Where does the Pope get his authority?

[The Learner]

Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives preceding the verb where a definite interpretation seems the
most likely possibility:

Matthew 5:34, θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ (“it is the throne of God”) – There is only one throne of God.
Matthew 5:35, μήτε εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως (“nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the Great King”) – There is only one Jerusalem, one city of the great King.
Matthew 12:50, αὐτός μου ἀδελφὸς καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν (“he is the brother of me and the sister of me and the mother of me”) – By comparison with v.48 where brother, sister and mother have the article, it is evident that these terms are definite here as well.
Matthew 13:39b, ὁ δὲ θερισμὸς συντέλεια αἰῶνός ἐστιν (“and the harvest is the end of the age”)
Matthew 14:33, ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ (“You are truly the Son of God”) – Jesus’ disciples had the correct and highest evaluation of Jesus.
Matthew 27:40, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ (“If you are the Son of God”) – The mockers are mocking Jesus with his own words. It would not make sense to tease him with being “a” son of God. But is this the concept the Roman soldier repeated when he became aware of Jesus’ uniqueness (27:54)?
Mark 12:28, ποία ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων (“which is the first commandment of all”) – definite only possibility because of πρώτη
Luke 1:36, οὗτος μὴν ἕκτος ἐστὶν (“this is the sixth month”) – There is only one sixth month.
Luke 1:63, Ἰωάννης ἐστὶν ὄνομα αὐτοῦ (“the name of him is John” or “John is the name of him”) – The only question is whether John is the subject or the predicate nominative
Luke 4:3, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ (“If you are the Son of God”) – It would not make sense for Satan to challenge Jesus with being “a” son of God.
Luke 4:9, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ (“If you are the Son of God”) – It would not make sense for Satan to challenge Jesus with being “a” son of God.
John 1:49, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (“you are the king of Israel”) – It would not be much of a declaration by Jesus’ disciple that Jesus is a king of Israel.
John 3:29, ὁ ἔχων τὴν νύμφην νυμφίος ἐστίν (“the one who has the bride is the bridegroom”)
John 8:42, εἰ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν (“if God was the father of you”) – He is not “a” father of us
John 8:54, ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν (“whom you say that he is the God of you”) – Jesus wasn’t accusing the Jews of making God only one of many.
John 9:5, φῶς εἰμι τοῦ κόσμου (“I am the light of the world”)
John 9:37, ὁ λαλῶν μετὰ σοῦ ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν (“the one speaking to you is that one”) – The pronoun makes for a definite sense.
John 10:2, ὁ δὲ εἰσερχόμενος διὰ τῆς θύρας ποιμήν ἐστιν τῶν προβάτων (“the one who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep”)– Jesus’ point in context is that he is that definite and only shepherd
John 10:36, ὅτι εἶπον· υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι (“because I said, ‘I am the Son of God”) – There is a bit of theological wrangling going on in this exchange but it does not seem likely that Jesus is backing down his self-evaluation to “a” son of God to escape the charge of blasphemy.
John 11:49, ἀρχιερεὺς ὢν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου (“being the high priest that year”) – There is only one high priest.
John 11:51, ἀρχιερεὺς ὢν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου ἐπροφήτευσεν (“being the high priest that year, he prophesied”)
Acts 19:35, τὴν Ἐφεσίων πόλιν νεωκόρον οὖσαν (“the city of Ephesus is the temple-keeper”) – It must be “the” city since it is further identified as Ephesus.
Romans 1:16, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν (“the gospel, for it is the power of God”) – The gospel is not “a” power of God to salvation but “the” power.
1 Corinthians 1:18, δύναμις θεοῦ ἐστιν (“It is the power of God”) – The gospel, the word of the cross, is “the” power of God to those being saved.
1 Corinthians 4:4, ὁ δὲ ἀνακρίνων με κύριός ἐστιν (“the one who judges me is the Lord”) – not “a” lord
1 Corinthians 11:7a, δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων (“being the image of God”) – only one image of God
1 Corinthians 11:7b, ἡ γυνὴ δὲ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν (“and the wife is the glory of the husband”) – not “a” husband”
Philippians 2:13, θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν (“for it is God”) – There is only one God
1 John 2:18a, ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν (“it is the last hour”) – definite only possibility because of ἐσχάτη
Revelation 1:20, οἱ ἑπτὰ ἀστέρες ἄγγελοι τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησιῶν εἰσιν καὶ αἱ λυχνίαι αἱ ἑπτὰ ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαι εἰσίν (“the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the churches”) – Jesus is making identifications, making definite the meaning of symbols
Revelation 21:22, ὁ γὰρ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ναὸς αὐτῆς ἐστιν καὶ τὸ ἀρνίον (“For the Lord God Almighty is the temple, and the Lamb”) – God and the Lamb are the only temple of the New Jerusalem
=31 instances.

We expect this with Colwell’s Rule, but not with the same frequency as those following the verb.
Those exceptions seem to disprove the rule.

Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives preceding the verb where a qualitative interpretation seems
the most likely possibility:

Matthew 23:8b, πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε (“You are all brothers”) – All Jesus’ disciples share the same quality, they are brothers/sisters. They are not all “the” rothers.
Matthew 27:6, τιμὴ αἵματός ἐστιν (“It is money of blood”) – It is the kind of money that cannot be allowed in the temple treasury.
Mark 12:29, κύριος εἷς ἐστιν (“the Lord is one”) – not “a” one or “the” one but the quality of oneness
Luke 14:22, ἔτι τόπος ἐστίν (“there is still room”) – The servants are not concerned that there is still “a” room available for the wedding, but the quality of room, space available still at the banquet.
John 1:14, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (“The Word became flesh”) – Jesus did not become “a” or “the” flesh, but flesh as an element.
John 2:9, τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον [pred acc or d/o] (“the water had become wine”) – not “a” or “the” wine but wine as a substance
John 3:4, ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων ὤν (“a man to be born, when he is old”) – Γέρων is a noun, not an adjective, but the qualitative predicate nominative can act like an adjective
John 3:6, τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν (“that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”) – neither “a” nor “the” work
John 6:63b, τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λελάληκα ὑμῖν πνεῦμά ἐστιν καὶ ζωή ἐστιν (“the words that I speak are spirit and life”) – neither “a” nor “the” work
John 9:4, ἕως ἡμέρα ἐστίν (“while it is day”)
John 10:22, χειμὼν ἦν (“it was winter”)
John 12:50, ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιός ἐστιν (“His command is eternal life”)
John 17:17, ὁ λόγος ὁ σὸς ἀλήθειά ἐστιν (“Your word is truth”)
John 20:1, σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης (“while it was still dark”)
Acts 7:33, τόπος ἐφ’ ᾧ ἕστηκας γῆ ἁγία ἐστίν (“the place on which you stand is holy
ground”)

 

[The Learner]

1 Corinthians 3:19, ἡ γὰρ σοφία τοῦ κόσμου τούτου μωρία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ἐστιν (“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God”)
1 Thessalonians 1:6, ὑμεῖς μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε (“You became imitators of us”) – Likely not “some” or “the” imitators, but those with the quality of imitation.
1 Thessalonians 2:14, Ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε (“You became imitators”) – Likely not “some” or “the” imitators, but those with the quality of imitation.
James 2:19, εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός (“God is one”)
James 3:4, τὰ πλοῖα τηλικαῦτα ὄντα (“the boat, though it is small”) – τηλικαῦτα is a demonstrative pronoun, not an adjective, but the qualitative sense gives it an adjectival sense
1 John 1:5b, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία (“that God is light, and there is no darkness at all in Him”)
1 John 4:8, ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν (“God is love”) – God is not literally love but it is a defining quality of His
1 John 4:16, Ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν (“God is love”)
1 John 5:7, τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (“those which bear witness are three”) – the triadic Spirit, water and blood
1 John 5:17, πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστίν (“All unrighteousness is sin”)
=25 instances.

These are consistent with Harner’s Rule and definitely more frequent preceding the verb, but that there are so many above that follow the verb seem the exceptions that disprove the rule.

Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives preceding the verb where an indefinite interpretation seems
the most likely possibility:

Matthew 14:26, φάντασμά ἐστιν (“it is a ghost”) – It is doubtful the disciples would have been commenting on the qualitative aspect of this apparition (“It is ghostly”), and they certainly were not referencing some specific ghost (“It is the ghost”).
Matthew 22:42, τίνος υἱός ἐστιν (“whose son is he”) – Jesus is asking whose indefinite son the Messiah would be, the answer being “David’s.”
Mark 6:49, φάντασμά ἐστιν (“it is a ghost”) – It is doubtful the disciples would have been
commenting on the qualitative aspect of this apparition (“It is ghostly”), and they certainly were not referencing some specific ghost (“It is the ghost”).
Luke 7:8, γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν (“For I am a man under authority”) – What would the Centurion mean if he said, “I am the man under authority”? There are other soldiers under authority.
John 8:31, ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού ἐστε (“truly you are a disciple of me”) – not “the” as if the only disciple, nor disciplish.
John 8:34, πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν δοῦλός ἐστιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας (“everyone who does sin is a servant of that sin”)
John 8:44b, ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶν (“because he is a liar”) – Satan is a liar and “the” father of lies
John 8:48, οὐ καλῶς λέγομεν ἡμεῖς ὅτι Σαμαρίτης εἶ (“Did we not rightly say that you are a Samaritan”) – Here is a “definite” noun being used indefinitely with qualitative overtones
John 10:13, ὅτι μισθωτός ἐστιν (“because he is a hireling”)
John 12:6, ὅτι κλέπτης ἦν (“because he is [was] a thief”) – Judas, being a thief, had thieving qualities
Acts 17:7, βασιλέα ἕτερον λέγοντες εἶναι Ἰησοῦν (“saying Jesus is another king”) – ἕτερον helps make this indefinite
Acts 22:26, ὁ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος Ῥωμαῖός ἐστιν (“For the man is a Roman citizen”) – Paul is not “the” Roman citizen.
Ac 25:14, ἀνήρ τίς ἐστιν (“there is a man”) – Festus is letting King Agrippa know that there is a nondescript person whom he further describes, Paul.
Acts 28:4, φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος (“this man is a murderer”)
1 Corinthians 4:9, ὅτι θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ (“because we have become a spectacle to the world”) – Paul and the apostles are not “the” spectacle to the world but one such spectacle.
1 Corinthians 6:7, ἥττημα ὑμῖν ἐστιν (“it is a defeat for you”) – Going to court with brothers is not “the” defeat for the Corinthian believers (there were several), but “a” defeat, one among many in this congregation.
1 Corinthians 15:12, ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν “(there is not a resurrection from the dead”) – A declaration of some of the Corinthians is that there is not “a” resurrection, so they have been “resurrected” spiritually, a source of pride for them.
1 John 2:4, ὁ λέγων…ψεύστης ἐστίν (“the one who says…is a liar”)
Revelation 18:7, χήρα οὐκ εἰμὶ (“I am not a widow”)
=19 instances. 1

This is not expected in Colwell’s Rule (unless, again, it be argued that none of these examples
are of nouns that are already definite, something that doesn’t work well, however, for Matthew
22:42, John 8:48, Acts 17:7, or Acts 22:26), but happens nonetheless.

And what do we do with instances where the anarthrous predicate nominatives both precede
and follow the stative verb:

John 10:8, πάντες ὅσοι ἦλθον [πρὸ ἐμοῦ] κλέπται εἰσὶν καὶ λῃσταί (“Everyone who came before me a thief is and a robber”). We should have expected both these predicate nominatives to follow the verb because they are indefinite, and we cannot argue that the one preceding is definite or qualitative while the one following is indefinite.
Revelation 17:15, τὰ ὕδατα ἃ εἶδες…λαοὶ καὶ ὄχλοι εἰσὶν καὶ ἔθνη καὶ γλῶσσαι (“the waters that you saw peoples and multitudes are and nations and languages”). The predicate nominatives have the same character (indefinite, I would argue) but are not signaled by following the verb in each case. Colwell might argue that none of these nouns is considered inherently definite, but as we have argued, no noun can be considered inherently definite.

 

[The Learner]

What all this shows is that there is no hard and fast rule that can be applied when it comes to
making decisions about the definiteness, indefiniteness, or qualitativeness of the author’s intent
with anarthrous predicate nominatives. We are forced to make that decision based on other
factors than word order. And sometimes it is hard to make that decision.

Can the Author Intend More than One Meaning (Definite, Indefinite, or Qualitative) for an Anarthrous Predicate Nominative?

The answer to the question of whether an author can intend more than one meaning for an
anarthrous predicate nominative is: Of course! An author can intend any meaning. But the
concern is, with anarthrous predicate nominatives, whether the author’s intended meaning, if it
is somehow to include two or more meanings (definite, indefinite or qualitative) can be so
discerned without clear cues. Can an author intend to say “it was a Sabbath” and also mean “it
was the Sabbath”? He or she could, but how would this be signaled and what would be the point? And if the author intends contradictory meanings, what would be the point?

Someone advocating this possibility has written,

In the English sentence “Charles is a prince,” I can mean several possibilities, two of
which combine categories….

1) Charles is the son of a monarch (indefinite)
2) Charles is the son of a monarch and is also of princely character but I am emphasizing the group (indefinite and qualitative with indefinite emphasis)
3) Charles is of princely character and also happens to be a son of a monarch (qualitative and indefinite with qualitative emphasis)
4) Charles is a prince of a man and is not the son of a monarch (qualitative)

But what is striking here is that this advocate of multiple meanings or at least emphases, has to
tell us what he intends. Without seeing his statement in context we have no way of knowing
what he intends. A skillful writer could, in the context of his writing, signal us this multiple intent,
but there is always the possibility that the author’s intended meaning could not be determined
because we lack clear signals or satisfactory knowledge of the author’s perspective.

With the many examples given above where the clear likelihood of a definite, indefinite, or
qualitative anarthrous predicate nominative exists, there are also many hard to determine. For
example, when Mark writes in 2:28, κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου (“The
Son of Man is lord indeed of the Sabbath”), this could be conceived as qualitative (as I
translated it) or as definite (“The Son of Man is the Lord indeed of the Sabbath”) and either fits
well with what we know of Mark’s perspective. Could Mark have intended both. If Jesus is “the”
Lord of the Sabbath he is also easily lord, sovereign, of the Sabbath, and vice versa. To discern
whether Mark meant both, however, is not clearly signaled in any way and, in some ways, does
not matter. One needs pretty good arguments and evidence to substantiate an author’s dual or triple meaning.

And the Word was a god/the God/God

Of course, John 1:1 contains the most controversial predicate nominative of the New Testament. Is the Word “a” god, “the” God, or Godish (divine, deity)? The rejection of “a” god is easiest because this would necessitate that John conceive of Jesus in a way that throughout Scripture is almost exclusively meant in a negative way (the “gods” are demons, Deuteronomy 32, 1 Corinthians 10:20) rather than John’s clear attempt to display Jesus as “the” Son of God, the Son of Man of Daniel 7 who is equal to the Ancient of Days, and indeed as “the Lord of me and the God of me” (John 20:28).

There would seem to be an issue with seeing John’s intent as definite, “the” God, since this would perhaps make the Word not just divine but the same person with whom the Word was supposedly in fellowship with in the second part of the verse. It could lead to a modalistic view
of the Trinity. However, John has used the definite article on θεὸς in 20:28 in the mouth of
Thomas the apostle. Does he see Thomas as making an understandable error, but he records it anyway, or is he using Thomas’ declaration as his own? The latter seems more likely. The issue raised here may be akin to that of two Yahweh’s in the Old Testament (Genesis 19:24 being one instance), which to the careful theologian might suggest oneness of personality rather than substance, but clearly does not in the given instance. Supposing John to intend θεὸς as definite in John 1:1 does not seem insurmountable.

Conceiving of θεὸς as qualitative has no issues and would fit clearly in the intentions of John and his explanation in his Gospel about who Jesus is. It is simply a character of the English language that we don’t have an easy way to make “God” qualitative (I used “Godish,” which is clearly unsatisfactory, a coining of a word, and even that has issues, since “ish” often means less than an equality in our language). We shift to words like “the Word was divine,” or “the Word was deity.” Because these words might convey something less than fully God as to substance or essence, does not argue against the qualitative sense being used by John, only the inadequacy of our language. The qualitative sense makes sense on every level and does protect against a possible personality identification between the Father and the Son.

The Centurion’s Declaration

What about the Centurion’s declaration at Golgotha, about Jesus being “a” or “the” Son of God? It should be clear from this study that word order in his statement, ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος
(“Truly, this one was a/the Son of God,” in Matthew 27:54) or ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς ἦν θεοῦ (“Truly this man was a/the Son of God,” in Mark 15:39), isn’t the determiner in this matter. To know the speaker’s intended meaning is difficult. As a Roman we might suppose that he did not have a Jewish concept of “the” Son of God, but would rather think in terms of “a” son of God, a divine being. But we know that the Jews there at the cross were jeering at Jesus and mocking him with his own words, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ κατάβηθι ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ (“If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross,” Matthew 27:40) and πέποιθεν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, ῥυσάσθω νῦν εἰ θέλει αὐτόν· εἶπεν γὰρ ὅτι θεοῦ εἰμι υἱός (“He trusts in God, let Him deliver him now if He wants, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God,'” Matthew 27:43). They would not be mocking Jesus that he claimed to be “a” son of God. If the Centurion heard these words he might now see events of the cross as confirming that Jesus is “the” Son of God. So again, the decision comes down to what makes the most sense of the author’s intent.

Conclusion

It is the contention of this study that the author’s intent is always the basis for determining the
meaning of anarthrous (and even arthrous, in some cases) predicate nominatives in the New
Testament as to whether they are definite, indefinite or qualitative. There is no rule that necessitates one interpretation over another, but rather good, solid thinking and contextual
understanding that gets at the author’s intended meaning.

Predicate Nominatives in the New Testament

Predicate Nominatives in the New Testament and the “Problem” of John 1:1 and Other Passages A predicate nominative in the New Testament is, by definition, a noun in the nominative case that is link…

thimblefulloftheology.com

 

[The Learner]

Exegetical Insight on John 1:1c by Daniel Wallace

The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case—the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the...

www.puritanboard.com

This phrase is a stark statement of the deity of Christ. The Word was in His essence God; He had the proper essentials of deity. He in every sense had the qualities of God Himself. The Word was God’s own Self.

The word “God” is not preceded by a definite article (in English, “the”). There is no such thing as an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) in the Greek. If a Greek noun does not have a definite article (that is, the noun anarthrous), the idea expressed is a qualitative one. In other words, Jesus was God in quality. The indefiniteness of the word “God” attributes quality to the idea; that is, the Word held the quality of being God Himself.

 

[Illuminator]

You're stretching my brain, Learner. You posted a lot of deep stuff to chew on. What you have done is proven the New World Translation of John 1:1 is patently false. It wouldn't surprise me if Protestant scholar Daniel Wallace eventually converts to Catholicism.

 

[The Learner]

Hak Chol Kim, «The Worship of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew» biblica, Vol. 93 (2012) 227-241 page 227

The Gospel of Matthew can be characterized by its special emphasis on the worship of Jesus. In the scenes where Jesus is worshiped, Jesus was depicted as the king of the Jews, Christ/Messiah, the «I am» (e0gw/ ei0mi), and the Divine Being holding authority both in heaven and on earth, thus being...

www.bsw.org

en arch hn`o logoV, kai`o logoV hn proV ton qeon, kai qeoV hn`o logoV.

EN ARCHÊ ÊN hO LOGOS, KAI hO LOGOS ÊN PROS TON THEON, KAI THEOS ÊN hO LOGOS.

In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (the) God, and the Word was God.


ARCHÊ

• Beginning, origin in the abs[olute] sense (BAGD).
• 1 John has the phrases "that which was from the beginning" (1:1) and "he who was from the beginning" (2:13-14) for the Logos who has become perceptible to the disciples but is eternally preexistent, since it is God himself who here gives himself to us. "In the beginning" in Jn. 1:1 says this specifically of the Logos; the Logos is before all time, so that no temporal statements can be made about him. Eternal preexistence is plainly implied (TDNT).

ÊN ("was") is the indicative imperfect active form of the verb EIMI, signifying continuous or linear existence in past time. The contextual contrast is between ÊN and EGENETO ("to become"), the continuous preexistence of the LOGOS (v. 1) and the LOGOS becoming flesh at a specific point in time (v. 14). "In the beginning, the LOGOS already was."

The preexistence of the Word is strongly brought out by the phrase en arch hn`o logoV (en arche en ho logos, "in the beginning was the word"). Arch (arche) according to H. Bietenhard "is an important term in Gk. philosophy," which means, among other things, "starting point, original beginning" (DNTT, 1:164). By itself, this may not seem too significant, for few would debate that we are dealing with the "original beginning." It is the presence of the verb hn (en, "was") that brings out the importance of this phrase. Literally, it could and should be rendered "When the beginning began, the Word was already there." This is the sense of en which is in the imperfect tense and implies continuing existence in the past. So before the beginning began, the Word was already in existence. This is tantamount to saying that the Word predates time or Creation (EBC).

 

[The Learner]

PROS

• with the acc[usative] of a person, after verbs of remaining, dwelling, tarrying, etc. (which require one to be conceived of as always turned towards one)...after EIMI...Jn i.1 (Thayer).
• be (in company) with someone...J 1:1f (BAGD).
• a marker of association, often with the implication of interrelationships...'the Word was with God' Jn 1:1 (Louw & Nida)

Some commentators, such as JFB, above, see PROS in this verse as shorthand for the idiomatic expression PROSÔPON PROS PROSÔPON (literally "face to face", RWP, cf., Moulton). This seems view is given weight by the context, in which the Son is said to be "in the bosom of the Father" (v. 18), and thus in the ideal position to declare the Father to the world.

TON THEON, literally "the God," is in the accusative case, which makes this the direct object of the second clause (hO LOGOS is in the nominative, and is thus the subject). There is no difference in meaning between THEON here and THEOS in the next clause; they are the same word in different cases. The article TON (accusative form of hO) indicates a personal distinction. As Karl Rahner and others have noted, the articular form of THEOS in the New Testament usually refers to the Father (Rahner, p. 146; Harris, Jesus, p. 47). Thus, saying "the Word was with (the) God" is the same as saying "the Word was with the Father."

 

[The Learner]

THEOS ÊN HO LOGOS. The first task of the translator faced with this clause is to determine the subject. In most sentences or clauses (such as John 1:1b), the noun in the nominative case is the subject. The noun in the accusative case is the direct object. However, in Greek, "copulative" verbs (generally a form of "to be" or "to become") take the nominative case, not the accusative. Technically, a copulative verb does not ascribe an action, but predicates something about the subject. The "object" of a copulative verb, therefore, is called the "Predicate Nominative (PN)," not the direct object. As we have seen, ÊN is a form of the verb "to be." Therefore, both THEOS and LOGOS are in the nominative case - one is the subject and the other the PN. In such cases, if one noun has the article and the other does not, the noun with the article is the subject (see Dana and Mantey, p. 148; McGaughy, p. 50; etc.). Thus, hO LOGOS is the subject of the sentence; THEOS is the PN. "The Word was God," not "God was the Word." While the latter is not impossible from the standpoint of pure grammar, McGaughy's study makes it highly unlikely.

So, John is telling us something about the LOGOS - that He is THEOS. The $64,000 question, then, is what does John mean by this? Since THEOS is anarthrous, does he mean that the Word was "a god" (indefinite)? Or does he mean that the Word is God (definite)? Or does he mean that the Word has all the qualities and attributes of God (qualitative)? To answer this essential question, we will need to review how several prominent grammarians have viewed this issue.

Pre-Colwell
Before E.C. Colwell wrote his landmark study (see below), many scholars viewed THEOS in John 1:1c as qualitative:

• "It is necessarily without the article (qeoV not`o qeoV) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the WOrd and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sebellianism to say 'the Word was o qeoV" (Westcott).
• "`o qeoV hn`o logoV (convertible terms) would have been pure Sabellianism.... The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea" (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767-768).
• "QeoV hn`o logoV emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature" (Dana and Mantey, p. 140).
• "QeoV without the article signifies divine essence, or the generic idea of God in distinction from man and angel; as sarx, ver. 14, signifies the human essence or nature of the Logos" (Lange)
• "QeoV sine artic. essentialieter, cum artic. personaliter" (Chemnitz).
• "QeoV must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence, not`o qeoV ,'the Father,' in Person....as in sarx egeneto [John 1:14], sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in qeoV hn, qeoV expresses that essence which was His - that He was very God. So that this verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity, - was with God (the Father), - and was Himself God" (Alford).

 

[The Learner]

It is important to note that these scholars did not use the term "qualitative" to describe their view of THEOS in John 1:1c. Prior to Phillip B. Harner's study of qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns (see below), "qualitative" nouns were viewed more or less as indefinite nouns. These scholars would probably have described THEOS as definite, but not as a convertible term with hO THEOS in John 1:1b. Indeed, Julius Mantey, in his famous letter to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, cites Colwell's study as 'proving' that THEOS in 1:1c is definite, though it is clear from what he wrote in his Manual Grammar several years before that by this he does not see definiteness as requiring convertibility. Convertible terms are 100% equivalent, such as "Jesus" and "Son of God" in this sentence: "Jesus is the Son of God." We can reverse the terms without changing the meaning: "The Son of God is Jesus." If THEOS in 1:1c is convertible with hO LOGOS, John would be teaching that the LOGOS is 100% equivalent to the hO THEOS of 1:1b, which would be conducive to some form of Modalism.1

These scholars all argue that the anarthrous PN preceding the copulative verb stresses the nature of THEOS. As we will see, this is precisely the way later scholars described a "qualitative" noun - one that stresses the qualities, attributes, or nature of the noun.

Colwell's Rule
In 1933, E.C. Colwell published his now famous study of the use of the article with PNs occurring both before and after the verb. Colwell began by identifying a number of PNs that he believed were definite by virtue of the context. He then performed a statistical analysis of their occurrence - either before or after the verb - and with the article or without. He found that 87% of definite PNs before the verb occurred without the article. He "tentatively" offers a rule that, in part, stipulates: "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article" (Colwell, p. 20). Colwell reasons:

But it is in the realm of translation and interpretation that the data presented here have their most valuable application. They show that a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a "qualitative" noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article (IBID, p. 20).

Thus, Colwell's study indicates that THEOS in John 1:1c should not be translated as an indefinite noun solely on the basis of the absence of the article. Colwell, like most grammarians prior to Harner (see below), considered "qualitative" nouns to be more or less equivalent to indefinite nouns. Recall, though, that Colwell studied only nouns that he had identified as definite based on the context - he did not study all nouns in the New Testament. Thus, some scholars have questioned Colwell's further application of his rule:

Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have decreased the definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article.

The opening verse of John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. Kai qeoV hn`o logoV looks much more like "And the Word was God" than "And the Word was divine" when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas (IBID, p. 21).

Based on his data gathered from known definite nouns, Colwell extrapolated that more or less the same statistical balance would prove true with nouns that were exegetically questionable. As we shall see below, subsequent studies have called this extrapolation into question, particularly those that emphasize qualitativeness as a semantic force independent of definiteness or indefiniteness.

 

[The Learner]

At the same time, the vast majority of commentators (e.g., Carson) and some grammarians (e.g., Metzger) have accepted Colwell's conclusions regarding John 1:1, as has at least one major study (see Lane McGaughy, below). As with their earlier counterparts, these more recent scholars do not perceive definiteness as requiring convertibility, but rather emphasize that the nature of THEOS is ascribed to the Word: "The 'Word does not Himself make up the entire Godhead; nevertheless the divinity that belongs to the rest of the Godhead belongs also to Him'" (Tasker, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 45, quoted in Carson, p. 117). They are thus not far semantically or exegetically from those who argue for a qualitative or qualitative-definite semantic force for THEOS in 1:1c.

Maximilian Zerwick
Zerwick's introductory grammar first appeared in Latin in 1944. A revised and expanded edition was published in 1960, and an English translation with further additions followed three years later. Zerwick admits that Colwell has presented "not a few persuasive examples" that definite nouns preceding the verb usually appear without the article, but he cautions: "[Colwell's] theory has its appeal, but it is not easy to admit that the reason for this use of the article it to be found in a circumstance (order of words) which seems to belong to an altogether different category' (Zerwick, p. 56), Zerwick echoes other grammarians in viewing nouns without the article as being primarily qualitative:

The omission of the article shows that the speaker regards the person or thing not so much as this or that person or thing, but rather as such a person or thing, i.e. regards not the individual but rather nature or quality. (Zerwick, p. 55, emphasis in original).

Zerwick conflates qualitative and indefinite nouns into a single category and places THEOS in John 1:1c in that category:

for in the nature of things, the predicate commonly refers not to an individual or individuals as such, but to the class to which the subject belongs, to the nature or quality predicated of the subject; e.g. Jo 1,1 kai qeoV hn`o logoV, which attributes to the Word the divine nature (`o qeoV en`o logoV, at least in NT usage, would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father, since the latter is`o qeoV ) (IBID).

In fact, this one mention of "class" is the only time Zerwick may be inferred to understand indefiniteness to be present in an anarthrous noun at all. His entire discussion of the non-use of the article centers on the qualitative aspects ascribed to the subject. Thus, for Zerwick, nouns are either definite or qualitative, and membership in a class is secondary to the attributes, characteristics, or qualities ascribed to the subject when the author omits the article.

Blass, Debrunner, and Funk
The Blass and Debrunner grammar, translated and revised by Robert Funk, generally endorses Colwell's study, but notes: "[Colwell] deals only with sentences in which the verb appears and only with nouns that are unambiguously definite" (BDF, p. 143). The latter point will be developed in greater detail by Dixon (see below) with regard to the application of Colwell's Rule and John 1:1c. Blass and Debrunner have little to say about predicate nouns that lack the article, but in reference to Mark 7:15 remark: "the idea which runs through the whole discourse is that there really is something which produces this effect, and this given category is now referred to a particular subject" (IBID). Thus, it may be inferred that Blass and Debrunner view anarthrous nouns in much the same was as Zerwick, primarily ascribing qualities or characteristics to the subject rather than membership in a class (the category itself is "referred" to the subject - the subject is not said to be placed in the category).

Lane McGaughy
McGaughy's published dissertation on the use of the Greek verb EINAI ("to be") has been widely recognized for its thoroughness. McGaughy examines Colwell's statistics and finds several of the "exceptions" to his rule that Colwell noted are, in fact, not exceptions at all. Thus several scholars have recognized McGaughy as supporting Colwell's conclusion that THEOS in John 1:1c is definite (e.g., Carson, p. 137) or has even given it greater weight (e.g., Grudem, p. 234, n. 12 ). McGaughy says that John 1:1 "should be translated 'And the Word was God' rather than 'And the Word was divine'" (McGaughy, p. 77). He cites Zerwick approvingly: "A noun preceding the verb and lacking the article should not be regarded as 'qualitative' on the mere grounds of the absence of the article" (IBID). Interestingly, McGaughy has not, to my knowledge, addressed Harner's article (which appeared one year after McGaughy's study), which distinguishes between a qualitative meaning and the weaker adjectival "divine" that McGaughy argues against.

 

[The Learner]

Phillip B. Harner
The impact of Phillip B. Harner's study of qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns on the interpretation of John 1:1 cannot be overemphasized. Harner noted that "Colwell was almost entirely concerned with the question whether anarthrous predicate nouns were definite or indefinite, and he did not discuss at any length the problem of their qualitative significance" (Harner, p. 76). Again, Colwell, like most older grammarians, saw qualitative nouns as more or less the same as indefinite nouns.

Harner argues that qualitativeness should be considered a semantic force in its own right:

This study will suggest that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject, and this qualitative significance may be more important that the question whether the predicate noun itself should be regarded as definite or indefinite (IBID, p. 75).

Harner says that qualitativeness may coexist with either a definite or indefinite semantic force. Though not explicitly stated, a close reading also indicates that he believed qualitativeness may exist by itself. When considering Mark 12:35, Harner says, "the predicate noun could be interpreted as defininte, indefinite, or qualitative, depending on the particular meaning or emphasis which we understand the passage to have" (IBID, p. 79).

Harner found that 80% of anarthrous pre-verbal PNs in Mark and John are qualitative and 20% are definite. None are exclusively indefinite, which supports Colwell's conclusion as well. Harner notes that some qualitative nouns, such as HAMARTÔLOS ("sinner") in John 8:31, though best translated with the indefinite article due to English idiom, should actually be considered qualitative:

Again the qualitative aspect of the predicate is most prominent; they [the Jews] think that Jesus has the nature or character of one who is "sinner." There is no basis for regarding the predicate as definite, although in this instance we would probably use the indefinite article in English translation (IBID, p. 83).

Harner stresses that when considering whether a pre-verbal predicate noun is definite, indefinite, or qualitative, it is important to consider how the writer might have expressed his intentions using another, and possibly less ambiguous, syntax as well as what he actually wrote. Thus, with John 1:1c, Harner notes the following possibilities:

A. hO LOGOS ÊN hO THEOS
B. THEOS ÊN hO LOGOS
C. hO LOGOS THEOS ÊN
D. hO LOGOS ÊN THEOS
E. hO LOGOS ÊN THEIOS

Clause A, with an arthrous predicate, would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no ho theos which is not also ho logos. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of 1:1, in which John writes that`o logoV hn proV ton qeon. This clause suggests relationship, and thus some form of "personal" differentiation, between the two (IBID, p. 84-85).

So, Harner, in agreement with Robertson, Dana & Mantey, and most other scholars cited above, notes that if both THEOS and LOGOS were articular, the two terms would be convertible. Since John did not use this syntax, his intended meaning must be something else. Harner continues:

Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous 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. Clause E would be an attenuated form of D. It would mean that the logos was "divine," without specifying further in what way or to what extent it was divine. It could also imply that the logos, being only theios, was subordinate to theos (IBID).

Thus, Harner notes that had John wished to express the idea that the LOGOS was "a god," or a divine being distinct from hO THEOS, he had at least two unambiguous ways of doing so. Since he did not, we may conclude that John in all likelihood chose the syntax he did because he wished to express something else with regard to the LOGOS.

Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. This would make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they would then contradict the preceding clause of 1:1 (IBID).

Note here that Harner equates a definite semantic force in a pre-verbal PN without the article to an articular noun. He sees both forms as examples of a convertible proposition. This is the major point of contention between scholars who regard THEOS in 1:1c as definite as opposed to those who see it as qualitative. Scholars on both sides interpret this clause in more or less the same way, as Harner himself notes: "In many cases their [commentators'] interpretations agree with the explanation that is given above" (IBID). Those who agree with Harner reject a definite force because they view it as semantically the same as a convertible proposition, which would present problems with regard to the previous clause (1:1b). Those who view THEOS as definite believe the absence of the article precludes the possibility of convertibility. Yet both generally agree that the meaning of 1:1c is as Harner himself translates it: "The Word had the same nature as God" (IBID, p. 87).

Harner continues:

As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would imply in B or C that they share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos. Clauses B and C are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis. C would mean that the logos (rather than something else) had the nature of theos. B means that the logos had the nature of theos (rather than something else). In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis (IBID, p. 85).

Thus, Harner says that not only is John attributing the nature of THEOS to the LOGOS, but emphasizes that nature by placing THEOS at the head of the clause. The emphasis of THEOS would seem unaccountable if John intended an indefinite nuance, but is perfectly understandable if THEOS is qualitative, signifying that the Son's nature is that of God.

Paul Dixon
Dixon's study is the first of several to challenge the popular application of Colwell's rule. Dixon notes that Colwell's data begins with definite PNs and demonstrates that these usually lack the article. However, those using the rule to "prove" that THEOS in John 1:1c is definite (including Colwell himself!) are not actually citing Colwell's rule, but it's converse:

The rule does not say: an anarthrous predicate nominative which precedes the verb is definite. This is the converse of Colwell's rule and as such is not a valid inference....from the statement "Definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb are anarthrous," it is not valid to infer "Anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb are definite" (Dixon, pp. 11-12).

Colwell himself affirmed that the converse of the rule was as valid as the rule itself, and said that anarthrous pre-verbal PNs would normally be definite (Wallace, p. 259). Like Harner, Dixon considers qualitativeness a semantic force in addition to definiteness and indefiniteness. While Harner says that qualitativeness may exist either independently or along with definiteness or indefiniteness, Dixon argues that only one of these three semantic forces is the author's intended meaning in any given instance:

The whole notion that a noun can have two or more simultaneous nuances as used in a particular context is rather like saying a word can have two or more simultaneous meanings when used in a particular context. There is no question that a word can have two or more meanings, but when it is actually used by an author it almost always has a particular meaning, unless he is intentionally employing a double entendre (perhaps like KEFALÊN in 1 Cor 11:5). Likewise, we can assume an author has a particular nuance of a noun being used and is not intentionally being ambiguous so as to confuse the reader (Dixon, message posted on b-greek discussion list on the Internet, Friday, March 2, 2001).

 

[The Learner]

Dixon's statistical methodology, unlike Colwells', was to begin with anarthrous PNs (as opposed to only examining those PNs that were definite), and determine the semantic force of each. His statistical analysis substantiates Harner's findings: "When the anarthrous predicate nominative precedes the verb it is qualitative in 50 of 53 occurrences, or 94% probability" (Dixon). Dixon concludes:

We may conclude three things about John 1:1. First, Colwell's rule cannot be applied to the verse as an argument for definiteness. Colwell's rule says that definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are anarthrous. The rule says nothing about definiteness. It does not say that anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are definite. This is the converse of the rule, and as such is not necessarily valid. Indeed, our thesis demonstrates just the opposite, that anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are qualitative, 94% of occurrences. Second, on the basis of the contrast with 1:14 (where the humanity of Christ is stressed), we conclude that THEOS in 1:1c stresses quality. Third, this thesis demonstrates that the statistical probability for THEOS being qualitative, rather than definite or indefinite, is quite high, 94% (IBID).

Daniel B. Wallace
In his intermediate Greek grammar, Wallace accepts Harner's definition of the qualitative semantic force, and provides a number of examples outside of John 1:1. Wallace, like Harner, advocates qualitativeness as a separate semantic category, either coexisting alongside definite or indefinite semantic forces or existing by itself. Citing Harner and Dixon, Wallace concludes that THEOS in John 1:1 is qualitative, and finds the indefinite semantic force the least likely for preverbal predicate nominatives. Though Wallace says that "the Word was divine" may be an acceptable translation, this is only acceptable if we define "divine" in such a way that it is only applied to true Deity. The import of the qualitative force goes well beyond what we commonly would refer to as "divine" in contemporary usage:

The idea of qualitative qeoV here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that "the God" (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father (Wallace, p. 269, emphasis in original).

Don Hartley
One of the possible objections to Wallace's advocacy of qualitativeness as by far the most likely semantic force (apart from a concurrent definite or indefinite nuance) is that most of the examples he provides are "mass" nouns. Mass nouns are those that cannot be semantically indefinitized or pluralized (that is, that cannot be used with the indefinite article, and for which there is no plural form). "Flesh," is a mass term - we would not say "a flesh," nor "fleshes." A "count" noun, on the other hand, is a noun that can be used with the indefinite article and for which there is a plural form. "Dog" is a count noun - we can say "a dog," or "dogs." Simply put, a count noun is something that can be counted; a mass term is one that cannot. We can count dogs but not flesh. Some have argued that mass terms differ dramatically from count terms in the semantic force they can convey (it is sometimes argued that count terms must always be definite or indefinite and that there is no such thing as a "qualitative count noun").2 Because it is generally conceded that mass terms can exude a qualitative force, it has been argued that the statistical analyses of Harner and Dixon are weighed unfairly towards qualitative nouns, particularly when applying those statistics to THEOS, which is a count noun.

Don Hartley, a student of Dan Wallace's and research assistant on Wallace's grammar, wrote his Master's of Theology thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary on the topic of Colwell's Construction and mass / count nouns. He also published a paper derived from his thesis. Hartley's methodology is to examine every example of Colwell's Construction in the Greek New Testament. Hartley purposely leaves controversial or questionable nouns out of this sample. He then eliminates all factors that would unfairly weigh the sample towards one semantic force, such as mass terms. He carefully identifies all potential semantic forces - following Wallace, Hartley advocates qualitativeness as either a standalone semantic force, or as one that can coexist alongside definite or indefinite forces. He notes that all mass terms exude a purely qualitative force (John 1:14, for example, does not teach that the Logos became The Flesh or a flesh, but rather "flesh," signifying that all the Logos possesses all the qualities or attributes of "flesh"). He therefore concludes that qualitativeness is a valid semantic category apart from definiteness or indefiniteness, and argues that this force may be applied equally to mass or count terms.

Hartley's results demonstrate that in John's Gospel, a preverbal PN is usually qualitative (56%), as opposed to definite (11%), indefinite (17%), or qualitative-indefinite (17%). He concludes that from the standpoint of pure statistical analysis, THEOS in John 1:1c is most likely qualitative: "Thus, Jesus is God in every sense the Father is" (Hartley, p. 40).

Conclusion
While the scholars we have considered have some differences with regard to the applicability of Colwell's Rule to John 1:1c and the particular semantic force of THEOS in this clause, they are unanimous in regarding the proper understanding of John's meaning: The Word has all the qualities, attributes, or nature of God, the same God referenced in the previous clause. The absence of the article, all agree, is purposeful; John intends to remove any possibility of a convertible proposition. The definite article signifies a personal distinction, thus the Person of God is in view in John 1:1b. The absence of the article signifies that the nature or essence of God is in view in 1:1c. John is not teaching that the Logos is the same Person as the Father. Nor, do the scholars believe, is John teaching that the Logos is a second god. All agree that the indefinite semantic force is unlikely.

It is my view that those who argue that the definite semantic force would signify a convertible proposition have the best case (but, see note #2, below). The purely qualitative nuance is well-attested in the Greek New Testament3, as has been demonstrated by Harner, Dixon, Wallace, and Hartley. The latter has demonstrated its application to both mass and count terms, and thus its application to THEOS in John 1:1c. It is important to note that even those scholars who maintain that THEOS is definite nevertheless argue that the significance of John's words are virtually identical with those who argue for a qualitative nuance.

Based on the evidence presented here, we may confidently take John's meaning as:

"In the beginning of all creation, the Word was already in existence. The Word was intimately with God. And the Word was as to His essence, fully God."4

 

[The Learner]

You're stretching my brain, Learner.

Oh Yeah,

 

[Illuminator]

Why isn't the Trinity symbol deleted from the header? Oh, I forgot. Anti-Catholics don't answer simple questions. They try to get around the fact that the universal doctrine of the Trinity was developed by Catholics, as explained in my signature.

 

[Peterlag]

It also doesn't say He's not. The Bible only says what the Bible says. And, again, the Bible says that not everything Jesus did and taught is IN the Bible.

The English language is no longer a tool for communication when conversing with you because no matter what facts and logic I may come up with. You are now saying it may be what was not written.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Why isn't the Trinity symbol deleted from the header? Oh, I forgot. Anti-Catholics don't answer simple questions. They try to get around the fact that the universal doctrine of the Trinity was developed by Catholics, as explained in my signature.

God being a 3 part being has nothing to do with the catholics.

 

[Peterlag]

God being a 3 part being has nothing to do with the catholics.

A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.

It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Augustin56]

The English language is no longer a tool for communication when conversing with you because no matter what facts and logic I may come up with. You are now saying it may be what was not written.

Well, just a side note, but the original Bible wasn't written in English. I hope you know that.

My point, which it seems I failed to make with you (my fault), is that there are two expressions of the Word of God (the Word of God is not a book, but Someone, namely, Jesus Christ). One is Written Tradition and one is Oral Tradition (see 2 Thes 2:15). The New Testament was taken from the Oral Tradition (oral teachings of the Church given her by Christ). SOME of what was taught orally was eventually written down. And it was the Catholic Church that Jesus created that preceded the New Testament, not vice versa.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries

A study of God's original text reveals... God has said of Himself He is Father, Word, Spirit all along.

One need to simply decide do they want to agree with the Lord, or accuse Him of being a liar

That is the only question at hand...

 

[The Learner]

The English language is no longer a tool for communication when conversing with you because no matter what facts and logic I may come up with. You are now saying it may be what was not written.

John 21:25
Jesus also did many other things. If people wrote about all those things, there would be very many books. I do not think that the whole world would have enough room for all those books.