"The word was a god"?

[tigger 2]

Johann wrote #515:

"You are no scholar, so leave John 1:1 and lean not unto your own understanding.
I know the urge to sound to sound [sic] sophomoric and highly intellectual and to know all the answers in the scriptures is fleshly driven, mere intellectual, stoical knowledge, acquired gnosis, so please, down with th [sic] pride and just believe what you read, and Christ Jesus IS Theos, Theos pros ho Theos.."
............................................
Why would anyone want to sound "sophomoric"?

Do you mean that I must follow the teachings of trinitarian scholars and overlook any errors they make?

I have quoted/cited a number of recognized trinitarian scholars in my study of John 1:1. If you are as educated in NT Greek as you claim, you should be able to do a scholarly examination (not just personal attack) of every aspect of my study. I expect that, instead, you will refuse with the usual excuses.

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

Please point out the 'errors' one by one and explain why they are wrong.

Let me help you. Here is the first point in the Jn 1:1c Primer study:

"The NT Greek word for "God" and "god" is theos (θεὸς). In the writings of the Gospel writers (including John) when an unmodified theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the" (ὁ [pronounced ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God. - See DEF study."

Johann posted frequently on this discussion (16 times since July 19 I believe), but it suddenly ended when I first posted the above on July 26.

I really want to discuss my study of the grammar of John 1:1c and its parallel constructions in John’s writing. Perhaps if I post the next part of my study…

“But Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" without the article. Therefore, even some trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as "the Word was a god"!

This includes W. E. Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words);
Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project);
Murray J. Harris (Jesus as God);
Dr. Robert Young (Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary);
Rev. J. W. Wenham, (The Elements of New Testament Greek).

Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian.

The usual trinitarian interpretation for John 1:1c ("the Word was God") is supposedly based on the fact that an unmodified theos is used as a predicate noun (predicate nominative) without a definite article (anarthrous) and comes before the verb in the New Testament (NT) Greek text. When you find an anarthrous predicate noun in that position, some trinitarians will say, it is to be interpreted differently ("qualitative" or "definite": i.e., as though it actually had the definite article with it or is understood as an adjective) from a predicate noun which normally comes after the verb.

Although such a "reversed" word order is extremely rare in English, it is common in NT Greek. And even a number of respected trinitarian scholars translate such constructions as having an indefinite predicate noun (“The Apostle is a man”; “He is a murderer”; “The man is a prophet”; ““He was a prophet”; “And the place was a market,”; “John Smith is a teacher”; etc.

So I decided to examine all the usages of a predicate noun found before its verb in all of John’s writings that are as close to the example of John 1:1c as we can find.

Here is what I found. Notice how many have the definite article "understood" with the predicate noun (as trinitarians imagine at John 1:1c.):

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”)

H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”)

H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”)

H,W 4. John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”)

H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”)

H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”)

H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”)

H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”)

H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”)

H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”)

[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

………………………………................................

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - “a liar”

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - “a beggar”

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - “a prophet”

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - “a sinner”

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - “a hireling”

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - “a thief”

18. 1 Jn 4:20 - “a liar “

And, possibly,

H,W 19. 1 John 2:4 - “a liar”

….………………………………………

H: Also found in Harner’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(end note #16, JBL)

W: Also found in Wallace’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(Greek Grammar & Syntax)

These uses by John show that John 1:1c should also be translated into English with the English indefinite article: “And the word was a god.”

 

[The Learner]

Jehovah's Witnesses do no such thing, they simply tell the truth, that Jesus is the Son of God, that sits at the right hand of his Father.

Did they not teach you grammar in school on when and how to use capital letters or are you spelling that way to show disrespect?

Ah, no lower case is Greek, or was that Hebrew?

bowman's outline on the trinity pdf - Google Search

"With God (προς τον θεον). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Προς with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of προς: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (παρακλητον εχομεν προς τον πατερα). See προσωπον προς προσωπον (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of προς. There is a papyrus example of προς in this sense το γνωστον της προς αλληλους συνηθειας, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of προς here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koine, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has παρα σο the more common idiom.

And the Word was God (κα θεος ην ο λογος). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ο θεος ην ο λογος. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ο λογος and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ο λογος) and the predicate without it (θεος) just as in John 4:24 πνευμα ο θεος can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ο θεος αγαπη εστιν can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ο Λογος σαρξ εγενετο, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

Verse 2
The same (ουτος). "This one," the Logos of verse John 1:1, repeated for clarity, characteristic of John's style. He links together into one phrase two of the ideas already stated separately, "in the beginning he was with God," "afterwards in time he came to be with man" (Marcus Dods). Thus John clearly states of the Logos Pre-existence before Incarnation, Personality,"
John 1 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

 

[The Learner]

The Predicate Coming Before the Subject

Also, this phrase in John 1:1 is an example of a predicate nominative coming first in the sentence, before the subject. (Sentences like this one that use a linking verb require the noun in the predicate part of the sentence to be in the nominative case. Thus the phrase 'predicate nominative'.) The subject of this clause is ‘the Word’ and the predicate is ‘God’. In Greek, the word ‘God’ comes before the word ‘Word’. According to normal Greek usage (Colwell's Rule), the word ‘God’ should not have a definite article. Oftentimes, emphasis is shown in Greek by placing a word out of its normal, expected word order. Special emphasis is shown when the predicate comes first in the sentence. In other words, contrary to the thought that ‘since there is no definite article used here it could belittle the fact of the Word being God’, the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’.

The Context of All of the Apostle John’s Writings

It is also necessary to see this statement in context of the rest of John’s writings. When comparing this with other statements about who the person and nature of Jesus Christ really is, it adds to what is already made clear by the Greek grammar. See for instance: John 8:56-59 (cf. Exo. 3:13-14); 10:28-33; 14:6-11; 1 John 5:20; (also John 8:23; 3:12-13; 5:17-18). These verses also indicate that, in John’s understanding and thus the Bible’s clear statements, Jesus Christ is the same essence and nature as God the Father, but distinct in their person-hood.

Consulting with Other Well Respected Greek Scholars and Grammarians

For a further explanation and clarification about these items, it is helpful to consult with many of the well respected Greek scholars and expositors. Personally I have never come across any objective, well respected Greek grammarian that has come up with different conclusions that what has been presented here. Many of them go into much more detail than I have in these few short paragraphs. See for instance the writings of Daniel Wallace (‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’), A.T. Robertson (both his ‘Grammar’ and ‘Word Pictures’), R.C.H. Lenski (in his commentary on the Gospel of John), Henry Alford (‘Greek Testament’), J.A. Bengel (‘Word Studies), Albert Barnes (‘Barnes’ Notes’), B.F. Westcott, and F.L. Godet, (and many others).
Explanation of John 1:1

 

[The Learner]

Greber's Bible Translation
Another example has been to use Greber’s The New Testament in support of the Watchtower's New World Translation. In the 1950's, the Watchtower discussed how Greber was a spiritualist and attributed his Bible translation to communication with the spirit world.

"It comes as no surprise that the one Johannes Greber, a former Catholic clergyman, has become a spiritualist and has published the book entitled "Communication with the Spirit World: Its Laws and Its Purpose."" Watchtower 1955 Oct 1 p.603
"Says Johannes Greber in the introduction of his translation of The New Testament, copyrighted in 1937: "I myself was a Catholic priest, and until I was forty-eight years old had never as much believed in the possibility of communicating with the world of God's spirits. The day came, however, when I involuntarily took my first step toward such communication, and experienced things that shook me to the depths of my soul. … My experiences are related in a book that has appeared in both German and English and bears the title, Communication with the Spirit-World: Its Laws and Its Purpose." (Page 15, ¶ 2, 3). In keeping with his Roman Catholic extraction Greber's translation is bound with a gold-leaf cross on its still front cover. In the Foreward of his aforementioned book ex-priest Greber says: "The most significant spiritualistic book is the Bible." Under this impression Greber endeavors to make his New Testament read very spiritualistic. … Very plainly the spirits in which ex-priest Greber believes helped him in his translation." Watchtower 1956 Feb 15 pp.110-111
Despite this, Watchtower publications quoted Greber's translation during the 1960's and 1970's for support of its own translation of John 1:1, and Matthew 27:52,53, including in The Word - Who Is He According to John (1962) p.5; Watchtower 1962 Sep 15 p.554; Make Sure of all Things (1965) p.489; Aid to Bible Understanding (1971) p.1669; Watchtower 1975 Oct 15 p.640; and Watchtower 1976 Apr 15 p.231.

Finally, the Watchtower stopped referring to Greber's translation, deceptively indicating that it became aware of Greber's involvement with the spirit world due to a foreword in the 1980 edition of his Bible.

"This translation was used occasionally in support of renderings of Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1, as given in the New World Translation and other authoritative Bible versions. But as indicated in a foreword to the 1980 edition of The New Testament by Johannes Greber, this translator relied on "God's Spirit World" to clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. It is stated: "His wife, a medium of God's Spiritworld was often instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God's Messengers to Pastor Greber." The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism." Watchtower 1983 Apr 1 p.31
Examples of misquotes, lies and deception in Watchtower publications

 

[The Learner]

The Watchtower said:

“Note what Mr. Harner writes as to John 1:1: ‘In John 1:1 I think that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.’ Therefore, the Greek at John 1:1 is not overwhelmingly ‘definite’ as Colwell and others maintained so that the text should be rendered in the definite ‘the God.’ Rather, as Harner shows there is the qualitative force possible, hence, warranting ‘a god,’ meaning quality of Godlikeness or a mighty one.”

Dr. Harner actually wrote:

“As an aid in understanding the verse it will be helpful to ask what John might have written as well as what he did write. In terms of the types of word-order and vocabulary available to him, it would appear that John could have written any of the following:

A. ho Logos en ho theos (the Word was the God);
B. Theos en ho Logos (God was the Word);
C. ho Logos Theos en (the Word God was);
D. ho Logos en Theos (the Word was a god);
E. ho Logos en Theios (the Word was divine);

. . . Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous (without the article, ‘the’) predicate, would probably mean that the logos was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos

. . . John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E . . . But in all these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express. 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 (the Word), no less than ho theos (the God), had the nature of theos (God).” (JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, Vol. 92, 1973, pp. 84, 85, 87; parentheses added for clarify, emphasis mine).

In this example the Watchtower has Dr. Harner saying that Jesus
is “a god” when Dr. Harner actually said Jesus is “more than” a
god. They have him also saying that theos in John 1:1c should be
viewed as “qualitative” so that, again, Jesus is only “a god”
whereas Dr. Harner said that Jesus had the nature of God no less
than God Himself. Yes, John 1:1c is qualitative as Dr. Harner
says, but they have perverted the force, or degree, of that
quality. John is saying that Jesus is as much deity, divinity,
God, as God the Father is deity, divinity, or God.

2) The Watchtower, May 15, 1977, page 320, quoting Dr. William
Barclay, University of Glasgow, Scotland.

(Note: The Watchtower quote is provided in its entirety, but
where they have by using an ellipsis (…) omitted a crucial
statement by Dr. Barclay it is noted in parentheses.)

The Watchtower said:

“. . . the noted Bible translator William Barclay writes” ‘Now
normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the
definite article in front of them . . . When a Greek noun has not
got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description
rather than an identification, and has the character of an
adjective rather than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in
English. If I say: ‘James is man,’ then I am simply describing
James as human, and the word man has become a description and not
an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using
a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would
definitely have identified the logos (the Word) with God, but
because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a
description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The
translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, ‘The Word
was in the same class as God, belonged to the same order of being
as God,” (omitted text) . . . John is not here identifying the
Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus
was God’.” (The Watchtower was quoting from Barclay’s book, MANY
WITNESSES, ONE LORD, 1963, pp. 23, 24).

The omitted text said, “The only modern translator who fairly and
squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who has: ‘The Word
was as to his essence essential deity.’ But it is here that the
NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely
accurate rendering: ‘What God was the Word was’.”

Further in his book Dr. Barclay said on page 27, “. . . God
himself took this human flesh upon him.”

Dr. Donald Shoemaker of Biola College showed the use of his
statements to Dr. Barclay and received this in reply. “The
Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the
opposite of what I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as
you well know, is that Jesus is . . . of the same stuff as God,
that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has
printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not
God in a way that suits themselves.” (Letter dated 26th August,
1977)

3) The Watchtower, January 15, 1975, page 63, quoting “The
Gospel According to St. John,” page 3, by Dr. B. F. Westcott.

The Watchtower said:

“Then, too, in the phrase rendered ‘the Word was a god,’ the term
‘god’ is a predicate noun that describes ‘the Word.’ Says the
noted scholar Westcott, coproducer of the famous Westcott and
Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures: ‘It describes the
nature of the Word and does not identify His Person’.”

The Watchtower has started their quote in the middle of Dr.
Westcott’s statement. The full statement, before and after the
quoted text says: “the Word was God. The predicate (God) stands
emphatically first, as in iv. 24. It is necessarily without the
article (Theos not ho Theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature
of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure
Sabellianism to say ‘the Word was ho theos.’ No idea of
inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression,
which simply affirms the true deity of the Word.”
.PG
Again, the watchtower has quoted a scholar as saying the opposite
of what he believes and has actually said.

4) The Appendix, page 1159, of the KINGDOM INTERLINEAR
TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK SCRIPTURES quoting Dr. A.T. Robertson’s,
GRAMMAR.

The Watchtower said:

“On page 761 Robertson’s GRAMMAR says: ‘Among the ancient
writers Ho Theos was used of the god of absolute religion in
distinction from the mythological gods.’ So, too, John 1:1,2
uses Ho Theos to distinguish Jehovah God from the Word (Logos) as
a god . . .”

However, Robertson went on to say, “In the N.T. however, while we
have Pros Ton Theon (John 1:1,2), it is far more common to find
simply Theos, especially in the Epistles. But the word is
treated like a proper name and may have it (Romans 3:5) or not
have (8:9).”

This completely reverses the Watchtower’s statement which makes
it seem as if Robertson is laying down an absolute rule.

The Watchtower said again:

“In further proof that the omitting of the definite article in
the predicate of John 1:1 by the apostle was deliberately meant
to show a difference, we quote what Dr. Robertson’s GRAMMAR says
on page 767: (i) NOUNS IN THE PREDICATE. These may have the
article also’.”

DR. A. T. Robertson’s GRAMMAR went on to say in the very next
sentence, “As already explained, the article is not essential to
speech. It is, however, invaluable as a means of gaining
precision, e.g. Theos En Ho Logos. As a rule the predicate is
without the article, even when the subject uses it.”

It should be pointed out to Jehovah’s Witnesses that we are not
limited to two choices in rendering John 1:1c, “a god,” or “the
God.” A third option seems to be ignored by them though the vast
majority of translations render it in this way. That rendering
is simply “God.” Theos used as it is without the definite
article has a qualitative force as Drs. Harner, Barclay and
Westcott have said. Coming at the first of the clause as it does
in Greek gives it emphasis. In a comment to the author penned by
Dr. Randolph Yeager, he said, “Thank God for the emphasis on
Theos in John 1:1, ‘The Word was GOD!”‘

With the immediate context (vs. 3) saying the Logos is the
Creator of everything, and not even one thing came into existence
apart from Him, then Theos must be understood as meaning divinity
in the fullest sense as Yahweh is divine (Moffatt, Goodspeed), or
deity (Mantey).

The larger context of John includes the confession of Thomas that
Jesus is his Lord and God. Literally in the Greek Thomas says
Jesus is “Ho Theos Mou,” “the God of me.” Here the definite
article is used with Theos in an inspired statement regarding
Jesus. Thus Jesus is just as much God, deity, or divinity as God
the Father is God, deity or divinity.

The above four examples of misquotes are certainly not
exhaustive. There are many others. Among them are the use of
Johannes Greber, a former Catholic priest turned spiritualist,
who “translated” the New Testament with the aid of his wife, a
medium, and demonic spirits. The Watchtower first cited his “a
god” rendering of John 1:1 as scholastic support for their NWT
rendering in a 1962 booklet, “The Word Who Is He? According To
John,” (Page 5). However, the Watchtower had just six years
previously exposed this man and his “New Testament” to all
Jehovah’s Witnesses as being demonically guided (Watchtower, Feb.
15, 1956, pages 110, 111). Then when he became useful as a
“scholar” this fact was ignored. This has been thoroughly
documented in many publications.
JOHN 1:1 AND THE WATCHTOWER DISHONESTY | The Believers Web

 

[The Learner]

The Word and The Watchtower: An Exegesis of John 1:1

 

[The Learner]

Dear Sirs:

I have a copy of your letterr addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California,
and I am writing to express my disagrement with statemetns made in that
letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Grek
Grammar.

(1) Your statement: “their work allows for the rendering found in the
Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1,”
There is no statement in our grammare that was ever meant to imply that
“a god” was a permissible translation in John 1:1.

A. We had no “rule” to argue in support of the trinity.

B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply
delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language.

C. You quotation from p. 148 (3) was a paragraph under the heading: “With
the subject in a Copulative Sentence.” Two examples occur here to
illustrate that “the article points out the subject in these
examples.” But we made no statement in this paragraph about the
predicate except that, “as it stands the other persons of the trinity
may be implied ;in theos.” And isn’t that the oposite of what your
translation “a god” infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages
139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: “without the article,
theos signifies divine essence…’htheos en ho logos’ emphasises
Christ’s participation in the essence of the divine nature.” Our
interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and TED: “What God
was, the Word was”; and with that of Barclay: “The nature of the Word
was the same as the nature of God,” which you quoted in you letter to
Caris.

(2) Since Colwell’s and Hasner’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.

(3) Your quotation of Colewell’s rule is inadequate because it quotes only a
part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: “A
predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an
indefinate or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the
article.”

(4) Prof. Harner, Vol 92:1 in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell’s research and
has discovered that anathrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function
primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found
this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of
Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended that
gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and
both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not
indefinite and should not be transated “a god.” Watchtower writers appear
to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence
appears to be 99% against them.

(5) Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide
one and “not just someone’s rulebook.” We agree with you. But our study
proves that Jehovah’s Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the
“sacred text” differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the
translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning
cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as “I have
been” in John 8:58, the addition of “for all time” in Heb. 9:27 when
nothing in the Greek New Testament support is. The attempt to belittle
Christ by mistranslating arche tes kriseos “beginning of the creation”
when he is magnified as the “creator of all things” (John 1:2) and as
“equal with God” (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived a human
body on earth. Your quotation of “The father is greater than I am, (John
14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated
in Phil 2:6-8. When Jesus said that he was still in his voluntary state
of humilation. That state ended when he assended to heaven. Why the
attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a
comma after “today” in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and
all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in you KIT, the
comma occurs after lego (Isay) – “Today you will be with me in Paradise.”
2 Cor 5:8, “to be out of the body and at home with the Lord.” These
passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death,
which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until
the resurrection. (Ps. 23:6 and Heb 1:10)

The afore mentioned are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and
pervisions of Gods Word.

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 Grammare of
the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also
that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.
Also that you publicy and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine,
since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in
John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted
my “rule.”

On the page before the preface in the grammar are these words: “All rights
reserved – no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without
permission in writing from the publisher.”

If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it. If you do
not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.

Regretfully yours,
Julius R. Mantey

 

[The Learner]

Dear Professor XXXXXXXXXXXX,

Thank you for your letter of August 11th. The Watchtower article has, by
judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I
was meaning to say, as you well knowk, is that Jesus is not the same as God,
to put it more crudely, that he is of the same stuff as God, that is of the
same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has preinted my stuff has
simply lef the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way tha suits
themsleves.

If they misssed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the
N.E.B., they missed the whole point.

It was good of you to write and I don’t think I need say anything more to
make my position clear.

With every good wish.
Yours Sincerely
William Barclay.

 

[Pierac]

So you're not going to answer then?

As I mentioned, it was only a few posts ago in post #693 that I gave my short answer. While you were reading post #698, which you've just replied to, are you really saying that you couldn't be bothered to click on the scroll bar 2 or 3 times to read the short post that I was referring to?

If your response was regarding missing my post #664, then I know you're lying because you did reply to that post, but only to the short question 'What do you mean by the "other" Paul?'. Your only comment on the meat of the post, all of the Scripture references and comments, was to say:

Given that you have no clue of what you speak.... AND that You have no understanding of biblical Agency...
I'm going to make you look STUPID.... Really stupid... Why??? because you have no answer to what I'm about to show you!!!​

So, rather than commenting on what I wrote you simply diverted to asking a random question which you claimed I would not be able to answer. I did answer, and yet you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that.


What did I write in post #698 that could possibly make you think that I am a messenger of Satan? Why are you being so insulting?

Ephesians 4:29 (WEB):

(29) Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but only what is good for building others up as the need may be, that it may give grace to those who hear.​

Galations 6 (WEB):

(3) For if a man thinks himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
(4) But let each man examine his own work, and then he will have reason to boast in himself, and not in someone else.

(7) Don’t be deceived. God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
(8) For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption. But he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
(9) Let’s not be weary in doing good, for we will reap in due season, if we don’t give up.
(10) So then, as we have opportunity, let’s do what is good toward all men, and especially toward those who are of the household of the faith.​

Did you even read my post?

Act 12:7 And behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter's side and woke him up, saying, "Get up quickly." And his chains fell off his hands. 8 And the angel said to him, "Gird yourself and put on your sandals." And he did so. And he *said to him, "Wrap your cloak around you and follow me."

Act 12:17 But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had led him out of the prison. And he said, "Report these things to James and the brethren." Then he left and went to another place.

You just supported my Post about Biblical Agency.... I asked you to repost because... I did not think you would post something that actually supports my post... silly child...

Act 12:11 When Peter came to himself, he said, "Now I know for certain that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from everything the Jewish people were expecting to happen."

Guess Peter did not know in Act 12:7 that the angel was not actually the Lord!!! .... must have taken 4 verses for him to come to himself and figure it out.... NOW... how long will it take you???
Paul

 

[keithr]

Did you even read my post?

Of course I did. But you still haven't answered. Why not?

You just supported my Post about Biblical Agency.... I asked you to repost because... I did not think you would post something that actually supports my post... silly child...

Why is it silly to post something that you agree with? And you didn't ask me to repost because you thought I would disagree with you, you asked me to repost because you claimed to have missed it. You said, "post it again! Things are get missed!!! Something was missed...".

Act 12:11 When Peter came to himself, he said, "Now I know for certain that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from everything the Jewish people were expecting to happen."

Guess Peter did not know in Act 12:7 that the angel was not actually the Lord!!! .... must have taken 4 verses for him to come to himself and figure it out.... NOW... how long will it take you???

There's nothing in the passage to suggest that Peter ever thought for even a moment that the angel was Jesus. There is only verse 9 which says that at first Peter thought he might be seeing a vision rather than the events being real. Once he realised it wasn't a vision he then knew that Jesus had sent an angel to rescue him.

I guess you have nothing more to say about 'Jesus was a man, but is no longer a man', and your diversion to Peter being rescued from prison has nothing to do with it. I responded in post #664 to the verses you quoted and the question you asked in post #660, but you have ignored that, except by saying I didn't have a clue about what I spoke/wrote and diverting to asking a non relevant question. You don't seem to want to discuss it, so I'll end our conversation and won't respond to you any more. This has digressed too far from the the topic of this thread!

 

[Pierac]

Of course I did. But you still haven't answered. Why not?


Why is it silly to post something that you agree with? And you didn't ask me to repost because you thought I would disagree with you, you asked me to repost because you claimed to have missed it. You said, "post it again! Things are get missed!!! Something was missed...".


There's nothing in the passage to suggest that Peter ever thought for even a moment that the angel was Jesus. There is only verse 9 which says that at first Peter thought he might be seeing a vision rather than the events being real. Once he realised it wasn't a vision he then knew that Jesus had sent an angel to rescue him.

I guess you have nothing more to say about 'Jesus was a man, but is no longer a man', and your diversion to Peter being rescued from prison has nothing to do with it. I responded in post #664 to the verses you quoted and the question you asked in post #660, but you have ignored that, except by saying I didn't have a clue about what I spoke/wrote and diverting to asking a non relevant question. You don't seem to want to discuss it, so I'll end our conversation and won't respond to you any more. This has digressed too far from the the topic of this thread!

Oh my God... don't be a Karen!

Dude.... Jesus is nothing more than a man chosen by God!

Luk 9:35 Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!"

So your saying... God is teaching you/me... He(GOD) is His Son and His (GOD's) Chosen one...

Really... study harder... and stop following your pastor!!! Silly Child!!!
Paul

 

[keithr]

Oh my God... don't be a Karen!

Really... study harder... and stop following your pastor!!! Silly Child!!!

Insults and name calling will not encourage me to continue the discussion.

1 Corinthians 13:4 (WEB):

(4) Love is patient and is kind; love doesn’t envy. Love doesn’t brag, is not proud,​

So your saying... God is teaching you/me... He(GOD) is His Son and His (GOD's) Chosen one...

No, I've never said that. This is another example of why it's impossible to continue the discussion with you. You ignore and/or don't understand what I write, and you make incorrect assumptions about what I believe.

Matthew 7:6 (WEB):

(6) “Don’t give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.​

 

[JohnPaul]

Ah, no lower case is Greek, or was that Hebrew?

bowman's outline on the trinity pdf - Google Search

"With God (προς τον θεον). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Προς with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of προς: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (παρακλητον εχομεν προς τον πατερα). See προσωπον προς προσωπον (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of προς. There is a papyrus example of προς in this sense το γνωστον της προς αλληλους συνηθειας, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of προς here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koine, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has παρα σο the more common idiom.

And the Word was God (κα θεος ην ο λογος). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ο θεος ην ο λογος. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ο λογος and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ο λογος) and the predicate without it (θεος) just as in John 4:24 πνευμα ο θεος can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ο θεος αγαπη εστιν can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ο Λογος σαρξ εγενετο, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

Verse 2
The same (ουτος). "This one," the Logos of verse John 1:1, repeated for clarity, characteristic of John's style. He links together into one phrase two of the ideas already stated separately, "in the beginning he was with God," "afterwards in time he came to be with man" (Marcus Dods). Thus John clearly states of the Logos Pre-existence before Incarnation, Personality,"
John 1 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

I wouldn't know about Greek or Hebrew, I only speak English.

 

[True Faith]

John 1:1-5
The Word (Jesus) Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word (Jesus) was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God. 2 He (Jesus) was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him (Jesus) all things were made; without him (Jesus) nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him (Jesus) was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

John 1:14
The Word (Jesus) became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

BUT although Jesus is God he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. It is not logical but our God is One God with three separate persons. Father Son and Holy spirit and please @Jack don't let anyboy mislead you and tell you otherwise as there are some sects/cults who do not believe what the bible says and it is the Jehovah's witnesses who have added 'a god' to the scriptures changing it's true meaning to suit their own beliefs.

Let's put that to the test shall we...

Whose will did God Himself come down to do, if not his own??

and

Was it the will of Jesus to do the will of his Father God?

John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven not to do mine own will but the will of him that sent me."

There is absolutely no way you would answer those questions without making God Himself or Jesus out to be liars...

Remember it is impossible for God to lie....

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it?"

Hebrews 6:18 "That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:"

 

[The Learner]

read to here

 

[Pierac]

Insults and name calling will not encourage me to continue the discussion.

1 Corinthians 13:4 (WEB):

(4) Love is patient and is kind; love doesn’t envy. Love doesn’t brag, is not proud,​

No, I've never said that. This is another example of why it's impossible to continue the discussion with you. You ignore and/or don't understand what I write, and you make incorrect assumptions about what I believe.

Matthew 7:6 (WEB):

(6) “Don’t give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.​

If you think calling you a silly child... ranks as an insult and name calling in 2022 America... then you have more issues than I can begin to help...
Do they use the term Sissy Boy anymore?

:smlhmm:
Paul

 

[Pierac]

Dear Professor XXXXXXXXXXXX,

Thank you for your letter of August 11th. The Watchtower article has, by
judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I
was meaning to say, as you well knowk, is that Jesus is not the same as God,
to put it more crudely, that he is of the same stuff as God, that is of the
same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has preinted my stuff has
simply lef the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way tha suits
themsleves.

If they misssed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the
N.E.B., they missed the whole point.

It was good of you to write and I don’t think I need say anything more to
make my position clear.

With every good wish.
Yours Sincerely
William Barclay.

Are you a IT employee trying to speak English....??? Your post reads like My conversation from work trying to get my computer password back working again...

Paul

 

[Pierac]

No, I've never said that. This is another example of why it's impossible to continue the discussion with you. You ignore and/or don't understand what I write, and you make incorrect assumptions about what I believe.

Matthew 7:6 (WEB):

(6) “Don’t give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw your earls
p
before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.​

Then make it clear... You seem to have no problem understanding me!!

Really with Matthew 7:6... Your throwing sand/dirt... not pearls... Soo Keithr... Just because your pastor says you have pearls... does not make it so... I'm seeing a steaming pyle of crap for your believes in Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- from your post...


Try harder child...
Paul

 

[keithr]

Really with Matthew 7:6... Your throwing sand/dirt... not pearls... Soo Keithr... Just because your pastor says you have pearls... does not make it so... I'm seeing a steaming pyle of crap for your believes in Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- from your post...

Try harder child...

Colossians 4:6 (ISV):

(6) Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer everyone.​

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Please help me to understand what is meant here. If Jesus was "a god" then He could be THE God or a false god. What else could this mean? How can Jesus be "a god"?

Hello Jack, Good questions, Can we start with who is Jesus Christ?

Jesus Christ Is The Saviour Of The World

What Does the Bible Say About Jesus Christ Is The Saviour Of The World? (openbible.info)

Saturday 5-7-22 7th. Day Of The Weekly Cycle, Iyar 5, 5782 49th. Spring Day

You know, after reading this entire article, I can understand better:

Part 1 of 4

Is Jesus Christ Really "GOD"? An ancient theological theory has been resurrected in recent years and is being strongly promulgated by a small number who are successfully confusing many with their esoteric doctrine. They claim Jesus Christ had no pre-existence, was merely a human being, and was not and is not truly "GOD."

Yet the Jews who lived in Jesus' own time thought that He proclaimed He was divine and sought to kill Him for this "blasphemy"! What is the real truth? Many today are forsaking the faith of the Word of God -- they are having their true faith shattered -- by false doctrines and modern theologies of demons. Sincere as they may be, they have stumbled off the true path of the true faith, and are in grave danger of causing great shipwreck to themselves and their congregations or followers! The wife of one elder in God's Church wrote to me, and castigated me for several things she found fault with, including the several articles I have written in answer to the new doctrine being preached by Anthony Buzzard and others claiming Jesus Christ was not and is not "God," and did not exist prior to His human birth in the womb of Mary his mother. This no-doubt well-intentioned woman accused me of not respecting the "scholarship" of Buzzard, although, she pointed out, I often quote respected "scholars" in my own writings. This she seemed to think was hypocritical.

She and her husband seem to want to justify Buzzard's message that Jesus was not God and never existed prior to being born as a human being. In my opinion, they seem to have become "buzzard bait" for the great "buzzard" or vulture of this world -- Satan the devil! When I received her letter, I was dismayed -- but not altogether surprised. The saddest thing is that her husband, who is supposed to be the "leader" in the family, had not communicated to me any of his feelings on these matters.

He had only sent me articles written by Buzzard for my reading, without any comments. But when his wife wrote to me, he just penned a little footnote at the end of her lengthy letter saying he agreed with her. 137 Over the past year, I have written SEVEN articles proving that Christ is very GOD, showing His true origin long before His human birth, proving He is often referred to as YHVH in the Old Testament, explaining the "Mystery of God," and showing the proof that God is actually "reproducing Himself" in character and traits in His divine children. I have carefully analyzed and refuted Buzzard's esoteric religious nonsense, showing even how he twists and perverts Scripture, but seemingly all to no avail. At least insofar as this woman and her husband are concerned, it has been apparently to no avail. They still have not finally declared themselves one way or the other, but seem to be leaning toward believing Christ was merely human and never divine.

I wondered as I read her letter, how it was that they came to be led astray. Truly, Satan the devil is subtle and cunning -- more than a match for any of us, humanly speaking. Jesus Christ warned us long ago that in the end times deception would be so powerful that "if it were possible, they shall deceive the VERY ELECT" (Matt.24:24). Paul warned that God would "send them strong DELUSION, that they should believe a LIE: That they all might be damned who believed not the TRUTH, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (II Thess.2:11-12). Apparently, like Eve in the garden of Eden, this dear lady became offended over little things, and allowed her own feelings to be hurt, and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good AND EVIL, and has begun to eat the poisonous fruit -- and her husband, just like Adam of old, has followed her in her transgression.

I say this because thus far SHE is the one who wrote me the letter, and he in effect just wrote a footnote declaring, "I agree." It seems to me that she is the leader in that family, just like Eve -- she seems to be the one who "wears the pants." My heart goes out to them -- yet they must make their own decision, even if it takes them away from the truth and Satan gains an advantage over them. Like Paul, my heart cries out, and I exclaim, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the SERPENT BEGUILED EVE through his subtilty, so your minds should be CORRUPTED from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus . . ." (II Cor.11:3-4). If you have not read my in-depth articles on this subject of the divinity of Christ, then I urge you to write for them right away. They are entitled: "The Pre-Existence of Christ -- Fact? Or Superstition?", "Is Jesus God?", "Who was the YHVH of the OLD TESTAMENT?", "Who or What Was JESUS CHRIST Before His Human Birth?", "The Mystery of GOD," "What Is God Like?", and "Is God Reproducing Himself?" "Beware of False Prophets" How some people can so easily be led astray by every wind of false doctrine truly puzzles and intrigues me. Paul the apostle indeed prophesied that it would happen.

And it can happen to truly sincere and well-meaning people! Truly God's warning is 138 serious business when He says to us, "TAKE HEED THAT NO MAN DECEIVE YOU" (Matt.24:4), and, "Many false prophets shall arise, and shall DECEIVE MANY"(verse 11), "Behold, I have told you before" (v.25). Jesus warned all of us, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matt.7:15-16). Paul warned us deliberately and urgently: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the LATTER TIMES some shall DEPART FROM THE FAITH, giving heed to seducing spirits, and DOCTRINES OF DEVILS"(I Tim.4:1). Paul warned of some of these pseudo-scholars and make-believe "saints," saying they have "a form of godliness" but deny the power thereof, and commands us, "from such TURN AWAY" (II Tim.3:5). He says they are "ever learning, and NEVER able to come to the knowledge of the TRUTH" (verse 7). We are living in the days prophesied by Jude, the brother of Christ, who wrote, "Beloved . . . it was needful for me to write unto you, and EXHORT you that ye should EARNESTLY CONTENT for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). It is very sad to see some jettison the true faith which was "once delivered," and exchange it for a new model "faith" which is guaranteed to poison the mind and destroy godly, righteous character! And when I become angry when I see these horrible things happening, the people involved accuse me of my "anger," not realizing that God Himself is FURIOUS and VERY ANGRY with their foolishness and their wicked departure from the TRUTH into hideous and Satanic ERROR! Did Jesus Exist Before His Human Birth? There are, of course, as any really devoted student of the Bible knows, many Scriptures which tell us in plain language that Jesus did exist BEFORE His human birth.

He was the Logos, or Word of God, "which 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" (John 1:14). John tells us, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was LIFE; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:1-4). This Word, or "Logos" in the Greek language, was a being who was a member of the very Godhead -- a God being just like the Father! No matter how some men attempt to reason around this plain and simple verse, it says just what it says! Now notice what became of this Logos, or member of the Godhead, in due passage of time! John tells us: ". . . And the WORD WAS MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us . . ." (John 1:1, 14). This Word, therefore, which pre-existed with the Father from some point in eternity, was GOD -- and this "Word" IS THE ONE WHO BECAME CHRIST! 139 Jesus Came Down from Heaven That truth is so plain a child can understand it -- yet some have become befuddled and baffled and confused. Furthermore, in John chapter 6, Jesus plainly says, "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me" (John 6:38). He said further, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven"(verse 51). Read this whole chapter. But unfortunately, those who have been bamboozled by Satan's dirty tricks campaign, cannot see this plain truth any more at all. They have become strung out on pseudo-scholarship and false, deadly mis-reasoning.

To be continued:

Love, Walter