The Absolute Deity of Jesus Christ in John Chapter 1

[Free]

Both of you please find a nicer way to talk to each other or just bow out of the discussion.

 

[Free]

Clearly you don't understand the Godhead, a.k.a. the trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three aspects of the complete God. I am composed of body, mind, and spirit. Am I three different people? Obviously not. I am a husband, father, and grandfather. Am I three different people? Obviously not.

You say he doesn't understand the Trinity, but what you are proposing as the Trinity is actually Modalism.

The doctrine of the Trinity, by definition, is that within the one Being that is God, there eternally exists three coeternal, coequal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each person is of the same substance, being fully and truly God, yet distinct one from the other.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Oh, please, stop with the judgements. I get it, but obviously you don't. You forget your "theology", and stick to what the Bible ACTUALLY TEACHES! John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". This is the wording in every single translation! Why should I believe you, since what you write contradicts every English translation of the Bible?

Clearly you don't understand the Godhead, a.k.a. the trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three aspects of the complete God. I am composed of body, mind, and spirit. Am I three different people? Obviously not. I am a husband, father, and grandfather. Am I three different people? Obviously not.

YOU CAN USE ALL CAPS, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF SHOUTING, BUT THAT DOESN'T PROVE YOUR POINT.

CAPS are to EMPHASIZE!!!

No human can understand without the Lord opening their eyes to His Truth

You are in GRAVE ERROR in what you believe, actually HERESY!

 

[jaybo]

You say he doesn't understand the Trinity, but what you are proposing as the Trinity is actually Modalism.

The doctrine of the Trinity, by definition, is that within the one Being that is God, there eternally exists three coeternal, coequal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each person is of the same substance, being fully and truly God, yet distinct one from the other.

How is that different than what I wrote? I wrote that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three aspects of the complete God. You wrote that within the one Being that is God, there eternally exists three coeternal, coequal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One being that is God = three aspects of the complete God.

 

[Free]

How is that different than what I wrote? I wrote that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three aspects of the complete God. You wrote that within the one Being that is God, there eternally exists three coeternal, coequal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One being that is God = three aspects of the complete God.

The difference is significant. They are three eternally distinct persons, each fully and truly God being of the same substance, not merely three different aspects or roles of one person, such as husband, father, and grandfather.

When it comes to God, we must be careful in our language, that we're not saying either more or less than he has revealed, as I'm sure you'll agree. To me, "aspect" is too similar to "role" or "mode," as though some people might see one aspect and others a different aspect; that it becomes about what a person perceives. Worse, that it takes all three aspects to make God complete, as though each aspect is 1/3 of God.

The use of "person" for each member of the Trinity is what has been accepted since the doctrine came about, perhaps even sooner. Although imperfect, as any language will be in describing the nature of God, it is the closest, since the language of personhood is used of each of the members of the Trinity.

 

[jaybo]

The difference is significant. They are three eternally distinct persons, each fully and truly God being of the same substance, not merely three different aspects or roles of one person, such as husband, father, and grandfather.

When it comes to God, we must be careful in our language, that we're not saying either more or less than he has revealed, as I'm sure you'll agree. To me, "aspect" is too similar to "role" or "mode," as though some people might see one aspect and others a different aspect; that it becomes about what a person perceives. Worse, that it takes all three aspects to make God complete, as though each aspect is 1/3 of God.

The use of "person" for each member of the Trinity is what has been accepted since the doctrine came about, perhaps even sooner. Although imperfect, as any language will be in describing the nature of God, it is the closest, since the language of personhood is used of each of the members of the Trinity.

Okay.

 

[tigger 2]

The ONLY reason that anyone would try to LESSEN the meaning of the Greek THEOS in John 1:1, is for THEOLOGY, and has nothing to do with what John actually writes!

As I have shown in the OP, the best and Original reading in John 1:18, is, "
“Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο”.
“God no one hath ever seen; the Unique God, who is always close to the Father; He has revealed”

Here we have GOD used for BOTH the Father, and Jesus Christ, the ONLY difference is that Jesus is called, "μονογενὴς Θεὸς", which has the meaning UNIQUE GOD, because Jesus as GOD, took upon Himself the very nature of humans, and verse 14 tells us!

When you are going to quote anyone, make sure you don't choose only the parts that suite your theology!

Here is what W E Vine says in FULL on THEOS in John 1:1

"There are, of course, exceptions to this, as when the absence of the article serves to lay stress upon, or give precision to, the character or nature of what is expressed in the noun. A notable instance of this is in John 1:1 , "and the Word was God;" here a double stress is on theos, by the absence of the article and by the emphatic position. To translate it literally, "a god was the Word," is entirely misleading. Moreover, that "the Word" is the subject of the sentence, exemplifies the rule that the subject is to be determined by its having the article when the predicate is anarthrous (without the article). In Romans 7:22 , in the phrase "the law of God," both nouns have the article; in ver. 25, neither has the article. This is in accordance with a general rule that if two nouns are united by the genitive case (the "of" case), either both have the article, or both are without. Here, in the first instance, both nouns, "God" and "the law" are definite, whereas in ver. 25 the word "God" is not simply titular; the absence of the article stresses His character as lawgiver"

the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their 1969 edition of their Interlinear NT, MISQUOTE in an appendix on John 1:1, when they refer to A T Robertson, Dana and Mantey, and Samuel Green.

In each case, these Greek authorities MISQUOTED by the JW's, as you do here with Vine, are very clear, that "καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος", is, "and the Word was God".

"John i.1: Θεoς ηv ο Λoγoς, the Word was God" (S Green; Handbook to the Grammar to the Greek Testament, p.178, section, 206).

"And the Word was God (kai theos ên ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ên 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)...Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality" (A T Robertson; Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. V, pp.4-5).

In 1974, Dr Julius Mantey actually wrote to the Watchtower, to inform them that their "evidence" of him supporting their reading, "a god", is FALSE, and they had LIED about what he says!

Letter To WT By Julius Mantey

. . bangalore.

www.jehovahs-witness.com

Facts are facts!!!

.....................................................................
“To translate it literally, ‘a god was the Word,’ is entirely misleading.”

But I wrote, “Trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.”

What I wrote is true. The others I quoted correctly also and carefully explained that they preferred a different translation. Please show where I misquoted by quoting the parts I did.

“the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their 1969 edition of their Interlinear NT, MISQUOTE in an appendix on John 1:1, when they refer to A T Robertson, Dana and Mantey, and Samuel Green.

In each case, these Greek authorities MISQUOTED by the JW's, as you do here with Vine, are very clear, that ‘καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος’, is, ‘and the Word was God’.”

Again, I did not misquote Vine! And I did not say that he accepted the literal translation of John 1:1c.
I don’t expect any noted trinitarian translator or grammarian to admit that the literal translation of John 1:1c is acceptable.

Since I do not have Green’s work, please show me where the 1969 KIT misquotes Robertson and D&M.

The late Dr. Julius Mantey, noted NT Greek scholar and strong trinitarian, allegedly wrote a powerful attack against the accuracy and honesty of the NWT.

John 1:1

His first concern was with John 1:1. His complaint that the WT Society dishonestly used his book to support their translation is incredible! It’s undoubtedly true that he didn’t intend anything in that book to support a non-trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1. (The Watchtower Society never claimed he did.) But the fact is that it does support it nevertheless! The quote by the Society refers to an example used by Mantey in his book which is grammatically identical to John 1:1 (articular subject after the copulative verb and anarthrous predicate noun before the copulative verb) and which Mantey has translated as, “and the place was a market” - an exact parallel to the NWT’s “and the Word was a god.” - see NWT 25-28.

Mantey continues, “it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god’ [as in the NWT]. Word order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.” If this were really true, then Mantey himself has been neither “scholarly nor reasonable” in his rendering of an identical word order in complete agreement with the NWT rendering of John 1:1.

As for the other inaccurate accusations by Mantey, I have refuted them in the past and can probably find them if you wish.

 

[SolaScriptura]

How is that different than what I wrote? I wrote that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three aspects of the complete God. You wrote that within the one Being that is God, there eternally exists three coeternal, coequal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One being that is God = three aspects of the complete God.

the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are NOT "aspects", but real PERSONS! Distinct from each other

Anything else is RANK HERESY!

 

[SolaScriptura]

.....................................................................
“To translate it literally, ‘a god was the Word,’ is entirely misleading.”

But I wrote, “Trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.”

What I wrote is true. The others I quoted correctly also and carefully explained that they preferred a different translation. Please show where I misquoted by quoting the parts I did.

“the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their 1969 edition of their Interlinear NT, MISQUOTE in an appendix on John 1:1, when they refer to A T Robertson, Dana and Mantey, and Samuel Green.

In each case, these Greek authorities MISQUOTED by the JW's, as you do here with Vine, are very clear, that ‘καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος’, is, ‘and the Word was God’.”

Again, I did not misquote Vine! And I did not say that he accepted the literal translation of John 1:1c.
I don’t expect any noted trinitarian translator or grammarian to admit that the literal translation of John 1:1c is acceptable.

Since I do not have Green’s work, please show me where the 1969 KIT misquotes Robertson and D&M.

The late Dr. Julius Mantey, noted NT Greek scholar and strong trinitarian, allegedly wrote a powerful attack against the accuracy and honesty of the NWT.

John 1:1

His first concern was with John 1:1. His complaint that the WT Society dishonestly used his book to support their translation is incredible! It’s undoubtedly true that he didn’t intend anything in that book to support a non-trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1. (The Watchtower Society never claimed he did.) But the fact is that it does support it nevertheless! The quote by the Society refers to an example used by Mantey in his book which is grammatically identical to John 1:1 (articular subject after the copulative verb and anarthrous predicate noun before the copulative verb) and which Mantey has translated as, “and the place was a market” - an exact parallel to the NWT’s “and the Word was a god.” - see NWT 25-28.

Mantey continues, “it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god’ [as in the NWT]. Word order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.” If this were really true, then Mantey himself has been neither “scholarly nor reasonable” in his rendering of an identical word order in complete agreement with the NWT rendering of John 1:1.

As for the other inaccurate accusations by Mantey, I have refuted them in the past and can probably find them if you wish.

Translate John 8:54 into English

“εστιν ο πατηρ μου ο δοξαζων με ον υμεις λεγετε οτι θεος υμων εστιν”

 

[jaybo]

the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are NOT "aspects", but real PERSONS! Distinct from each other

Anything else is RANK HERESY!

Calm down!

 

[jaybo]

Translate John 8:54 into English

“εστιν ο πατηρ μου ο δοξαζων με ον υμεις λεγετε οτι θεος υμων εστιν”

It has been translated many times. Here is a good rendition: "Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, ‘He is our God,’ though you do not know him. But I know him; if I would say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him, and I keep his word." John 8-54:55

If you're such an expert, you should know that verses are an artificial division, added much later. Quoting a single verse out-of-context is an eisegetical error.

 

[Free]

the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are NOT "aspects", but real PERSONS! Distinct from each other

Anything else is RANK HERESY!

Please stop using all caps, as it is considered shouting. Italics, underline, or bold each work fine for emphasis.

 

[tigger 2]

Translate John 8:54 into English

“εστιν ο πατηρ μου ο δοξαζων με ον υμεις λεγετε οτι θεος υμων εστιν”

The use of theos in John 8:54 is connected to a genitive case noun and is, therefore one of the improper examples to use for translating theos as God or a god. And, for the same reason, it is an unacceptable example for parallels to John 1:1c.

Most frequently misused exceptions are nominative nouns with attributive genitive nouns or prepositions:

“In examples like this [“prepositional” constructions] (cf. ... Mt. 27:54) only the context can decide [whether the anarthrous noun is definite or indefinite]. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful.... [Please note that the example Robertson has given (Matt. 27:54) has the anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb as in Colwell’s Rule!] In Jo. 5:27 [‘son of man’] may be either ‘the son of man’ or ‘a son of man.’” - p. 781. Robertson says this in spite of the fact that John 5:27 also has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding its verb!! It’s “prepositional” (noun modified by a genitive noun in these cases) and, therefore, the use of the article is ambiguous! - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, 1934.

In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with genitives. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.” - p. 791. - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson.

+++ “The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun): Mt 27:43.” - Blass & Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 133, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

+++ - "A genitive qualifier tends to make the head noun definite even though it might not have the article." - Dr. Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, p. 67, Broadman and Holman Publ., 1994.

+++ Henry Alford wrote concerning Titus 2:13 in his The Greek Testament, “It [‘saviour’] is joined with [hmwn, ‘of us’ (genitive)], which is an additional reason why it may spare the article: see Luke 1:78; Ro. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3” - p. 420, The Greek Testament, by Henry Alford.

+++ “….(2) definiteness is not expressed only by the article but may [not always] also be indicated by an accompanying genitive or possessive pronoun; …(4) Biblical Greek sometimes reflects the Semitic idiom in which the noun in the construct state [comparable to ‘angel of Lord’], even if definite, is anarthrous … and (5) there is a tendency for nouns to be anarthrous that are used in familiar or stereotyped expressions that may date from the prearticular age of Greek - expressions such as idiomatic prepositional phrases.” - p. 304, Jesus as God, Murray J. Harris, Baker Book House, 1992. (Emphasis added)

+++ “#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - H. W. Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges, p. 291 .

+++ Also see pp. 150-151 in G.B. Winer's A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek.

+++ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 734, Zondervan, 1996.

Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.

 

[SolaScriptura]

It has been translated many times. Here is a good rendition: "Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, ‘He is our God,’ though you do not know him. But I know him; if I would say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him, and I keep his word." John 8-54:55

If you're such an expert, you should know that verses are an artificial division, added much later. Quoting a single verse out-of-context is an eisegetical error.

here is a free lesson for you in Greek grammar

the noun θεος in John 8:54, is in the predicate of the sentence, ο πατηρ, is the subject. You will note that θεος does not have the definite article in the Greek, exactly as in John 1:1c. No one would ever translate John 8:54 as, "god", so WHY is θεος in John 1:1c, "a god" in the JW's???

It is because they have twisted the meaning to support their HERESY about Jesus Christ!

Now try to prove what I have said to be wrong!

 

[SolaScriptura]

The use of theos in John 8:54 is connected to a genitive case noun and is, therefore one of the improper examples to use for translating theos as God or a god. And, for the same reason, it is an unacceptable example for parallels to John 1:1c.

Most frequently misused exceptions are nominative nouns with attributive genitive nouns or prepositions:

“In examples like this [“prepositional” constructions] (cf. ... Mt. 27:54) ONLY THE CONTEXT CAN DECIDE [whether the anarthrous noun is definite or indefinite]. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful.... [Please note that the example Robertson has given (Matt. 27:54) has the anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb as in Colwell’s Rule!] In Jo. 5:27 [‘son of man’] may be either ‘the son of man’ or ‘a son of man.’” - p. 781. Robertson says this in spite of the fact that John 5:27 also has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding its verb!! It’s “prepositional” (noun modified by a genitive noun in these cases) and, therefore, the use of the article is ambiguous! - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, 1934.

In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with genitives. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.” - p. 791. - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson.

+++ “The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun): Mt 27:43.” - Blass & Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 133, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

+++ - "A genitive qualifier tends to make the head noun definite even though it might not have the article." - Dr. Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, p. 67, Broadman and Holman Publ., 1994.

+++ Henry Alford wrote concerning Titus 2:13 in his The Greek Testament, “It [‘saviour’] is joined with [hmwn, ‘of us’ (genitive)], which is an additional reason why it may spare the article: see Luke 1:78; Ro. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3” - p. 420, The Greek Testament, by Henry Alford.

+++ “….(2) definiteness is not expressed only by the article but may [not always] also be indicated by an accompanying genitive or possessive pronoun; …(4) Biblical Greek sometimes reflects the Semitic idiom in which the noun in the construct state [comparable to ‘angel of Lord’], even if definite, is anarthrous … and (5) there is a tendency for nouns to be anarthrous that are used in familiar or stereotyped expressions that may date from the prearticular age of Greek - expressions such as idiomatic prepositional phrases.” - p. 304, Jesus as God, Murray J. Harris, Baker Book House, 1992. (Emphasis added)

+++ “#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - H. W. Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges, p. 291 .

+++ Also see pp. 150-151 in G.B. Winer's A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek.

+++ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 734, Zondervan, 1996.

Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.

there is NO POINT is quoting from Greek grammars, when you yourself don't understand what you quote, and what these grammarians say!

I have responded in #34, now show where I am wrong!

 

[SolaScriptura]

Please stop using all caps, as it is considered shouting. Italics, underline, or bold each work fine for emphasis.

I will NOT stop using CAPS, which I use for EMPHASIS. If you don't like it, then don't bother to read what I write. Don't be rude in trying to tell me what to do!

 

[tigger 2]

there is NO POINT is quoting from Greek grammars, when you yourself don't understand what you quote, and what these grammarians say!

I have responded in #34, now show where I am wrong!

.........................................
post 33 above clearly shows why a noun connected to a genitive cannot be translated by grammar alone, but must be understood from context if at all. If you do not understand the terminology used by these noted trinitarian scholars, please look it up.

 

[jaybo]

here is a free lesson for you in Greek grammar

the noun θεος in John 8:54, is in the predicate of the sentence, ο πατηρ, is the subject. You will note that θεος does not have the definite article in the Greek, exactly as in John 1:1c. No one would ever translate John 8:54 as, "god", so WHY is θεος in John 1:1c, "a god" in the JW's???

It is because they have twisted the meaning to support their HERESY about Jesus Christ!

Now try to prove what I have said to be wrong!

I don't respect your knowledge of Greek. Instead, I respect those authorities that have given us the great Bible translations that we now have.

Are you actually claiming that the committees of scholars know less than you do? BTW, that lesson in humility is free.

 

[jaybo]

there is NO POINT is quoting from Greek grammars, when you yourself don't understand what you quote, and what these grammarians say!

I have responded in #34, now show where I am wrong!

You wrote "there is NO POINT is quoting from Greek grammars". Your grammar is faulty!

 

[SolaScriptura]

.........................................
post 33 above clearly shows why a noun connected to a genitive cannot be translated by grammar alone, but must be understood from context if at all. If you do not understand the terminology used by these noted trinitarian scholars, please look it up.

complete RUBBISH!!!