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

[Rich R]

Best I can figure, Christ is as fully God as is the Father. I don't understand it; I just observe it as being declared and portrayed by Scripture. I do scratch my head a little when people challenge each other with this question as a test of fellowship, though.

I don't believe Jesus is God. You do. But that makes no trouble for me to have fellowship with anybody who loves God and loves Jesus! If you're willing, so am I.

But you're right though. Too often it does get in the way of Christians loving one another.

 

[BarneyFife]

Specifically, what did the Ancient Near Eastern Jewish people thing it means?

It's always puzzled me that so many Christians today feel they must appeal to Jewish understanding to find the truth about the Gospel. (Again, as always, nothing personal. I'm merely addressing an issue.) Most, if not virtually all, of what is written by Jewish scholars, especially as pertains to the personhood of God would be naturally expected to be of a hostile nature as regards Christianity, would it not?

 

[Rich R]

Not so fast, there...

I'm not a King James purist, but I can't help wondering what knowledge you possess that qualifies you to make such a claim so matter-of-factly. I certainly hope your judgment isn't based on something on the level of the "unicorn" issue.

And btw, couldn't "unicorn" just be a word they used in early 17th century England for some legitimate, yet exotic member of the Equine species?

Horse Breeds: The 30 Most Popular Equine Types A To Z

I just looked up "unicorn" in the KJV. It's used 6 times and just means "wild bull." That's how the Jews used the word anyway. We can't always go by our modern Western meaning of words. Sometime we have to dig into things. In this case, I just looked it up in Strong's concordance. But I suppose I'm splitting hairs here. I know what the guy was saying.

 

[Rich R]

It's always puzzled me that so many Christians today feel they must appeal to Jewish understanding to find the truth about the Gospel. (Again, as always, nothing personal. I'm merely addressing an issue.) Most, if not virtually all, of what is written by Jewish scholars, especially as pertains to the personhood of God would be naturally expected to be of a hostile nature as regards Christianity, would it not?

Well, the scriptures weren't given by God last year in New York or LA. They scriptures were written thousands of years ago to a Middle Eastern people who had a radically different worldview than our own. He spoke in their terms, not ours. That's why Genesis doesn't go into atoms and the expanding universe, etc.

We can get 99% of what God says without going to the Jewish mindset, but sometimes it definitely matters and it behooves us to try and understand the world from their point of view and not our own.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

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).

Are you disagreeing with me? I am wondering - I am a Trinitarian. It seems like you are trying to covince
I me of something I already believe in. ???

 

[tigger 2]

#288 Christophany above

"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."

….………………………………………….

“(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)”

Mt 5:9 (genitive); Lk 1:35 (gen.); Lk 1:78 (gen.); Lk 2:40 (gen.); John 1:6 (gen.); Jn 1:12 (gen.); Jn 1:13 (gen.); Jn 1:18 (dat.); Jn 3:2 (gen.); Jn 3:21 (gen.); Jn 9:16 (gen.); Jn 9:33 (gen.); Romans 1:7 (gen.); Ro. 1:17 (gen.); Ro. 1:18 (gen.); 1 Cor. 1:30 (gen.); 1 Cor. 15:10 (gen. and gen.); Phil. 2:11 (gen.); Phil. 2:13 (nom.); Titus 1:1 (gen. and gen.).

It’s a shame that you (and most others) refuse to study carefully my personal, independent study of John’s personal use of grammar which influences his intended meaning for John 1:1c.

If we examine all the uses of “God” and “god” in the nominative case (theos - the same form found at Jn 1:1c, not theou, theo, etc.) in all the writings of the Gospel writers, we see that it always has the article (“the” or ho in NT Greek) with it when the inspired Bible writer is referring to the God of the Bible. [See end note #5 in my original study: Examining the Trinity: DEF - Part 4 (End Notes)] Therefore it is of essential importance to know if John intended that the definite article really should be “understood” to be with theos at Jn 1:1c.

You sometimes don’t understand what is intended by a writer unless you understand his grammar. And you don’t understand his grammar unless you understand the exceptions.

My studies of John’s grammar and John 1:1c find all the places he has used a parallel construction to John 1:1c (singular anarthrous predicate noun [nominative case] coming before the verb: “god was the word”; “prophet are you” - 4:19; “king are you” - 18:37; etc.) They also point out the exceptions to article use: modified by preposition; genitive use; plural and mass/amount nouns; abstract nouns; etc. These exceptions are cited from respected trinitarian NT grammarians.

The results of such careful study show that the indefinite article (English only) is supplied by translators in every other case: “a prophet”; “a king”; etc.

Since John has no other parallel example using theos, we are forced to go to the ancient Greek Septuagint: 3 Kings 18:27 in the ancient Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (1 Kings 18:27 in English Bibles) has a very similar construction to John 1:1c. It has theos as a predicate noun without a definite article and coming before the verb: “for God [or ‘a god’] he is.” But the Septuagint translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton (Zondervan Publishing) says “for he is a god.”!! Compare other translations of 1 Kings 18:27: “a god” is obviously intended here!

Original study: Examining the Trinity: DEFinite John 1:1c - shorter version: Examining the Trinity

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

 

[Truther]

One can certainly hear and not understand.

Grace and peace to you, Truther.

Do you understand this?...

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Kermos]

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?

You are a blind APAK because you wrote "What is the word? You cannot even explain it let alone defend it", yet you responded to the post containing 'The Apostle John declares Jesus is the Word with "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14)' - don't worry, the Truth (John 14:6) is explained below in this post.

I tell you now in the 2nd millennium after Christ's birth on Earth, you are not a first century believer, and you lie when you post that you are "an original 1st century believer".

Ger ready, APAK, because the following, in addition to John 1:1, shows that John believes and proclaims Jesus is God.

The "Equality of the Father and the Son" equates to the Father being God and the Son being God.

Lord Jesus says "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 4:18).

Immediately after Jesus says "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30), the very next thing He says is "I showed you many good works from the Father" (John 10:31).

See that God is good alone, and see that good in Jesus as recorded in John 10:31.

Moreover, the Jews response to Jesus' "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) is reminiscent of "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18).

The Apostle John expressed his very own observations and belief that the Son of God is equal to God according to John's linguistic construction of the sentence (John 5:18); moreover, no one is equal to God except for God and there is only One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4); therefore, Jesus is God.

In effect, John refers to Jesus as God in John 5:18.

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).

John walked with Jesus, so this puts belief that Jesus is God in the contemporaries of Jesus; therefore, your thoughts are full of deception when you posted that born of God people didn't believe Jesus is God until the "3-5th century".

A word about your thoughts. It is written, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD. 'For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.'" (Isaiah 55:8-9).

A word about adding to scripture as you have done. It is written "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6), and the above explanation of your thoughts shows where you added to scripture.

Of the new Jerusalem, the Apostle John wrote "nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life" (Revelation 21:27) - notice that no one who practices lying gets in, and a human adding to scripture is the human lying.

You deny the Apostolic testimony of John that Jesus is God, so you disbelieve in Jesus.

 

[Kermos]

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.

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word" (Luke 1:1-2).

Luke wrote "eyewitnesses" "of the Word" (Luke 1:2), and the "eyewitnesses" includes people like the Apostle Thomas who humbly acknowledged "My Lord and my God" to to TO Jesus (John 20:28).

In Luke 1:1-2, the word "Word" is translated from the Greek word "Logos".

The "eyewitnesses" includes people like the Apostle John who illuminates the Word is Jesus with "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14).

In John 1:14, the word "Word" is translated from the Greek word "Logos".

Both the Apostle John and Luke illuminate that Jesus is the Word.

Thus John refers to Jesus in John 1:1-5 as the "Word" and "He" and "Him" and "Life" and "Light":

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the Life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
​

In John 1:1-5, the word "Word" is translated from the Greek word "Logos".

The following describes how "Word", "He", "Him", "Life", and "Light" all refer to Jesus.

The first word of John 1:2 is "He", and that "He" is the "Word" in John 1:1, and that "He" in John 1:2 is the "Him" in John 1:3 and John 1:4; moreover, the "Him" in John 1:3 is the "Life" in John 1:4, and the "Him" in John 1:3 is the "Light" in John 1:4 and John 1:5.

Truly, we have a Spiritually accurate linguistic linkage from "Light" in John 1:5 back to "Word" in John 1:1.

Jesus says "While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world" (John 9:6), so we have Jesus being the Light in John 1:4-5 and John 9:6.

Jesus says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6), so we have Jesus being the Life in in John 1:4 and John 14:6.

John witnesses that Jesus is the Word with "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14), so we have John further identifying Jesus as the Word (Logos).

Lord Jesus Christ is the Word of God (John 1:1-5, John 1:14), a.k.a. the Logos of Theos, and the Word of God is God.

Jesus, truly God, is the God of Jesus, truly Man; moreover, Jesus, truly God, is God with the Father.

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.

Rich R, you demonstrated your unbelief about Jesus in A Curious Question For Non-Trinitarians and you are persisting in your fight against the Word of God.

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).

 

[BarneyFife]

They all agree the Word is God but not the Father. There is more than ONE in John 1:1 who is God.

Do you agree ?

The Linguistic experts I quoted all agree.

It's certainly hard for me to deny your position on the subject of the thread, but I can't quite bring myself to put too much stock in independent linguists. I know I'm probably just showing my hick-bumpkin but I think, for the most part, that the majority of English (since I couldn't say for other languages) translations are reliable enough to convey the Gospel.

A deeper study might require some supplemental aids once in a while, but I know very experienced Bible teachers who say they get more information that tends to glorify God by simply comparing the various English translations than they do in resorting to plumbing the depths of the original languages.

This is pretty heavy on opinion, I guess, but it just strikes me that when I sit in the Bible study class in church, I detect more substantive wisdom coming from simple-thinking, usually older folk than I do the budding scholars.

Abe Lincoln is rumored to have said that God must really love common people, since He made so many of them.

I don't mean to suggest that theologians and scholarly types can't be common people, but a lot of them seem to have some trouble coming down to earth sometimes.

BTW, I really appreciate and enjoy your contributions here, C.

Just more of my typical ramblings.

Wow, I think that's the first time I ever roll-eyed myself.

 

[BarneyFife]

I really wish people would be nicer to each other amidst their disagreements. I really do. And I'm not blameless in this matter, either.

 

[Rich R]

I really wish people would be nicer to each other amidst their disagreements. I really do. And I'm not blameless in this matter, either.

Amen to that brother!

I am sorry for anybody who I may have offended and ask their forgiveness. On the flip side, I forgive anyone who I think may have offend me, so no love lost there. As sons and daughters of God, you guys are all great in my eyes!

 

[BarneyFife]

@Rich R, if you weren't way out there with all o' them apples, I'd invite you to supper some time. If you're ever in the central PA area, let me know.

 

[Rich R]

@Rich R, if you weren't way out there with all o' them apples, I'd invite you to supper some time. If you're ever in the central PA area, let me know.

Thanks for the invite, but I haven't been outside of San Diego County for 20 years. I was a professional Pilot and traveled all over the world for many years. I was always gone. Once I retired, I just wanted to stay put. Kind of weird I suppose, but that's where I'm at as of now. Having said that, things do have a way of changing so if I ever do happen to get to PA, I will look you up. Likewise, if you're ever in CA, I'd be glad to have you visit us.

Being realistic, we'll probably have to wait for Jesus to gather us together to see each other. I suspect the suppers will feature much better food then anyway, so it'll be worth the wait!

 

[BarneyFife]

I don't believe Jesus is God. You do. But that makes no trouble for me to have fellowship with anybody who loves God and loves Jesus! If you're willing, so am I.

But you're right though. Too often it does get in the way of Christians loving one another.

(This post somehow got lost in my browser tabs and is coming in late.)

Well, I was just answering Ron's question.

However, I do believe we have an accord in principle.

But since you've shown such an interest:

Many of the people who made up the original group that became the Seventh-day Adventist church (to which I belong, which I've probably mentioned too often already) in 1863 came from a group called "The Christian Connection." The group was primarily anti-creedal. They felt that the exclusion of people, from joining a communion of fellowship for refusing to vow to uphold numerous non-essential doctrines was both ludicrous and unscriptural.

One of the doctrines they objected to especially was the Trinity doctrine. It was not so much a matter of Christ's status as a deity as it was the apparent nonsense of claiming that 3 persons could be one. It could be believed, they held, but not demonstrated in anything but theological mumbo-jumbo. IOW, it made a lousy article of a systematic theology. Moreover, they maintained, the subject of God's nature and manner of manifesting Himself was never made the point of anything that needed to be observed 'salvationally' (I hate that word—we went along for so many years without needing to use it) in the Bible.

I tend to agree. Other than the command to baptize in the name of the three Persons (although there may be more gravity to that part of Matthew 28:19 than I perceive), there appears to be no command relating to the triunity of God at all. John 3:16, for instance, declares that eternal life hinges upon believing in Christ—not the triune God. (This will probably get me in a lot of trouble.)

I've said many times before, the more I say about the "nature/essence" of God, the more foolish I appear to myself.

While I respect others' rights to believe and express as they please, I truly believe it is wise to only say what Scripture itself says about this matter and little, if anything, more.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

If Jesus were only a different being than God and both are God, then there are two Gods. That was a huge problem for the early Trinitarians. To solve it, they introduced the Gnostic term "essence" into the equation. They said God and Jesus are two beings with one essence.


To quote Ayn Rand, "Check your premise." Maybe the fact that the word incarnation is missing actually means it's not part of the doctrine. It's a huge leap to say it's missing in the Bible but it's Biblical. Maybe it's not Biblical at all. Maybe that's another idea from Greek philosophy. It in fact is just that.

It is simply a word used to describe an event. In carnation= god took on human flesh.

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Philippians 2:6-7
King James Version

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Best I can figure, Christ is as fully God as is the Father. I don't understand it; I just observe it as being declared and portrayed by Scripture. I do scratch my head a little when people challenge each other with this question as a test of fellowship, though.

And that is what I wrote- Jesus is equally divine as His Father

 

[tigger 2]

It is simply a word used to describe an event. In carnation= god took on human flesh.

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Philippians 2:6-7
King James Version

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

......................................................
1 Timothy 3:16

Noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:

“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts ….” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp. 696-698, vol. 3.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:

“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or OC, “who” - masc.] or ὅ [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [ca. 370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641.

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form, a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse!

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:

“The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott & Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

“He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.

And even hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested [8], but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.

 

[tigger 2]

It is simply a word used to describe an event. In carnation= god took on human flesh.

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Philippians 2:6-7
King James Version

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

.....................................................................

Matt. 1:23, Immanuel

Immanuel

Should Jesus really be considered to be God because he was symbolically “named” Immanuel (Is. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) which means “God is with us”?[1] No more so than Gabriel was calling himself God when he visited Mary and declared: “The Lord is with thee” - Luke 1:28. Nor did Zacharias mean that John the Baptizer (his new son) was actually God when he was asked, “I wonder what this child [John] will turn out to be?”, and he answered, “Praise the Lord, the God of Israel, for he has come to visit his people and has redeemed them.” - Luke 1:66-68, LB.

Gabriel and Zacharias (Zechariah) meant exactly what Israelites have meant throughout thousands of years when saying “God is with us” and similar statements. They meant “God has favored us” or “God is helping us”! - Gen. 21:22; Ex. 18:19; Nu. 23:21; josh. 1:9; 1 Chron. 17:2; 2 chron. 1:1; 35:21; ezra 1:3; is. 8:10. And Joshua 1:17; 1 Samuel 10:7; 2 Chron. 15:2-4, 9 (cf., Jer. 1:8; Haggai 1:13). But if we insist on trinitarian-type “proof,” then Gabriel must have meant that he (Gabriel) is God! And Zacharias (whose own name means ‘Jehovah is renowned’ - p. 678, TDOTB) must have meant that John the Baptizer is God! – Also see 1 Sam. 17:37; 2 Sam. 14:17; 1 Ki. 8:57; 1 Chron. 17:2; 22:18; 2 Chron. 36:23; Is. 41:10; Amos 5:14; Zech 8:23.

This understanding is seen throughout the Bible. For example, “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.” - 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, RSV.

Or, in a Psalm many of us apply to ourselves or our friends:

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me - ASV.


The acclaimed trinitarian Bible dictionary, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Vol. 2, pp. 86, 87, states:

“The name Emmanuel [or Immanuel] which occurs in Isa. 7:14 and 8:8 means lit. ‘God [is] with us’ .... In the context of the times of Isaiah and King Ahaz the name is given to a child as yet not conceived with the promise that the danger now threatening Israel from Syria and Samaria will pass ‘before the child knows how to refuse evil and choose the good.’ Thus, the child and its name is a sign of God’s gracious saving presence among his people .... [The name Emmanuel] could be a general statement that the birth and naming of the special child will indicate that the good hand of God is upon us.” - p. 86. And, “The point of the present passage [Matt. 1:23] is to see in the birth of Jesus a saving act of God, comparable with the birth of the first Emmanuel. Both births signify God’s presence with his people through a child.” - p. 87.

Or as noted trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris tells us:

“Matthew [in Matt. 1:23] is not saying, ‘Someone who is “God” is now physically with us,’ but ‘God is acting on our behalf in the person of Jesus.’” - p. 258, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Footnotes:

1. How do we know that Immanu El in Hebrew means ‘God is with us’? We know because shortly after it is introduced in Isaiah 7:14 and repeated in 8:8, the very same Hebrew term is explained in 8:10 - “God is with us” - KJV; RSV; NRSV; NASB; NIV; NEB; REB; NJB; NAB; MLB; LB; etc.

2. Barnes' Notes on the NT:
Phil. 4:9

And the God of peace shall be with you.

The God who gives peace. Comp. Hebrews 13:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:23. See Barnes "Philippians 4:7". The meaning here is, that Paul, by pursuing the course of life which he had led, and which he here counsels them to follow, had found that it had been attended with the blessing of the God of peace, and he felt the fullest assurance that the same blessing would rest on them if they imitated his example. The way to obtain the blessing of the God of peace is to lead a holy life, and to perform with faithfulness all the duties which we owe to God and to our fellow-men.

**********************

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Ruth Chapter 2

Verse 4. Boaz came from Beth-lehem

This salutation between Boaz and his reapers is worthy of particular regard; he said, Yehovah immachem, "Jehovah be with you!" They said, yebarechecha Yehovah, "May Jehovah bless thee!" Can a pious mind read these godly salutations without wishing for a return of those simple primitive times? The words may be thus paraphrased: "May God be with you, to preserve you from accidents, and strengthen you to accomplish your work!" "May God bless THEE with the increase of the field, and grace to use his bounty to the glory of the Giver!"


***********************

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Luke 1:28

The Lord is with thee

Thou art about to receive the most convincing proofs of God's peculiar favour towards thee.

**********************

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Phil. 4:9

And the God of peace

He who is the author of peace, the lover of peace, and the maintainer of peace; he who has made peace between heaven and earth, by the mission and sacrifice of his Son, shall be ever with you while you believe and act as here recommended.

*********************

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Ps. 46:7

The Lord of hosts is with us

We, feeble Jews, were but a handful of men; but the Lord of hosts-the God of armies, was on our side. Him none could attack with hope of success, and his legions could not be over-thrown.

**********************

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible


Luke 1:28


the Lord is with thee;

so the angel to Gideon, (Judges 6:12) or "be with thee", an usual form of salutation among the Jews; (Ruth 2:4)

***********************

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

Ruth 2:4


and said unto the reapers, the Lord be with you;

to give them health, and strength, and industry in their work


*************************

Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament

Ruth 2:4

Jehovah be with thee. Jehovah bless thee

(Ruth 2:4). It seems that these were customary salutations, acknowledging the blessing of the Lord in the abundance of the harvest.

***************************

Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament

Ps. 46:7

Jehovah of hosts is with us

(Psalms 46:7). If God be for us, who can be against us, is the New Testament echo of this confidence. The great security is in God.

 

[tigger 2]

It is simply a word used to describe an event. In carnation= god took on human flesh.
....

Philippians 2:6-7
King James Version

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

.......................................................
I responded to this in post #102, 103 above.

There are several NT Greek words in Phil. 2:6 which are misused by many trinitarian scholars.

One of them is harpagmos.

There could be some doubt about the meaning of the word harpagmos if we looked only at the NT Greek Scriptures (since harpagmos occurs only at Phil. 2:6 in the entire New Testament). We would then only have the meaning of the source words for harpagmos to determine its intended meaning.

Even so, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means “plunder” and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: “to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force).” - #725 & 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.

“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpazō).” - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.

And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: “harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized.” And, “harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away.” Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.

In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:

“We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’ [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize’, ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [‘snatch violently’] into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”

Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is “akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force.” - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)

“have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war.” - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as “prize” used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its “prize”!

We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.

In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).

So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).

Many trinitarian translators, however, either make nonsense out of the meaning of Phil. 2:6 by actually using the proper meaning of “robbery” or “taken by force” without showing God’s clear superiority over Jesus which the context demands, or, instead, making sense of it by choosing a word that doesn’t have the proper meaning of “taking by force.”

For example, the King James Version (KJV) does use “robbery” (a nearly-accurate meaning for harpagmos) but obviously mangles the meaning of the rest of the statement so that it doesn’t even make proper sense: “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This is a nonsensical statement even by itself. In context it is even more inappropriate!

Yes, as we have seen above, even in the KJV it is apparent from context that the purpose of this example is to emphasize lowliness of mind, humility: to regard others as better than yourself (vv. 3-5). Paul certainly wouldn’t destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is thinking that it isn’t robbery for him to be equal with the Most High! Besides being a nonsensical statement, it is just the opposite of humility! Instead, to be in harmony with the purpose of Paul’s example, we must find a Jesus who regards God as superior to himself and won’t give even a moment’s thought about attempting to take by force that most high position himself, but, instead, humbles himself even further.

Trinitarian scholar R. P. Martin, for example, feels the context (especially the obvious contrast of verses 6 and 7) clearly proves that harpagmos in verse 6 means Christ refused to seize equality with God. Emphasizing the fact that this is a contrast with verse 6, verse 7 begins with “but [alla].” In accord with this, he tells us,

“V[erse] 6b states what Christ might have done [or could have attempted to do], i.e. seized equality with God; v. 7 states what he chose to do, i.e. give himself.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 604. - Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6