First, Dropship said correctly that JESUS never claimed to be God. John 1:1 has JOHN saying that the Word was theos.
Second, the use or non-use of the article is not a designator for the predicate noun. But, for count nouns as predicate nouns, it is a sign that the P.N. is definite or indefinite. The real reason the P.N. is most often indefinite is the same in English. We normally mention the subject as either definite or indefinite, but the P.N. is usually indefinite: "The man was a robber;" "The animal was a cow;" "The cow is an animal." However, Greek, like English, sometimes uses a definite P.N. also: "He is the president;" "the cat was the thief;" etc. Compare John 1:21.
Also examine these P.N.s which are parallel to John 1:1c (P.N. before verb):
H. ....1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew")
H,W...2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet")
H,W...3. John 6:70 - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer")
H,W...4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite ("a mankiller/murderer")
H,W...5. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan")
H,W...6. John 9:24 - indefinite ("a sinner")
H,W...7. John 10:1 - indefinite ("a thief and a plunderer")
H,W...8. John 10:33 - indefinite ("a man")
H,W...9. John 18:35 - indefinite ("a Jew")
H,W...10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite ("a king")
[H,W..11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite ("a king") - Received Text and 1991 Byzantine text]
H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”)
H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”)
H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”)
H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”)
H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”)
H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”)
18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”)
......................................................
H: Also found in Philip B. Harner's list of "Colwell Constructions"
W: Also found in Daniel B. Wallace's list of "Colwell Constructions"
Therefore, the probable definition for John 1:1c is also indefinite: “a god.”
You are no scholar, so leave John 1:1 and lean not unto your own understanding.
I know the urge to sound to sound sophomoric and highly intellectual and to know all the answers in the scriptures is fleshly driven, mere intellectual, stoical knowledge, acquired gnosis, so please, down with th pride and just believe what you read, and Christ Jesus IS Theos, Theos pros ho Theos..
Was with God (ἦν πὸς τὸν Θεὸν)
Anglo-Saxon vers., mid Gode. Wyc., at God. With (πρός) does not convey the full meaning, that there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition πρός, which, with the accusative case, denotes motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. Thus: “Are not his sisters here with us” (πρὸς ἡμᾶς), i.e., in social relations with us (Mar_6:3; Mat_13:56). “How long shall I be with you” (πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Mar_9:16). “I sat daily with you” (Mat_26:55). “To be present with the Lord” (πρὸς τὸν Κύριον, 2Co_5:8). “Abide and winter with you” (1Co_16:6). “The eternal life which was with the Father” (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, 1Jn_1:2). Thus John's statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him.
And the Word was God (καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος)
In the Greek order, and God was the Word, which is followed by Anglo-Saxon, Wyc., and Tynd. But θεὸς, God, is the predicate and not the subject of the proposition. The subject must be the Word; for John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word. Notice that Θεὸς is without the article, which could not have been omitted if he had meant to designate the word as God; because, in that event, Θεὸς would have been ambiguous; perhaps a God. Moreover, if he had said God was the Word, he would have contradicted his previous statement by which he had distinguished (hypostatically) God from the word, and λόγος (Logos) would, further, have signified only an attribute of God. The predicate is emphatically placed in the proposition before the subject, because of the progress of the thought; this being the third and highest statement respecting the Word - the climax of the two preceding propositions. The word God, used attributively, maintains the personal distinction between God and the Word, but makes the unity of essence and nature to follow the distinction of person, and ascribes to the Word all the attributes of the divine essence. “There is something majestic in the way in which the description of the Logos, in the three brief but great propositions of Joh_1:1, is unfolded with increasing fullness” (Meyer).
Vincent
(2) If the Word was thus in the beginning, what relation did He hold to God? Was He identical or opposed? ὁ λόγος ἦν πρός τὸν θεόν. πρός implies not merely existence alongside of but personal intercourse. It means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another. Thus in classical Greek, τήν πρός Σωκράτην συνουσίαν, and in N. T. Mar_6:3, Mat_13:56, Mar_9:19, Gal_1:18, 2Jn_1:12. This preposition implies intercourse and therefore separate personality. As Chrysostom says: “Not in God but with God, as person with person, eternally”.
(3) The Word is distinguishable from God and yet Θεὸς ἧν ὁ λόλος, the Word was God, of Divine nature; not “a God,” which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable; nor yet identical with all that can be called God, for then the article would have been inserted (cf. 1Jn_3:4). “The Christian doctrine of the Trinity was perhaps before anything else an effort to express how Jesus Christ was God (Θεός) and yet in another sense was not God (ὁ θεός), that is to say, was not the whole Godhead.” Consult Du Bose’s Ecumenical Councils, p. 70–73. Luther says “the Word was God” is against Arius: “the Word was with God” against Sabellius.
Clarke
Still want to argue that the Memra is "a god?"
J.
