Search results

There seems to be a lot of repetition in this thread by those who insist that John 1:1 uses the article ho theos to refer to, well, God with a capital G, and uses just theos without the article when referring to some lesser, small-g god. (I’ll call the capital-G God “Yahweh” for convenience.)...

Theou is just the genitive case of theos. Same noun.

The same as the inconsistency in John 3:2. A pair of references to YHWH (to use your favored name). That's one possibility.

And what about instances where theos without the article is used by John as a reference to -- using your favored moniker -- YHWH? Are we to glean John's intention that an unarticulated theos = YHWH in some cases and not others?

With all due respect to the KJV, this "rightly dividing" translation of ὀρθοτομοῦντα just doesn't cut it (pun intended). Paul is talking about the word of God here. If literalness is your goal, a better translation would be "properly apportioned." But literalness would be a mistake here; Paul...

"Jesus" was the name of the INCARNATE Son, and Christendom has subsequently named him "Jesus Christ." The pre-existent Son didn't have a "name" per se -- except to the extent he shared the Father's name as revealed to Moses.

Methinks you are missing a step here. The OP title suggests the question is limited to the name of the Son. We need an explanation for why that "I Am" is the Son's name as well.

I'll take some instruction from Acts 4:11-12 here, and say "Jesus." But I also see that Matthew says "name," not "names," when referring to the triad.

Jesus forgave sins (Mark 2:10), raised the dead (Luke 7:12-15), controlled nature (Matt. 8:26), and will judge the secret motives of men (Matt. 7:22-23). Aren't those helpful? Thomas says to Jesus "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), and Jesus does not correct him. Isn't that helpful? As he is...

Am I correct that Douay-Rheims was a translation of a translation (Latin Vulgate)?

I agree that it isn't silly to point out what translators have done. What I said was "silly" was pinning the creation of this so-called three-headed hydra on translators. That "hydra" came into vogue when everyone was still reading John 1:1 in Greek, without the article before "theos."

Well, I won't try to defend Trinitarianism here (a banned subject). But it is silly to blame Bible translators for "changing the very nature of God." Trinitarianism became a staple of the Catholic Church -- not the Roman Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church throughout the Mediterranean...

From what? Additions and subtractions? Copyist edits? Inadvertent copyist mistakes? We have none of the original manuscripts. We have only copies of copies -- and they don't agree. (It is the job of textual criticism to try and reconstruct what the original author said -- an inexact...

?

It certainly helps!

Yes, I suppose you should disengage. Thanks for participating. BTW, I believe 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation WERE circulated and used in the congregations -- but the aggregators who compiled Vaticanus apparently didn't deem them canonical. 1 and 2 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas...

I think you beg the question. Nobody denies that God's word is eternal (Psalm 119). Nobody disputes that God protects His word (Jeremiah 1). Nobody contests that God's word accomplishes what He pleases (Isaiah 55). But none of this helps us identify which writings are God's word. Why does...

Fair point. But let me also point out that the earliest collections don't agree on the Canon. Codex Vaticanus doesn't have 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon or Revelation. Codex Alexandrinus has 1 and 2 Clement. Codex Sinaiticus has the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas. And so on...

And the question is, whoever did the recognizing at the time the NT Canon was collected, how do we know that the Holy Spirit guided that recognition?

Did almighty eternal God inspire the selectors of the OT and NT Canon?