Seven Lessons for John 1:1c

  • 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!

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No one taught me this, nor have I seen it anywhere else. Calling me a liar does not avoid the fact that all my personal research for this, which took me a number of years, is available in the links I have given you. Even the first 5 'Lessons,' when carefully examined, show the truth of the matter. There are numerous examples for theos requiring the article to mean "God," and I have listed all of them in the original study.

It wasn't until I finished this study (and several other trinity 'proofs'), that I rejected the trinity. In all it took me nearly ten years (1982) before I was totally convinced. So your constant, insulting comments that I lied and really received this information elsewhere only underlines your ignorance.

There are a number of noted Trinitarian scholars and grammarians who point out the article irregularity with personal names, abstract nouns, mass nouns, and nouns modified by prepositions and genitives! I have given their names and presented a number of examples which show these irregularities for "prepositional" nominative nouns in the links you have ignored.

It's all your own choice. Remain ignorant of the actual intended meaning of John 1:1c if you wish. Just know that I have done exactly what Colwell, Harner, Wallace, et al. have done by examining examples to arrive at a proper conclusion (rule). The only difference is that I removed all the faulty examples and listed all (nearly twenty) the proper examples. So, examine the links, or examine Lesson A. with me step by step, or remain in your willing ignorance. Horse/water/drink.

1. Tigger, I did not call you a liar. I said your arguments sound exactly like what is found on JW sites and is a regular line of argumentation they use. I specifically said that your claims were nonsense that were either derived by you or a JW professor who taught you. Saying you were taught by a JW professor does not mean you didn't do research. I went to a lot of schools and did a lot of research on my own, but also sometimes had guidance by a professor or learned from books written by other scholars. So, I was not calling you a liar, but was saying that we all learn from someone and sometimes we do not even know specifically where we heard or received ideas. Perhaps you completely self-taught yourself Greek and your views on John 1:1 were derived entirely on your own and you never had any JW influences in your life growing up. However, I just find it likely that you learned things from some books or some people...as that is how most of us learn. Again, that does not discount your own personal research and was not intended to imply you were lying about your study. However, I just think you need to take a hard look at this since tens of thousands of Greek scholars who have translated hundreds of English translations, such as NIV, ESV, RSV, ASV, NLT, etc. reject your self-taught claims. At some point, if you are self taught, you may want to stop and think, "Maybe these thousands of people know something I do not know."

2. Your approach makes me HIGHLY skeptical. Why is it that you only want to look at words ending with the sigma? Why is it that you want to eliminate every instance that has a modifier? Why is it you want to only look at John's writings? To me, this just looks like someone who is trying to find a way to see what they want to see. If a person is open and honestly trying to understand a grammatical rule, they look at the language in general and how it works, both in biblical literature and non-biblical literature. That is what Greek scholars do. They don't say, "Lets develop grammatical rules based on author-specific writings on words that only end in sigma." I mean, there is NO difference between Theos and Theon. They are both singular nouns that are translated "God." One is simply in the nominative form and the other in the accusative form. To create a rule for articles and discount accusative nouns, omit nouns with adjectives, omit nouns near prepositional phrases and only look at John's writings seems very strangely contrived. To be frank, it just looks like you are looking for something rather than just making general observances about the Greeks usage of articles.

3. Finally, the thrust behind Cowell's Rule is that he observed multiple variants of different texts where the early scribes would write the same verse using two different structures. One would have the PN before the verb and the other would have it following the verb. When the variant had the verse AFTER the verb, it would have the definite article. When it would precede the verb, the article was dropped. Thus, Colwell was looking at what the early scribes were saying by the way they translated the same verse in different ways. So, it is not just that Colwell observed other places in the NT where the context made it obvious that the PN preceding the verb demanded an article, but he observed how early scribes would translate the same definite noun with both structures and would drop the article if they put the PN before the verb. Anyway, the notion that tens of thousands of translators and Colwell are just cooking up rules in order to push a Trinitarian agenda just doesn't hold water. There are plenty of Greek scholars who aren't even Christian who affirm this fact. In fact, the only group I have ever seen that has attempted to mandate the indefinite article for John 1:1 are JWs who are clearly driven by a theological agenda.

May I ask, are you a Jehovah's Witness?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Anyway, the notion that tens of thousands of translators and Colwell are just cooking up rules in order to push a Trinitarian agenda just doesn't hold water. There are plenty of Greek scholars who aren't even Christian who affirm this fact.

I had decided to shake the dust off my feet with you, but then decided to try one last time.

If you were really serious about your defense of John 1:1c, you wouldn't ignore the first 5 Lessons themselves. You would certainly take them one-by-one to show my 'errors' (allowing me the opportunity to defend each, of course).

See my note in Lesson B listing some of the scholars who admit that 'gods' can be God-appointed judges, kings, and even angels. Give me a comparable list of non-Christian Greek scholars who insist that John 1:1c must say "God."

The Lessons (or more properly, the lengthy study you have also ignored) themselves show Colwell and the more modern 'Qualitarians' are both incorrect. Sure you can throw out generalized nonsense, but it has nothing to do with the first 5 Lessons I have posted.

Honestly discuss the Lessons with me, cut out the insults, and show me that you know what you are talking about, and I will discuss it with you.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
tigger,

I guess my point with the "5 lessons" you share is that I think your paradigm is the issue. Its hard to focus on any one lesson because its the entire approach that I find problematic.

To me, this is like saying, "Joe never uses an apostrophe in any other place in a possessive way when he uses an interrogative sentence that has no prepositional phrases or adjectives." My response is, "so what?" Simply because Joe doesn't do this with these very specific circumstances in other places does not make it grammatical rule...especially when we see this in other literature as clearly part of how the language works. I would respond, "well, Joe uses an apostrophe in a passive way in an interrogative sentence here when he says, "Why is Bob's black car in my driveway? And lots of other people use an apostrophe with these stipulations. But your respond, "We are only talking about Joe and "black" is an adjective so it doesn't count. Thus, my grammatical rule is right."

As I see it, your lessons are essentially built around a faulty framework....you are taking a very small sample size and putting extraordinary stipulations on that small sample size to create a rule about articles that simply doesn't exist in Greek literature. How can I address the specifics of your lessons if they all revolve around a set of ground rules that I reject from the outset? It is like saying, let's discuss my findings about this grammatical rule that has all these exceptions and stipulations. My point is simply to say that this is not how grammatical rules are determined and you are accusing me of not wanting to do due diligence to examine your lessons. Honestly, I have no doubt that you have done the research and are correct in saying that John's writings do not imply an article giving all those specific criteria (barring John 1:1 since that is the text in question). But, again, that is not how language rules are governed or determined. That is why it just seems to me that you started at the end and worked backwards, but maybe I am wrong. It just seems very strange to me how you developed this very specific set of structural and authorship limitations to reach these conclusions about John 1:1.

As for the non-christian scholars...here are some quotes on the topic.

"The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recongnized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention." - Dr. Walter R. Martin

"No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian." -Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach

Im not trying to be insulting. I am just saying that I cannot discuss your teachings when you have set strict guidelines about what applies and what does not and those guidelines cannot be questioned.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
tigger2 and Wormwood,

Can either of you address my post #22? You are both arguing from the foundation of reading the Son into the text by assuming the "logos" is a person rather than a thing.

Wormwood,

The last paragraph of post #22 was primarily directed at tigger 2s position. I would change that for your position as follows;

By translating John 1:1c "the Word was God", you make two gods. By reading the Son into the text, you make "the Word" God and the one the "Word" was with God. That yields two gods.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
#22 gadar perets wrote:
"By translating John 1:1c as 'a god', you make two gods. By reading the Son into the text, you make 'the Word' a god and the one the 'Word' was with a god. Using a small "g" does not change the fact that you have two gods.

#44 "By translating John 1:1c "the Word was God", you make two gods. By reading the Son into the text, you make "the Word" God and the one the "Word" was with God. That yields two gods."

One is a god, the other is the god (God). Our God is the Father alone, Almighty, Most High, God of gods.

From Lesson A: "(Please notice that whether the Logos is a person or a thing in this verse makes no difference as to the proper rendering of theos.)" - Even the stomach can be called 'a god.' -Phil. 3:19.

There are many gods. See list in Lesson B for scholars who admit that various persons are called gods in an honorable sense.
 

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Our God is the Father alone, Almighty, Most High, God of gods.
I totally agree. Father YHWH is even Yeshua's God.

From Lesson A: "(Please notice that whether the Logos is a person or a thing in this verse makes no difference as to the proper rendering of theos.)" - Even the stomach can be called 'a god.' -Phil. 3:19.
I agree. However, by making the logos a person you force verse 3 to make the logos the Creator. Scripture says our Father YHWH is the Creator and He created all by Himself (Isaiah 44:24) by speaking things into existence.

There are many gods. See list in Lesson B for scholars who admit that various persons are called gods in an honorable sense.
I agree.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
tigger,

I guess my point with the "5 lessons" you share is that I think your paradigm is the issue. Its hard to focus on any one lesson because its the entire approach that I find problematic.

To me, this is like saying, "Joe never uses an apostrophe in any other place in a possessive way when he uses an interrogative sentence that has no prepositional phrases or adjectives." My response is, "so what?" Simply because Joe doesn't do this with these very specific circumstances in other places does not make it grammatical rule...especially when we see this in other literature as clearly part of how the language works. I would respond, "well, Joe uses an apostrophe in a passive way in an interrogative sentence here when he says, "Why is Bob's black car in my driveway? And lots of other people use an apostrophe with these stipulations. But your respond, "We are only talking about Joe and "black" is an adjective so it doesn't count. Thus, my grammatical rule is right."

As I see it, your lessons are essentially built around a faulty framework....you are taking a very small sample size and putting extraordinary stipulations on that small sample size to create a rule about articles that simply doesn't exist in Greek literature. How can I address the specifics of your lessons if they all revolve around a set of ground rules that I reject from the outset? It is like saying, let's discuss my findings about this grammatical rule that has all these exceptions and stipulations. My point is simply to say that this is not how grammatical rules are determined and you are accusing me of not wanting to do due diligence to examine your lessons. Honestly, I have no doubt that you have done the research and are correct in saying that John's writings do not imply an article giving all those specific criteria (barring John 1:1 since that is the text in question). But, again, that is not how language rules are governed or determined. That is why it just seems to me that you started at the end and worked backwards, but maybe I am wrong. It just seems very strange to me how you developed this very specific set of structural and authorship limitations to reach these conclusions about John 1:1.

As for the non-christian scholars...here are some quotes on the topic.

"The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recongnized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention." - Dr. Walter R. Martin

"No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian." -Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach

Im not trying to be insulting. I am just saying that I cannot discuss your teachings when you have set strict guidelines about what applies and what does not and those guidelines cannot be questioned.

Who said those guidelines cannot be questioned? If you are referring to sticking to the Grammar of John for examples comparable to John 1:1c, yes, I insist on that. As far as unable to focus on any one lesson, that's ridiculous. Try it! Question away, but please go in order.

First would probably be:
"First, the word in question is θεος (theos in English letters). Notice that this form of the word ends in ‘s.’ Theos can be used to mean ‘God’ or ‘god.’ Also notice that, as used in John 1:1c, theos stands alone. That is, it has no modifiers such as 'almighty theos,' or 'theos of Israel,' or 'theos to me,' etc. -
Examining the Trinity: DEF - Part 4 (End Notes) (Note #8).

"Not only do such modifiers cause the use of the definite article (‘the’ in English) to be used irregularly, but the verse in question does not use them anyway."

What is wrong there?
 
Last edited:

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I totally agree. Father YHWH is even Yeshua's God.

let's zero in on the title Father. Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost". now this, Matthew 1:19 & 20 "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost".

the one who conceive a child is the Father. are you saying in using the title Father, is you referring to the Holy Spirit. Yes or No.

PCY.
 

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
let's zero in on the title Father. Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost". now this, Matthew 1:19 & 20 "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost".

the one who conceive a child is the Father. are you saying in using the title Father, is you referring to the Holy Spirit. Yes or No.

PCY.
Yes and No. Almighty YHWH (Yahweh) is Yeshua's Father (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33). That is a Scriptural fact. He used His Holy Spirit power to cause Miriam's egg to become fertilized with the necessary DNA to create a male human being. He did that by speaking the Son into existence (His word/logos was made flesh). YHWH is Spirit and He is Holy. He can take a portion a portion of Himself (a portion of His Spirit) and put it in a person (the indwelling Holy Spirit) or He can use it to do what needs to be done (cast out devils - Matthew 12:28; lead people - Romans 8:14; move people to heal and prophesy - 1 Corinthians 12:9-10; raise people from the dead - 1 Peter 3:18; etc.). It is His power, not a third person of a trinity.

If you choose to believe a third person called the Holy Spirit is Yeshua's Father, then are you saying YHWH is not his Father? If so, please explain Psalm 2:7 and Acts 13:33. Keep in mind that according to trinitarianism, the Father is NOT the Son or the Holy Spirit. They are three separate persons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tigger 2

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes and No. Almighty YHWH (Yahweh) is Yeshua's Father (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33). That is a Scriptural fact. He used His Holy Spirit power to cause Miriam's egg to become fertilized with the necessary DNA to create a male human being. He did that by speaking the Son into existence (His word/logos was made flesh). YHWH is Spirit and He is Holy. He can take a portion a portion of Himself (a portion of His Spirit) and put it in a person (the indwelling Holy Spirit) or He can use it to do what needs to be done (cast out devils - Matthew 12:28; lead people - Romans 8:14; move people to heal and prophesy - 1 Corinthians 12:9-10; raise people from the dead - 1 Peter 3:18; etc.). It is His power, not a third person of a trinity.

If you choose to believe a third person called the Holy Spirit is Yeshua's Father, then are you saying YHWH is not his Father? If so, please explain Psalm 2:7 and Acts 13:33. Keep in mind that according to trinitarianism, the Father is NOT the Son or the Holy Spirit. They are three separate persons.
GINOLJC, first thanks for the response. second, You ERROR so many times. let's examine these ERRORS.

#1. U said, "Yes and No". there are no yes or no/s for scripture, it's either yes or no.

#2. U said, "Almighty YHWH (Yahweh) is Yeshua's Father (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33)". that's another ERROR the Son is God almighty the definite article, see Hebrews 1:8. and as for Acts 13:33, it was JESUS/GOD himself who raise up that body, see John 2:19 so did the Lord Jesus lie when he said "I" will raise it up. so another ERROR on your part. and that scriptural FACTS. or do you believe the Lord Jesus LIED?. take your pick.

#3. U said, "He used His Holy Spirit power to cause Miriam's egg to become fertilized with the necessary DNA to create a male human being". that's another big ERROR. A. the Holy Spirit is the GOD, the Lord Jesus. supportive scripture, 1 Corinthians 1:24 "But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God". so that POWER lie is not working. B. the body of the Lord Jesus was prepared before Mary was even born into the world. Hebrews 10:5 "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me". and that cross reference is Ps 40:6. C. God id no such thing in using "Miriam's egg to become fertilized with the necessary DNA to create a male human being". you're ignorant of what God can do. did God need any DNA to form Adam?. and what was conceive "IN" Mary, and not "BY" Mary was all done by God Himself, the HOLY SPIRIT. see, your mistake is this. you think that the Lord Jesus is some biological "Son" of God like you and I with parents. listen up, Mary was only the surrogate mother. you have no clue what the title Son means, it not biological. I suggest you get the understanding of ,G5207, huios.

#4. U said, "He YHWH, can take a portion a portion of Himself (a portion of His Spirit) and put it in a person". this is the most sensible thing you said so far, but still fall short. now REVELATION TIME. what another word for, or synonyms with portion? get a thesaurus, and one will find it's the Word "SHARE". scripture, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God". see that word "FORM" it means "NATURE", G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n. notice it's a NOUN, indicating a PERSON. what's the root of G3444 μορφή morphe?

G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something).
KJV: behalf, course, coast, craft, particular (+ -ly), part (+ -ly), piece, portion, respect, side, some sort(-what)

portion, the Lord Jesus is the EQUAL portion or EQUAL "SHARE" with God. meaning he's GOD in flesh as a man. scripture, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD". to PROVE my POINT, that the Lord JESUS is YHWH "SHARED or is the portion in Flesh, scripture, Isaiah 42:13 "The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies". supportive scripture, Psalms 110:5 "The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath". and "Lord" here is
H136 אֲדֹנָי 'Adonay (ad-o-noy') n-m.
1. (meaning) Lord (used as a proper name of God only).
2. (person) Adonai, The Lord God of Israel (which is actually “Yahweh God of Israel” - see Exodus 5:1 and 120 other occurrences).
[am emphatic form of H113]
KJV: (my) Lord.
Root(s): H113


YES, the SAME Lord in the very first verse in Ps 110. listen, Psalms 110:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
". see, your ERROR now? the LORD is the Lord "SHARED" or is the "PORTION" of the Spirit in FLESH.

understand, the PORTION Yeshua have is EQUAL with God, John 3:34 "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him". WHY?, listen, John 8:23 "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world". A. he's from above, meaning GOD. and B. He's not of this world, meaning Mary is not his biological MOTHER.... :eek:.

I suggest you go back and start over and learn from God. because your understanding of God the Holy Spirit is flawed, and full of ERRORS.

PCY
 

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I will not reply to your rude and obnoxious posts anymore unless another poster wants to know how I would reply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tigger 2

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I will not reply to your rude and obnoxious posts anymore unless another poster wants to know how I would reply.
as the apostle Paul said, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?".

classic cop-out, it's best not to reply. because if there is an ERROR in deviating from the scriptures, the written word. I will corrected it.

PCY.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
as the apostle Paul said, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?".

classic cop-out, it's best not to reply. because if there is an ERROR in deviating from the scriptures, the written word. I will corrected it.

PCY.
1) you are not telling me the truth
2) The Apostle Paul was not rude and obnoxious when he was teaching people.
3) You are not my enemy. You are a brother who treats me like dirt.​

If you would like to review your post #50, remove the offensive remarks, and repost it, I will gladly reply.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1) you are not telling me the truth
2) The Apostle Paul was not rude and obnoxious when he was teaching people.
3) You are not my enemy. You are a brother who treats me like dirt.​

If you would like to review your post #50, remove the offensive remarks, and repost it, I will gladly reply.
#. Yes, I'm telling the truth, scripture, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good". Post #50 just did that.

#2. "The Apostle Paul was not rude". 2 Corinthians 11:6 "But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things". you might not understand me now, in how i speak, but you know what I'ma saying, especially in post #50..:cool:
as for "obnoxious", to you because what I say correct your ERRONEOUS doctrine by SCRIPTURE. obnoxious is synonyms with disagreeable, which you and I both are on each other doctrine. and just because you cannot understand my knowledge in the word of God, not my fault, just your loss.

#3. is that's a brother according to the flesh or to the Spirit. scripture, Matthew 12:50 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother". I wonder if we have the SAME Father. me I say the Holy Spirit is my Father. whom you calls some POWER. so I ask, is your Father the Holy Spirit? by your OWN answer will tell if we're brothers or not.........:cool:. that's the crust of the matter. Am I really your Brother?.

now as a human being in post #50 I see no dirt? if so, point it out to me, I don't mind apologizing.
PCY
 

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
#2. "The Apostle Paul was not rude". 2 Corinthians 11:6 "But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things". you might not understand me now, in how i speak, but you know what I'ma saying, especially in post #50..:cool:
So now you are going to tell me that Paul was rude just like you and that justifies your rudeness? The Greek word translated "rude" in the KJV does not mean rude in the sense of offensive. It means untrained, unskilled or unlearned as many other versions translate it. In that verse it means Paul was an unskilled speaker.

#3. is that's a brother according to the flesh or to the Spirit. scripture, Matthew 12:50 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother". I wonder if we have the SAME Father. me I say the Holy Spirit is my Father. whom you calls some POWER. so I ask, is your Father the Holy Spirit? by your OWN answer will tell if we're brothers or not.........:cool:. that's the crust of the matter. Am I really your Brother?.
Is it the will of our Father for us to be rude, unkind and adversarial to each other?

My Father is Yeshua's Father, Almighty YHWH;

John 20:17 Yeshua saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: YHWH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Yeshua again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
now as a human being in post #50 I see no dirt? if so, point it out to me, I don't mind apologizing.
PCY
You can't see the dirt because I am under your feet. Try taking your foot off of me and stand face to face to discuss the Scriptures and not how stupid you think I am.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
First thanks for the reply. I'm going to say this once and leave it alone. you make claims but can't back them up with scriptures. also you say God is your Father, that your claim. well why are you not acting like God son? I greet you, and other Christians daily, with (GINOLJC) before I post to you or anyone else. and I have thank you for your response. but have you greeted me? have you thank me for a post? if if you disagreed, NO. so where is your Christian Manners, son of God? well go back and see where you greeted me daily or ever thank me for a post. well I greet and I give thanks. check my post and yours.

before you can tell me how to remove the mote from my eye, consider the beam in your own eye first, (Matthews 7:3).

Peace in Christ Jesus.

good day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I greet you, and other Christians daily, with (GINOLJC) before I post to you or anyone else. and I have thank you for your response. but have you greeted me?
I have no idea what those letters mean. Excuse my computer illiteracy.

have you thank me for a post? if if you disagreed, NO. so where is your Christian Manners, son of God? well go back and see where you greeted me daily or ever thank me for a post. well I greet and I give thanks. check my post and yours.
Why should I thank you for being rude and belittling me?
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I have no idea what those letters mean. Excuse my computer illiteracy.


Why should I thank you for being rude and belittling me?
you still haven't learned a thing have you. watched this I threw in the word RUDE for I know those word you will respond to (fleshly). that was a easy test of mine to see where people are at. understand, the word rude here by Paul don't mean offensively impolite or ill-mannered. it mean he spoke not in refer to a lack of intellect, but to a lack of application in elegance. see your NATURAL mind went south, ill-mannered, impolite... your mind took it for the worst..... :oops:.

let me give you some advice. if someone call you a dog, why bark? unless you are a dog. I been called many thing, some I cannot repeat here in this open form. but being a child of God follow God/JESUS. if someone, you think that they did you wrong, follow the example. "Father FORGIVE THEM FOR THE KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO". but I guess that not on the christian play book in this day and time, especially if one say that they are a child of God?.

The mature christian respond to any evil or unrighteousness with Love. LOVE overcome all things.
and when one refuse, shake the dust off your feet and move on.

PCY
 

gadar perets

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2018
1,928
306
83
70
Raleigh, NC
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
you still haven't learned a thing have you. watched this I threw in the word RUDE for I know those word you will respond to (fleshly). that was a easy test of mine to see where people are at. understand, the word rude here by Paul don't mean offensively impolite or ill-mannered. it mean he spoke not in refer to a lack of intellect, but to a lack of application in elegance. see your NATURAL mind went south, ill-mannered, impolite... your mind took it for the worst..... :oops:.
I guess you did not read post #55?

let me give you some advice. if someone call you a dog, why bark? unless you are a dog. I been called many thing, some I cannot repeat here in this open form. but being a child of God follow God/JESUS. if someone, you think that they did you wrong, follow the example. "Father FORGIVE THEM FOR THE KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO". but I guess that not on the christian play book in this day and time, especially if one say that they are a child of God?.
Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

The mature christian respond to any evil or unrighteousness with Love. LOVE overcome all things.
I did that in post #37, but your next post just continued with your rudeness by saying, "My God you just don't understand do you".
 
Last edited:

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As a non-trinitarian, I agree that John 1:1 does not teach a trinity. You have done quite a bit of research on the subject, but I believe the foundation upon which you built is in error; that foundation being that the "logos" is a person and not a thing. The Son is being read into the text of John 1:1-5. English Bible translations that preceded the KJV translate the passage differently. Here is Tyndale's translation;

John 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
2 The same was in the beginnynge with God.
3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.
4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
5 and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not. (Bold mine)
Other pre-KJV versions such as The Thomas Matthew Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible translate it similarly.

The logos is the Father's spoken words and thoughts (a thing). The Father used His logos/words to create everything. Everything was spoken into existence by the Father (Almighty YHWH).

By translating John 1:1c as "a god", you make two gods. By reading the Son into the text, you make "the Word" a god and the one the "Word" was with a god. Using a small "g" does not change the fact that you have two gods.

GP,

I apologize for not responding to this. I haven't had much time lately but I will try to address this the best I can from my perspective.

οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν” (John 1:2–3, NA27)

This is how the Greek looks. Outos is a masculine pronoun, not a neuter pronoun. If John wanted to refer to the Word as an "it" he would have used touto.

Contextually, I think it is difficult to make the claim your are posing as well. First, John is clearly linking "the Word" to the man Jesus. Verse 14 clearly states that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. "We have seen his glory..." Again, contextually, the pronoun here demands a masculine translation. it would seem odd that John, speaking of the very same "Word" in verse 1, would be using a neuter pronoun.

Second, John is clearly writing about the preexistence of the man, Jesus. To suggest that John is referring to the "Logos" as merely a "thing" and Jesus the man, was simply a byproduct of that "thing" is both unsetteling and does not mesh with the context. John is writing about how this "Word" made all things and "came to that which was HIS own." It wouldn't make sense to suggest that Jesus is simply a thing, power, force that was spoken when John is clearly notating that this preexistent Word was the creator of all things, the light and life of men, and someone to be received and believed upon.

Also, the phrase which is translated, "and the Word was with God" implies a kind of "face to face" presence with someone. Seems very personal and not like that of a force or thing being emitted.

Finally, it does not make two Gods. He was with God and he was God. If he was "a god" as tigger is suggesting, that would make two gods (however I know he argues this term can mean an angel or something (which isn't really the case since the context would not allow it as we see in other passages that demand such a translation). That is not my (or Trinitarians) position on the issue. There is one God. The Logos was with God and is God (not a separate, distinct god).

So, to me, there is simply no justification for suggesting the Word is intended to be viewed as a thing that emits from God.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helen