My take on Trinity

[7thMoon]

It's still not a false translation. Or are you saying that God got it wrong in the NT? It really is a non-issue that JWs want to make an issue of, only to argue that God's name was removed from the Bible and their version restored it, despite "Jehovah" being a 13th century word.


Do you have sources for this?

Not that it matters in this case, as the argument has been refuted.

Some manuscripts of the Septuagint have the tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters. Yehowah is the actually guess as to the "vowels".

Whenever I encounter the "neuter" article the case is always determined by the noun to the right of it. This is my experience. Is it dual case or no case?

Kyrios is also not a synonym for the word YHWH; but it is a word replacement. Just because it confuses you, it doesn't mean to confuse me. Kyrios is just Adon in Greek. You can rework Aramaic to make Adoni into Adonai, but they weren't 2 different words before such a thing.

 

[7thMoon]

1Jn 5:7 Because there are three who bear witness: Footnote: As per early Gk. text. Later MSS contain additions. See Explanatory Notes, ‘Comma Johanneum’.
1Jn 5:8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. And the three are in agreement.

1Jn 5:7 Omitted Text.

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. Is also the subject of much debate.

It is argued that the verse lacks manuscript evidence and does not belong in the Bible. Being one of the greatest verses in the Bible on the Trinity, we should be suspicious of any oppositions to it. *Incorrect Translation: 1Jn 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine. *Correct Translation:

The verse should NOT be omitted from the Bible.

It is found in Greek manuscript 61, which probably forced Erasmus to include it in his third edition Greek text of G1522. 1Jn 5:7 is also found in Codex Ravianus, and in the margins of 88 and 629. It is also found in Old Latin manuscripts r and Speculum. It was quoted by Cyprian around A.D. 250, and two Spanish Bishops quoted it in the fourth century (Priscillkian and Idacius Clarus). Several African writers quote it in the fifth century, and Cassiodorus quotes it in the sixth century in Italy. The fact that Siniaticus and Vaticanus do not include the verse means nothing to a true Bible believer. After all, Vaticanus omits the entire book of Revelation, while keeping the Apocrypha!

Yes?

I believe it is a non-trinitarian verse and fits 1st John 5:8 perfectly.

 

[Free]

Whenever I encounter the "neuter" article the case is always determined by the noun to the right of it. This is my experience. Is it dual case or no case?

Where are your sources?

Kyrios is also not a synonym for the word YHWH; but it is a word replacement.

Which is what I've been saying.

Just because it confuses you, it doesn't mean to confuse me.

I'm not confused. Please don't make such statements as they violate the ToS.

 

[7thMoon]

Where are your sources?

The Greek using the BLB. I could research quotes for you.

Which is what I've been saying.

OOPs.

I'm not confused. Please don't make such statements as they violate the ToS.

oops.

 

[Johann!@#]

I believe it is a non-trinitarian verse and fits 1st John 5:8 perfectly.

I have made a case for the Triune Godhead-and believe this verse fits in perfectly in MY Bible.
Shalom
J.

 

[Johann!@#]

You can rework Aramaic to make Adoni into Adonai, but they weren't 2 different words before such a thing.

I. GOD.
GOD. Gr. Theos . The Greek language, being of human origin, utterly fails (and naturally so) to exhibit the wonderful precision of the Hebrew, inasmuch as the language necessarily reflects, and cannot go beyond the knowledge, or rather the lack of knowledge, of the Divine Being apart from revelation.
i. Theos corresponds, generally, with 'Elohim of the O.T., denoting the Creator (see Ap. 4. I); but it corresponds also with El (Ap. 4. IV), and Eloah (Ap. 4. V). Sometimes it corresponds with Jehovah (who is 'Elohim in Covenant relation), in which case it is printed GOD, as in the Old Testament (both A.V. and R.V.).
1. Theos is used in the N.T. of the Father, as the revealed God (see Joh_1:1. Act_17:24, &c.)
2. It is used of the Son (Mat_1:23. Joh_1:1; Joh_20:28, &c. Rom_9:5. 2Pe_1:1. 1Jn_5:20). Cp. Col_2:9 and 2Pe_1:3; 2Pe_1:4.
3. It is used of the Holy Spirit (Act_5:3-4, compared with v . 4).
4. It is used generically, as in Joh_10:34. Act_12:22. 2Co_4:4. Php_3:19, &c.
5. It is used of false gods, as in Act_7:43, &c.; and is printed "god" as in the O.T.

ii. Cognate with Theos , there are three other words to be noted :
1. Theotes , rendered "Deity", and used of Christ. Occurs only in Col_2:9, and has relation to the Godhead personally ; while
2. Theiotes , rendered "Deity" also, is Deity in the abstract . Occurs only in Rom_1:20.
3. Theios , rendered "Divine", and is used of Christ. Occurs only in 2Pe_1:3; 2Pe_1:4; and, with the Article, in Act_17:29, where it is rendered "Godhead". Gr. = that which [is] Divine.


II. I AM.
Used by Christ of Himself, in Joh_8:58. See note on Exo_3:14.

III. FATHER.
FATHER. Gr. Pater . Expresses relationship, the correlative of which is "son". When used of man it not only denotes parentage, but it sometimes has the wider meaning of "ancestor", "founder", or a "senior" (as in 1Jn_2:13; 1Jn_2:14); also the author or source of anything (Joh_8:44. Heb_12:9); and expresses a spiritual relationship, as in 1Co_4:15. When used of God it denotes His relationship to His "beloved Son"; and to those ("sons") who have been begotten (not "born", see note on Mat_1:1) into a new creation. It implies "sons", not "offspring", as in Act_17:28; Act_17:29. These were "offspring", and were existing (Gr. huparcho ), as such, according to nature, on the ground of creation ; not "sons" as being "begotten" into a new creation.

IV. ALMIGHTY.
ALMIGHTY. Gr. Pantokrator . This title belongs to the same God, as Creator, but expresses His relationship to all He has created, by the exercise of His power over "all the works of His hands". It occurs only in 2Co_6:18. Rev_1:8; Rev_4:8; Rev_11:17; Rev_15:3; Rev_16:7; Rev_16:14; Rev_19:6; Rev_19:15; Rev_21:22.

V. POTENTATE.
POTENTATE. Gr. Dunastes = a mighty Prince, or Ruler (cp. Engl. "dynasty"). Used of God, only in 1Ti_6:15. Elsewhere used, only twice, of earthly rulers, in Luk_1:52 (generally), and of the Ethiopian eunuch in Act_8:27.

VI. LORD.
This is the rendering of two Greek words : i. Kurios , and ii. Despotes ; and one Aramaic, iii. Rabboni .
I. Kurios . Kurios means "owner" (and is so translated in Luk_19:33). It expresses the authority and lordship arising from and pertaining to ownership . Hence, while it is used of each Person of the Trinity, it is similarly used of the lower and human relationship of "master". Cp. Luk_19:33 and see below a. 4.
So much depends on the presence or absence of the Greek Article, when used of the Divine relationship that these are carefully distinguished in the subdivisions below.
For obvious reasons the four Gospels have been treated, below, apart from the other books of the N.T.
i. In the Four Gospels.
1. Used of Jehovah (Ap. 4. II), and printed "LORD" throughout.
A. With the Article ( ho Kurios ).
a. In quotations from the O.T. it occurs four (*1) times : in Mat_1:22; Mat_2:15; Mat_5:33; Mat_22:44 -.
b. In other connexions it occurs fourteen times : once in Mat_9:38); once in Mar_5:19); twelve times in Luk_1:6; Luk_1:9; Luk_1:15; Luk_1:25; Luk_1:28; Luk_1:46; Luk_2:15; Luk_2:22; Luk_2:-23; Luk_2:38; Luk_10:2; Luk_20:42 -).

B. Without the Article ( Kurios ).
a. In quotations from the O.T. it occurs twenty-nine times : eight times in Mat_3:3; Mat_4:7; Mat_4:10; Mat_21:9; Mat_21:42; Mat_22:37; Mat_23:3927:10); eight times in Mar_1:3; Mar_11:9; Mar_11:10; Mar_12:11; Mar_12:29; Mar_12:2930; Mar_12:36 -); nine times in Luk_3:4; Luk_4:8; Luk_4:12; Luk_4:18; Luk_4:19; Luk_10:27; Luk_13:35; Luk_19:38; Luk_20:37); four times in Joh_1:23; Joh_12:13; Joh_12:38; Joh_12:38).
b. In other connexions twenty-four times : six times in Mat_1:20; Mat_1:24; Mat_2:13; Mat_2:19; Mat_11:25; Mat_28:2); once in Mar_13:20); seventeen times in Luk_1:11; Luk_1:16; Luk_1:17; Luk_1:32; Luk_1:38; Luk_1:45; Luk_1:48; Luk_1:66; Luk_1:68; Luk_1:76; Luk_2:9; Luk_2:23 -; Luk_2:24; Luk_2:26; Luk_2:39; Luk_5:17; Luk_10:21).

2. Used by Christ of Himself.
A. With the Article ( ho Kurios ).
a. In direct reference : six times (Mat_21:3; Mat_24:42; Mar_11:3; Luk_19:31; Joh_13:13; Joh_13:14).
b. In indirect reference : twice (Mat_22:-44; Luk_20:-42).

B. Without the Article ( Kurios ).
a. In direct reference : eleven times (Mat_7:21; Mat_7:21; Mat_7:22; Mat_7:22; Mat_12:8; Mat_25:37; Mat_25:44; Mar_2:28; Luk_6:5; Luk_6:46; Luk_6:46).
b. In indirect reference : four times (Mat_22:43; Mat_22:45; Mar_12:37; Luk_20:44).

3. Used of Christ by others.
A. By His disciples : fifty-nine times (Mat_8:21; Mat_8:25; Mat_13:51; Mat_14:28; Mat_14:30; Mat_16:22; Mat_17:4; Mat_18:21; Mat_26:22; [not one in Mark (*2) ] Luk_1:43; Luk_5:8; Luk_9:54; Luk_9:57; Luk_9:59; Luk_9:61; Luk_10:17; Luk_10:40; Luk_11:1; Luk_12:41; Luk_13:23; Luk_17:37; Luk_19:8; Luk_19:34; Luk_22:31; Luk_22:33; Luk_22:38; Luk_22:49; Luk_23:42; Luk_24:34; Joh_6:68; Joh_9:36; Joh_9:38; Joh_11:3; Joh_11:12; Joh_11:21; Joh_11:27; Joh_11:32; Joh_11:34; Joh_11:39; Joh_13:6; Joh_13:9; Joh_13:25; Joh_13:36; Joh_13:37; Joh_14:5; Joh_14:8; Joh_14:22; Joh_20:2; Joh_20:13; Joh_20:18; Joh_20:20; Joh_20:25; Joh_20:28; Joh_21:7; Joh_21:15; Joh_21:16; Joh_21:17; Joh_21:20; Joh_21:21).
B. By others than His disciples.
a. Rendered "Lord" eighteen times : twelve in Mat_8:2; Mat_8:6; Mat_8:8; Mat_9:28; Mat_15:22; Mat_15:25; Mat_15:27 -; Mat_17:15; Mat_20:30; Mat_20:31; Mat_20:38; Mat_28:6); only twice in Mark (*3) (Mar_7:28; Mar_9:24); four times in Luk_2:11; Luk_5:12; Luk_7:6; Luk_18:41); twice in Joh_6:34; Joh_8:11).
b. Rendered "Sir" six times : Joh_4:11; Joh_4:15; Joh_4:19; Joh_4:49; Joh_5:7; Joh_20:15 (Mary, addressing the supposed gardener).
c. By the Holy Spirit frequently in the narratives of the Evangelists.

4. Used of others than Christ.
A. With the Article ( ho Kurios ), emphasizing ownership. Occurs forty-two times : twenty-one times in Mat_10:24; Mat_10:25; Mat_15:-27; Mat_18:25; Mat_18:27; Mat_18:31; Mat_18:32; Mat_18:34; Mat_20:8; Mat_21:40; Mat_24:45; Mat_24:46; Mat_24:48; Mat_24:50; Mat_25:18; Mat_25:19; Mat_25:21; Mat_25:23; Mat_25:23; Mat_25:26); twice in Mar_12:9; Mar_13:35); sixteen times in Luk_12:36; Luk_12:37; Luk_12:-42; Luk_12:43; Luk_12:45; Luk_12:46; Luk_12:47; Luk_14:21; Luk_14:23; Luk_16:3; Luk_16:5; Luk_16:5; Luk_16:8; Luk_19:33; Luk_20:13; Luk_20:15); three times in Joh_13:16; Joh_15:15; Joh_15:20).
B. Without the Article ( Kurios ). Generally in courtesy, emphasizing superior relationship. Occ. nineteen times. Rendered "Lord" fourteen times (Mat_18:26; Mat_25:11; Mat_25:11; Mat_25:29; Mat_25:22; Mat_25:24. Luk_13:8; Luk_13:25; Luk_13:25; Luk_14:22; Luk_19:16; Luk_19:18; Luk_19:20; Luk_19:25); "Master" twice (Mat_6:24. Luk_16:13); "Sir" four times (Mat_13:27; Mat_21:30; Mat_27:63. Joh_12:21).

ii. In the other books of the New Testament.
1. Used of Jehovah (Ap. 4. II), and printed "LORD" throughout; as in the O.T.
A. With the Article ( ho Kurios ).
a. In quotations from the O.T. Occurs ten times (Act_2:25; Act_2:34; Act_4:26; Act_7:33; Act_13:47; Act_15:17. Rom_15:11. 1Co_10:26; 1Co_10:28. Heb_8:11).
b. In other connexions : Act_2:47. 2Co_10:18. Heb_8:2; Heb_12:14. Jam_5:-11. 2Pe_3:9; 2Pe_3:15. Jud_1:5. Rev_11:15; Rev_11:21; Rev_11:22.

B. Without the Article ( Kurios ).
a. In quotations from, or references to, the O.T. : Act_2:20; Act_2:21; Act_3:22; Act_7:30; Act_7:31; Act_7:37; Act_7:49. Rom_4:8; Rom_9:28; Rom_9:29; Rom_10:13; Rom_10:16; Rom_11:3; Rom_11:34; Rom_12:19; Rom_14:11. 1Co_1:31; 1Co_2:16; 1Co_3:20; 1Co_14:21. 2Co_6:17; 2Co_6:18; 2Co_10:17. Heb_1:10; Heb_7:21; Heb_8:8; Heb_8:9; Heb_8:10; Heb_10:16; Heb_10:30; Heb_10:30; Heb_12:5; Heb_12:6; Heb_13:6. 1Pe_1:25; 1Pe_3:12; 1Pe_3:12.
b. In other connexions : Act_1:24; Act_2:39; Act_5:9; Act_5:19; Act_17:24. 2Co_3:16. Jam_5:4; Jam_5:10; Jam_5:11 -. 2Pe_2:9; 2Pe_2:11; 2Pe_3:8; 2Pe_3:10. Jud_9:14. Rev_4:8; Rev_11:17; Rev_15:3; Rev_15:4; Rev_16:5; Rev_16:7; Rev_18:8; Rev_19:1; Rev_19:6; Rev_22:5; Rev_22:6.

2. Used of Christ.
A. With the Article, as in Act_2:-34. 2Co_3:17 -, &c.
B. Without the Article, as in 1Co_8:6, &c.

 

[CherubRam]

Then you didn't look. Ton is the masculine accusative case for "the." And why is that? Because theon is the masculine accusative case of theos. In koine Greek, the case and gender of the article has to match the case and gender of the noun.

This information has been given to you before and it is not hard to find:

https://greekdoc.github.io/lessons/lesson04.html

You never did provide any source to back up your claim regarding ton. Do you have any you can provide now?

Your link is too much trouble.

Defining the Greek word TON. τὸν
Odd! all of the Internet sources are not working at this time. Perhaps latter.

 

[Free]

Your link is too much trouble.

Defining the Greek word TON. τὸν
Odd! all of the Internet sources are not working at this time. Perhaps latter.

Too much trouble to study what the Greek actually says? Learning is hard and requires lots of reading and digging, especially on a topic such as Ancient Greek. But the link is easy to understand and the blog is not long.

 

[CherubRam]

Too much trouble to study what the Greek actually says? Learning is hard and requires lots of reading and digging, especially on a topic such as Ancient Greek. But the link is easy to understand and the blog is not long.

The One or Only.
NIV
John 8:41
You are doing the works of your own father.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

The last sentence actually reads: The one Father we have is (The Only / TON) Divine Eternal.

(TON THEON) “The Only Divine Eternal.”

Many places in the bible the Greek word TON is not translated.

Originally I found this, but it has disappeared and is no longer available.

Greek word TON and THEON.
From the Scripture4All program. Link: http://www.scripture4all.org/
The Greek word "TON" is translated 1583 times as "the;" And 18 times as "the -one." It is used before nouns to mean a {certain-one-person-s,} or place, or thing. However, different translations of Greek do not always agree. That is the reason for my interpretation of John 1:1 as "The Only Divine Eternal."

John 1:1
Greek:
en arche eimi ho logos kai ho logos eimi pros ton theon kai theos eimi ho logos

Interlinear:
en (in) arche (beginning) eimi (was) ho (the) logos (word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (word) eimi (was) pos (toward or with) ton (TON is a special definite article "the" meaning the one or only, it appears as TON instead of O in the Greek) theon (Divine Eternal) kai (and) theos (divine) eimi (was) ho (the) logos (word)

In English we have:
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (The Only) Divine Eternal, and divine was the Word.

Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the one or the only) before Divine Eternal?

 

[Free]

The One or Only.
NIV
John 8:41
You are doing the works of your own father.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

The last sentence actually reads: The one Father we have is (The Only / TON) Divine Eternal.

(TON THEON) “The Only Divine Eternal.”

Provide evidence that this is legitimate. Here is how theos is translated in the NT:

theos; of unc. or.; God, a god: — divinely (1), God (1267), god (6), God's (27), God-fearing (1), godly (2), godly *(1), gods (8), Lord (1).

This is how John 8:41 "actually" reads:

Joh 8:41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” (ESV)

Joh 8:41 "You are doing the deeds of your father." They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God." (NASB)

Joh 8:41 You're doing what your father does." "We weren't born of sexual immorality," they said. "We have one Father—God." (HCSB)

Joh 8:41 You are doing the works of your own father." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."(NIV)

Many places in the bible the Greek word TON is not translated.

This, too, has been addressed before. Each instance would have to be looked at, but the most likely reason, as was pointed out to you before, is that it simply doesn't make grammatical sense in English. We don't say "the Word was with the God," we say "the Word was with God." Please learn grammar and how translation works.

Originally I found this, but it has disappeared and is no longer available.

Greek word TON and THEON.
From the Scripture4All program. Link: http://www.scripture4all.org/
The Greek word "TON" is translated 1583 times as "the;" And 18 times as "the -one." It is used before nouns to mean a {certain-one-person-s,} or place, or thing. However, different translations of Greek do not always agree. That is the reason for my interpretation of John 1:1 as "The Only Divine Eternal."

No. As has been pointed out to you many times, including in my post above, ton is the masculine accusative case for "the." And why is that? Because theon is the masculine accusative case of theos ("God").

John 1:1
Greek:
en arche eimi ho logos kai ho logos eimi pros ton theon kai theos eimi ho logos

Interlinear:
en (in) arche (beginning) eimi (was) ho (the) logos (word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (word) eimi (was) pos (toward or with) ton (TON is a special definite article "the" meaning the one or only, it appears as TON instead of O in the Greek) theon (Divine Eternal) kai (and) theos (divine) eimi (was) ho (the) logos (word)

To repeat: ton is not some "special definite article . . . meaning the one or only." It is the masculine accusative case for "the" to match with the masculine accusative case of theos. Please, for your sake, do some actual study on this.

In English we have:

In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (The Only) Divine Eternal, and divine was the Word.

No, we don't have that in English. You have been asked repeatedly before to provide even one translation that translates it that way or one legitimate Bible scholar who would. You just can't go around making up your translations of verses to suit your theology. That is not how it works.

What we have in English is what the majority of translations state: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." That's it.

Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the one or the only) before Divine Eternal?

Because 1) it grammatically is incorrect in English, and 2) it's God, not "Divine Eternal."

 

[Johann!@#]

Your link is too much trouble.

Defining the Greek word TON. τὸν
Odd! all of the Internet sources are not working at this time. Perhaps latter.

page 255

The Article, Part II

Special Uses and
Non-Uses of the Article



A. Anarthrous Pre-Verbal Predicate Nominatives (Involving Colwell’s Rule) 256

Introduction 256


1. Discovery of “Colwell’s Rule” 256

ð
2. Statement of the Rule 257


3. Misunderstanding of the Rule 257

ð
4. Clarification of Colwell’s Rule 259


a. By Harner 259



b. By Dixon 259


ð
c. Summary 260


ð
5. Significance of Colwell’s Construction for Exegesis 262

ð
6. Application of Colwell’s Construction to John 1:1 266


7. Appendix to Colwell’s “Construction”: When the Verb is Absent 269



B. The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Kai,
(Granville Sharp Rule and Related Constructions) 270

Introduction 270



1. Discovery of “Granville Sharp’s Rule” 270


ð
2. Statement of the Rule 271



3. The Neglect and Abuse of Sharp’s Rule 272


ð
4. Validity of the Rule Within the New Testament 273

ð
a. In General 273


ð
b. For Christologically Significant Texts 276



ð
5. Constructions Involving Impersonal, Plural, and Proper Nouns 277



a. Proper Names 277



ð
b. Plural Personal Constructions 278



ð
c. Impersonal Constructions 286




6. Conclusion 290





C. Conclusion of The Article, Part II 290

IF you want to study the article--

 

[CherubRam]

Wow! Good bye.

 

[Johann!@#]

Wow! Good bye.

Arrivederci.
J.

 

[tigger 2]

page 255

The Article, Part II

Special Uses and
Non-Uses of the Article



A. Anarthrous Pre-Verbal Predicate Nominatives (Involving Colwell’s Rule) 256

Introduction 256


1. Discovery of “Colwell’s Rule” 256

ð
2. Statement of the Rule 257


3. Misunderstanding of the Rule 257

ð
4. Clarification of Colwell’s Rule 259


a. By Harner 259



b. By Dixon 259


ð
c. Summary 260


ð
5. Significance of Colwell’s Construction for Exegesis 262

ð
6. Application of Colwell’s Construction to John 1:1 266


7. Appendix to Colwell’s “Construction”: When the Verb is Absent 269



B. The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Kai,
(Granville Sharp Rule and Related Constructions) 270

Introduction 270



1. Discovery of “Granville Sharp’s Rule” 270


ð
2. Statement of the Rule 271



3. The Neglect and Abuse of Sharp’s Rule 272


ð
4. Validity of the Rule Within the New Testament 273

ð
a. In General 273


ð
b. For Christologically Significant Texts 276



ð
5. Constructions Involving Impersonal, Plural, and Proper Nouns 277



a. Proper Names 277



ð
b. Plural Personal Constructions 278



ð
c. Impersonal Constructions 286




6. Conclusion 290





C. Conclusion of The Article, Part II 290

IF you want to study the article--

..............................
I have studied those pages by Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics) and similar teachings by Colwell and other trinitarians.

Fortunately, I have also spent hundreds of hours doing my own study concerning John's grammar and usage in connection with John 1:1c.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/definite-john-11c.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/sharps-rule.html

 

[Free]

..............................
I have studied those pages by Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics) and similar teachings by Colwell and other trinitarians.

Fortunately, I have also spent hundreds of hours doing my own study concerning John's grammar and usage in connection with John 1:1c.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/definite-john-11c.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/sharps-rule.html

What it comes down to is this: There is only one God, so John 1:1c simply cannot be "a god." That interpretation can be rejected outright. Just a few of the passages showing polytheism to be unbiblical:

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 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.

1Ti 1:17 To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

(All ESV.)

John had already stated in 1:1b that the Word was in intimate relationship and communion with [the] God. In 1:1c the subject is the Word--ὁ Λόγος--with Θεὸς being, of course, the predicate nominative. Putting the article for theos in 1:1c would mean that the Word and [the] God were interchangeable. That would have supported Modalism/Sabellianism. The only option was to leave out the article.

As such, the only way 1:1c can be understood and remain truthful to the rest of scripture is in a qualitative sense--the Word was divine or God in nature. This is seen in John 4:24a--"Pneuma ho Theos." The only way this can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God," since "spirit" does not have the article. Similarly in 1 John 4:8 and 16, "Ho Theos agapē estin"--"God is love." It cannot mean "love is God," since "love" does not have the article. And, finally, John1:14a--"ho Logos sarx egeneto"--which can only mean "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word."

To sum, then, John was actually very precise. He avoids Sabellianism, Arianism, and polytheism, while stating that there are at least two persons that are God, that there is diversity within the unity.

 

[Johann!@#]

Putting the article for theos in 1:1c would mean that the Word and [the] God were interchangeable.

F. F. Bruce,

The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation "The Word was God." Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also "with God." What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase "What God was, the Word Was," brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can. (Bruce, The Gospel of John [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1983], p.31 emphasis ours)

And,

Those people who emphasize that the true rendering of the last clause of John 1.1 "the word was a god" prove nothing thereby save their ignorance of Greek grammar. (Bruce, The Books and the Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ; Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963], pp. 60-61 note)

A. T. Robertson,

And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say... So in John 1:14 ho logos sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of the Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality. (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament [Grand Rapids; Baker Book House, 1932], vol. 5, p.p. 4-5, emphasis ours)

Kenneth Wuest,

And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity. (The New Testament: An Expanded Translation [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1956] emphasis ours)

John L. McKenzie,

The Word theos is used to designate the gods of paganism. Normally the word with or without the article designates the God of the Old Testament and Judaism, the God of Israel: Yahweh. But the character of God is revealed in an original way in the NT; the originality is perhaps best summed up by saying that God reveals Himself in and through Jesus Christ. The revelation of God in Jesus Christ does not consist merely in the prophetic word as in the OT, but in an identity between God and Jesus Christ. Jn 1:1-18 expresses this by contrasting the word spoken by the prophets with the word incarnate in Jesus. In Jesus the personal reality of God is manifested in a visible and tangible form. In the words of Jesus and in much of the rest of the NT the God of Israel (ho theos) is the Father of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few times. Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated `the Word was with God [= the Father], and the Word was a divine being.' Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, `My Lord and my God' (Jn. 20:28). `The glory of our great God and Savior' which is to appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus (Tt.[Titus] 2:13). (McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible [New York: Macmillan, 1965], p. 317 emphasis ours)

That McKenzie understood John 1:1 as declaring Jesus as God in an absolute sense, is evident from his statement that John. 20:28 and Titus 2:13 both refer to Jesus as God. This is solidified by the fact that McKenzie addressed Yahweh as a divine being as well:

This name needs no defining genitive; Yahweh is the God of Israel without further definition. The name implies that a divine personal being has revealed Himself as the God of Israel through the covenant and exodus; it designates the divine personal reality as proclaimed and experienced. (Dictionary of the Bible, p. 317)

Further evidence that McKenzie viewed Jesus as fully God comes from p. 435:

The great christological text of St. Paul is found in Phl 2:5-11. Here the preexistent Christ is in the form of God and EQUAL WITH GOD..

I commend you for doing an excellent work Free
J.

 

[JLB]

Here you are conflating a name with a title. The only way you statement works grammatically is if “LORD” is a title for God

I never mentioned anything about Title.

I simply stated that Jesus is the name of the LORD.

You attacked me with derogatory names and labels such as “Modalism“ and “Oneness”, for simply saying the name of the LORD is Jesus.


Please just answer the simple question:


What is the name of the LORD you serve?




JLB

 

[JLB]

But only two are mentioned. The Father the word and the holy spirit.

You are denying what the scripture plainly states, which says these THREE are one.


If the Holy Spirit inferred that the scripture was meant to be understood as the father the word, then it would have stated these two are one.


Since the scripture plainly says these THREE are one, therefore it is easy to see that THE FATHER and THE WORD and THE SPIRIT are meant to be understood as these THREE are one.


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7


It has nothing to do with punctuation.

It is a matter of understanding simple math.

Three means three. Three does not mean two.




JLB

 

[Free]

I never mentioned anything about Title.

I know. I never said you did.

I simply stated that Jesus is the name of the LORD.

As I said, that only works if "the LORD" is a title, such as "Lord" or "God." But "the LORD" is "YHWH," it is God's name. Hence why you're conflating a name with a title. As I've pointed out several times, you're saying that "Jesus is the name of YHWH [the name of God]." Can you see how that doesn't make sense?

You attacked me with derogatory names and labels such as “Modalism“ and “Oneness”, for simply saying the name of the LORD is Jesus.

I never attacked you. In the sense you're using "the LORD," it is a synonym for "God." I only pointed out that your claim that "the name of [God] is Jesus," is precisely what Oneness and Modalism claim. They believe Jesus is the name of God. That means there is only one person in the Godhead whose name is Jesus. But, as I have repeatedly pointed out, Jesus is the name of the Son only. To say that Jesus is the name of God is quite incorrect.

The language we use when speaking of God matters; precision counts a great deal. Jesus is God, but God isn't Jesus; God includes the Father and the Holy Spirit, and their names are not Jesus.

Please just answer the simple question:


What is the name of the LORD you serve?

Already answered it.

 

[7thMoon]

You are denying what the scripture plainly states, which says these THREE are one.

There aren't 3 in that statement.

If the Holy Spirit inferred that the scripture was meant to be understood as the father the word, then it would have stated these two are one.

It was written by a John something in Greek. The third which is the messiah testifying in the heaven is not stated. There is not a requirement to state all 3.

Since the scripture plainly says these THREE are one, therefore it is easy to see that THE FATHER and THE WORD and THE SPIRIT are meant to be understood as these THREE are one.


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7


It has nothing to do with punctuation.

There are 2 items. Again, Greek doesn't have punctuation.

It is a matter of understanding simple math.

Three means three. Three does not mean two.

I doubt you even know Calculus.