G
Actually, it is said that the Word OF God became flesh and dwelt among us. Tell me, what GLORY did this Word have as a flesh being? The glory of God Himself? Or the glory of the only begotten OF God? What does scripture say about it? (John 1:14)
John 1:1 is from where much of the problem stems, because so many Trinitarian translators render part c as "and the Word was God". This is a bad translation that makes no sense because the BEING of God could not possibly have been WITH the BEING of God.
This is from the 25 TRINITARIAN scholars that produced NETBible (NETBible: John 1:1):
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God” rather than indefinite (“a god” here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.
What this tells us is that Colwell's Rule, (the rule used as support of a "THE theos", or "God with a capital G" rendering of 1:1c) is only ONE of the THREE possible translations of 1:1.
The other two possibilities are:
1. "a god"
2. "god" in a qualitative nuance
Moffatt's Translation uses #2, rendering it as "and the Word was divine". And the JWs New World Translation uses #1, rendering it as "and the Word was a god".
Both of these are as grammatically acceptable as mainstream Christianity's "God with a capped G" translation. But here's the clincher:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”
This is 25 TRINITARIAN scholars acknowledging what those of us without a "Jesus is God" bias already accept as simple common sense: God cannot possibly be said to be WITH God. So of the THREE possibilities, "THE God" is the only one these scholars eliminate.
Jehovah is the God OF gods. Jesus and Satan are only two of the many gods in heaven and on earth that Jehovah is the God OF. So try understanding John 1:1 to be saying that Jesus, who is the Word, was WITH his own God in the beginning, and was himself a god (mighty one). Because that IS what John was telling us.
peace,
mike
John 1:1 is from where much of the problem stems, because so many Trinitarian translators render part c as "and the Word was God". This is a bad translation that makes no sense because the BEING of God could not possibly have been WITH the BEING of God.
This is from the 25 TRINITARIAN scholars that produced NETBible (NETBible: John 1:1):
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God” rather than indefinite (“a god” here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.
What this tells us is that Colwell's Rule, (the rule used as support of a "THE theos", or "God with a capital G" rendering of 1:1c) is only ONE of the THREE possible translations of 1:1.
The other two possibilities are:
1. "a god"
2. "god" in a qualitative nuance
Moffatt's Translation uses #2, rendering it as "and the Word was divine". And the JWs New World Translation uses #1, rendering it as "and the Word was a god".
Both of these are as grammatically acceptable as mainstream Christianity's "God with a capped G" translation. But here's the clincher:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”
This is 25 TRINITARIAN scholars acknowledging what those of us without a "Jesus is God" bias already accept as simple common sense: God cannot possibly be said to be WITH God. So of the THREE possibilities, "THE God" is the only one these scholars eliminate.
Jehovah is the God OF gods. Jesus and Satan are only two of the many gods in heaven and on earth that Jehovah is the God OF. So try understanding John 1:1 to be saying that Jesus, who is the Word, was WITH his own God in the beginning, and was himself a god (mighty one). Because that IS what John was telling us.
peace,
mike
From experience, I would argue that 98% of the time Jehovah's Witnesses mistaken Trinitarianism for what is commonly known as Sabellianism (the belief that God is one single individual who at times poses as the Father, or sometimes poses as the Son, or sometimes as the Spirit), and this is particularly true with your assertion, "But here's the clincher: The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, 'the Word was with God')."
No sir, you want to know what the real clincher is? The real clincher is that Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is the Father (or that the Logos is the same Person whom He is "with") anymore than you do. In fact, the Trinitarian proclamation affirms that the Logos co-existed from eternity "with" the Father, as a distinct Person. So your argument about Trinitarians identifying the Logos as the Person whom He is with is already in trouble from the get-go.
What must be asked and seriously thought-out is, “What is it that Trinitarians believe John 1:1 to be portraying? Is John here declaring that the Word is God the Father as Sabellianism portrays? Is the Word a secondary, or lesser god as Arians believe? Or is the Word a Person who possesses Deity in the same measure as the Father, but is also distinct from the Father as Trinitarians have always claimed?”
If John were trying to portray Christ as "a god" or "a divine one" in John 1:1 as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach, one of the many methods of doing so include placing the verb ("ho Logos") before the anarthrous predicate ("Theos") so that the text would read, "ho Logos en theos." John could have even used the adjective, “theios,” which would describe a divine nature (Acts 17:29, 2 Peter 1:3-4), or a god-like one so that the Greek would read as, "ho Logos en theios." A third possibility includes the usage of the indefinite pronoun, “tis,” to indicate that the Word was “a certain god,” but not the one he was referring to in the proceeding clause of John 1:1b (c.f. Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1). However, given these three approaches, none of these are what the Apostle John actually wrote. What John wrote was not, "ho Logos en theos" ("the Word was a god"), "ho Logos en theios" ("the Word was divine"), rather, "Theos en ho Logos" ("the Word was God”. This view held by the Jehovah’s Witnesses ignores several key factors,
1.) Indefiniteness is the most poorly attested for anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives throughout the entirety of the text of Scripture.
2.) The largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives are qualitative, the second largest proportion being definite.
3.) If Theos were indefinite here in John 1:1, it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative in the Gospel of John.
4.) Theos is placed in the emphatic position.
2.) The largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives are qualitative, the second largest proportion being definite.
3.) If Theos were indefinite here in John 1:1, it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative in the Gospel of John.
4.) Theos is placed in the emphatic position.
"En arche en ho Logos, kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai ho Theos en ho Logos” ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was the God")
John did not identify the Logos with indefiniteness ("a god") or with definiteness ("the God"), but rather, qualitatively, which means that all the attributes or qualities of God, the same God mentioned in John 1:1b, belong to the Logos of John 1:1c. The passage teaches that the Word, as to His essential nature, is God. It is after all, the nature of God which makes God, God (Galatians 4:8). To expound on this a bit further, the expression “Eve was Man” is not an example of identification, but that of predication. “Eve” is not identified or equated with "Man,” but rather, the qualities, characteristics, and nature of "Man" are predicated to “Eve.” Likewise, the expression in John 1:1c, “the Word was God” does not identify the Word as the Person whom He is “with” (John 1:1b), rather, all the qualities, characteristics, and nature of God are predicated to the Word. The Word shared the exact nature/essence of the Father, though they differed in Person from one another, thereby making them ontological equals, or as the Athanasian Creed puts it, “Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead.”
John 1:1 is the only way John could have made a distinction between the Logos and the One whom He was "with" while maintaining that by His very nature, the Logos was God.
Last edited: