robert derrick
Well-Known Member
It's much simpler just to know Jesus is God by knowing Him.The Word, who is he, according to John
At the end of his first letter to Christians the apostle John brings us to the understanding, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that humans begotten of God are children of God with Jesus Christ. An American Translation presents the end of John’s letter as follows: “We know that no child of God commits sin, but that he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one cannot touch him. We know that we are children of God, while the whole world is in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us power to recognize him who is true; and we are in union with him who is true.” How? “Through his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. Dear children, keep away from idols.”(1 John 5:18-21, AT; RS.)
Believers in the Trinity doctrine will say that the demonstrative pronoun "this" (hou'tos) refers to Jesus Christ. They will say that Jesus is "the true God and life everlasting." This interpretation however, is in conflict with the rest of the scriptures. There are many scholars that do not agree with this Trinitarian view. Cambridge University scholar B.F. Westcott wrote: "The most natural reference [of the pronoun hou'tos] is to the subject not locally nearest but dominant in the mind of the apostle." Well in the apostle John mind he was talking about Jesus Father. German theologian Erich Vault wrote: "It has to be determined whether the[hou'tos] of the next proposition refers to the locally and immediately preceding subject...or to the more distant antecedent God. A testimony to the true God seems more in harmony with the final warning against idols than a demonstration of the divinity of Christ.
Since the One of whom Jesus Christ is the Son is “the true God and eternal life,” and since Jesus Christ is “he who was born of God” and who protects God’s other children, how are we to understand John 1:1, 2, of which there are differing translations? Many translations read: “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Others read: “And the Word (the Logos) was divine.” Another: “And the Word was god.” Others: “And the Word was a god.”
The popular rendering by the Authorized Version or Douay Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” Here a few lines deserve to be quoted from the book The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, by Count Leo Tolstoy, as follows:
If it says that in the beginning was the comprehension, or word, and that the word was to God, or with God, or for God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God.
John proves that the Word who was with God “was made flesh” and became Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ was “the Son of God.” So it would be proper to say that the Word was the Son of God. For anyone to say that the Word was God, “the only true God,” would be contrary to what the apostle John proves by the rest of his writings. In the last book of the Bible, specifically in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his name is called The Word of God.”
Now why is it that translators disagree as to what the Word was, “God,” or, “god,” or, “a god”? It is because the Greek word for “God” is at the beginning of the statement although it belongs to the predicate, and it also does not have the definite article “the” in front of it. Below , to illustrate this, we give on the first set of lines the Greek text according to the fourth-century uncial manuscripts; and then on the second line, how the Greek text is pronounced in our language today; and on the third line a word-for-word English translation. Note Greek abbreviations for “God.”
ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ
EN ARKHEI ĒN HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOS
IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD
ΗΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ
ĒN PROS TON THN, KAI THS ĒN HO LOGOS.
WAS WITH THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD.
ΟΥΤΟΣ ΗΝ ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΝ
HOUTOS ĒN EN ARKHEI PROS TON THN.
THIS WAS IN BEGINNING WITH THE GOD.
Did see the omission of the definite article “THE” in front of the second “GOD.” Is the omission of the article in theos en ho logos nothing more than a matter of idiom?
The late Bishop Westcott, coproducer of the famous Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures, speaks of the “true humanity of Christ” and yet he argues that Jesus Christ was not “true humanity” but a mixture, a so-called God-Man. However, note that the Bishop says that the omission of the definite article the before the Greek word theós makes the word theós like an adjective that “describes the nature of the Word” rather than identify his person. This is why some translators render it: “And the Word was divine.” That is not the same as saying that the Word was God and was identical with God. According to trinitarians the Word was only a third of God, a coequal Second Person in a three-in-one God. However, when someone who is truly looking for the truth in scripture and considers all that John has written it proves how false such a teaching is. The Word is the Son of God, not the Second Person of God.
The Four Gospels, by C. C. Torrey, shows the difference between theós with ho (the definite article) and theós without ho by printing his translation as follows: “And the Word was with God, and the Word was god.”
The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, of 1864, shows the difference by printing its translation as follows: “And the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God.” See the difference how God is spelled in its second occurrence.
These translations printed in these ways indicate that the Word, in his prehuman existence in heaven with God, had a godly quality but was not God himself or a part of God. The Word was the Son of God.
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The reason people don't know the truth Jesus Christ, is because they enjoy being intellectually stimulated instead.
It just gives me a headache.
