My take on Trinity

[7thMoon]

Satan?

Psa 82:1 A Psalm of Asaph. God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
Psa 82:2 “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
Psa 82:3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
Psa 82:4 Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
Psa 82:5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
Psa 82:6 I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;
Psa 82:7 nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.”
Psa 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!

Verses 2 and 7 show us that God is talking to men; those he has appointed as rulers and judges of his people. They are judging unjustly and showing "partiality to the wicked." The terms "gods" and phrase "sons of god," refer to their appointment as God's rulers and judges.

Again, first and foremost we must have as our foundation the following:

Deu 4:35 To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.
…
Deu 4:39 Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other.

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

Deu 32:39 "'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.

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 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 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 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,

Also, in the NT:

Mar 12:29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
...
Mar 12:32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him.

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,

Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!

Jud 1:25 to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

The Bible very clearly says there is only one God, from the beginning to the end. Not just one Mighty God or one Most High God; there is only one God.


So, what about the "gods" mentioned in the Bible?

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Notice that Paul says "so-called gods in heaven or on earth." So, what of his statement 'as indeed there are many "gods"'? We already have that explained in Scripture:

Deu 4:28 And there you will serve gods of wood and stone, the work of human hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.

Deu 28:36 “The LORD will bring you and your king whom you set over you to a nation that neither you nor your fathers have known. And there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone.
...
Deu 28:64 “And the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other, and there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.

Deu 29:17 And you have seen their detestable things, their idols of wood and stone, of silver and gold, which were among them.

Isa 37:19 and have cast their gods into the fire. For they were no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone. Therefore they were destroyed.

Isa 42:17 They are turned back and utterly put to shame, who trust in carved idols, who say to metal images, “You are our gods.”

Jer 2:11 Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which does not profit.

Dan 5:4 They drank wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.


All the gods of the peoples are merely man-made idols, although there is more to it than that:

1Co 10:19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
1Co 10:20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.

Rev 9:20 The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk,

These gods of the peoples, their man-made idols, have demonic power behind them, but that clearly doesn't mean the demons are gods.

(All ESV.)

Throughout the Bible, we consistently see that there is only one God. The use of "gods" refers to man-made idols and "sons of God" refers to those whom God has made rulers and authorities on his behalf. It can also mean those who are righteous (Deut 6:2). In a general sense, a god is anything we worship--money, fame, power, etc. But there are no other actual "gods."

None of which proves your point. There are actual gods not being the one God who created all; or is man limited to only natural, corruptible bodies.

 

[GodsGrace]

None of which proves your point. There are actual gods not being the one God who created all; or is man limited to only natural, corruptible bodies.

YOU'RE IN THE THEOLOGY FORUM.
PLEASE USE SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS.
THANKS.

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST IN THIS THREAD.
USE TALK WITH STAFF IF NECESSARY.

 

[7thMoon]

Jesus doesn't agree with you:

Matthew 25:36
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Jude 1:7
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Matthew 25:41
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
2 Thessalonians 1:9
They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”
Matthew 18:8
And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.

οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον Are you sure it isn't the chastisement the everlasting? You don't know that few such had everlasting life like Enoch; though God wakes the dead.

 

[GodsGrace]

οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον Are you sure it isn't the chastisement the everlasting? You don't know that few such had everlasting life like Enoch; though God wakes the dead.

Could you PLEASE not use foreign languages,
and could you say the English part in a different way please?
I can't understand what you mean...
Thanks.

 

[Free]

You don't know Greek so I why should I listen to you.

The difference between you and I is that I know I don't know Greek. I'm learning as I go. I can support everything I've said by scholarly sources, and have, whereas you have yet to provide a single source to back up anything you have claimed.

ὁ Λόγος is not the subject of the clause. How you explain that? You are not rightly dividing the Greek.

Yes, it is the subject of the clause. It's easy to see that there are three clauses which each speak of the Word. It makes absolutely no sense to arbitrarily relegate the third instance of ho Logos to verse 2. This is even more obvious when verse 2 begins with the nominative (subject) Houtos, "He," and ends with the accusative (direct object) Theon, "God." That is a complete sentence and "the Word" is not needed;" it wouldn't make sense there.

"The Word" belongs to the third clause, where, as I stated--and supported with both Mounce and White--Theos is an anarthrous predicate nominative. John is telling us who or what the Word is.

Just as importantly, you need to explain why, if you're right, every Bible translation has ho Logos belonging to the third clause of verse 1. You've made the claim, so the onus is on you to back it up.

 

[Free]

None of which proves your point. There are actual gods not being the one God who created all; or is man limited to only natural, corruptible bodies.

It fully proves my point. God says there are no other gods and never will be. That is repeated throughout the NT; the whole Bible is thoroughly monotheistic. To suggest that there are other gods is to say that God either lied to us or simply didn't know. Either way, he then couldn't be God and everything in the Bible is untrustworthy.

 

[7thMoon]

The difference between you and I is that I know I don't know Greek. I'm learning as I go. I can support everything I've said by scholarly sources, and have, whereas you have yet to provide a single source to back up anything you have claimed.


Yes, it is the subject of the clause. It's easy to see that there are three clauses which each speak of the Word. It makes absolutely no sense to arbitrarily relegate the third instance of ho Logos to verse 2. This is even more obvious when verse 2 begins with the nominative (subject) Houtos, "He," and ends with the accusative (direct object) Theon, "God." That is a complete sentence and "the Word" is not needed;" it wouldn't make sense there.

"The Word" belongs to the third clause, where, as I stated--and supported with both Mounce and White--Theos is an anarthrous predicate nominative. John is telling us who or what the Word is.

Just as importantly, you need to explain why, if you're right, every Bible translation has ho Logos belonging to the third clause of verse 1. You've made the claim, so the onus is on you to back it up.

ο λογος skips the accusative thus beginning the next sentence. I belongs to a "4th" clause. Even so, a 2nd clause is started by ο λογος after εν αρχη. In the 2nd clause the word both was something and with a God who we all claim to know. There are many possible ways of starting sentences in Greek. The nominative and or a personal verb are the 2 most common. Else how do you separate ουτος from the preceding logos/λογος word.

 

[7thMoon]

It fully proves my point. God says there are no other gods and never will be. That is repeated throughout the NT; the whole Bible is thoroughly monotheistic. To suggest that there are other gods is to say that God either lied to us or simply didn't know. Either way, he then couldn't be God and everything in the Bible is untrustworthy.

Any being which can do supernatural things is a god, but there is uniquely one God who created planet earth. Do I need to show you how weak your post was? Your theism is not totally monos as in unique. Even the Muslims do better.

 

[GodsGrace]

ο λογος skips the accusative thus beginning the next sentence. I belongs to a "4th" clause. Even so, a 2nd clause is started by ο λογος after εν αρχη. In the 2nd clause the word both was something and with a God who we all claim to know. There are many possible ways of starting sentences in Greek. The nominative and or a personal verb are the 2 most common. Else how do you separate ουτος from the preceding logos/λογος word.

Hi 7thMoon,
Are we discussing the Greek language here or are we discussing something to do with theology?

You never replied to my post no. 163
You are not adhering to my post no. 164

I'm asking you to stop posting in Greek so others could join in the conversation.
Also, in Theology it's requested that you reply to posts to you.
And, you must use scripture - which you've been doing, but there's too much talk about a language.

Please adhere to the above.
Thanks.

 

[GodsGrace]

Any being which can do supernatural things is a god, but there is uniquely one God who created planet earth. Do I need to show you how weak your post was? Your theism is not totally monos as in unique. Even the Muslims do better.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED REPEATEDLY REGARDING TREATHING OTHERS WITH RESPECT AND LOVE.
YOU'RE BREAKING TOS RULES AND WILL NOT ADHERE TO REQUESTS.

YOU ARE BEING REMOVED FROM THIS THEAD FOR A 7 DAY PERIOD.

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST IN THIS THREAD.
USE TALK WITH STAFF IF NECESSARY.

 

[Free]

ο λογος skips the accusative thus beginning the next sentence. I belongs to a "4th" clause.

The word order in Greek doesn't matter like it does in English, right? "The Word" (ho Logos) belongs to the third clause since it completes that clause. This is beyond dispute. As I said, in the third clause Theos is an anarthrous predicate nominative, which means it is describing or renaming ho Logos, by means of the verb "to be." We have this in English too (https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/predicate_nominative.htm).

There are three clauses in verse 1 that each reveal something about the Word. Verse 2 then repeats verse 1 more succinctly, without using ho Logos but simply "He," to refer back to the Word. It makes no sense to put ho Logos onto the next sentence, much less just leave it hanging on its own.

Even so, a 2nd clause is started by ο λογος after εν αρχη. In the 2nd clause the word both was something and with a God who we all claim to know. There are many possible ways of starting sentences in Greek. The nominative and or a personal verb are the 2 most common. Else how do you separate ουτος from the preceding logos/λογος word.

How else? Simply because "and God was the Word" forms a complete clause. I have asked several times before and so I ask again: why is it that every single translation agrees with what I am stating and disagrees with you? On what basis does your "knowledge" of Greek surpass that of the numerous scholars that were involved in all those translations?

There is no debate among scholars as to where the third clause ends; it's precisely what does the third clause say. And that is pretty much settled.

Any being which can do supernatural things is a god, but there is uniquely one God who created planet earth.

Where is that in Scripture? There is only one God. Supernatural beings--angels, demons, and Satan--are not gods; they are simply supernatural beings.

Do I need to show you how weak your post was? Your theism is not totally monos as in unique. Even the Muslims do better.

That's not very nice.

 

[GodsGrace]

The word order in Greek doesn't matter like it does in English, right? "The Word" (ho Logos) belongs to the third clause since it completes that clause. This is beyond dispute. As I said, in the third clause Theos is an anarthrous predicate nominative, which means it is describing or renaming ho Logos, by means of the verb "to be." We have this in English too (https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/predicate_nominative.htm).

There are three clauses in verse 1 that each reveal something about the Word. Verse 2 then repeats verse 1 more succinctly, without using ho Logos but simply "He," to refer back to the Word. It makes no sense to put ho Logos onto the next sentence, much less just leave it hanging on its own.


How else? Simply because "and God was the Word" forms a complete clause. I have asked several times before and so I ask again: why is it that every single translation agrees with what I am stating and disagrees with you? On what basis does your "knowledge" of Greek surpass that of the numerous scholars that were involved in all those translations?

There is no debate among scholars as to where the third clause ends; it's precisely what does the third clause say. And that is pretty much settled.


Where is that in Scripture? There is only one God. Supernatural beings--angels, demons, and Satan--are not gods; they are simply supernatural beings.


That's not very nice.

You won't be receiving a reply for a while.
Sorry.

 

[Free]

You won't be receiving a reply for a while.
Sorry.

No worries. I was typing that out while you posted it seems.

 

[7thMoon]

The word order in Greek doesn't matter like it does in English, right?

No, it is matters less but it is still important. Nominatives before a personal verb of matching number are the subject.

As I said, in the third clause Theos is an anarthrous predicate nominative, which means it is describing or renaming ho Logos, by means of the verb "to be." We have this in English too (https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/predicate_nominative.htm).

English has auxillary verbs; and the "to-be" verbs in Greek are 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person.

It makes no sense to put ho Logos onto the next sentence, much less just leave it hanging on its own.

It is the same case as outos and for the next personal 3rd person verb.

How else? Simply because "and God was the Word" forms a complete clause.

It is shorter than that. "And the God-- it was." The word is a name of a God. A logos is element of speech per Aristotle meaning "a word". The name of the God of course is YHWH.

There is no debate among scholars as to where the third clause ends;

There should be.

Where is that in Scripture? There is only one God. Supernatural beings--angels, demons, and Satan--are not gods; they are simply supernatural beings.

Supernaturality is the definition of godhood. You are simply not correct.

 

[tigger 2]

No, it is matters less but it is still important. Nominatives before a personal verb of matching number are the subject.

English has auxillary verbs; and the "to-be" verbs in Greek are 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person.

It is the same case as outos and for the next personal 3rd person verb.

It is shorter than that. "And the God-- it was." The word is a name of a God. A logos is element of speech per Aristotle meaning "a word". The name of the God of course is YHWH.

There should be.

Supernaturality is the definition of godhood. You are simply not correct.

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

And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this trinitarian study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).” - The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985

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

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

The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:

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

B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:

"Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart." -

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

The scripture cannot be broken. See Matthew 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside. The meaning is,

‘If, therefore, the Scripture uses the word "god" as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It can not, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the Messiah.’ -Barnes' Notes on the New Testament

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

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

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing,

“430. [elohim]. el-o-heem’; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, ... x (very) great, judges, x mighty.” - p. 12, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.”

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

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

The trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6:

“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

(John 10:34-36);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.

(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik)

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen (see DEF study note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF study); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

 

[BeyondET]

Isaiah 9:6 (part 1)

Isaiah 9:6 (From my personal studies)

Many (but not all) trinitarians will tell you that Is. 9:6 proves that Jesus is God.

Is. 9:6 says –

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” - NASB.

The last one, Shouldn't that be King of Peace. Since a Prince is a son of a sovereign.

 

[7thMoon]

The last one, Shouldn't that be King of Peace. Since a Prince is a son of a sovereign.

If you look at the Hebrew in Isaiah 9:6, the consulter (a translation of the participle) of the mighty God the everlasting father is not the prince of the peace who kept the gentiles at bay in the new testament.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/isa/9/6/t_conc_688006

 

[BeyondET]

If you look at the Hebrew in Isaiah 9:6, the consulter (a translation of the participle) of the mighty God the everlasting father is not the prince of the peace who kept the gentiles at bay in the new testament.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/isa/9/6/t_conc_688006

Hmm interesting.

Isaiah 11:2
And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

And the four spirits below?

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The spirit of the LORD, The everlasting Father.

The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The Prince of Peace.

The spirit of counsel and might, The Wonderful Counselor.

The spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD, The Mighty God.

 

[7thMoon]

Hmm interesting.

Isaiah 11:2
And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

And the four spirits below?

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The spirit of the LORD, The everlasting Father.

The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The Prince of Peace.

The spirit of counsel and might, The Wonderful Counselor.

The spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD, The Mighty God.

Care to clarify?

 

[Free]

No, it is matters less but it is still important. Nominatives before a personal verb of matching number are the subject.

The Word is the subject and the predicate nominative means that the Word is being modified by God. That is, John is telling us who is the Word, not who is God.

It is shorter than that. "And the God-- it was." The word is a name of a God. A logos is element of speech per Aristotle meaning "a word". The name of the God of course is YHWH.

First, Theos has no article, so it cannot be "the God." Second, John has already told us in the first clause that the Word is eternal, and in the second clause that the Word has always existed in intimate relationship with God. In the third clause, then, whatever John says cannot contradict what he has already said. What John says simply completes the thought of the first two clauses--to be eternal and in intimate relationship with God, is to be God in nature.

There should be.

Not at all.

Supernaturality is the definition of godhood. You are simply not correct.

I have no idea what your point is here.