’s, Ham’s, and Japhet’s children dispersed throughout the earth each by their different language OR was all the earth one language and Yahweh ‘babbled’ their language at Babylon? (Gen 10:5, 10:20, 10:31-32 vs Gen 11:1-9)

Examples courtesy of Dr. Steven DiMattei.

 

[Free]

No one has ever discussed it with me. If you have really seen answers to my study of the grammar/usage of John 1:1, please submit some of them!

Or if that is not possible, please provide your own answers to my study of the GRAMMAR/SYNTAX of the first five lessons.

There isn't much point. As I have shown, the immediate context and the wider context of the rest of Scripture, show that John 1:1c means that Jesus is God in the same way that the Father is God. Context is vitally important, especially where ambiguities are involved. Ambiguities are resolved by going to clearer passages for understanding, not the other way around.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Free, If you can't back up your own statement concerning my personal study of the grammar ("As usual"? It's been discussed ad nauseam [sic] in other threads.) nor are able to refute with specifics what I have presented in the five lessons above, why not just admit it?

Your 'context' insistence doesn't fly, but the grammar/syntax used by John himself is quite clear. Why not actually address the issue of John's usage found in John 1:1c as presented in my lessons? Could it be that you haven't even read it carefully?

 

[Free]

Free, If you can't back up your own statement concerning my personal study of the grammar ("As usual"? It's been discussed ad nauseam [sic] in other threads.) nor are able to refute with specifics what I have presented in the five lessons above, why not just admit it?

Neither of us are fluent in Koine Greek and I suspect neither of us are even formally trained in it; I know I'm not. So it just comes down to the opinions of scholars, which you have given. I, too, can provide scholarly opinions that disagree with those you've given and refute your points. But what would be the point?

Your 'context' insistence doesn't fly, but the grammar/syntax used by John himself is quite clear. Why not actually address the issue of John's usage found in John 1:1c as presented in my lessons? Could it be that you haven't even read it carefully?

I agree that the grammar/syntax used by John is clear and that it can only be interpreted one way. But, again, we won't get anywhere because it's just scholar vs scholar. My insistence on context most certainly does fly. Context is one of the most fundamental rules of biblical interpretation. The problem for you is that it finishes your argument to grammar before it even begins.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Free, I'm saddened that you won't respond to my simple request (and my questioning of your own statement that my original NT Greek study has been discussed ad nauseam). It seems similar to my objection to a statement of yours concerning the Greek verb for 'was' in John 1:1 some time back. I don't think you ever answered me on that, either.

As for scholars, my study, if you would have actually read it, is based on my own research into the proper examples found in the NT Greek text.

 

[Free]

Free, I'm saddened that you won't respond to my simple request (and my questioning of your own statement that my original NT Greek study has been discussed ad nauseam). It seems similar to my objection to a statement of yours concerning the Greek verb for 'was' in John 1:1 some time back. I don't think you ever answered me on that, either.

First things first: are you formally and thoroughly trained in Koine Greek?

As for scholars, my study, if you would have actually read it, is based on my own research into the proper examples found in the NT Greek text.

If you are not formally trained in the Greek, then all your research is based on what scholars have to say. I could then provide my own research which will have other scholars saying something which will show your position to be wrong. This is something I have already addressed.

The main problem, and the reason it isn't worth discussion, is that you want John 1:1c to say something which is immediately contradicted by verse 3, and also contradicted by many other passages of Scripture, not to mention one of the overarching themes of Scripture: monotheism. Your position is contradictory, "mine" is not.

 

[Michael74]

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

So if John was trying to imply what the English indefinite article "a" denotes, why did he not just use the Greek adjective theios. The KJV seems to be correct here.

 

[teddy trueblood]

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

So if John was trying to imply what the English indefinite article "a" denotes, why did he not just use the Greek adjective theios. The KJV seems to be correct here.

I guess you haven't read the 5 lessons above, either. Theos without modifiers in John's writings means "a god" just as anthropos without modifiers means "a man" and prophetes without modifiers means "a prophet," etc.

John always used ho theos ('the god') when intending "God."

 

[Michael74]

...always used...

What about ton theon?

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν

ho logos en pros ton theon

 

[Michael74]

Okay they are both definite articles. You are noting the lack of a definite article in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Colwel's rule suggests that the definite article is assumed if the object of a verb is the same as the subject. Why are you saying this is an exception to Colwel's rule?

 

[Michael74]

John quotes Jesus as calling Himself "Ego Eimi" (John 8: 58), the Septuagint translation for God (Isaiah 41: 4, 41: 10, 41: 14, 43: 1-3, 43: 10, 43: 13, 51: 12, and 52). The Jews knew what He was saying, as evidenced by their reaction. This would seem to be consistent with applying Colwel's rule to John 1:1.

 

[Michael74]

Also consider that John uses ho Theos in John 20:28, when Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God".

 

[teddy trueblood]

Okay they are both definite articles. You are noting the lack of a definite article in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Colwel's rule suggests that the definite article is assumed if the object of a verb is the same as the subject. Why are you saying this is an exception to Colwel's rule?

See the last half of Lesson C through the end of Lesson E above. When examples parallel to John 1:1c are used, Colwell’s rule, as often used, fails. That is, when we find an unmodified nominative count noun (explained in Lesson A) used as a predicate noun, such as theos in John 1:1c, found in John’s writings (and the other Gospel writers), it will always be an indefinite noun. I have supplied all of John’s parallel examples in Lesson D. None of them support either Colwell’s Rule or the ‘Qualitative’ Rules.

How about slowing down a little and let me reply to your questions?

 

[teddy trueblood]

John quotes Jesus as calling Himself "Ego Eimi" (John 8: 58), the Septuagint translation for God (Isaiah 41: 4, 41: 10, 41: 14, 43: 1-3, 43: 10, 43: 13, 51: 12, and 52). The Jews knew what He was saying, as evidenced by their reaction. This would seem to be consistent with applying Colwel's rule to John 1:1.

I have a lengthy study on this also. If you wish to start another discussion on I AM, please do so. For now I want to discuss the Seven (five?) Rules for John 1:1c.