"The word was a god"?

PinSeeker · Jul 29, 2022

Pierac said:
Dropship: Only God knows.. There are plenty of Christians going around thinking "I'm chosen, I'm OSAS, I'm saved etc" but many will be in for a shock on judgment day.. Jesus said- "..Then I'll tell them plainly, I never knew you, get away from me" (Matthew 7:21-23) I might or might not be among them myself, I just don't know, none of us do.. For example the "christian" bosses of the Welsh Presbyterian Church have just evicted this lady so they can sell her home to make money, yet no doubt they think they're heaven-bound...

I like you!!! You see the same as me in these matters! We have no say, and we know it!

See, I agree with Dropship here, Pierac. And you, apparently, except I disagree that we "have no say," but our being members of God's elect does not depend on "our say," but on God's. As Paul says, "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:16).

But Jehovah is indeed triune, and Jesus is the second Person of the triune Jehovah, and thus part of ~ and one with the Father and the Holy Spirit in ~ YHVH. That Jesus is the firstborn of the Father is in the same sense as David is the firstborn over all his brothers (even though he was the youngest) and even over Israel as king ~ but in a much greater way. Jesus is preeminent over all creation, as Paul says, just as David was made preeminent over all of physical Israel in his day.

Grace and peace to you.

Pierac · Jul 29, 2022

PinSeeker said:
I've heard enough from you, Peirac, so I'm skipping over everything you wrote except this:

I am encouraged to hear that you're not a Jehovah's Witness, but there are other groups of folks that believe along the same cultic lines that they do, and you seem to be... in one of those. Grace and peace to you.

Really... after all that God given information from above... all you got is... I'm not a Jehovah's Witness?

God help this Generation!
Paul

Pierac · Jul 29, 2022

PinSeeker said:
See, I agree with Dropship here, Pierac. And you, apparently, except I disagree that we "have no say," but our being members of God's elect does not depend on "our say," but on God's. As Paul says, "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:16).

But Jehovah is indeed triune, and Jesus is the second Person of the triune Jehovah, and thus part of ~ and one with the Father and the Holy Spirit in ~ YHVH. That Jesus is the firstborn of the Father is in the same sense as David is the firstborn over all his brothers (even though he was the youngest) and even over Israel as king ~ but in a much greater way. Jesus is preeminent over all creation, as Paul says, just as David was made preeminent over all of physical Israel in his day.

Grace and peace to you.

Pin Seeker... you believe what your told! If you were born in Afghanistan you would be a Hard core Muslim ... I have no doubt!

See... I was born and raised Catholic.... then converted to Southern Baptist at the age of 16..... Then made the serious mistake of asking God to show me the truth... at age 40.... Now... I see what others can not!

First I see the wages of Sin is Death....
Not eternal torment created by the Greeks and exploited bt the Roman Church to make money selling pentance....

Second, I know Jesus for whom He is... God's Messiah/Christ
On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories. What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). Has it ever dawned on you as you sit in church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that you could be guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!

INCARNA'TION, n. The act of clothing with flesh.

1. The act of assuming flesh, or of taking a human body and the nature of man; as the incarnation of the Son of God.

What did Paul say above Pinseeker?
Paul

tigger 2 · Jul 29, 2022

Johann wrote #515:

"You are no scholar, so leave John 1:1 and lean not unto your own understanding.
I know the urge to sound to sound [sic] 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 [sic] pride and just believe what you read, and Christ Jesus IS Theos, Theos pros ho Theos.."
............................................
Why would anyone want to sound "sophomoric"?

Do you mean that I must follow the teachings of trinitarian scholars and overlook any errors they make?

I have quoted/cited a number of recognized trinitarian scholars in my study of John 1:1. If you are as educated in NT Greek as you claim, you should be able to do a scholarly examination (not just personal attack) of every aspect of my study. I expect that, instead, you will refuse with the usual excuses.

Examining the Trinity OR Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity.

Please point out the errors one by one and explain why they are wrong.

Let me help you. Here is the first point in the Jn 1:1c Primer study:

"The NT Greek word for "God" and "god" is theos (θεὸς). In the writings of the Gospel writers (including John) when an unmodified theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the" (ὁ [pronounced ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God. - See DEF study."
......................................
Johann posted frequently on this thread (16 times since July 19 I believe), but it suddenly ended when I first posted the above on July 26.

I really want to discuss my study of the grammar of John 1:1c and its parallel constructions in John’s writing. Perhaps if I post the next part of my study…

“But Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" without the article. Therefore, even some trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as "the Word was a god"!

"This includes W. E. Vine (p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words);

"Dr. C. H. Dodd (Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977);

"Murray J. Harris (p. 202, Jesus as God);

"Dr. Robert Young (p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary);

"Rev. J. W. Wenham, (p. 35, The Elements of New Testament Greek);

"G. B. Winer, (p. 151, A treatise on the grammar of New Testament Greek : regarded as a sure basis for New Testament exegesis).

"Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian."
..................................
Where have I written erroneously so far?

PinSeeker · Jul 29, 2022

Pierac said:
Really... after all that God given information from above... all you got is... I'm not a Jehovah's Witness?

No, that's the only part of your whole diatribe (or whatever it was) I actually read.

But yeah, even so, you and mister Tigger and some others here would get along famously.

You'd make a good little JW, I think.

Pierac said:
Pin Seeker... you believe what your told!

Well, sometimes yes, and sometimes not so much ~ which is true of us all, given that we are not vegetables... But if it's what God says, well thennnnn it's always the former and never the latter.

Pierac said:
See... I was born and raised Catholic.... then converted to Southern Baptist at the age of 16.....

Ah, well, sorry to hear that, and, well, sorry to hear that.

Pierac said:
First I see the wages of Sin is Death....

No doubt about it. Yes, Paul says that, in Romans 6:23, as you well know, I'm sure. But in the same breath, he says, "...the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." You know that, too, I'm sure, I just wish you really believed it.

Pierac said:
Not eternal torment created by the Greeks and exploited by the Roman Church to make money selling pentance....

Well the torment is, more specifically a tormented existence, in the sense of utter anguish. This is the second death. But wait, you forgot to mention Jesus. Of course, He wasn't trying to make money, and He didn't "create" hell; it just is, and He did preach about it and warn against it quite a lot, and very clearly so.

But, as that great Saturday Night Live "prophet" Stuart Smalley (Al Franken) said, "Denial is not just a river in Egypt!"

Pierac said:
Second, I know Jesus for whom He is... God's Messiah/Christ

Well good. But I never suggested otherwise.

Me, too.

Thanks be to God.

Pierac said:
On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6).

Ah yes, but in that conversation with Nicodemus, the carnal man, while still in the flesh physically ~ and still sinful ~ is no longer dead in sin, spiritually dead, but alive spiritually, born of the Spirit of God.

Pierac said:
And "God is Spirit."

Right, and thus purely spiritual ~ perfectly holy in all His attributes.

Pierac said:
The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories.

Not at all. I mean, some may be confused about this or that, but not at all.

Pierac said:
What God has separated man has joined together!

He did not separate anything. Jesus humbled Himself and took the form of a servant, even though He was ~ always was, even now, and evermore shall be) in the form of God. Paul is very clear about this in Philippians 2.

Pierac said:
One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23).

This is quite a different thing. Related to some degree, sure, most simply because Paul wrote both Romans and Philippians, but quite different. In Romans 1, there He's talking specifically of unbelievers.

Pierac said:
Has it ever dawned on you as you sit in church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that you could be guilty of this very same thing?

Well, we are all yet sinful, even if redeemed, so we all do this to some degree, but we confess our sin and repent continually, in which case we know that in doing this, God is faithful and just to forgive us of all our sin.

Pierac said:
The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image.

Nope. But some do.

Pierac said:
We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!

Agreed. Your implication is that those who believe in God's triune nature create, or are guilty of, or propagate this confusion, Well, no. But I ~ and hopefully any trinitarian ~ would wholeheartedly affirm that we are made in God's image ~ while Christ is the image of the invisible God, as Paul says in Colossians 1:15, in Whom the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily (Colossians 2:9). How you can deny that or twist that to be something other than it is is astounding me, but so be it. In addition to this, I would ask (but I know better... ) ~ how you understand what this same Paul says in Philippians 2 (mentioned in part above), that "Christ Jesus, Who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped (used), but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the Name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." But I know better than to ask you that, because I know what your "answer" would be.

It would be, it seems, very similar to what a Jehovah's Witness would say.

Pierac said:
What did Paul say above Pinseeker?Paul

Well, Job ~ whoops; I mean, Paul ~ you tell me, since you know.

Grace and peace to you, Paulie.

keithr · Jul 30, 2022

Pierac said:
So let's go with Colossians 1:16....

Jesus never claimed credit for the original Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth.
He was in no doubt that the universe was God's handiwork.

Of course, because Jesus was God's agent in creating all things (the universe, the Earth, heavenly hosts and all life on Earth), and he rightly gives God the glory. As God's agent in the creation he had to have existed before he was born as a human.

Proverbs 8:22-31 (WEB):

(22) “Yahweh possessed me in the beginning of his work, before his deeds of old.
(23) I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth existed.
(24) When there were no depths, I was born [brough forth], when there were no springs abounding with water.
(25) Before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was born [brough forth];
(26) while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the beginning of the dust of the world.
(27) When he established the heavens, I was there; when he set a circle on the surface of the deep,
(28) when he established the clouds above, when the springs of the deep became strong,
(29) when he gave to the sea its boundary, that the waters should not violate his commandment, when he marked out the foundations of the earth;
(30) then I was the craftsman by his side. I was a delight day by day, always rejoicing before him,
(31) rejoicing in his whole world. My delight was with the sons of men.

It is highly significant that in verse 18 Jesus attains to a supreme position, meaning that it he did not have it already. Thus he cannot have preexisted as God. If he did his final status would be more of a demotion than the promotion described by Paul.

Of course, Jesus is not Almighty God YHWH, and he is not part of a man-made invention of a trinity being. I agree with you.

It is an insult to say that God learned obedience! Jesus learned obedience because he was a man,

And Jesus was God's Son, and obedient to his Father.

...
Rev 4:11 "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."

All very intersting and true, but you're not addressing my question "You seem to be implying that Jesus did not exist before he was born as a man, so how do you harmonise that with the following verses?"

You have much to learn... keithr

I know I have much to learn, as do you and all of us, but what has that got to do with my question? All that typing to just say that you harmonise Colossians 1:16 to your belief that Jesus did not exist before his human birth by assuming that "all things have been created" is referring to "the new order of things that now exist since the resurrection of the Son", even though they don't exist yet (for Paul says in Ephesians 6:12, "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world’s rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.").

Don't forget that we have to harmonise all verses of Scripture in order to be confident that we have the correct understanding, so you also need to consider the other verses I quoted, which were:

Hebrews 1:2,8,10 (WEB):

(2) has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.
(8) But of the Son he says, ...
(10) And, “You, Lord, in the beginning, laid the foundation of the earth. The heavens are the works of your hands.

John 8:58 (ASV):

(58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am. [I have been, or I have existed]

Here's another couple of verses that imply that Jesus existed before his human birth:

John 8:42 (WEB):

(42) Therefore Jesus said to them, “If God were your father, you would love me, for I came out and have come from God. For I haven’t come of myself, but he sent me.

John 16:28 (WEB):

(28) I came from the Father, and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”

tigger 2 · Jul 30, 2022

Johann wrote #515:

"You are no scholar, so leave John 1:1 and lean not unto your own understanding.
I know the urge to sound to sound [sic] 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 [sic] pride and just believe what you read, and Christ Jesus IS Theos, Theos pros ho Theos.."
............................................
Why would anyone want to sound "sophomoric"?

Do you mean that I must follow the teachings of trinitarian scholars and overlook any errors they make?

I have quoted/cited a number of recognized trinitarian scholars in my study of John 1:1. If you are as educated in NT Greek as you claim, you should be able to do a scholarly examination (not just personal attack) of every aspect of my study. I expect that, instead, you will refuse with the usual excuses.

Examining the Trinity OR Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity.

Please point out the errors one by one and explain why they are wrong.
........................................
Let me help you. Here is the first point in the Jn 1:1c Primer study:

"The NT Greek word for "God" and "god" is theos (θεὸς). In the writings of the Gospel writers (including John) when an unmodified theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the" (ὁ [pronounced ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God. - See DEF study."
...................................
Johann posted frequently on this discussion (16 times since July 19 I believe), but it suddenly ended when I first posted the above on July 26.

I really want to discuss my study of the grammar of John 1:1c and its parallel constructions in John’s writing. Perhaps if I post the next part of my study…

“But Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" without the article. Therefore, even some trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as 'the Word was a god'!

"This includes W. E. Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words);

"Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project);

"Murray J. Harris (Jesus as God);

"Dr. Robert Young (Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary);

"Rev. J. W. Wenham, (The Elements of New Testament Greek).

"Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian."
..........................................
A little more:
The usual trinitarian interpretation for John 1:1c ("the Word was God") is supposedly based on the fact that an unmodified theos is used as a predicate noun (predicate nominative) without a definite article (anarthrous) and comes before the verb in the New Testament (NT) Greek text. When you find an anarthrous predicate noun in that position, some trinitarians will say, it is to be interpreted differently ("qualitative" or "definite": i.e., as though it actually had the definite article with it or is 'understood' as an adjective - "divine," "angelic," manly," etc.) from a predicate noun which normally comes after the verb.

Although such a "reversed" word order is extremely rare in English, it is common in NT Greek. And even a number of respected trinitarian scholars translate such constructions as having an indefinite predicate noun (“The Apostle is a man”; “He is a murderer”; “The man is a prophet”; ““He was a prophet”; “And the place was a market,”; “John Smith is a teacher”; etc.

So I decided to examine all the usages of a predicate noun found before its verb in all of John’s writings that are as close to the example of John 1:1c as we can find.

Here is what I found. Notice how many have the definite article with the predicate noun (as trinitarians imagine at John 1:1c.):

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 - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”)

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”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

………………………………................................

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - “a liar”

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - “a beggar”

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - “a prophet”

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - “a sinner”

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - “a hireling”

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - “a thief”

18. 1 Jn 4:20 - “a liar “

And, possibly,

H,W 19. 1 John 2:4 - “a liar”

….………………………………………

H: Also found in Harner’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(end note #16, JBL)

W: Also found in Wallace’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(Greek Grammar & Syntax)

These uses by John show that John 1:1c should also be translated into English with the English indefinite article: “And the word was a god.”

OzSpen · Jul 30, 2022

Wrangler said:
Only God the Father is explicit in Scripture. No Godhead. In your reply you reference verses of 3 Gods not 1 Godhead.

If you want to read into Scripture words and meanings that are not there, that’s in you. We can delve into the verses you cited, if you think it would be helpful.

Wrangler,

All three Persons Jesus mentions—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are God, but they are distinct from each other within the Trinity. See: John 14:25–26; 15:26–27; 16:7–15. Scripture affirms:

God the Father (1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6);

God the Son (John 1:1-3; Col 1:13-16);

God the Holy Spirit (Isa 63:10; Acts 5:3-4).

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines Godhead as "the nature of God especially as existing in three persons."

You seem to be promoting a Unitarian view of God that is compatible with the theology of the JWs and Christadelphians.

Oz

robert derrick · Jul 31, 2022

Jack said:
Please help me to understand what is meant here. If Jesus was "a god" then He could be THE God or a false god. What else could this mean? How can Jesus be "a god"?

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

The word that was in the beginning with God, and was a god, is the other gospel of a created hero christ, whose name is not Jesus.

You've stumbled upon the modern pagan hero cult of a deified christ, that they same came after Herakles and is the last one on earth.

Wrangler · Jul 31, 2022

OzSpen said:
All three Persons Jesus mentions—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are God, but they are distinct from each other within the Trinity.

There are no 3 persons mentioned as God, only the Father, as I said.

The weakness of your position is seen in relying on John 1:1, which does not even refer to Jesus but God.

Jesus is not mentioned in John’s Gospel until v14. And his Gospel is the most anti-trinitarian of the whole Bible. V 20:31 states his Gospel was written for a different purpose; namely, to show Jesus is the Son of God. So, it’s funny to see trinitarians use John’s Gospel for a purpose other than what John intended.

OzSpen said:
You seem to be promoting a Unitarian view of God that is compatible with the theology of the JWs and Christadelphians.

I’m OK with that.

Webers_Home · Jul 31, 2022

.
According to Deut 6:4, God is a singularity. However, according to the
Bible's very first three verses; He wears more than one hat.

» God as Himself (Gen 1:1)

» God as His spirit (Gen 1:2)

» God as His voice (Gen 1:3)
_

Matthias · Jul 31, 2022

Webers_Home said:
.
According to Deut 6:4, God is a singularity.

Yes.

However, according to the
Bible's very first three verses; He wears more than one hat.

» God as Himself (Gen 1:1)

» God as His spirit (Gen 1:2)

» God as His voice (Gen 1:3)

The Father.

tigger 2 · Jul 31, 2022

Jack said:
Please help me to understand what is meant here. If Jesus was "a god" then He could be THE God or a false god. What else could this mean? How can Jesus be "a god"?

............................................
Some of the trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, faithful Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods (or a god) 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 and 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.
29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.
30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.

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

And, of course, the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/“a god” about the same time the NT was written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

Even distinguished NT scholar (trinitarian) Robert M. Grant, when discussing the writings of the noted 2nd century Christian, Theophilus, said that this respected early Christian wrote that if Adam had remained faithful, he would have become ‘perfect’ and would have been ‘declared a god’! Dr. Grant then added that this corresponds with Jesus being ‘declared a god’ elsewhere in the Gospel of John! So this respected trinitarian NT scholar admits that Jesus himself was called a god in John’s Gospel. - p. 171, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988.

A careful study of the Logos [Word] and Philo's concept of it, as the first readers of John’s Gospel were already familiar with it, shows that they clearly understood the Word [Logos] to be “the Son of God,” “Firstborn of God,” “with God,” and “a god” but certainly not God Himself.

Matthias · Jul 31, 2022

tigger 2 said:
............................................
Some of the trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, faithful Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods (or a god) 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 and 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.
29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.
30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.

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

And, of course, the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/“a god” about the same time the NT was written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

Even distinguished NT scholar (trinitarian) Robert M. Grant, when discussing the writings of the noted 2nd century Christian, Theophilus, said that this respected early Christian wrote that if Adam had remained faithful, he would have become ‘perfect’ and would have been ‘declared a god’! Dr. Grant then added that this corresponds with Jesus being ‘declared a god’ elsewhere in the Gospel of John! So this respected trinitarian NT scholar admits that Jesus himself was called a god in John’s Gospel. - p. 171, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988.

A careful study of the Logos [Word] and Philo's concept of it, as the first readers of John’s Gospel were already familiar with it, shows that they clearly understood the Word [Logos] to be “the Son of God,” “Firstborn of God,” “with God,” and “a god” but certainly not God Himself.

“The Catholic Church teaches that we do become ‘gods’ but only in that sense of participation in the divine nature …”

(Tim Staples, “Does the Catholic Church Teach We Are Gods”)

Does the Catholic Church Teach We Are Gods? - TimStaples.com

Were you aware of that?

Keiw · Jul 31, 2022

In 1822 a Greek scholar using Greek lexicons translated by trinity sources, proved to the world in his NT translation, by comparing the Greek and English side by side----a god---- was correct in the last line at John 1:1. 18 other translations in history had a god in the last line as well. 3 had was divine. Rejected by every trinity clergy, because truth exposes them as false religion and they would no longer exist. 2 bible passages alone expose them as false religions-1) a house divided( 34,000 trinity based religions) will not stand. 2) 1Cor 1:10--a mark of the one single religion that Jesus began--Unity of thought( all of Gods truth) no division. I guess they just cant understand english.

tigger 2 · Jul 31, 2022

Matthias said:
“The Catholic Church teaches that we do become ‘gods’ but only in that sense of participation in the divine nature …”

(Tim Staples, “Does the Catholic Church Teach We Are Gods”)

Does the Catholic Church Teach We Are Gods? - TimStaples.com

Were you aware of that?

I was aware of some of the Early Church Fathers saying that (including Athanasius), but not of the Catholic Church itself. Thank you.

Ronald Nolette · Jul 31, 2022

tigger 2 said:
Johann wrote #515:

"You are no scholar, so leave John 1:1 and lean not unto your own understanding.
I know the urge to sound to sound [sic] 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 [sic] pride and just believe what you read, and Christ Jesus IS Theos, Theos pros ho Theos.."
............................................
Why would anyone want to sound "sophomoric"?

Do you mean that I must follow the teachings of trinitarian scholars and overlook any errors they make?

I have quoted/cited a number of recognized trinitarian scholars in my study of John 1:1. If you are as educated in NT Greek as you claim, you should be able to do a scholarly examination (not just personal attack) of every aspect of my study. I expect that, instead, you will refuse with the usual excuses.

Examining the Trinity OR Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity.

Please point out the errors one by one and explain why they are wrong.

Let me help you. Here is the first point in the Jn 1:1c Primer study:

"The NT Greek word for "God" and "god" is theos (θεὸς). In the writings of the Gospel writers (including John) when an unmodified theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the" (ὁ [pronounced ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God. - See DEF study."
......................................
Johann posted frequently on this thread (16 times since July 19 I believe), but it suddenly ended when I first posted the above on July 26.

I really want to discuss my study of the grammar of John 1:1c and its parallel constructions in John’s writing. Perhaps if I post the next part of my study…

“But Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" without the article. Therefore, even some trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as "the Word was a god"!

"This includes W. E. Vine (p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words);

"Dr. C. H. Dodd (Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977);

"Murray J. Harris (p. 202, Jesus as God);

"Dr. Robert Young (p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary);

"Rev. J. W. Wenham, (p. 35, The Elements of New Testament Greek);

"G. B. Winer, (p. 151, A treatise on the grammar of New Testament Greek : regarded as a sure basis for New Testament exegesis).

"Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian."
..................................
Where have I written erroneously so far?

What you and your so called scholars fail to mention is that yes- "a" may be used in the translation for an anarthrous noun. context and all of Scripture will determine if the "a" MUST be added. In the example of a man is prophet,, yes a must be added in English for Scripture tells us there are many prophets, so a singular man would be A prophet.

The bible also declares there is only one true god! That means by biblical definition all others called god are false gods.

What also is intentionally ignored is that "god" has two uses. One is a "person" and the other as an essence or nature. As several Greek scholars have said, "god' ion John 1:1 acts like an adjectival noun! The subject of the passage is "the Word" and "god" describes" the character of the Word.

It could have also been correctly translated in English as "the Word was wioth the god and the Word was divine."

So while Jesus is not His Father, He is divine as His Father is.

Hope this clears up the watchtower misinformation.

Matthias · Jul 31, 2022

tigger 2 said:
I was aware of some of the Early Church Fathers saying that (including Athanasius), but not of the Catholic Church itself. Thank you.

I think of Jesus as being elohim / theos “in the sense of participation in the divine nature,” as him being the supreme human representative / agent of God.

Trinitarian theology, of course, doesn’t think of Jesus that way. Nevertheless, I’ve sometimes found it helpful in explaining my belief to Catholics and to Protestant trinitarians.

Ronald Nolette · Jul 31, 2022

Matthias said:
I think of Jesus as elohim / theos “in the sense of participation in the divine nature,” as him being the supreme human representative / agent of God. Trinitarian theology, of course, doesn’t think of Jesus that way. Nevertheless, I’ve sometimes sometimes found it helpful in explaining my belief to Catholics and to Protestant trinitarians.

Well I am a trinitarian in that the bible makes it clear that teh Father, Son and spirit are all separate persons but all are divine or God. that does not mean the same person, but share the same essence or nature. The Son is as much god as His Father and the Spirit is as much God as the Father and Son.

The Bible also teaches there is an order of exaltation for the Trinity.

Matthias · Jul 31, 2022

Ronald Nolette said:
Well I am a trinitarian in that the bible makes it clear that teh Father, Son and spirit are all separate persons but all are divine or God. that does not mean the same person, but share the same essence or nature. The Son is as much god as His Father and the Spirit is as much God as the Father and Son.

The Bible also teaches there is an order of exaltation for the Trinity.

Thanks. I read the Bible as a Jewish monotheist, not as a trinitarian.

"The word was a god"?

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads