John 1:1 - Jesus is the Father or he's not the one true God?

[Dropship]

When the disciples asked how to pray, Jesus said "Like this -Our Father which art in heaven...", he didn't say "pray to me or my mum or to saints", or to anybody else..

 

[Kermos]

Essentially you are offering proof that the logos is Jesus by saying that the logos is Jesus. No different than saying, "up is down because up is down." Why not find out what the logos really is?

The Apostle John declares Jesus is the Word with "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14).

Jesus became flesh, born of the virgin (Matthew 2:7).

The Apostle John declares the Word, Jesus Christ, is God with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

You, and @APAK by liking your post, both deny Apostolic testimony, so you disbelieve.

 

[Kermos]

........................................................
Is. 9:6

All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father."

But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) The titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

….

And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King." Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King." Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.”

Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name 'Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e.,`[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.

But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.

Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.”

And John Gill wrote:

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as:

"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, ‘Wonderful, Counselor [IS] The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.’ The two letter word ‘is,’ is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, the ‘is’ is understood.” - Scrivenings: Prophecy about Jesus? “Mighty God, Everlasting Father” Isaiah 9:6

The Leeser Bible also translates it:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:

".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

And,

‘Wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace’ (Hertz 1968).

Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[1]"The Mighty God is planning grace;
[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means [1]"quick to the plunder; [2] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [1]"For unto us a child is born; [2] unto us a son is given." It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

Solid piece of research there!

As you alluded, some verses in and of themselves can be translated in different ways. However if one of those ways cause contradictions with straight forward, simple verses, then they must be eliminated. Obviously we can't have contradictions.

It is poor scholarship to elevate a few unclear verses, i.e., verses that could, maybe, possibly be translated in more than one way, over the many simple and clear verses. The original proposition in the OP is that if Jesus is God, then according to the simple assertions in John 17:3 and 1 Cor 8:6, Jesus has to be the Father, which is of course highly problematic to Trinitarians.

It never ceases to amaze me at the mental gymnastics one must go through to make the trinity fit with such clear verses as John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6, and many others. We are told that God is the head of Jesus and that Jesus will be subjected to God in the future. That totally breaks the Athenasian Creed, but few think anything about. No attempt is made to square that with the trinity doctrine. The trinity idea has persisted for more than 2,000 years now, ever since Paul warned the early church that some were preaching another Jesus who he did not preach (2 Cor 11:4).

In Judaism, names are significant.

Names are significant, and YHWH God places value on names with purpose, meaning, and/or character.

God's Holy Name of YHWH is profoundly significant, and God enshrines the value of God's Holy Name in the commandant "You shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain, for YHWH will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain" (Exodus 20:7).

Joshua's name means "YHWH saves", not "Joshua saves". Joshua is a profound name. Joshua!s name testifies about God's attribute, that God saves people, not Joshua being "God with us".

Immanuel is God's chosen name for Lord Jesus Christ.

Immanuel's name means "God with us" (Matthew 1:23). Immanuel is a profound name. Immanuel's name testifies about Immanuel's attribute, that Immanuel is God with us.

Immanuel, Jesus Christ, is called Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6); therefore, Jesus is the Mighty God with us that saves us.

Well, not for either of you because you two explicitly reject Jesus.

 

[Kermos]

So He was praying to Himself ... back and forth, praying and then pretending He is doing what the Father tells Him to do. A charade? Nope.
"I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever- the Spirit of truth, who the world cannot recive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; bu you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you."John 14:16-17
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in MY name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all theings that I said to you." John 14:26
Do you see the distinction between them? Jesus is not talking about Himself, anotherwise He would say, "Listen, I must go to the Father, but then my Spirit will come back and I will live in you and/or the Father will send Me back to you in spirit." No, you sends another Helper, Who is God, Who is distinct from Jesus and the Father, since He is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
Here Jesus sends the Comforter, Who testifies of Jesus. Jesus is not tesitfying of Himself: "But the when the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truthm, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me." Acts1:8


Jesus differentiates the Father from the Holy Spirit and Himself - or do you think He a shifting back and forth, putting on a show.
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," Matthew 28:19
Didn't you get the memo? Everyone who is a born again Christian has been baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit! This was a command, to all nations.
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. " 1 Peter 1:2
God isn't switching back and forth to different modes.
"For through HIm we both have access by one Spirit to the Father." Eph.2:18

Jesus reveals Himself as truly God and truly Man at His discretion.

Jesus Christ is truly Man (Luke 1:26-33) - the Son of Man, and Jesus Christ is truly God (Luke 1:34-35, John 8:58, John 20:28, John 5:18, John 10:30-31) - the Son of God.

Based on this Truth (John 14:6), Jesus Christ can refer to Himself as Man at his discretion and when He deems it is appropriate.

Furthermore. Jesus Christ can refer to Himself as God at his discretion and when He deems it is appropriate.

Here is an instance of Jesus, truly God, saying "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of God thus including both the person of Jesus and the person of the Father in the One True God.

Here is another instance, this time of Jesus, truly Man, saying "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'" (John 20:17) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of Man thus including the person of Jesus and His brothers in one (John 17:21). See, the Son of Man being the firstborn of the born of God persons (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, John 3:3-8).

We, children of God, can also refer to Jesus in his capacity as truly God as well as His capacity as truly Man. We can use context to make the distinction.

We, born of the Holy Spirit of God persons (John 3:3-8), are one in God (John 17:21) because of the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17), thus God is One. We are the blessed beneficiaries of the Holy Spirit of God's work in us.

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8) (see see the Truth [John 14:6] that God had me compose in post #283 to expose the deception of tigger 2 and Rich R).

 

[APAK]

The Apostle John declares Jesus is the Word with "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14).

Jesus became flesh, born of the virgin (Matthew 2:7).

The Apostle John declares the Word, Jesus Christ, is God with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

You, and @APAK by liking your post, both deny Apostolic testimony, so you disbelieve.

You keep sounding like a rambling machine that makes much nonsense.

Thank God I do deny your false so-called Apostolic testimony. I'm an original 1st century believer not a contrived false 3-5th century false witness as you and many others are who can only boast and shout out scripture verses and yet cannot provide any logic, context and even proper grammatical sense of your claims in scripture. BL: you do not understand scripture to save your life. Typical, large on empty volume and small on substance and value.

Take for example your typical nonsense rambling when you say 'The Apostle John declares the Word, Jesus Christ, is God with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).'

John would never spread such lies that Yahshua is God. You have a quite different spirit operating within you as many others. Never can completely explain yourself to save your life. What is the word? You cannot even explain it let alone defend it. And this is what you base your faith and are willing die for, another false Christ? I'm sad for you and others that cannot articulate your central doctrine that Yahshua = God, let alone your mysterious 3rd person of your triple composite god. You cannot because you are a false witness concerning who is the true Father and his true Son.

Why do you think Yahshua was first called the Son of God, and lives as the Son of God then and today?

 

[Kermos]

@Kermos @GEN2REV @PinSeeker and any one else in this same category. I have a challenge for you, and any other person that keeps parroting John 10:30

You disrespect and dishonor God with your words that minimize the value of John 10:30.

means the Father is the same as the Son or visa versa, interchangeable, as in one essence or being or whatever you imagine it to mean.

Lord Jesus says "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of truly God thus including both the person of Jesus and the person of the Father in the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4). He says it, and it is bitter for you!

This is pure nonsense and shows ignorance in the understanding of scripture. Even a serious trinitarian student would be ashamed of what you guys think this verse means.

I'll tell you what, let me attempt to open your minds up and get the old stale knots out of it and do some serious refreshing Bible study of this verse alone.

Write a short commentary showing how John:10:30 is directly related to John 14:11 and 23 at least, and John 17:11 and 21. Take a day or two, I do not care.

Yahshua carries on with persistence and a sense of urgency a common theme surrounding John 10:30 as he keeps getting interrupted. He seriously wants to convey an important message to his audience and his Father. If you can find the local and surrounding context you will find what this message is all about and thus what John 10:30 means very clearly. And it should then arrest you notion that it means they are interchangeable beings or something of that order.

I hope you take me on. We all can learn something this way. Thanks

Instead of your assignment, here is the Word of God saying Jesus is YHWH God.

Truly, Lord Jesus Christ says "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58).

Jesus says I AM, and He did not say "I was created".

So, one week before Abraham was born Jesus' words of I AM ring true.

And, two weeks before Abraham was born Jesus' words of I AM resound true.

And, three weeks before Abraham was born Jesus' words of I AM are true.

And, the minute prior to the minute any of all the angels were created Jesus' words of I AM trumpet true.

And, the week prior to any of the angels being created Jesus' words of I AM harmonize truthfully.

No matter when in time one seeks before Abraham was born, Jesus Christ's words of I AM remain absolutely true.

Going back in time, Jesus is always I AM, never created, He is always I AM.

Going back in time, anytime in all eternity because Jesus says "before Abraham" with no exceptions, Jesus Being.

Behold, Going back in time, Jesus Being.

JESUS IS EVERLASTING going back in time.

Jesus says "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).

The angel Gabriel declared to Mary about Jesus "He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end" (Luke 1:33).

Behold, Going forward in time, Jesus Being.

JESUS IS EVERLASTING going forward in time.

GOD is exclusively the One that IS EVERLASTING going back in time and going forward in time.

God is everlasting.

Jesus is everlasting.

No one except God is everlasting.

Everlasting YHWH God is Lord Jesus Christ for He declares "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58).

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8, see also Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13), thus says He Who is coming on the clouds!

"I am YHWH, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5).

"Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Jesus Christ is truly Man (Luke 1:26-33) - the Son of Man, and Jesus Christ is truly God (Luke 1:34-35, John 8:58, John 20:28, John 5:18, John 10:30-31) - the Son of God.

All people that think Jesus Christ was created hold to news that is not the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:6-7), so you have no gospel at all.

 

[APAK]

You disrespect and dishonor God with your words that minimize the value of John 10:30.



Lord Jesus says "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of truly God thus including both the person of Jesus and the person of the Father in the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4). He says it, and it is bitter for you!



Instead of your assignment, here is the Word of God saying Jesus is YHWH God.

Truly, Lord Jesus Christ says "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58).

Jesus says I AM, and He did not say "I was created".

So, one week before Abraham was born Jesus' words of I AM ring true.

And, two weeks before Abraham was born Jesus' words of I AM resound true.

And, three weeks before Abraham was born Jesus' words of I AM are true.

And, the minute prior to the minute any of all the angels were created Jesus' words of I AM trumpet true.

And, the week prior to any of the angels being created Jesus' words of I AM harmonize truthfully.

No matter when in time one seeks before Abraham was born, Jesus Christ's words of I AM remain absolutely true.

Going back in time, Jesus is always I AM, never created, He is always I AM.

Going back in time, anytime in all eternity because Jesus says "before Abraham" with no exceptions, Jesus Being.

Behold, Going back in time, Jesus Being.

JESUS IS EVERLASTING going back in time.

Jesus says "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).

The angel Gabriel declared to Mary about Jesus "He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end" (Luke 1:33).

Behold, Going forward in time, Jesus Being.

JESUS IS EVERLASTING going forward in time.

GOD is exclusively the One that IS EVERLASTING going back in time and going forward in time.

God is everlasting.

Jesus is everlasting.

No one except God is everlasting.

Everlasting YHWH God is Lord Jesus Christ for He declares "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58).

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8, see also Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13), thus says He Who is coming on the clouds!

"I am YHWH, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5).

"Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Jesus Christ is truly Man (Luke 1:26-33) - the Son of Man, and Jesus Christ is truly God (Luke 1:34-35, John 8:58, John 20:28, John 5:18, John 10:30-31) - the Son of God.

All people that think Jesus Christ was created hold to news that is not the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:6-7), so you have no gospel at all.

Enjoy your pagan Greek-Roman religious mythological dribble. Just look at what you keep writing. Are you really trying to persuade anyone here? You are incoherent in your thinking and in need of spiritual and mental healing.

Happy trails as you wander about in your rubber room...

 

[ChristisGod]

John 1:1,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
​

If we say Jesus is God then that means he is either the Father (which is totally counter to the Creeds) or he is not the true God (John 17:3) nor the one God (1 Cor 8:6).

Many solve the problem by finding out exactly what the "word" (logos) is in John 1:1. Hint: it's not Jesus.

Please confine the discussion to these verses in John. All the other so-called proof verses don't change what John clearly said. All verses have to fit.

Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean the word is "a god." If we examine the passages where the article is not used with "Theos" we see the rendering "a god" makes no sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1). The "a god" position would have the Jehovah's Witnesses translate every instance where the article is absent. As "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." But they do not! "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun "Theos" which they translate as "a god" in John 1:1. But they do not change "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6. The J.W.’s are not consistent in their biblical hermeneutics they have a bias which is clearly seen throughout their bible.

Other examples-In Jn.4:24 "God is Spirit, not a spirit. In 1 Jn .4:16 "God is love, we don’t translate this a love. In 1 Jn.1:5 "God is light" he is not a light or a lesser light.

WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

Dr. J. J. Griesback: "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1:1 is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

Dr. Eugene A. Nida (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek". ( Bill and Joan Cetnar Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses "who love the truth" p..55

Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 translated:'. . . the Word was a god'.a translation which is grammatically impossible. it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov, 1985

Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word . . . in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)

Dr. Anthony Hoekema, commented: Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into Modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself (The Four Major Cults, pp. 238, 239].

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28

Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God'. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (Portland OR.): "The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded that the The Christ of the New World Translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation .... It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly "78 No wonder British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."79 Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is "an insult to the Word of God."

Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the word was God." THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July - December, 1971 p. 12

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as 'the Word was a god'. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct.. I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.

DO ANY REPUTABLE GREEK SCHOLARS AGREE WITH THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

A. T. Robertson: "So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos." A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.

E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.

C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 76.

C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of _theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos... That is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham,) the Father goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase." "New Testament Translation Problems the bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), P. 104.

Randolph 0. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ..and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that to logos is thesubject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 4.

 

[ChristisGod]

continued :

Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.

Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into t inking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.

Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: "Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, . . . `and the Word was a god,' with the following footnotes: " `A god,' In contrast with `the God' ". It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.

James Moffatt: "'The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,' simply means he Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ...." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61.

E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite -or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context,and in the case of John l:l this is not so." A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.

Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it,"that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.""(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.

Philip Harner states in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973) on Jn.1:1 "In vs. 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of 'God' for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense." (pg. 86. Harner notes the source of this quote: Brown, John I-XII, 24)

Julius R. Mantey; "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.' Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering .... In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation .... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,' is shockingly mistranslated, 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices o Jehovah's Witnesses." Statement JR Mantey, published in various sources.

Many of these Greek scholars are world-renowned whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted in their publications to help them look reputable. Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the-textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this quality who insist that John l: l cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.

I do want to say that there are some scholars that translate the word was a God or divine but they are in the very low percentages. If they were ever in a discussion with the scholars afore mentioned it would be clear they would not be able to hold a candle to their understanding. Yet JWs and a few other groups do run to these men's opinions to prop up their teaching.Scholars on Jn.1:1

hope this helps !!!

 

[PinSeeker]

...lacking imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight

Yes, lacking intellectual insight. Myopic in that sense. That's you, to a good degree, in the things we have been discussing here.

I mean that I don't like to rethink scripture like the farsighted do.

Yeah, I'm with you there; rethinking Scripture is... not a good idea.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Truther]

Yes, lacking intellectual insight. Myopic in that sense. That's you, to a good degree, in the things we have been discussing here.


Yeah, I'm with you there; rethinking Scripture is... not a good idea.

Grace and peace to you.

What qualifies a person mentally to obey Acts 2:38?

A high IQ or anyone that hears about it?

 

[APAK]

C, I appreciate your research into the central issue and confusion concerning the word of God. You are of a few who at least is taking this subject very seriously as you want to know the truth.

However, I do not agree with most of your references/sources as they are very biased as most are Trinitarians and truly do not add any primitive or rudimentary logic to the cause of knowing the Greek term 'logos.' They deliberately side-step or avoid its meaning completely. And I do not agree with the JW stance either. They are also very confusing and in err. I will briefly explain it in a moment.

Now there are a few I do agree with however.

E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.

And I only agree with this above source if he supports that the word of God was divine, and/or of deity. I really cannot tell from his cute phrase 'reticence to attribute the full Christian position to John..' whether he means the opposite or not.

Now the next two I agree with only if they mean that 'theos' without the definite article 'the' indicates the predicate in the phrase of John 1:1c as an attribute of logos only. It is not that clear in their writings.

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28

Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God'. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."

Now this next source seems on the surface on track with my thinking...maybe...
Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.

Now this next source wants it both ways...
Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into thinking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.

I agree when he says 'theos' is a predicate and disagree when he suggests that this predicate cannot mean 'divine or of a deity. He is very selective on what should and should not be called a predicate.

Now with this source I started to get excited and then....only at the beginning then at the end he became illogical and contradicted himself. They out of the blue he unjustifiably stated Jesus as truly God and truly man. He is all over the page.

James Moffatt: "'The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,' simply means the Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ...." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61.

This source on the surface I seem to agree with...

Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it,"that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.""(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.

So basically why I generally do not agree with other scholarly sources, is because they are deliberately biased, especially both the trinitarian schools and the JWs to their own doctrines. And thus the truth is concealed by their gross bias.

1. logos cannot, can never be a person, only a thing by virtue of it Greek grammar and meaning. Over 200 places in the NT 'logos' is never a person, only a thing of a characteristic, or its attribute of communication of any form...like as a voice, saying, talk, speech, command, expression, purpose, or plan etc. The biased translators made only one exception to the rule, for John 1:1. I'm glad they did not go all the way and delete logos or word and inserting Jesus in the text!

2. The translation of logos into the English as word does not have to be capitalized. It was done in John 1 and in Rev to convey or express a trinitarian man-made doctrine that is imaginary in scripture. It does not exist.

3. Since logos cannot be a person, logos or the word cannot mean Jesus ever.

4. In John 1:1c the word or logos was and is divine. Or from the Textus Receptus translation or text, it becomes backwards. Thus, divine was the logos or word. It expresses the nature of the word of God as being divine. He, God the Father alone is the source and has this attribute and no one else, and not even his Son. The Son however became possessed by it from his conception and birth; the Fathers' word and Holy Spirit dwelt with his Son's spirit. And it intensified and increased in power with his Son, since his baptism.

5. The logos or word is of God the Father only, his own unique attribute and source and is his own expression, voice, words purpose and plan that became present in a human being we came to know as Jesus, or Yahshua, the Son of God.

 

[Rich R]

When the disciples asked how to pray, Jesus said "Like this -Our Father which art in heaven...", he didn't say "pray to me or my mum or to saints", or to anybody else..

It must make Trinitarians wonder who God's Father is!

Then there's the times the scriptures talks about the God of Jesus, pretty much in all of the salutations of Paul's epistles. Jesus even mention his God a few other times. He even says it's the same God we all have. So you gotta wonder who God's God is. Maybe we should be worshiping that God! Soooo many problems with the trinity.

 

[Rich R]

The Apostle John declares Jesus is the Word with "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14).

Jesus became flesh, born of the virgin (Matthew 2:7).

The Apostle John declares the Word, Jesus Christ, is God with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

You, and @APAK by liking your post, both deny Apostolic testimony, so you disbelieve.

I can see John saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

What I don't see is, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God" I also don't see, "...and Jesus became flesh" in John 1:14.

I took the time and effort to learn what the logos (Greek for "word" in John 1) actually is. It's not Jesus. The third phrase in John 1:1 says it pretty clearly, "...and the Word (logos) was God." That would be the God that Jesus said he has, the same God we all have (John 20:17, Rev 3:12). Paul mentions the God and Father of Jesus in the salutation of every one of his Epistles.

The logos is another name for God. It's that simple. Now we don't have to figure out who is God's God and Father.

 

[Rich R]

In Judaism, names are significant.

Names are significant, and YHWH God places value on names with purpose, meaning, and/or character.

God's Holy Name of YHWH is profoundly significant, and God enshrines the value of God's Holy Name in the commandant "You shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain, for YHWH will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain" (Exodus 20:7).

Joshua's name means "YHWH saves", not "Joshua saves". Joshua is a profound name. Joshua!s name testifies about God's attribute, that God saves people, not Joshua being "God with us".

Immanuel is God's chosen name for Lord Jesus Christ.

Immanuel's name means "God with us" (Matthew 1:23). Immanuel is a profound name. Immanuel's name testifies about Immanuel's attribute, that Immanuel is God with us.

Immanuel, Jesus Christ, is called Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6); therefore, Jesus is the Mighty God with us that saves us.

Well, not for either of you because you two explicitly reject Jesus.

God was in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) just as Christ is in us (Col 1:27). Wherever you are, it is God in Christ in you there also. In other words, it could also be said of any Christian that wherever they are it is, "God with us."

 

[APAK]

God was in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) just as Christ is in us (Col 1:27). Wherever you are, it is God in Christ in you there also. In other words, it could also be said of any Christian that wherever they are it is, "God with us."

Excellent and also simple to understand. or really know, if one has the true spirit.

In the OT the same Hebrew expression was used as a collective conscience of God's people. Whenever they would have enemies at the door or they would go into battle knowing through prayer and in spirit that their God was with them, for their benefit and their victory. Yahshua was our instrument of victory given by his Father.

 

[BarneyFife]

Gal 3:1-3,

1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
​

Perhaps you could consider Jesus' admonition,

Matt 22:37-40,

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.​

That's what Jesus said to Israel (Matt 15:24) and Paul confirmed it in the NT writing to the church (Gal 1:2).

Gal 5:14,

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
​

Before the day of Pentecost, it was not available to have the love of God in one's hearts, so they needed a schoolmaster (Gal 3:24), the law, to keep themselves form causing too much damage until the Messiah came. But now, thanks to the new birth and God in Christ Christ in us, we have the love of God in our hearts (Rom 5:5, the NT), so we can walk in a higher plane.

Not sure what you are asking about the Gnostic pendulum.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, but I'm not talking about human logic. I was trying to say that God Himself is the epitome of logic. In fact I see no human logic whatsoever in the Bible.

I suspect we'd encounter difficulty discussing either of these subjects.

I believe the ten commandments are eternal in purpose (I know I'm in the vast minority on this point and, after being a Seventh-day Adventist for 32 years, I'm used to that), and that applying many of the terms we do to God, such as "logic," "nature," or "essence," just to name a few, is just plain foolishness. Many of us are going to be so embarrassed when we see Him face to face that our mouths will be struck dumb like the father of John the Baptist. Nothing personal, of course. I believe you and I had a few very nice chats a couple of months ago.

To me logic is logic. A thing is either logical or it is not. God's logic is just an infinitely greater understanding of the same type of logic that we have since we are made in His image. I can acknowledge that there are other human beings who have a much greater capacity for perceiving logic than I do, therefore it's no problem for me to imagine God being eternally further along this scale of perception. My understanding of things (99 times out of 100) is based on Scripture that I often can no longer recall. I really need to set up some sort of database to help me find Scripture related to given topics.

So, in this case, I speak of 'progressive revelation' suggested by texts such as John 16:12. In particular, I'm referring to a gradual unveiling of the purposes of God as opposed to the kind of dispensationalism that suggests "the love of God" could not exist in man until Pentecost.

The conditions of eternal life are eternal: perfect obedience to the commandments of God. Righteousness by faith is also eternal. God does not change. If human beings could surrender the nature that is born of the devil, they would all understand that God's purpose in the plan of redemption is restoring the image of God in man, thereby making the universe secure for for normal operation in harmony with the character of God. If this all sounds simple, circular logic, it's because that's exactly what it is.

Our part in the restoration operation is simple. But God, by His inconceivable grace and love, has been pleased to open to us the intricacies of His part in the operation, as well (insofar as we would allow Him to reveal them), which is much more complicated than ours. But human nature, unconverted, sees this revelation, in Christ and the Word, as a thing with which to be occupied and amused, well-nigh entirely ignorant of the solemn import of the matter.

I'm finding it more and more difficult to participate here lately. I suppose it's through some fault of my own, but the way most folks handle sacred things here is painful for me to witness, and taxing on my patience. I'm torn between my desire to witness to what I believe is true and my capacity to look upon so much presumption and the mingling of the sacred and the profane. Oh, and anti-denominationalism is all the rage. Christianity gets more and more trendy all the time. For many, politics have become a bona fide idol. The church is bound up with the world almost entirely. The Bible foretells it, so it should be no surprise.

I'm just rambling and thinking out loud. Pay me no mind.

By the way, a lot of folks don't realize that Galatians 3 refers to both the moral and the ceremonial law. You probably realize that, though.

Always a pleasure chatting with you, Rich.

 

[Rich R]

Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean the word is "a god." If we examine the passages where the article is not used with "Theos" we see the rendering "a god" makes no sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1). The "a god" position would have the Jehovah's Witnesses translate every instance where the article is absent. As "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." But they do not! "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun "Theos" which they translate as "a god" in John 1:1. But they do not change "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6. The J.W.’s are not consistent in their biblical hermeneutics they have a bias which is clearly seen throughout their bible.

Other examples-In Jn.4:24 "God is Spirit, not a spirit. In 1 Jn .4:16 "God is love, we don’t translate this a love. In 1 Jn.1:5 "God is light" he is not a light or a lesser light.

WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

Dr. J. J. Griesback: "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1:1 is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

Dr. Eugene A. Nida (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek". ( Bill and Joan Cetnar Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses "who love the truth" p..55

Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 translated:'. . . the Word was a god'.a translation which is grammatically impossible. it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov, 1985

Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word . . . in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)

Dr. Anthony Hoekema, commented: Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into Modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself (The Four Major Cults, pp. 238, 239].

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28

Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God'. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (Portland OR.): "The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded that the The Christ of the New World Translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation .... It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly "78 No wonder British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."79 Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is "an insult to the Word of God."

Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the word was God." THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July - December, 1971 p. 12

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as 'the Word was a god'. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct.. I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.

DO ANY REPUTABLE GREEK SCHOLARS AGREE WITH THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

A. T. Robertson: "So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos." A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.

E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.

C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 76.

C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of _theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos... That is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham,) the Father goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase." "New Testament Translation Problems the bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), P. 104.

Randolph 0. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ..and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that to logos is thesubject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 4.

I never said, "...the logos was a God." I read it exactly as written, "...the logos was God." Very simple declaration. Logos is another name for God, specifically Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh.

A couple of your own references:

A. T. Robertson: "So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos." A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.

Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the word was God." THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July - December, 1971 p. 12
​

John 1:14,

John 1:14,

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
​

"...and dwelt among us" is a bad translation from the Greek. It literally says, "...and tabernacled in us." God first tabernacled in a tent ad then then in the Temple. Now it is God in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) in us (Col 1:14). In other words, God is now tabernacling in His people. That's what He wanted all along and that is all John 1:14 is saying. Now we don't have to explain who God's God is as well as a bunch of other inconsistencies the trinity causes. God is the Father and Jesus is the son of God.

Jesus is God's perfect representative on the earth (seeing him was as good as seeing the Father). He always said and did only what God told him to say and do. He did it, not because he is God, but because he loved enough to sacrifice his own interests to that of his Father's interest. He had free will. He didn't have to do anything he did. He did it all only because he loved.

As a bonus we no longer have to introduce a bunch of Gnostic terms and ideas to explain the unexplainable. Win/win for everybody!

​

 

[ChristisGod]

I never said, "...the logos was a God." I read it exactly as written, "...the logos was God." Very simple declaration. Logos is another name for God, specifically Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh.

A couple of your own references:

A. T. Robertson: "So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos." A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.

Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the word was God." THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July - December, 1971 p. 12
​

John 1:14,

John 1:14,

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
​

"...and dwelt among us" is a bad translation from the Greek. It literally says, "...and tabernacled in us." God first tabernacled in a tent ad then then in the Temple. Now it is God in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) in us (Col 1:14). In other words, God is now tabernacling in His people. That's what He wanted all along and that is all John 1:14 is saying. Now we don't have to explain who God's God is as well as a bunch of other inconsistencies the trinity causes. God is the Father and Jesus is the son of God.

Jesus is God's perfect representative on the earth (seeing him was as good as seeing the Father). He always said and did only what God told him to say and do. He did it, not because he is God, but because he loved enough to sacrifice his own interests to that of his Father's interest. He had free will. He didn't have to do anything he did. He did it all only because he loved.

As a bonus we no longer have to introduce a bunch of Gnostic terms and ideas to explain the unexplainable. Win/win for everybody!

​

I will go with the Linguistic experts with their knowledge of the Greek over your biased opinion. But thanks anyways for responding.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Rich R]

Excellent and also simple to understand. or really know, if one has the true spirit.

In the OT the same Hebrew expression was used as a collective conscience of God's people. Whenever they would have enemies at the door or they would go into battle knowing through prayer and in spirit that their God was with them, for their benefit and their victory. Yahshua was our instrument of victory given by his Father.

Good point about Israel. I never thought about that, but there it is. It's been there for a few thousand years now! Thanks.