-
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.
D
Hey there wwjd_kilden.
That is a very good observation. The thing is....the word in Greek is "god" (theos) but most translations render John 1:18 as "only begotten son". Fascinating isn't it?
Those who hail John 1:1 as being 'THE' proof text for the trinity, will translate the same word "theos" as "son" a few verses later.
In John 1:1 it literally says; "In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the Word was God."
Now lets read that verse again, remembering that the Greek has no capital letters.
"in the beginning was the word and the word was with (the) god and the word was god"
The fact is, the word 'theos′ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) meaning THE God.
So it is not actually saying that the Word was THE GOD but that the Word was with THE GOD and was God-like.
Other translations not exhibiting a trinitarian bias render John 1:1.....
“the Word was divine” (AT) ; “the Logos was divine” (Mo) ; “the word was a god.” (NTIV) ” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo‧him′; Greek, the‧oi′, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Yahweh and were to speak his law.
If people wish to push the trinity, they have no direct statements from either Yahweh or his son to the effect that Jesus is anything but God's firstborn son.
For such an important doctrine, wouldn't you think there would be direct statements? Black and white indisputable evidence?.....but it simply isn't there.
It insults the son to put him on an equal footing with his incomparable Father. It blasphemes the Father to place anyone on equal footing with him. He is a jealous God who tolerates no other gods.
The Jews knew Yahweh as one God.....so did Jesus. Where and when did the teaching of a triune godhead infiltrate Christianity, when it was not there in any of the scriptures that Jesus used?
That is a very good observation. The thing is....the word in Greek is "god" (theos) but most translations render John 1:18 as "only begotten son". Fascinating isn't it?
Those who hail John 1:1 as being 'THE' proof text for the trinity, will translate the same word "theos" as "son" a few verses later.
In John 1:1 it literally says; "In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the Word was God."
Now lets read that verse again, remembering that the Greek has no capital letters.
"in the beginning was the word and the word was with (the) god and the word was god"
The fact is, the word 'theos′ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) meaning THE God.
So it is not actually saying that the Word was THE GOD but that the Word was with THE GOD and was God-like.
Other translations not exhibiting a trinitarian bias render John 1:1.....
“the Word was divine” (AT) ; “the Logos was divine” (Mo) ; “the word was a god.” (NTIV) ” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo‧him′; Greek, the‧oi′, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Yahweh and were to speak his law.
If people wish to push the trinity, they have no direct statements from either Yahweh or his son to the effect that Jesus is anything but God's firstborn son.
For such an important doctrine, wouldn't you think there would be direct statements? Black and white indisputable evidence?.....but it simply isn't there.
It insults the son to put him on an equal footing with his incomparable Father. It blasphemes the Father to place anyone on equal footing with him. He is a jealous God who tolerates no other gods.
The Jews knew Yahweh as one God.....so did Jesus. Where and when did the teaching of a triune godhead infiltrate Christianity, when it was not there in any of the scriptures that Jesus used?
Hi dishchat,
There is not one direct statement in the Bible that says that Jesus is God.
How does God become his own son? Why call them "father" and "son" if this is not their relationship?
When does a son come into existence at the same time as his father? The Father is eternal, meaning that there is as much time behind him as there is in front of him, but Jesus had a beginning.
The meaning of the word "Father" is "life-giver". Did the Father give life to his "firstborn, only begotten son"
John 1:1 "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God..."
In the beginning of creation, Jesus was "begotten" by his Father, his "life-giver". He was a unique creation, Yahweh's most loved and trusted son.
In Isaiah 9:6, "For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
Look at the titles given to Christ.
His rule is "princely", he is called "Prince of Peace". A Prince is the "son" of a king. He has power and position, but never rivals his father as long as he remains King.
Is he the most 'wonderful counsellor' who ever lived on the earth?
Who provided all the knowledge that Jesus taught? It did not come from him, but he said it was all from his Father.
Is he a mighty god-like one? Since certain humans were called "gods" by Yahweh himself, the term does not always pertain to the Almighty. Jesus is not called "Almighty" in any verse of the Bible.
Is he "life-giver" (father) to humankind by the laying down of his life? Eternal life can only come about for us through faith in his blood.
Jesus is not and never was, God Almighty.
You can believe it if you wish, but the Bible does not teach it.
There is not one direct statement in the Bible that says that Jesus is God.
How does God become his own son? Why call them "father" and "son" if this is not their relationship?
When does a son come into existence at the same time as his father? The Father is eternal, meaning that there is as much time behind him as there is in front of him, but Jesus had a beginning.
The meaning of the word "Father" is "life-giver". Did the Father give life to his "firstborn, only begotten son"
John 1:1 "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God..."
In the beginning of creation, Jesus was "begotten" by his Father, his "life-giver". He was a unique creation, Yahweh's most loved and trusted son.
In Isaiah 9:6, "For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
Look at the titles given to Christ.
His rule is "princely", he is called "Prince of Peace". A Prince is the "son" of a king. He has power and position, but never rivals his father as long as he remains King.
Is he the most 'wonderful counsellor' who ever lived on the earth?
Who provided all the knowledge that Jesus taught? It did not come from him, but he said it was all from his Father.
Is he a mighty god-like one? Since certain humans were called "gods" by Yahweh himself, the term does not always pertain to the Almighty. Jesus is not called "Almighty" in any verse of the Bible.
Is he "life-giver" (father) to humankind by the laying down of his life? Eternal life can only come about for us through faith in his blood.
Jesus is not and never was, God Almighty.
You can believe it if you wish, but the Bible does not teach it.
N
I believe God, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all one in the same, all 3 at once. Jesus was God as well as the Son of God but to explain how is not up to me. To believe is all I am capable of. This is beyond my understanding but not beyond my belief. I believe the understanding will come when I meet God face to face in Heaven and then all the miracles, seen and unseen, will become clear. Until then I live on faith.
Amen, and thank you
Amen, and thank you
C
Crossfire,
Perhaps you can expand upon this in explaining the simplisity of the duality, if this is what you mean.
Indeed He, Jeus in the flesh, was the Son for the simply fact that there must be two to bring forth a child. God, therefore, supplied His seed and by which, He is the Son of God who was born in the flesh. God Himself said, I shall be a Father to Him and He shall be a Son to me."
Indeed, He, the Word incarnated in this human who we call Jesus, was God from eternity in the flesh. God Himself redeemed His own. Did not my God Jehovah proclaim Himself to be our Redeemer?
Indeed, there is not three Gods, but One and the same LORD. But for now, there are different administrations. And when that Day comes when all things have been subdued, then there shall be one Lord and His name one. But for now, His name is Jehovah and Jesus, they both are one Lord under two different Covenants.
It was God the Father, who send God the Word to redeem His own and God the Spirit confessing the same to be true. There is centainly three in Heaven, but they are One God.
Perhaps you can expand upon this in explaining the simplisity of the duality, if this is what you mean.
Indeed He, Jeus in the flesh, was the Son for the simply fact that there must be two to bring forth a child. God, therefore, supplied His seed and by which, He is the Son of God who was born in the flesh. God Himself said, I shall be a Father to Him and He shall be a Son to me."
Indeed, He, the Word incarnated in this human who we call Jesus, was God from eternity in the flesh. God Himself redeemed His own. Did not my God Jehovah proclaim Himself to be our Redeemer?
Indeed, there is not three Gods, but One and the same LORD. But for now, there are different administrations. And when that Day comes when all things have been subdued, then there shall be one Lord and His name one. But for now, His name is Jehovah and Jesus, they both are one Lord under two different Covenants.
It was God the Father, who send God the Word to redeem His own and God the Spirit confessing the same to be true. There is centainly three in Heaven, but they are One God.
D
Hi dishchat,
There is not one direct statement in the Bible that says that Jesus is God.
How does God become his own son? Why call them "father" and "son" if this is not their relationship?
When does a son come into existence at the same time as his father? The Father is eternal, meaning that there is as much time behind him as there is in front of him, but Jesus had a beginning.
The meaning of the word "Father" is "life-giver". Did the Father give life to his "firstborn, only begotten son"
John 1:1 "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God..."
In the beginning of creation, Jesus was "begotten" by his Father, his "life-giver". He was a unique creation, Yahweh's most loved and trusted son.
In Isaiah 9:6, "For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
Look at the titles given to Christ.
His rule is "princely", he is called "Prince of Peace". A Prince is the "son" of a king. He has power and position, but never rivals his father as long as he remains King.
Is he the most 'wonderful counsellor' who ever lived on the earth?
Who provided all the knowledge that Jesus taught? It did not come from him, but he said it was all from his Father.
Is he a mighty god-like one? Since certain humans were called "gods" by Yahweh himself, the term does not always pertain to the Almighty. Jesus is not called "Almighty" in any verse of the Bible.
Is he "life-giver" (father) to humankind by the laying down of his life? Eternal life can only come about for us through faith in his blood.
Jesus is not and never was, God Almighty.
You can believe it if you wish, but the Bible does not teach it.
There is not one direct statement in the Bible that says that Jesus is God.
How does God become his own son? Why call them "father" and "son" if this is not their relationship?
When does a son come into existence at the same time as his father? The Father is eternal, meaning that there is as much time behind him as there is in front of him, but Jesus had a beginning.
The meaning of the word "Father" is "life-giver". Did the Father give life to his "firstborn, only begotten son"
John 1:1 "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God..."
In the beginning of creation, Jesus was "begotten" by his Father, his "life-giver". He was a unique creation, Yahweh's most loved and trusted son.
In Isaiah 9:6, "For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
Look at the titles given to Christ.
His rule is "princely", he is called "Prince of Peace". A Prince is the "son" of a king. He has power and position, but never rivals his father as long as he remains King.
Is he the most 'wonderful counsellor' who ever lived on the earth?
Who provided all the knowledge that Jesus taught? It did not come from him, but he said it was all from his Father.
Is he a mighty god-like one? Since certain humans were called "gods" by Yahweh himself, the term does not always pertain to the Almighty. Jesus is not called "Almighty" in any verse of the Bible.
Is he "life-giver" (father) to humankind by the laying down of his life? Eternal life can only come about for us through faith in his blood.
Jesus is not and never was, God Almighty.
You can believe it if you wish, but the Bible does not teach it.
The Bible do not says that the Word was like God. It says the Word WAS God. There is only one God.
I am a human being and i have a son.How would my son be? He would not be like a human, but be a human being. If God is a Father,then His Son will not be like God but He will be God.
John 14 vs 9: Jesus said to him,"Have i been with you so long, and yet you have not knowm Me,Philip? He who have seen Me have seen the Father; so how can you say,'show us the Father?
If you see me, you'll never see my son and if you see my son, you'll never see me.
But you'll never see the Father unless you see the Son. And it is only the son who can reveal you the Father if He want.
So God is a Father and God is a Son.
G
Hey there wwjd_kilden.
That is a very good observation. The thing is....the word in Greek is "god" (theos) but most translations render John 1:18 as "only begotten son". Fascinating isn't it?
Those who hail John 1:1 as being 'THE' proof text for the trinity, will translate the same word "theos" as "son" a few verses later.
In John 1:1 it literally says; "In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the Word was God."
Now lets read that verse again, remembering that the Greek has no capital letters.
"in the beginning was the word and the word was with (the) god and the word was god"
The fact is, the word 'theos′ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) meaning THE God.
So it is not actually saying that the Word was THE GOD but that the Word was with THE GOD and was God-like.
Other translations not exhibiting a trinitarian bias render John 1:1.....
“the Word was divine” (AT) ; “the Logos was divine” (Mo) ; “the word was a god.” (NTIV) ” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo‧him′; Greek, the‧oi′, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Yahweh and were to speak his law.
If people wish to push the trinity, they have no direct statements from either Yahweh or his son to the effect that Jesus is anything but God's firstborn son.
For such an important doctrine, wouldn't you think there would be direct statements? Black and white indisputable evidence?.....but it simply isn't there.
It insults the son to put him on an equal footing with his incomparable Father. It blasphemes the Father to place anyone on equal footing with him. He is a jealous God who tolerates no other gods.
The Jews knew Yahweh as one God.....so did Jesus. Where and when did the teaching of a triune godhead infiltrate Christianity, when it was not there in any of the scriptures that Jesus used?
That is a very good observation. The thing is....the word in Greek is "god" (theos) but most translations render John 1:18 as "only begotten son". Fascinating isn't it?
Those who hail John 1:1 as being 'THE' proof text for the trinity, will translate the same word "theos" as "son" a few verses later.
In John 1:1 it literally says; "In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the Word was God."
Now lets read that verse again, remembering that the Greek has no capital letters.
"in the beginning was the word and the word was with (the) god and the word was god"
The fact is, the word 'theos′ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) meaning THE God.
So it is not actually saying that the Word was THE GOD but that the Word was with THE GOD and was God-like.
Other translations not exhibiting a trinitarian bias render John 1:1.....
“the Word was divine” (AT) ; “the Logos was divine” (Mo) ; “the word was a god.” (NTIV) ” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo‧him′; Greek, the‧oi′, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Yahweh and were to speak his law.
If people wish to push the trinity, they have no direct statements from either Yahweh or his son to the effect that Jesus is anything but God's firstborn son.
For such an important doctrine, wouldn't you think there would be direct statements? Black and white indisputable evidence?.....but it simply isn't there.
It insults the son to put him on an equal footing with his incomparable Father. It blasphemes the Father to place anyone on equal footing with him. He is a jealous God who tolerates no other gods.
The Jews knew Yahweh as one God.....so did Jesus. Where and when did the teaching of a triune godhead infiltrate Christianity, when it was not there in any of the scriptures that Jesus used?
This assessment is altogether ridiculous, because nowhere in this post did you even touch the Trinitarian understanding of these texts.
1.) The reason why some translations read "Son" here instead of "God" is because of a difference in apparatus' used in the various translations. The issue of "God" vs. "Son" is not an issue of translation, but that of textual criticism. And while I entirely support the "God" reading over the "Son" due to support from the most ancient manuscripts [p66 p75 א B C syr(p,h) cop(sa,bo)], there also is something else that needs to be pointed out, which leads me to point number two.
2.) The second issue centers around the etymytology of the word μονογενής (“monogenes”
, which is traditionally translated as “only-begotten.” Instilled in our minds when we read that Christ is the “only-begotten” is this thought of generation, begetting, being born, or giving birth to. Monogenes is a compound word, meaning that it is comprised of two words, the first being “monos” (“only”, and the second term is often times confused with γεννάωσθαι / γεννάω ("to give birth, to beget"). However, to steal the words of James R. White, "...note that this family of terms has two nu's ('νν') rather than the single nu ('ν') found in μονογενής ('monogenes').Thenumber of nu's indicates that the second term is notγεννάωσθαι ('to give birth, to beget'), but, γίγνεσθαι / γίνομαι, and the noun form, γένος ('genos')." (James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity, pg. 202, italicized parenthesis mine)
Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν δι' ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦἐκ νεκρῶν
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
In Psalms 2:7 (LXX) we read:
διαγγελλων το προσταγμα κυριου κυριος ειπεν προς με υιος μου ει συ εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε
I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You.’
I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You.’
In the various instances which γεννάω is used, it describes some form of birth, generation, or begettal, whereas γένος (as found in μονογενής) refers to a “kind” or “type” (1 Corinthians 12:10, 1 Corinthians 12:28, 1 Corinthians 14:10, Mark 9:29, Matthew 13:47, Matthew 17:21), a “kindred” (Acts 7:13, Acts 7:19). Also refer to the usage of συγγενής, which is used throughout the Book of Romans (9:3; 16:7; 16:11; 16:21) to refer to Paul’s “kinsmen.”
μονογενής in the LXX (Judges 11:34; Psalm 25:16; Psalm 35:17, etc.), as well as the Aquila, and Theodotion, carries the meaning “only kind,” “only," "solitary," “one and only,” "only unique," et al., and is frequently a reflection of the Hebrew word which expresses solitary oneness ("yachid") which it translates. The second century Old Latin translates the occurrences of monogenes in the New Testament as unicus ("unique"); and in like manner the Sahidic Coptic translates the occurrences of monogenes as ouwt ("only," “only son”
or nouwt ("the only," “the only son”. μονογενής literally means no more than “one of a kind,” “only member of a kin,” “only unique (or ‘only one’,” “unique,” and in some cases, depending on the context and grammar present, can refer to an "only (or ‘unique’ son.” Where γεννάω speaks of the actual generation/creation of an object, μονογενής speaks to the incomparability and uniqueness.Take for instance, Hebrews 11:17:
Πίστει προσενήνοχεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν Ἰσαὰκ πειραζόμενος, καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ προσέφερεν ὁ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμενος
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son
In Jerome's revised Latin version known as the Latin Vulgate, the translation of μονογενής, particularly the occurances in the Book of Luke, is denoted by the term “unicus.” However, in every case where μονογενής is applied to Christ the translation is altered from unicus ("only," "unique") to unigenitus (“only-begotten”
, which was probably due to help combat Arianism by describing the relationship, and the eternal generation between the Father (as the begetter) and the Son (as the begotten). From this, it was Jerome’s translation which influenced and imputed this meaning and sense into μονογενής, which was preserved throughout the centuries, and passed into our later translations. Interestingly, Arius himself, in a private creed written A.D. 328, used the term "gegennemenon" to refer to Christ, not "monogenes" or "ginomai." Similarly, Eusebius, who was a follower of Arius around A.D. 325, also used the term "gegennemenon” to refer to Christ, not "monogenes."Lexical sources such as BDAG attests (pg. 658), "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only.” Also see Moultan and Milligan (pg. 416), Liddel and Scott (pg. 1144), and Thayer (pg. 418) for further support.
Last edited:
G
Hey there wwjd_kilden.
That is a very good observation. The thing is....the word in Greek is "god" (theos) but most translations render John 1:18 as "only begotten son". Fascinating isn't it?
Those who hail John 1:1 as being 'THE' proof text for the trinity, will translate the same word "theos" as "son" a few verses later.
In John 1:1 it literally says; "In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the Word was God."
Now lets read that verse again, remembering that the Greek has no capital letters.
"in the beginning was the word and the word was with (the) god and the word was god"
The fact is, the word 'theos′ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) meaning THE God.
So it is not actually saying that the Word was THE GOD but that the Word was with THE GOD and was God-like.
Other translations not exhibiting a trinitarian bias render John 1:1.....
“the Word was divine” (AT) ; “the Logos was divine” (Mo) ; “the word was a god.” (NTIV) ” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo‧him′; Greek, the‧oi′, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Yahweh and were to speak his law.
If people wish to push the trinity, they have no direct statements from either Yahweh or his son to the effect that Jesus is anything but God's firstborn son.
For such an important doctrine, wouldn't you think there would be direct statements? Black and white indisputable evidence?.....but it simply isn't there.
It insults the son to put him on an equal footing with his incomparable Father. It blasphemes the Father to place anyone on equal footing with him. He is a jealous God who tolerates no other gods.
The Jews knew Yahweh as one God.....so did Jesus. Where and when did the teaching of a triune godhead infiltrate Christianity, when it was not there in any of the scriptures that Jesus used?
That is a very good observation. The thing is....the word in Greek is "god" (theos) but most translations render John 1:18 as "only begotten son". Fascinating isn't it?
Those who hail John 1:1 as being 'THE' proof text for the trinity, will translate the same word "theos" as "son" a few verses later.
In John 1:1 it literally says; "In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the Word was God."
Now lets read that verse again, remembering that the Greek has no capital letters.
"in the beginning was the word and the word was with (the) god and the word was god"
The fact is, the word 'theos′ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) meaning THE God.
So it is not actually saying that the Word was THE GOD but that the Word was with THE GOD and was God-like.
Other translations not exhibiting a trinitarian bias render John 1:1.....
“the Word was divine” (AT) ; “the Logos was divine” (Mo) ; “the word was a god.” (NTIV) ” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo‧him′; Greek, the‧oi′, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Yahweh and were to speak his law.
If people wish to push the trinity, they have no direct statements from either Yahweh or his son to the effect that Jesus is anything but God's firstborn son.
For such an important doctrine, wouldn't you think there would be direct statements? Black and white indisputable evidence?.....but it simply isn't there.
It insults the son to put him on an equal footing with his incomparable Father. It blasphemes the Father to place anyone on equal footing with him. He is a jealous God who tolerates no other gods.
The Jews knew Yahweh as one God.....so did Jesus. Where and when did the teaching of a triune godhead infiltrate Christianity, when it was not there in any of the scriptures that Jesus used?
To start, without going into the complexities that surround John 1.1, I do want to offer a sound response to your objection of the Trinitarian understanding of this passage.
This passage is not simply implying that the Logos is “divine” or “god-like” as you would espouse, because John does not use the adjectival (θεῖος [“divine”]) here, but rather uses the noun form (θεὸς [“God”]); however, that is not to say that nouns cannot, within their semantic domain, convey qualities – they most certainly can, and do! Take for example, John 3.6,
The idea here has absolutely nothing to do with identification of any sort (“the spirit,” “a spirit”, but everything to do with that of predication. More specifically, the nouns (“flesh,” “spirit” here function in a purely qualitative sense, without a definite or indefinite semantic force. The context of the passage in view is about the inherent nature of sinful flesh (John 3.6a) in contrast to the new nature of man in the process of regeneration (John 3.6b). Likewise, a similar idea being portrayed is found in 1 John 1.5 (“God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all”, where it is God's essence and nature that is being described in contrast to “darkness.” That is, God has all the qualities, and attributes of light – He is just, holy, and good -- therefore, light is an attribute/characteristic inhering within God. Further examples include, but are not limited to, John 6.63 (“The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life”, 1 John 4.8 (“…because God is love”, Acts 16:21 (“…are not lawful for us as Romans”, 2 Corinthians 11:22 (“Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I”,et al.
With that being said, the Trinitarian approach to John 1.1 does not emphasize the identity of the Word (thus, the reason for the anarthrous θεὸς, so your overall assessment and conclusion falls ten miles short of the mark. Call attention to what Henry Alford, the 19th c. Anglican theologian once wrote,
The point Alford is driving at here in his comparison of vv. 1 (θεὸς ἦν, and 14 (σὰρξ ἐγένετο, is not only are the two parallel passages conveying similar thought, but John’s placement of the noun before the verb in each passage is significant in that it stresses the qualities or nature of the subject. The positioning of θεὸς before the verb ἦν is what is known as a preverbal predicate nominative. Since John has identified ὁ λόγος (“the Word” as the subject of the verse, this means that θεὸς in John 1.1b is a subject complement which further identifies the subject (not that the subject ["the Word"] is stressing the quality of the noun ["God"]). In other words, θεὸς serves to describe the nature and essence of the Word, and this is precisely what we as Trinitarians believe. Not that the Word’s identity is being stressed, rather, it is the intrinsic nature of the Logos that is being portrayed here. All the qualities, attributes, and nature of God – everything that makes God, God – the Word also possesses. In other words, this is a clear affirmation of ontological equality between the Father, and the Son, as expressed in the historic Christian confessions, and creeds,
That being said, John 1.1b does not say, “the Word was in God,” nor does it say, “the Word was God’s,” rather, the preposition πρός (“pros” is used -- “the Word was with God.” And not only was the Logos “with” God, but because the preposition πρός is followed by a noun in the accusative case, it indicates that the Logos was existing in a personal face-to-face communion with God (c.f. John 1.29, 1.42, 1.47), not as an attribute inhering within Him.
Secondarily (this may, or may not apply to you), should John had thought the Word was some part of the created order sometime before the incarnation as Arians espouse then the prologue of John would have been the place to say it. John could have easily wrote, “All other things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing else came into being that has come into being.” However, call attention to v. 3,Contemplate here for a moment on John’s words, because their import is indeed striking. Everything that was created; everything that had a starting point in time; everything that has come into existence… all things that “came into being” did so through, or by means of the Word. These are not words that describe a created being, these are words that describe the active, and eternal agent of creation! The Logos is not here identified as one that “came into being,” but the One through whom all things that have “come into being” have their existence.
This passage is not simply implying that the Logos is “divine” or “god-like” as you would espouse, because John does not use the adjectival (θεῖος [“divine”]) here, but rather uses the noun form (θεὸς [“God”]); however, that is not to say that nouns cannot, within their semantic domain, convey qualities – they most certainly can, and do! Take for example, John 3.6,
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
, but everything to do with that of predication. More specifically, the nouns (“flesh,” “spirit” here function in a purely qualitative sense, without a definite or indefinite semantic force. The context of the passage in view is about the inherent nature of sinful flesh (John 3.6a) in contrast to the new nature of man in the process of regeneration (John 3.6b). Likewise, a similar idea being portrayed is found in 1 John 1.5 (“God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all”, where it is God's essence and nature that is being described in contrast to “darkness.” That is, God has all the qualities, and attributes of light – He is just, holy, and good -- therefore, light is an attribute/characteristic inhering within God. Further examples include, but are not limited to, John 6.63 (“The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life”, 1 John 4.8 (“…because God is love”, Acts 16:21 (“…are not lawful for us as Romans”, 2 Corinthians 11:22 (“Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I”,et al.With that being said, the Trinitarian approach to John 1.1 does not emphasize the identity of the Word (thus, the reason for the anarthrous θεὸς
, so your overall assessment and conclusion falls ten miles short of the mark. Call attention to what Henry Alford, the 19th c. Anglican theologian once wrote, “The omission of the article before θεὸς is not mere usage; it could not have been here expressed, whatever place the word might hold in the sentence. ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς would destroy the idea of the λόγος altogether. θεὸς must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence, -not ὁ θεὸς, ‘the Father,’ in Person. . . . as in σὰρξ ἐγένετο [John 1.14], σὰρξ expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in θεὸς ἦν [John 1.1c], θεὸς expresses that essence which was His ἐν ἀρχῇ [“In the beginning”]: -that He was very God.”—Henry Alford
, and 14 (σὰρξ ἐγένετο, is not only are the two parallel passages conveying similar thought, but John’s placement of the noun before the verb in each passage is significant in that it stresses the qualities or nature of the subject. The positioning of θεὸς before the verb ἦν is what is known as a preverbal predicate nominative. Since John has identified ὁ λόγος (“the Word” as the subject of the verse, this means that θεὸς in John 1.1b is a subject complement which further identifies the subject (not that the subject ["the Word"] is stressing the quality of the noun ["God"]). In other words, θεὸς serves to describe the nature and essence of the Word, and this is precisely what we as Trinitarians believe. Not that the Word’s identity is being stressed, rather, it is the intrinsic nature of the Logos that is being portrayed here. All the qualities, attributes, and nature of God – everything that makes God, God – the Word also possesses. In other words, this is a clear affirmation of ontological equality between the Father, and the Son, as expressed in the historic Christian confessions, and creeds,“consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood” – Chalcedonian Creed
“equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity” – Athanasian Creed
“equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity” – Athanasian Creed
is used -- “the Word was with God.” And not only was the Logos “with” God, but because the preposition πρός is followed by a noun in the accusative case, it indicates that the Logos was existing in a personal face-to-face communion with God (c.f. John 1.29, 1.42, 1.47), not as an attribute inhering within Him.Secondarily (this may, or may not apply to you), should John had thought the Word was some part of the created order sometime before the incarnation as Arians espouse then the prologue of John would have been the place to say it. John could have easily wrote, “All other things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing else came into being that has come into being.” However, call attention to v. 3,
“All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”
Last edited:
G
The point Molly is attempting to make is that because the Word is not identified as "ho theos" in John 1:1c, but rather with an anarthrous theos, that there is a distinction of Gods, namely, the Father who is "the God," and the Word who is "a god."
What is left out, and possibly so out of ignorance, is that if the Logos was identified as "ho theos" in John 1:1c, it would be identifying Him as the One whom He is "with," making "the God" of John 1:1b essentially convertible with "the God" of John 1:1c,
Should the text read as above then the text would support Sabellianism, the belief that the Word is the Person of the Father. By the absence of the article, the apostle John here refutes Sabellianism (the Word is not identified as the Person of the Father), as well as Arianism (the Son is equal to the Father in divinity). For a further explanation, see my above post, section 3.
What is left out, and possibly so out of ignorance, is that if the Logos was identified as "ho theos" in John 1:1c, it would be identifying Him as the One whom He is "with," making "the God" of John 1:1b essentially convertible with "the God" of John 1:1c,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was the God"
T
He was only fathered in the sense of receiveing a human body, not of having a beginning.
Hebrews 10:5-7 "Consequently, when Christ came into the world, He said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. The I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'"
John chapter 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, God the son. He was not created.
God bless.
Tom
Hebrews 10:5-7 "Consequently, when Christ came into the world, He said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. The I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'"
John chapter 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, God the son. He was not created.
God bless.
Tom
K
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Matt 1:18) Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
The word "birth" is gennēsis. Beginning.
Please show from scripture where Jesus is "the second person of the trinity", or that he is "God the Son".
God bless.
The word "birth" is gennēsis. Beginning.
Please show from scripture where Jesus is "the second person of the trinity", or that he is "God the Son".
God bless.
L
John 10:17-18
(17) Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
(18) No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Who could do this but God, His human side of Him died but, not His divinity
(17) Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
(18) No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Who could do this but God, His human side of Him died but, not His divinity
J
Again...YES and NO. One in purpose, ideal, 'mission'. Two in body & spirit.
MAT 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed,
saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless
not as I will, but as thou [wilt].
MAT 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the
same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
MAT 24:36 ¶ But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of
heaven, but my Father only.
(Not even Christ knows)
Another take of Yeshua based on Enoch.
Enoch 39
5 Here mine eyes saw their dwellings with His righteous
angels,
And their resting-places with the holy.
And they petitioned and interceded and prayed for the children
of men,
And righteousness flowed before them as water,
And mercy like dew upon the earth:
Thus it is amongst them for ever and ever.
6a And in that place mine eyes saw the Elect One of
righteousness and of faith,
7a And I saw his dwelling-place under the wings of the Lord
of Spirits.
6b And righteousness shall prevail in his days,
And the righteous and elect shall be without number before
Him for ever and ever.
7b And all the righteous and elect before Him shall be strong
as fiery lights,
And their mouth shall be full of blessing,
And their lips extol the name of the Lord of Spirits,
40
1 And after that I saw thousands of thousands and
ten thousand times ten thousand, I saw a multitude
2 beyond number and reckoning, who stood before
the Lord of Spirits. And on the four sides of the Lord of Spirits
I saw four presences, different from those that sleep not, and I
learnt their names: for the angel that went with me made
known to me their names, and showed me all the hidden
things. 3 And I heard the voices of those four presences as
they uttered praises before the Lord of glory. 4,5 The first
voice blesses the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever. And the
second voice I heard blessing 6the Elect One and the elect
ones who hang upon the Lord of Spirits. And the third voice I
heard pray and intercede for those who dwell on the earth and
supplicate in the name of the Lord of Spirits. 7 And I heard the
fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to
come before the Lord 8 of Spirits to accuse them who dwell
on the earth.
45
1 And this is the second Parable concerning those
who deny the name of the dwelling of the holy ones
and the Lord of Spirits.
2 And into the heaven they shall not ascend,
And on the earth they shall not come:
Such shall be the lot of the sinners
Who have denied the name of the Lord of Spirits,
Who are thus preserved for the day of suffering and
tribulation.
3 On that day Mine Elect One shall sit on the throne of glory
And shall try their works,
And their places of rest shall be innumerable.
And their souls shall grow strong within them when they see
Mine Elect Ones,
And those who have called upon My glorious name:
4 Then will I cause Mine Elect One to dwell among them.
And I will transform the heaven and make it an eternal
blessing and light
5 And I will transform the earth and make it a blessing:
And I will cause Mine elect ones to dwell upon it:
But the sinners and evil-doers shall not set foot thereon.
6 For I have provided and satisfied with peace My righteous
ones
And have caused them to dwell before Me:
But for the sinners there is judgement impending with Me,
So that I shall destroy them from the face of the earth.
46
Because they do not extol and praise Him,
I hope this brings new understanding to the Father/Son relationship,
Love,
J
MAT 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed,
saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless
not as I will, but as thou [wilt].
MAT 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the
same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
MAT 24:36 ¶ But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of
heaven, but my Father only.
(Not even Christ knows)
Another take of Yeshua based on Enoch.
Enoch 39
5 Here mine eyes saw their dwellings with His righteous
angels,
And their resting-places with the holy.
And they petitioned and interceded and prayed for the children
of men,
And righteousness flowed before them as water,
And mercy like dew upon the earth:
Thus it is amongst them for ever and ever.
6a And in that place mine eyes saw the Elect One of
righteousness and of faith,
7a And I saw his dwelling-place under the wings of the Lord
of Spirits.
6b And righteousness shall prevail in his days,
And the righteous and elect shall be without number before
Him for ever and ever.
7b And all the righteous and elect before Him shall be strong
as fiery lights,
And their mouth shall be full of blessing,
And their lips extol the name of the Lord of Spirits,
40
1 And after that I saw thousands of thousands and
ten thousand times ten thousand, I saw a multitude
2 beyond number and reckoning, who stood before
the Lord of Spirits. And on the four sides of the Lord of Spirits
I saw four presences, different from those that sleep not, and I
learnt their names: for the angel that went with me made
known to me their names, and showed me all the hidden
things. 3 And I heard the voices of those four presences as
they uttered praises before the Lord of glory. 4,5 The first
voice blesses the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever. And the
second voice I heard blessing 6the Elect One and the elect
ones who hang upon the Lord of Spirits. And the third voice I
heard pray and intercede for those who dwell on the earth and
supplicate in the name of the Lord of Spirits. 7 And I heard the
fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to
come before the Lord 8 of Spirits to accuse them who dwell
on the earth.
45
1 And this is the second Parable concerning those
who deny the name of the dwelling of the holy ones
and the Lord of Spirits.
2 And into the heaven they shall not ascend,
And on the earth they shall not come:
Such shall be the lot of the sinners
Who have denied the name of the Lord of Spirits,
Who are thus preserved for the day of suffering and
tribulation.
3 On that day Mine Elect One shall sit on the throne of glory
And shall try their works,
And their places of rest shall be innumerable.
And their souls shall grow strong within them when they see
Mine Elect Ones,
And those who have called upon My glorious name:
4 Then will I cause Mine Elect One to dwell among them.
And I will transform the heaven and make it an eternal
blessing and light
5 And I will transform the earth and make it a blessing:
And I will cause Mine elect ones to dwell upon it:
But the sinners and evil-doers shall not set foot thereon.
6 For I have provided and satisfied with peace My righteous
ones
And have caused them to dwell before Me:
But for the sinners there is judgement impending with Me,
So that I shall destroy them from the face of the earth.
46
1 And there I saw One who had a head of days,
And His head was white like wool,
And with Him was another being whose
countenance had the appearance of a man,
And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy
angels.
2 And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all
the hidden things, concerning that
3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he
went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto
me:
This is the son of Man who hath righteousness,
With whom dwelleth righteousness,
And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden,
Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him,
And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of
Spirits in uprightness for ever.
4 And this Son of Man whom thou hast seen
Shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats,
[And the strong from their thrones]
And shall loosen the reins of the strong,
And break the teeth of the sinners.
5 [And he shall put down the kings from their thrones and
kingdoms]
And His head was white like wool,
And with Him was another being whose
countenance had the appearance of a man,
And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy
angels.
2 And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all
the hidden things, concerning that
3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he
went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto
me:
This is the son of Man who hath righteousness,
With whom dwelleth righteousness,
And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden,
Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him,
And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of
Spirits in uprightness for ever.
4 And this Son of Man whom thou hast seen
Shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats,
[And the strong from their thrones]
And shall loosen the reins of the strong,
And break the teeth of the sinners.
5 [And he shall put down the kings from their thrones and
kingdoms]
Because they do not extol and praise Him,
I hope this brings new understanding to the Father/Son relationship,
Love,
J