-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
Old Hermit, this looks like a great book. Have you read it?
Refuting Compromise by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D, F.M.
Creation Ministries (Australia)
Refuting Compromise by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D, F.M.
Creation Ministries (Australia)
Bowman, Here is what I believe is the first time I posted that material.
oldhermit
Senior Member
Join DateJuly 28th, 2012Age59Posts1,784 Rep Power10
Re: Is Jesus God?
Originally Posted by kenisyes
I agree with that too. The problem pivots on "virtually". I guess my math training makes me want tighter proofs. And there is the problem of people questioning this so much the last couple of decades.
Very well. Let us engage in a little Greek exegesis of John 1:1.
These arguments and comments do not originate with me. I have them from a professor of New Testament Greek. I have taken the liberty to rework some of the arguments and added some of my own comments and observations.
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
There are a couple things you need to know about Greek syntax in order to understand what John is really saying in this verse. First, Koine Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase. The absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal, and doesn't mean anything. It is the INCLUSION of the article in a prepositional phrase that is unusual, and thus, means something.
The prepositional phrase "εν αρχη" doesn't contain an article, but is still properly translated "in the beginning." The prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον," however, does include the article (τον). Since it was proper not to include it, the INCLSION then of the article here means something. In general, the inclusion of an article when it is not expected means you are being specific about a particular individual who is God. In order to fully understand how that effects this verse, we need to go to the last clause. To understand the implications of the last clause, you need to understand Greek syntax. First, Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. In general, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative case. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative case. However, there is a strange class of verbs that do not take a direct object, they take a predicate. There are three verbs that do this in Koine Greek. This means that you have two nouns that are the same case (nominative), where one is the subject, and one is the predicate. So if both are in the same case, how do you know which is the subject, and which is the predicate?
Here are the rules: Notice, I said these are rules. You can't ignore them, you can't change them, you can't remove them, and you can't add to them!
1. If both nouns have the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
2. If NEITHER noun has the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
3. If one has an article, but the other does not, then the one WITH the article is the subject, and the one without the article is the predicate.
So in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus, o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate.
When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first. English has syntactical rules that must be followed as well. So, this is properly translated "And the word was God."
Now, there are THREE things this could mean (depending on the construction): Now pay attention because it is critical that this is understood.
a. The word was a LESSER god than the Father who is the τον θεον in the previous clause)
b. The word was the father.
c. The word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god." That is, the word was a LESSER god than the father. The reason being is that since λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article OFF of θεος, thus the absence of the article means something (since even if we gave it the article, it would STILL be the predicate). Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the MEANING of θεος.
The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would NOT change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father.
Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος is being “de-emphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" can ONLY mean "the Word was a god." BUT, John did NOT use this construction. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean "the word was THEGod." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two, and there would then be no trinity. The Father and the Son are nothing more than manifestations of the SAME GOD. They are NOT separate individuals. There is one God who simply "appears" at times in different forms. This would then lend support to the monotheist argument. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically LOCKED into occuring AFTER λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It MUST appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." BUT, John did NOT use this construction.
By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does TWO critical and clearly indicated things. First, he leaves the article OFF of θεος, thus indicating that word is NOT the same individual as the father. Second, he pops θεος to the front of the clause, placing extra emphasis on that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the INCREASE in emphasis, that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same INDIVIDUAL as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much GOD as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us the θεος of the third clause is NOT the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation
point: The Word was God!
Now we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is WITH a SPECIFIC being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely EQUAL with "The God" in divinity, but through the careful use of the articles, has clued us in that the Word is not the SAME individual as "The God."
One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that λογος means “the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God” and
nothing more. It is argued that λογος is NOT an individual, it is just a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” of God (this was a common philosophy of the Gnostics). Thus, the λογος was not an individual, but the wisdom of God. So Jesus was not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God, made flesh. That means He did not EXIST prior to His birth (as God). Prior to his physical birth, He was merely an IDEA, a PLAN in the MIND of God and that IDEA became a man.
John makes this interpretation completely absurd with the statement “ο λογος ην προς τον θεον” (the Word was WITH God).
Further, προς emphasizes AGREEMENT WITH, not necessarily location or proximity. You see, if the λογος is JUST the mind, intelligence, wisdom or plan of God, it can’t be anything OTHER than with Him. If the λογος is the intelligence of God, then by definition it HAS to be with Him, which makes “the Word was WITH God” a completely pointless statement.
It is the equivalent of saying, “My spinal cord, brain cells, and nerves are with me today.” Since, if you are alive, they can’t be anything other than with you, not only have you given no information, you have implied something that is not true. By making that statement, you are implying that there might be a situation in which they could be somewhere else other than with you. Yet John makes it crystal clear that his choice of words was not an accident. He places extra emphasis on the fact that the λογος was WITH God by RESTATING it in the second verse: “And this one was in the beginning WITH God.” ουτος references the subject of the previous sentence, which was λογος in all three clauses. Thus, John is making a statement that can ONLY be interpreted as meaning the λογος is an individual who is somehow the ultimate summation of the wisdom of God. By stating TWICE that the λογος was WITH God, John makes it clear that the fact that the Word is WITH God was a CHOICE. It takes a real, living individual to make a choice. Not only is this individual with God, He is also God Himself. That means Jesus DID exist prior to His birth (as He reveals Himself in John 17:5) “Father, glorify me with yourself, with the glory I had with you before the world was.”).
John's construction is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With these seventeen words of verse one, he wrote a sentence that took me all of this space to explain. John leaves us only ONE option: Jesus is completely and totally God in every way that the Father is God, but Jesus is NOT the same individual as the Father.
NOBODY WRITES LIKE THE HOLY SPIRIT!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you and I have just had our last conversation. We have nothing more to say to one another.......ever!
oldhermit
I agree with that too. The problem pivots on "virtually". I guess my math training makes me want tighter proofs. And there is the problem of people questioning this so much the last couple of decades.
Very well. Let us engage in a little Greek exegesis of John 1:1.
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
There are a couple things you need to know about Greek syntax in order to understand what John is really saying in this verse. First, Koine Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase. The absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal, and doesn't mean anything. It is the INCLUSION of the article in a prepositional phrase that is unusual, and thus, means something.
The prepositional phrase "εν αρχη" doesn't contain an article, but is still properly translated "in the beginning." The prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον," however, does include the article (τον). Since it was proper not to include it, the INCLSION then of the article here means something. In general, the inclusion of an article when it is not expected means you are being specific about a particular individual who is God. In order to fully understand how that effects this verse, we need to go to the last clause. To understand the implications of the last clause, you need to understand Greek syntax. First, Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. In general, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative case. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative case. However, there is a strange class of verbs that do not take a direct object, they take a predicate. There are three verbs that do this in Koine Greek. This means that you have two nouns that are the same case (nominative), where one is the subject, and one is the predicate. So if both are in the same case, how do you know which is the subject, and which is the predicate?
Here are the rules: Notice, I said these are rules. You can't ignore them, you can't change them, you can't remove them, and you can't add to them!
1. If both nouns have the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
2. If NEITHER noun has the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
3. If one has an article, but the other does not, then the one WITH the article is the subject, and the one without the article is the predicate.
So in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus, o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate.
When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first. English has syntactical rules that must be followed as well. So, this is properly translated "And the word was God."
Now, there are THREE things this could mean (depending on the construction): Now pay attention because it is critical that this is understood.
a. The word was a LESSER god than the Father who is the τον θεον in the previous clause)
b. The word was the father.
c. The word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god." That is, the word was a LESSER god than the father. The reason being is that since λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article OFF of θεος, thus the absence of the article means something (since even if we gave it the article, it would STILL be the predicate). Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the MEANING of θεος.
The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would NOT change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father.
Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος is being “de-emphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" can ONLY mean "the Word was a god." BUT, John did NOT use this construction. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean "the word was THEGod." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two, and there would then be no trinity. The Father and the Son are nothing more than manifestations of the SAME GOD. They are NOT separate individuals. There is one God who simply "appears" at times in different forms. This would then lend support to the monotheist argument. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically LOCKED into occuring AFTER λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It MUST appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." BUT, John did NOT use this construction.
By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does TWO critical and clearly indicated things. First, he leaves the article OFF of θεος, thus indicating that word is NOT the same individual as the father. Second, he pops θεος to the front of the clause, placing extra emphasis on that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the INCREASE in emphasis, that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same INDIVIDUAL as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much GOD as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us the θεος of the third clause is NOT the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation
point: The Word was God!
Now we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is WITH a SPECIFIC being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely EQUAL with "The God" in divinity, but through the careful use of the articles, has clued us in that the Word is not the SAME individual as "The God."
One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that λογος means “the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God” and
nothing more. It is argued that λογος is NOT an individual, it is just a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” of God (this was a common philosophy of the Gnostics). Thus, the λογος was not an individual, but the wisdom of God. So Jesus was not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God, made flesh. That means He did not EXIST prior to His birth (as God). Prior to his physical birth, He was merely an IDEA, a PLAN in the MIND of God and that IDEA became a man.
John makes this interpretation completely absurd with the statement “ο λογος ην προς τον θεον” (the Word was WITH God).
Further, προς emphasizes AGREEMENT WITH, not necessarily location or proximity. You see, if the λογος is JUST the mind, intelligence, wisdom or plan of God, it can’t be anything OTHER than with Him. If the λογος is the intelligence of God, then by definition it HAS to be with Him, which makes “the Word was WITH God” a completely pointless statement.
It is the equivalent of saying, “My spinal cord, brain cells, and nerves are with me today.” Since, if you are alive, they can’t be anything other than with you, not only have you given no information, you have implied something that is not true. By making that statement, you are implying that there might be a situation in which they could be somewhere else other than with you. Yet John makes it crystal clear that his choice of words was not an accident. He places extra emphasis on the fact that the λογος was WITH God by RESTATING it in the second verse: “And this one was in the beginning WITH God.” ουτος references the subject of the previous sentence, which was λογος in all three clauses. Thus, John is making a statement that can ONLY be interpreted as meaning the λογος is an individual who is somehow the ultimate summation of the wisdom of God. By stating TWICE that the λογος was WITH God, John makes it clear that the fact that the Word is WITH God was a CHOICE. It takes a real, living individual to make a choice. Not only is this individual with God, He is also God Himself. That means Jesus DID exist prior to His birth (as He reveals Himself in John 17:5) “Father, glorify me with yourself, with the glory I had with you before the world was.”).
John's construction is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With these seventeen words of verse one, he wrote a sentence that took me all of this space to explain. John leaves us only ONE option: Jesus is completely and totally God in every way that the Father is God, but Jesus is NOT the same individual as the Father.
NOBODY WRITES LIKE THE HOLY SPIRIT!
I think you and I have just had our last conversation. We have nothing more to say to one another.......ever!
K
Bowman, Here is what I believe is the first time I posted that material.
oldhermit
Senior Member
Join DateJuly 28th, 2012Age59Posts1,784 Rep Power10
Re: Is Jesus God?
These arguments and comments do not originate with me. I have them from a professor of New Testament Greek. I have taken the liberty to rework some of the arguments and added some of my own comments and observations.
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
There are a couple things you need to know about Greek syntax in order to understand what John is really saying in this verse. First, Koine Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase. The absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal, and doesn't mean anything. It is the INCLUSION of the article in a prepositional phrase that is unusual, and thus, means something.
The prepositional phrase "εν αρχη" doesn't contain an article, but is still properly translated "in the beginning." The prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον," however, does include the article (τον). Since it was proper not to include it, the INCLSION then of the article here means something. In general, the inclusion of an article when it is not expected means you are being specific about a particular individual who is God. In order to fully understand how that effects this verse, we need to go to the last clause. To understand the implications of the last clause, you need to understand Greek syntax. First, Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. In general, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative case. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative case. However, there is a strange class of verbs that do not take a direct object, they take a predicate. There are three verbs that do this in Koine Greek. This means that you have two nouns that are the same case (nominative), where one is the subject, and one is the predicate. So if both are in the same case, how do you know which is the subject, and which is the predicate?
Here are the rules: Notice, I said these are rules. You can't ignore them, you can't change them, you can't remove them, and you can't add to them!
1. If both nouns have the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
2. If NEITHER noun has the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
3. If one has an article, but the other does not, then the one WITH the article is the subject, and the one without the article is the predicate.
So in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus, o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate.
When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first. English has syntactical rules that must be followed as well. So, this is properly translated "And the word was God."
Now, there are THREE things this could mean (depending on the construction): Now pay attention because it is critical that this is understood.
a. The word was a LESSER god than the Father who is the τον θεον in the previous clause)
b. The word was the father.
c. The word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god." That is, the word was a LESSER god than the father. The reason being is that since λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article OFF of θεος, thus the absence of the article means something (since even if we gave it the article, it would STILL be the predicate). Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the MEANING of θεος.
The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would NOT change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father.
Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος is being “de-emphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" can ONLY mean "the Word was a god." BUT, John did NOT use this construction. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean "the word was THEGod." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two, and there would then be no trinity. The Father and the Son are nothing more than manifestations of the SAME GOD. They are NOT separate individuals. There is one God who simply "appears" at times in different forms. This would then lend support to the monotheist argument. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically LOCKED into occuring AFTER λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It MUST appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." BUT, John did NOT use this construction.
By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does TWO critical and clearly indicated things. First, he leaves the article OFF of θεος, thus indicating that word is NOT the same individual as the father. Second, he pops θεος to the front of the clause, placing extra emphasis on that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the INCREASE in emphasis, that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same INDIVIDUAL as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much GOD as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us the θεος of the third clause is NOT the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation
point: The Word was God!
Now we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is WITH a SPECIFIC being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely EQUAL with "The God" in divinity, but through the careful use of the articles, has clued us in that the Word is not the SAME individual as "The God."
One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that λογος means “the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God” and
nothing more. It is argued that λογος is NOT an individual, it is just a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” of God (this was a common philosophy of the Gnostics). Thus, the λογος was not an individual, but the wisdom of God. So Jesus was not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God, made flesh. That means He did not EXIST prior to His birth (as God). Prior to his physical birth, He was merely an IDEA, a PLAN in the MIND of God and that IDEA became a man.
John makes this interpretation completely absurd with the statement “ο λογος ην προς τον θεον” (the Word was WITH God).
Further, προς emphasizes AGREEMENT WITH, not necessarily location or proximity. You see, if the λογος is JUST the mind, intelligence, wisdom or plan of God, it can’t be anything OTHER than with Him. If the λογος is the intelligence of God, then by definition it HAS to be with Him, which makes “the Word was WITH God” a completely pointless statement.
It is the equivalent of saying, “My spinal cord, brain cells, and nerves are with me today.” Since, if you are alive, they can’t be anything other than with you, not only have you given no information, you have implied something that is not true. By making that statement, you are implying that there might be a situation in which they could be somewhere else other than with you. Yet John makes it crystal clear that his choice of words was not an accident. He places extra emphasis on the fact that the λογος was WITH God by RESTATING it in the second verse: “And this one was in the beginning WITH God.” ουτος references the subject of the previous sentence, which was λογος in all three clauses. Thus, John is making a statement that can ONLY be interpreted as meaning the λογος is an individual who is somehow the ultimate summation of the wisdom of God. By stating TWICE that the λογος was WITH God, John makes it clear that the fact that the Word is WITH God was a CHOICE. It takes a real, living individual to make a choice. Not only is this individual with God, He is also God Himself. That means Jesus DID exist prior to His birth (as He reveals Himself in John 17:5) “Father, glorify me with yourself, with the glory I had with you before the world was.”).
John's construction is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With these seventeen words of verse one, he wrote a sentence that took me all of this space to explain. John leaves us only ONE option: Jesus is completely and totally God in every way that the Father is God, but Jesus is NOT the same individual as the Father.
NOBODY WRITES LIKE THE HOLY SPIRIT!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you and I have just had our last conversation. We have nothing more to say to one another.......ever!
oldhermit
These arguments and comments do not originate with me. I have them from a professor of New Testament Greek. I have taken the liberty to rework some of the arguments and added some of my own comments and observations.
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
There are a couple things you need to know about Greek syntax in order to understand what John is really saying in this verse. First, Koine Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase. The absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal, and doesn't mean anything. It is the INCLUSION of the article in a prepositional phrase that is unusual, and thus, means something.
The prepositional phrase "εν αρχη" doesn't contain an article, but is still properly translated "in the beginning." The prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον," however, does include the article (τον). Since it was proper not to include it, the INCLSION then of the article here means something. In general, the inclusion of an article when it is not expected means you are being specific about a particular individual who is God. In order to fully understand how that effects this verse, we need to go to the last clause. To understand the implications of the last clause, you need to understand Greek syntax. First, Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. In general, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative case. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative case. However, there is a strange class of verbs that do not take a direct object, they take a predicate. There are three verbs that do this in Koine Greek. This means that you have two nouns that are the same case (nominative), where one is the subject, and one is the predicate. So if both are in the same case, how do you know which is the subject, and which is the predicate?
Here are the rules: Notice, I said these are rules. You can't ignore them, you can't change them, you can't remove them, and you can't add to them!
1. If both nouns have the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
2. If NEITHER noun has the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
3. If one has an article, but the other does not, then the one WITH the article is the subject, and the one without the article is the predicate.
So in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus, o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate.
When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first. English has syntactical rules that must be followed as well. So, this is properly translated "And the word was God."
Now, there are THREE things this could mean (depending on the construction): Now pay attention because it is critical that this is understood.
a. The word was a LESSER god than the Father who is the τον θεον in the previous clause)
b. The word was the father.
c. The word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god." That is, the word was a LESSER god than the father. The reason being is that since λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article OFF of θεος, thus the absence of the article means something (since even if we gave it the article, it would STILL be the predicate). Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the MEANING of θεος.
The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would NOT change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father.
Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος is being “de-emphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" can ONLY mean "the Word was a god." BUT, John did NOT use this construction. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean "the word was THEGod." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two, and there would then be no trinity. The Father and the Son are nothing more than manifestations of the SAME GOD. They are NOT separate individuals. There is one God who simply "appears" at times in different forms. This would then lend support to the monotheist argument. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically LOCKED into occuring AFTER λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It MUST appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." BUT, John did NOT use this construction.
By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does TWO critical and clearly indicated things. First, he leaves the article OFF of θεος, thus indicating that word is NOT the same individual as the father. Second, he pops θεος to the front of the clause, placing extra emphasis on that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the INCREASE in emphasis, that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same INDIVIDUAL as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much GOD as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us the θεος of the third clause is NOT the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation
point: The Word was God!
Now we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is WITH a SPECIFIC being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely EQUAL with "The God" in divinity, but through the careful use of the articles, has clued us in that the Word is not the SAME individual as "The God."
One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that λογος means “the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God” and
nothing more. It is argued that λογος is NOT an individual, it is just a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” of God (this was a common philosophy of the Gnostics). Thus, the λογος was not an individual, but the wisdom of God. So Jesus was not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God, made flesh. That means He did not EXIST prior to His birth (as God). Prior to his physical birth, He was merely an IDEA, a PLAN in the MIND of God and that IDEA became a man.
John makes this interpretation completely absurd with the statement “ο λογος ην προς τον θεον” (the Word was WITH God).
Further, προς emphasizes AGREEMENT WITH, not necessarily location or proximity. You see, if the λογος is JUST the mind, intelligence, wisdom or plan of God, it can’t be anything OTHER than with Him. If the λογος is the intelligence of God, then by definition it HAS to be with Him, which makes “the Word was WITH God” a completely pointless statement.
It is the equivalent of saying, “My spinal cord, brain cells, and nerves are with me today.” Since, if you are alive, they can’t be anything other than with you, not only have you given no information, you have implied something that is not true. By making that statement, you are implying that there might be a situation in which they could be somewhere else other than with you. Yet John makes it crystal clear that his choice of words was not an accident. He places extra emphasis on the fact that the λογος was WITH God by RESTATING it in the second verse: “And this one was in the beginning WITH God.” ουτος references the subject of the previous sentence, which was λογος in all three clauses. Thus, John is making a statement that can ONLY be interpreted as meaning the λογος is an individual who is somehow the ultimate summation of the wisdom of God. By stating TWICE that the λογος was WITH God, John makes it clear that the fact that the Word is WITH God was a CHOICE. It takes a real, living individual to make a choice. Not only is this individual with God, He is also God Himself. That means Jesus DID exist prior to His birth (as He reveals Himself in John 17:5) “Father, glorify me with yourself, with the glory I had with you before the world was.”).
John's construction is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With these seventeen words of verse one, he wrote a sentence that took me all of this space to explain. John leaves us only ONE option: Jesus is completely and totally God in every way that the Father is God, but Jesus is NOT the same individual as the Father.
NOBODY WRITES LIKE THE HOLY SPIRIT!
I think you and I have just had our last conversation. We have nothing more to say to one another.......ever!
That is true. However, one cannot debate people of higher education and probe the deeper questions unless one is able to discuss with them on their level. There a lots of people who can teach those who have not sought the higher levels of education. Unfortunately, I never seem to have acquired that skill but I thank God for those who can do that. I have always wished I could do that. But, someone has to be able to deal with the more difficult questions from those of the more advanced educational levels.
Last edited:
Well just finished watching Part 2 of the Darek Isaacs Dragons or Dinosaurs? lecture.
(here is link to part 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_vfPFnmQPg
This Part 2 was moreso about the root word meanings, Bible translations, and modern theology, so I do not have too much to comment on it. For the most part I agree with Isaacs' point of view regarding the translations and where some modernists may have misinterpretted dragons due to fear of embarassment.
The only real nuance I had with Part 2 is a minor one. Basically that nuance is Isaacs implies the popular conspiracy that the Catholics were withholding the Bible from the masses in the early church years for political and/or power purposes. While this is plausible, and perhaps is a motive, I personally always took a more practical approach. My reasoning for why the Bible was not disseminated to the masses in the early church years is quite simple; The Dark Ages. Even if we pre-suppose some catholics conspired to keep the Bible away from the common man, it is important to remember that during the Dark Ages something like 90% of ancient knowledge was completely lost forever, there was mass illiteracy (in fact at one point in the era of the Dark Ages there was only one man named Bede in all of Britain that could even read and write), and of course the overall mass choas, violence, and plague would have very plausibly given the common man of that time something more to worry about than learning to read. In fact it is something of a miracle in my opinion that the Bible even survived the Dark Ages. (Please note here, I am not a catholic nor is my family, so I am not trying to defend the catholic church. Merely trying give forth my viewpoint to the reason why the Bible was not mass produced in the early to mid AD.)
Though that is just little nuance, which is really just a minor issue and somewhat irrelevant seeing as we live in an age of very high literacy. Apart from that I would say the Part 2 was a pretty good presentation and indeed very informative and I agree with it. Heh in the early part where Isaacs speculates that Noah would have only taken baby dinosaurs on board the Ark this reminded me of another Dragons=Dinosaurs Conspiracy, it was a little more speculative than this documentary, but I will have to search around for it (forgot the name of it at the moment) and I'll post it here for your enjoyment when I find it.
(here is link to part 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_vfPFnmQPg
This Part 2 was moreso about the root word meanings, Bible translations, and modern theology, so I do not have too much to comment on it. For the most part I agree with Isaacs' point of view regarding the translations and where some modernists may have misinterpretted dragons due to fear of embarassment.
The only real nuance I had with Part 2 is a minor one. Basically that nuance is Isaacs implies the popular conspiracy that the Catholics were withholding the Bible from the masses in the early church years for political and/or power purposes. While this is plausible, and perhaps is a motive, I personally always took a more practical approach. My reasoning for why the Bible was not disseminated to the masses in the early church years is quite simple; The Dark Ages. Even if we pre-suppose some catholics conspired to keep the Bible away from the common man, it is important to remember that during the Dark Ages something like 90% of ancient knowledge was completely lost forever, there was mass illiteracy (in fact at one point in the era of the Dark Ages there was only one man named Bede in all of Britain that could even read and write), and of course the overall mass choas, violence, and plague would have very plausibly given the common man of that time something more to worry about than learning to read. In fact it is something of a miracle in my opinion that the Bible even survived the Dark Ages. (Please note here, I am not a catholic nor is my family, so I am not trying to defend the catholic church. Merely trying give forth my viewpoint to the reason why the Bible was not mass produced in the early to mid AD.)
Though that is just little nuance, which is really just a minor issue and somewhat irrelevant seeing as we live in an age of very high literacy. Apart from that I would say the Part 2 was a pretty good presentation and indeed very informative and I agree with it. Heh in the early part where Isaacs speculates that Noah would have only taken baby dinosaurs on board the Ark this reminded me of another Dragons=Dinosaurs Conspiracy, it was a little more speculative than this documentary, but I will have to search around for it (forgot the name of it at the moment) and I'll post it here for your enjoyment when I find it.
T
Cheers, God Is Salvation. I enjoyed reading your review. I agree that the comment about the Catholic suppressing the truth was a bit much. That said, the Dark Ages, while troubling, weren't as "dark" and unenlightened as many would have us believe. It's more Enlightenment Period propaganda than anything else. Also, the Enlightenment wasn't so "enlightening". Yes, good came of it, but we also traded God's revelation for human reasoning.
Heh thanks again for showing me this documentary Tintin (I am adding you as a friend after this post as I often find myself enjoying your outlook on various topics.) I agree on the Enlightenment Period comment for sure. Lol all one must do is look at the mass wave of terror and violence accompanying the French Revolution to dispel the Libertine Fantasy of "Enlightenment." I would disagree on the Dark Ages though, from what I have researched on that period of time, the Dark Ages seems quite brutal and bleak indeed, at least for Europe and the Near East. Though I suppose that's probably best left for another topic as the Dark Ages was a protracted long era of turmoil, and thus is quite a lengthy topic in itself lol.
J
It is interesting you mention the dark ages. They were bleak and life was cheap, BUT because of this many people lived their lives to prepare for the next one. They had a deeper appreciation for living righteously. It was only after the Renaissance that the "age of humanism" began and people began looking for the most pleasure in this life and thus threw off the Biblical commands to live Holy.