I don't think the author of that reference was stretching like that. I think he was simply showing us that it is possible that those who claim something to be true should consider that there is a possibility that a translator should have chosen a better word.
Did Jesus claim to be God?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
I like your posts Johann as they do show understanding and thought. I hope you realize that I gave a link to the site because I placed a quote from them. My own understanding comes from much more than you may find in that link.Not trying to discredit him-but have asked him IF he read what he has posted-since it is diametrically opposed to the Scriptures and what stands written.
Lampe: Wise Words from Cambridge
The late Regius Professor of Theology at Cambridge, Geoffrey Lampe, was one of many who are critical of the Chalcedonian, Trinitarian definition of Jesus. He argued that if Jesus preexisted his human life as God, and was therefore fully God, then he could not also be fully human. This, as we have seen, is admitted by the writers quoted above. They confirm that a person who is not a human person cannot be fully man! Lampe describes the unfortunate and confusing implications of the traditional dogma that Jesus is God possessing “impersonal human nature.” What Lampe says applies equally to any form of preexistence, Trinitarian or Jehovah’s Witness/Arian:
Not going back
There is a perfectly good Greek word for “preexist” in the NT (prouparchein). It is never, ever used of Jesus. There is a perfectly good word for “transform,” but no text ever says that Jesus was transformed from pre-human to human.
There is a perfectly good Greek word for “return, go back” but Jesus is nowhere said to “return” or “go back” to the Father. See John 13:1, 3; 16:28; 20:17. That is simply because Jesus had not been there before! But there is a “crime scene” in some modern versions (including NIV), which do say that Jesus “went back” to the Father. This should alert us to the tendency to want to make Jesus fit with the later error of preexistence, which was the first step towards the Trinity!
How do you know that a preexisting, pre-human Jesus is not a different and false Jesus, to be exposed as antichristian and to be avoided as such?
All the Bible writers were obviously Socinian, i.e., non-literal preexistence unitarians. The later move away from Jesus to an alien definition of God as triune is one of the most remarkable shifts away from and loss of essential information, in the history of (mis)communication. Jesus expressed his unitarian confession of faith as we know by asserting that the “Father is the only one who is true God” (John 17:3; 5:44). He told the Jews that his God was the same one Person whom the Jews claimed as their God.
These unitarian texts merely repeat the 1300 NT references to GOD as the equivalent of the Father. Jesus declares himself to be not GOD, which would make two Gods, but God’s unique human agent.
To me-the above is absolute nonsense
Why Preexistence Does Matter - 21st Century Reformation
Why Preexistence vs. Non-Preexistence Does Matter Sir Anthony F. Buzzard presented at the 2nd Human Jesus Conference How do you know that a “pre-existing,” “prehuman” Jesus is not a different Jesus from the Jesus of21stcr.org
Truth is what matters-not opinions such as that of Lampe and others holding to this form of teaching.
J.
It may not be as complete as yours, but I am still a work "in progress."
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
UPDATE: I learned that Annas appears to have been the former high priest, so, while I still think the John 18 passage on Annas and Caiaphas alludes to doctrine pertinent to the topic at hand, what I said will have to be fixed a little then shared again later (God willing).
Last edited:
Jack:
Jesus said in John 14:7: If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
And then in John 14:8-14
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
What do you think Philip and the other disciples thought about Jesus after he spoke all these words? That he was most certainly God, or that God his Father dwelt within him and he in his Father as Jesus continued to experience his power and spoke to him and performed the miracles they eventually witnessed?
Johann
Well-Known Member
We all are a work in progress brother-and pray we all have the discernment to discern truth from error-right?
J.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Yes, we must not be lazy Christians and not fully explore all the information we have at our disposal…..and if we do so prayerfully, God will guide us to his truth, not to the confused thinking that dominates in Christendom, where all can apparently assume many things as long as they stick to their central core.
Some believe that when God said, “Let us make man in our image,” he was using the plural pronouns, not to include his Son the Logos but solely to refer to himself, since his title in the Hebrew, Elohim, is in the plural form. (Gen 1:26) But if this is the case here, then there should be other instances to show that God (Elohim) was accustomed to speak of himself in this way. But what do we find?
Delitzsch, one of the leading Bible scholars of the nineteenth century, states in A New Commentary on Genesis: “A plural cannot be shown in Holy Scripture where God is speaking of himself.” That God was speaking to the Logos, his Son, when he said, “Let us make man,” is apparent from John 1:3 and Colossians 1:15-16, where the Logos is shown to have been God’s active agent in creation. How can an idea or thought be a creation? How can an idea or thought be the “firstborn of ALL creation”?
Further, when Jesus prayed….
| “Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.” |
Jesus’ words cannot be construed to refer to any situation that existed only in God’s mind, because he prays to be again ‘alongside his Father’.
John 1:1 The logos was “with God”. Logos can mean a “spokesman”. Jesus was the foremost spokesman for his God and Father.
Jesus was referring to a certain place that he occupied alongside or near by his Father “before the world was”. How could he return to his former glory if he did not exist…..not as God, but as “the (firstborn) son of God”. What prevents Jesus from being created as an intelligent spirit son…the “firstborn” of many “sons of God” who serve the interests of the Father in heaven? This firstborn son occupied a unique place in creation as the first and only direct creation of his Father…..all things thereafter came via the agency of the son.
This agency cannot be a thought in God’s mind. He is the “us” and “our” in Genesis 1:26. God was not talking to himself….
But nowhere in either of those verses does it state that the child conceived by holy spirit was God incarnate OR that God was giving birth to his idea.
As the Creator, Jehovah has full control over what he brings into existence, and in order for Jesus to be born as a human being, (redeemer and savior of mankind) he had to be 100 % human (the exact equivalent of Adam…the “last Adam” had to pay for what the ‘first Adam’ did) because if he was the immortal God in human form, he could not die. This is why he “sent” his son (who was not immortal, nor was he eternally existing)….he was created as the first of Jehovah’s intelligent sons.…“the beginning of God’s creation” (Rev 3:14) He is a “servant” of his Father and always has been. (Acts 4:27, 30)
No one can argue from scripture that Jesus is not the self-declared “son of God”…..what CAN be argued is that there is equality between the Father, son and Holy Spirit, all being one deity. Nowhere in scripture is that statement ever made. In fact if Jesus had ever said he was God incarnate, no Jew would have accepted him because it would have been the ultimate blasphemy. (Deut 6:4) Merely claiming to be “the son of God” sent them into a flat spin.
In order for the son to die he had to be Adam’s equivalent to offer his life in atonement (at-one-ment….one for one) to cancel the debt and redeem the flawed human race descended from him. (Rom 5:12)
There is no scriptural impediment to Jesus having a pre-human existence as God’s “firstborn” because he is the one “through whom” ALL creation came. (Colossians 1:15-17; John 1:2-3) He therefore had to exist before “all creation”.
He is the “master workman” of Proverbs 8:30-31.
He makes some good points, but we cannot argue definitively from a negative position…..i.e….what was ‘not said’. All we can do is use the Bible‘s own words to explain itself. I see no impediment to Jesus having pre-existed, “in God’s form” (a spirit being) but that doesn’t mean that he was part of God and separated from him to come here to save mankind. How can mere humans kill God? Who was Jesus praying to? To whom was he a servant? Who does he serve as our “High Priest”?
Agreed….there is no connection between Exodus 3:14-15 and John 8:58.
From the Jewish Tanakh…
| 14 God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'" | ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם: | |
| 15 And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation. | טווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה כֹּ֣ה תֹאמַר֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה |
“יְהֹוָ֞ה” is Yahweh…Jehovah. The one God of Israel.
| Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one. | דשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהֹוָ֥ה | אֶחָֽד |
“I AM” is not mentioned there. God was not telling Israel that he existed, because they already knew he did.
His name carried the sense of what he would “be” or “become” to his people in order to fulfill his purpose in connection with them. He did not need to become a human to do that. He “sent” his son as his representative. Logically, you cannot “send” someone who does not exist.
It’s a big subject and all must with due diligence come to a conclusion because our everlasting life depends on “knowing“ both the Father and his son for who they really are. (John 17:3)
Lol.
Excellent! You have a great way with words.
You remind me of a couple sisters in our congregation… they have a great teaching ability, getting the point across.
I’d love to hear one of your demonstrations at our meeting!
Now don’t get the BigHead… stay humble. lol.
PS: If I make it to the New System, I’m gonna track you down so we can work together in witnessing to a few of the resurrected ones. - Acts 24:15
(Can you imagine preaching to someone like Atilla the Hun? Or Hannibal? Yes, I think even “unrighteous” men like these, will be given another chance at life by Jehovah and Jesus… they won’t have access to any power, or people to serve them, or any bad influences.)
What a marvelous future for mankind! - Revelation 11:18; 21:3,4
Last edited:
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
He is “the only begotten son” of his Father....”only begotten” means an only child (monogenes) He is a uniquely created being, “firstborn of ALL creation”, so yes, he is the first creation of his ‘begetter’ who logically had to exist before him. No son comes into existence at the same time as his father.
It is Jehovah who refers to his angels as his “sons” and Jesus referred to his God as “Father”....just as he refers to his Father as his God. (Rev 3:12)
Rev 3:14...Jesus calls himself “the Amen”, “the faithful and true witness”, and “the beginning of the creation by God”....so if Jesus says that he is the beginning of God’s creation, that is what I will believe.
I really like your posts, and I would like to add information that may be relevant to our understanding. This is me offering food for thought:
The Hebrew word translated as "God" is elohiym. It is the plural form of elo'ah. While elohiym is plural. This does not mean that it is more than one. In Hebrew, a plural word may indicate quality as well as quantity. As an example, the Hebrew word ets is a tree. If there are two trees this would be written as etsiym meaning trees, qualitatively large. A large tree such as a Redwood could also be written etsiym, qualitatively large. As elohiym is plural, it can be translated as "gods" (quantity) or a very large and powerful "god" (quality). The creator of the heavens and the earth is far above any other god and is therefore elohiym, not just an eloah. For instance in Genesis 1:1 the verb bara (created) identifies the subject of the verb as masculine singular. The next word is elohiym (the subject of the verb) and is understood as a singular qualitatively large noun, God and not gods.
Hebrew verbs have two tenses, perfect (completed action) and imperfect (incomplete action). The perfect tense is usually translated in the English past tense, but do not assume that it always in the past tense, as a completed action can also be in the present tense. In the case of the verb ידע , which means “to know,” if we translated it in the past tense it would be “I knew,” which in English implies that the speaker no longer “knows” the individual. So instead, we would translate this verb as “I know.”
Prophetic perfect tense - Wikipedia
The prophetic perfect tense is a literary technique commonly used in religious texts [1] that describes future events that are so certain to happen that they are referred to in the past tense as if they had already happened. ( Zuck, Roy B. (April 1, 2002).
The category of "prophetic perfect" was already suggested by medieval Hebrew grammarians, such as David Kimhi: "The matter is as clear as though it had already passed," Isaac ben Yedaiah:
On occasion the Old Testament prophets used the grammatical past tense or the present- or past-perfect tenses when referring to future events.[1] Seven centuries before the crucifixion of Christ, for example, Isaiah wrote that the Messiah “was wounded for our transgressions” (Isaiah 53:5). Isaiah repeatedly used the prophetic perfect in prophesying of Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice: “He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows” (Isaiah 53:4); “He was bruised for our iniquities” (53:5); “The chastisement of our peace was upon him” (53:5); “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (53:6); “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted” (53:7); “He was cut off out of the land of the living” (53:8); and “For the transgression of my people was he stricken” (53:8). These are only a few of the examples of the prophetic perfect in the Old Testament.
"[The rabbis] of blessed memory followed, in these words of theirs, in the paths of the prophets who speak of something which will happen in the future in the language of the past. Since they saw in prophetic vision that which was to occur in the future, they spoke about it in the past tense and testified firmly that it had happened, to teach the certainty of his [God's] words -- may he be blessed -- and his positive promise that can never change and his beneficent message that will not be altered." (Isaac ben Yedaiah):[5]
Wilhelm Gesenius describes it as follows: "The perfect serves to express actions, events, or states, which the speaker wishes to represent from the point of view of completion, whether they belong to a determinate past time, or extend into the present, or while still future, are pictured as in their completed state." ( Wilhelm Gesenius, E. Kautzsch, and A. E. Cowley, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910).)
The Prophetic Perfect | Spirit & Truth
In the Hebrew and Aramaic idiom in which the Bible was written, when something was absolutely going to happen in the future, it is often spoken of as if it...
spiritandtruthonline.org
[1] Students studying Semitic language and thought sometimes call this idiom, “here now, but not yet” or “already—not yet.”
[2] Unfortunately, the average Christian has no knowledge of the idiom. This is due to the fact that in the vast majority of the cases in which it appears in the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts, the translators have not done a literal translation into English, but have actually changed the tense. Thus, the “prophetic perfect” is rarely apparent in English Bibles.
[The past tense is used instead of the future tense] when the speaker views the action as being as good as done. This is very common in the Divine prophetic utterances where, though the sense is literally future, it is regarded and spoken of as though it were already accomplished in the Divine purpose and determination. The figure is to show the absolute certainty of the things spoken of. [4]
Ge 3:14–15 YLT: And Jehovah God saith unto the serpent, ‘Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all the cattle, and above every beast of the field: on thy belly dost thou go, and dust thou dost eat, all days of thy life; and enmity I put between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he doth bruise thee—the head, and thou dost bruise him—the heel.’
Nu 24:17 I see it, but not now; I behold it, but not near; A star hath proceeded from Jacob, And a sceptre hath risen from Israel, And hath smitten corners of Moab, And hath destroyed all sons of Sheth.
In Col 1:17, συνέστηκεν is in the perfect tense. However, it seems very common for translations like NIV to treat συνέστηκεν as if it were present in tense:
"He is before all things, and in him all things hold together (συνέστηκεν)." The NIV here chose to express that the all things are engaged in an ongoing act.
Conversely, συνέστηκεν could be translated more consistently with the perfect tense such as: "He is before all things, and in him all things have come together (συνέστηκεν)."
I have not studied all of the writing of the 21st Century Reformation, but there are positions that they seem to take that I can largely agree with:
Attachments
Johann
Well-Known Member
That site would disagree with this-
John 1:1a: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος (lit., “In [the] beginning was the Word”).
In the first clause, we find the affirmation of eternality of the person of the Word (Christ). First, unlike the Stoic view that the impersonal Logos/Word was merely the rational principle of the universe, in the prologue (vv. 1-18), John presents the preexistent Word as possessing personal attributes. Thus, the content of the prologue radically and clearly militates also against the Oneness impersonal abstract thought or concept view of the Word. Thayer says of the Logos of 1:1, “oJ λόγος denotes the essential Word of God, i.e. the personal (hypostatic) wisdom and power in union with God. . . .”[6] “The Logos is not,” says Lenski, “an attribute inhering in God . . . but a person in the presence of God. . . .”[7]
Simply, the first verb ἦν (“was”) here is the imperfect indicative of εἰμι (“I am, exist”). The force of the imperfect tense indicates a continuous action (or repeated action) normally occurring in the past. Hence, the Word did not originate at a point in time, but rather in the beginning of time, the Word ἦν already existed. Thus, linguistically, the Word was existing (“ἦν the Word”) prior to the time of the ἀρχῇ—before “the beginning.” Also, note the verbal contrast between ἦν and the aorist ἐγένετο[8] (“came into being,” cf. v. 3). The aorist indicative normally indicates a punctiliar action normally occurring in the past.[9] In the Prologue of John, ἦν is exclusively applied to the eternal Word in verses 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10, while in verses 3, 6, and 10, the aorist ἐγένετο is applied to everything created. Not until verse 14 does ἐγένετο refer to the Son denoting His new added nature—“the Word became flesh.”[10]
John 1:1b: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (lit., “and the Word was with the God”). The second clause of John 1:1 teaches the absolute personal distinction between the eternal Word and τὸν θεόν (i.e., the Father).[11] John envisages a marked distinction between two persons.[12] Of all the prepositions that John could have utilized, which can mean “with” (e.g., ἐν, μετά, παρὰ, σύν), he chose πρὸς (lit., “facing”/“toward,” with the accusative, θεόν as the object of the preposition). Hence, πρὸς with the accusative clearly indicates that the Word was “at, with, in the presence of . . . God.”[13] Robertson explains the significance of the preposition in John 1:1b:
With God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν). Though existing eternally with God, the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Πρὸς with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of πρὸς. . . .[14].Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. BDAG specifically points out that πρὸς at John 1:1b indicates the meaning of “by, at, near; πρὸς τίνα εἶναι: be (in company) with someone.”[15] Thus, the distinct person of the Word was always in intimate loving fellowship with the Father, before time.
John 1:1c: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (lit., “and God was the Word”). The third clause of John 1:1 teaches the deity of Jesus Christ. Here we read one of the clearest and unequivocal affirmations of the deity of the person of the Word in the NT. John accentuates his high Christology by first showing that the person of the Word (the Son) was eternal, that is, preexisting (1:1a) and that the eternal Word was distinct from Father (1:1b). Then, John presents the very marrow of the gospel: “The Word was God” and “the Word became flesh (v. 14).
That the Word was fully God and distinct from the Father (τὸν θεόν) is clearly accentuated by the context and grammar. In the inspired syntax of the clause, John places the anarthrous θεὸς[16] in the “emphatic position” (in the beginning of the clause- καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος).
Grammatically, the anarthrous[17] θεὸς is a preverbal predicate nominative. The PN describes the class or category to which the subject (λόγος) belongs.[18] Hence, the anarthrous preverbal PN θεὸς points to the “quality” (essence) of the Word, not the identity (person). In view of John’s theology, along with the grammar and context, the highest semantical possibility for θεὸς in 1:1c is qualitative.[19]
If John would have written θεὸς as articular in 1:1c (ὁ θεὸς), then, John would have been saying that the λόγος is the same person as in 1:1b, τὸν θεόν (viz. God the Father)—but he did not. Even more mismatched is an indefinite rendering of θεὸς (“a god”) in 1:1c, as we find in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ NWT (“and the Word was a god”). Of course, this idea of the Word being a created indefinite god (“a god”) clearly clashes with John’s own view of the Word within the content of his literature. In the prologue, the Word is presented as eternal (1:1a), the Creator of all things (v. 3), Life (v. 4), the “one and only/unique God” who is always [ὁ ὢν][20] at the Father’s bosom (v. 18). Hence, an indefinite rendering (“a god”) although grammatically possible, would be theologically impossible in light of John’s own monotheistic theology. John 1:1 expresses the marvelous truth of the preexistent person of the Word—who was God and existing with God. He is “the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20), the Creator of all things who became flesh in order “to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). “In three crisp sentences,” says Warfield,
he declares at the outset His eternal subsistence, His eternal intercommunion with God, His eternal identity with God. . . . In some sense distinguishable from God, He was in an equally true sense identical with God. There is but one eternal God; this eternal God, the Word is; in whatever sense we may distinguish Him from the God whom He is “with,” He is yet not another than this God, but Himself is this God . . . John would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God’s coeternal fellow, but the eternal God’s self (emphasis added).[21]
And with this--
Was (ēn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence.
Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in Joh_1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Joh_8:58 “before Abraham came (genesthai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).
The Word (ho logos). Logos is from legō, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Pro_8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John’s standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logos, but not John’s conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logos is applied to Christ only in Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14; Rev_19:13; 1Jn_1:1 “concerning the Word of life” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of “the Word of God” in Heb_4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Co_8:9; Php_2:6.; Col_1:17) and in Heb_1:2. and in Joh_17:5. This term suits John’s purpose better than sophia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics).
The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto, Joh_1:14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.
With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jn_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mar_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Joh_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos).
Shalom
J.
ChristisGod
Well-Known Member
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Mounce Interlinear.....John 1:1-2....
“In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros ·ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos. 2 He houtos was eimi in en the beginning archē with pros ·ho God theos.”
Just in this very well used “proof text” is the answer to the question......there are two “gods” mentioned here....but before anyone protests about there being more than one “God” the use of the definite article tells the story. Translators seeking to promote the trinity deleted the “ho” before “theos” in both verses. Yet it is clearly seen when identifying “ho logos”.
The use of the definite article (the) identifies Yahweh as “ho theos” whereas the Word (“ho logos”) identifies one who is ‘godlike, divine, mighty’ but not Yahweh.
In verse 14, it is “ho logos” who “became flesh” not “ho theos”.
Strongs gives the primary definition of “theos” as....
- “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities”.
Calling someone “theos” does not make them Yahweh.
Satan is called “theos” (2 Cor 4:4) “the god of this world”.
In John 10:31-36, Jesus said that his Father called human judges in Israel, “gods“ (because they were acting as his representatives). If you look up that text in the Interlinear you will see also the use of the definite article identifying Yahweh from these other “gods”, or those with power or authority....”gods”.....real or imagined are all called “theos” in Greek.
The liars will be judged...but so will those who fall for the lies....accepting without question what is told to them, trusting their source as if the Bible can somehow be contradictory.
1 Tim 2:5 confirms the Bible’s clear teaching about who is God, and who is his “holy servant”....the one “sent” by him who acts as our mediator.
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus.”
“One God”....from whom the human race was estranged because of Adam’s sin....and “one mediator between God and men”.....the mediator cannot be God because the mediator is the facilitator of communication between the estranged parties...the now sinful human race and their Creator. If Jesus was God, it would make that statement a nonsense.
Where is our God given logic? How has it been so easy for the devil to tell this disgraceful lie and have it become the very foundation of an entire belief system? Jesus said we had to build our faith on a solid foundation...if that foundation is weak, then whatever we build on it will collapse when ‘the storm’ comes....and it is coming!
This has got to be the most colossal “gotcha” in the history of the human race.
I can only plead with people to pray earnestly about this.....the fallout will be massive, but it would explain why “few” are going to be found on the road to life. (Matt 7:13-14)
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
Lots of people disagree with your view, yet they know God (ie, have eternal life Jn 17:3), and they bear the fruit of the Spirit against which there is no Law (so they won't be told "I never knew you. Get away from Me, workers of lawlessness!"). You need to quit saying people need to agree with you to have eternal life. We will know God (ie, have eternal life) because of His love which He expresses in His mercy (Jer 31:34), not because we are theologians, and know precisely this or that Biblical doctrine.
John 17:3 talks about knowing God and the one He sent...two different persons.
If someone is confusing God with the one He sent, that person doesn't know any of them.
- Status
Similar threads
