• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Do you belong to a CULT?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by edpobre, Oct 16, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    FOW - you are spamming again.

    Take a deep breath, and try to post your proof texts one at a time. If you're not prepared to do this, I'm not prepared to address them.

    And remember - I've seen every Trinitarian proof text under the sun. You are not showing me anything that I haven't already dealt with on countless occasions. :cool:
     
  2. Katya

    Katya Regular Member

    366
    +16
    Mormon
    Single
    I belong to a cult. Or so I've been told. Wouldn't have it any other way either.:p
     
  3. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Really?

    And which "cult" would that be, may I ask? :cool:
     
  4. Katya

    Katya Regular Member

    366
    +16
    Mormon
    Single
    mormonism. Don't know why they think it's a cult, but hey i don't care. I think it's kinda funny actually.
     
  5. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Well, they think I'm a cultist too. So you're in good company. :cool:
     
  6. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Katya - are you a member of the Community of Christ in NZ?
     
  7. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Hello Evangelion and God bless-

    >

    If God is 'spirit' and the Holy Spirit is the 'Spirit OF God' that deems it enough for me. Now back to my request. Could you clarify in more detail *what* you believe? [Remember the 'spoon benders'].
    Yes they are. And what does this have to do with the 'definite article'? Shall I cite passages demonstrating the use of 'theos' w/o the article in reference to the Father in likeness to Jn1:1b?
    Do you really know what you're talking about here?

    >

    From a previous post of mine on TOL. [It's even more ridiculous in the 'qualitive sense']:

    >

    Several examples of scriptures speaking of God [theos] WITHOUT the definite article. Note how the passage reads with the indefinite article [a] inserted where the definite does not occur. Read:

    • >
    • Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called children of [a] God.
      >
    • Mat 6:24 "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both [a] God and Mammon.
      >
    • Joh 1:6 There came a man, sent from [a] God, whose name was John.
      >
    • Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become [a] God's children, to those who believe in his name:
      >
    • Joh 1:13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of [a] God.
      >
    • Joh 3:2 The same came to him by night, and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from [a] God, for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him."
      >
    • 1Co 1:30 But of him, you are in Christ Jesus, who was made to us wisdom from [a] God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption..'
    >
    Ooh, Ooh!! I don't..I don't..:wave:
    Parse the Greek. See Jn17:5. See this correspondence here: http://www.aomin.org/MSmart1.html.
    I believe the idea is more like "a spirit ALONE hath not flesh and bones". Hence the fact that the disciples believed Him to be *dead*. See 1Thess5:23. How you miss such a simple observation such as this is beyond me.
    They say precisely what they are meant to say. Once Jn1 is established, the idea conveyed by Phil2 is all too clear in harmonization.
    >
    FOW, you can view a discussion on John1 here: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/23426.html
    Now that is certainly a pathetic line of reasoning. Are you implying that "bulk" is the deciding factor?
    Ooh! New thread idea! :idea:
    >
    For FOW,
    >
    I once was discussing Phil2 with a fellow Trintarian a good while back. Here is an excerpt from one of his emails. You may want to check out those suggested books.
    >
    >>>Here's a link:
    >
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...31406/sr=1-13/ref=sr_1_13/104-5192815-6519145
    >
    It's called "Where Christology Began," and it's a series of essays on the verse. .........
    You might also profit from Ralph Martin's book, Carmen Christi, and N.T. Wright's _Climax of the Covenant_, which has a great chapter on Phil 2. One of the key points is getting all the evidence on the proper translation of hARPAGMOS before you - Wright is very good on this - check his footnotes for further references. He differs a bit with Martin, but not on any major point. There's an article by Hooker (I think, maybe it's Hoover) that Wright cites, that is killer - he tracks all the known KOINE uses of hARPAGMOS and demonstrates that is means "grasp onto something one already has." This is key, because if that's what hARPAGMOS means, the Son was already in possession of "equality with God," but in humility, refused to exploit it.<<<
    >
    Hence the "...Phi 2:5 Indeed, be letting the frame of mind [or, attitude] be in you* which [was] also in Christ Jesus,..." ALT.
    >
    Quite relevant to remember that the audience Paul was addressing was one of *equals among each other as 'man'*. :idea:

    >

    God bless--FM
     
  8. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +374
    Christian
    There we have what? There we have you not responding to the posts. Surely you admit (may I CALL you "Shirley"?) there is such a thing as a metaphor---else you would have to believe that God has literal wings as a bird (Ruth 2:12)

    Wisdom is metaphorically presented as a woman---who has whoever lacks understanding to freely partake of her goodness. But the contrast to a foolish woman who makes the same offer to one who seeks understanding. Both wisdom and folly are pesonified. Specifically "reprove a scoffer and he will hate you, reprove a wise man and he will love you."

    Now---let's look at the verses I offered before:
    The Holy Spirit speaks in Acts 1:16, 21:11, 28:25, Heb3:7.

    "The Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David."
    "This is what the Holy Spirit says: 'In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the gentiles."
    "The Holy Spirit spoke through Isaiah the Prophet, saying...""
    "Just as the Holy Spirit says..." (reffing Psalms 95, which undeniably is spoken by Jehovah

    The Holy Spirit is a witness of events in Acts 5:32.

    "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, WHOM God has given to those who obey Him." THis verse alone demonstrates the PERSONALITY of the Holy Spirit

    The Holy Spirit encourages in Acts 9:31.

    "The church ...enjoyed peace, ... in the confort of the Holy Spirit."

    The Holy Spirit sends men in Acts 13:4.

    "Being sent by the Holy Spirit, the went down to Seleucia and ...Cyprus...."

    The Holy Spirit fellowships with us in 2Cor13:14.

    "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the ove of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." Can you fellowship with a THING that is not a PERSON? No. ANOTHER verse that CANNOT be bent to ignore the PERSONALITY of the Holy Spirit...

    The Holy Spirit partners with us ("Metochos"---partners), in Heb6:4.

    You reeeeaaaaaly still believe the Holy Spirit, is not a PERSON? How can you PARTNER with a non-person???

    The Holy Spirit speaks, and is called a "HE" in Hebrews 10:16 (15-17).

    "The Holy Spirit also bears witness; for after saying (This covenant I make, I put My laws in their hearts/minds); HE THEN SAYS (he-the-HOLY-SPIRIT-says) 'Their sins & lawless deeds _I_ will remember no more."

    You really still think the Holy Spirit is merely PERSONIFIED? As you elequently said, "There you have it folks---the Holy Spirit is a PERSON."
     
  9. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Good points Ben. It's an easy route of escape to vouch for the "personification" argument. However, some aspects in this regard pertaining to the HS are a little too obvious as to what is and what is not personification. :)

    God bless--FM
     
  10. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +374
    Christian
    Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equalwith God:

    oJ;ß ejn morfh'/ qeou' uJpavrcwn oujc aJrpagmo;n hJghvsato to; ei\nai i~sa qew'/,
    FORM---morphe. ROBBERY---harpagmos (seize-or-grasp-by-force, steal) EQUAL---isos

    The Greek FLAT proves Jesus is GOD---there is no way to contradict it...

    COLOSSIANS 2:9: "In Jesus dwelt the FULNESS of the GODHEAD in bodily form." THEOTES---1) deity, 1a) the state of being God, Godhead

    Wanna try to refute that with Greek? Ain't gonna happen...
    Are you SERIOUS?

    Mormonism: "salvation", or "godhood", is achieved by your own efforts.
    Christianity: Your own efforts amount to NOTHING---salvation is by GRACE, through FAITH.

    Mormonism: There are billions of gods, you can be a god or goddess.
    Christianity: There is only ONE God, none formed before, none after. none besides Him.

    Mormonism: Jesus isn't God.
    Christianity: Jesus had no beginning, is equal to the Father, but a separate person.
    You believe there are TWO WORDS in John1? I do not. JESUS is the WORD, the word-flesh-became and tabernacled among us. The word with GOd, the word WAS God.

    The word by whom all things were made, and apart from whom was nothing made that was made. Think about that---if Jesus is not GOD, then He is a CREATED BEING. Yet NOTHING MADE was made APART FROM JESUS---ALL THINGS WERE MADE THROUGH HIM! If Jesus was created, then HOW?
     
  11. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Check out Robert Hommel's site www.forananswer.org in the apolgists bible commentary for this verse. Absolutely thrashed Greg Stafford on this one. :D

    I really, really hope he goes into this with you. :cool:

    God bless--FM
     
  12. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    AV -

    Well, I wouldn't expect any less from someone like you. :)

    After all this time you're trying to tell me that you still don't know what I believe? Good grief.

    There's a comprehensive Statement of Faith in my sig. line. Click on it.

    *snip*

    See? You don't even understand the use of the definite article.

    Sure, if it makes you happy. It'll be totally irrelevant to what I've been saying here, of course - but then, relevance was never your strong point. :p

    *snip*

    Since you still show no evidence of a systematic theology, nor even a proper Christological schema, I'll feel free to ignore anything else you post on this forum. :cool:
     
  13. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +374
    Christian
    Very good, Futureman! I clicked your link, and towards the right was a link for "COL2:9". Clicked it, and read:
    This verse - perhaps more than any other verse in Paul's writing - teaches that Christ was God in the flesh. The word translated "Deity" signifies the "essence of being God" - what makes God, God (see Grammatical Analysis, below). And it was not a mere quality or limited sub-set of attributes - for Paul tells us that "all the fullness" of Deity dwelled in Christ. And this fullness did not merely sojourn for a time in Christ's consciousness, but rather "dwelled" there (Greek katoikeo: "to take up permanent residence"). It is a timeless present tense verb (Harris, Colossians, p. 98) - "continues to live." And this dwelling was "bodily," in Christ's physical body. This points to the incarnation, surely, but also to the resurrected Christ as well, who is now our mediator, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). As Robertson puts it: "The fullness of the Godhead ... dwells ‘in the once mortal, now glorified body of Christ'" (RWP).


    Then follows a detailed grammatical analysis...
     
  14. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Thanks. On the same site proceed below that in the 'What's new' section and click on Sam Shamouns new 'Jesus and Latreuo' article. Killer stuff. :hug:
     
  15. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Ben -

    There we have you resorting to your double standard, without ever attempting to explain why wisdom isn't a literal, personal being.

    *snip*

    So all you've really done here is to repeat your original argument without touching mine.

    No, I didn't say this at all. Please don't misrepresent me. It doesn't help your case, and it erodes your credibility.

    Yes, morphe means "form." Very good. Now what are you going to do with it?

    Exactly. He did not seize equality with God.

    Correct. That's exactly what he did not try to grasp at.

    Really? You haven't even made a case from the Greek yet! :D

    *snip*

    Sure thing. :)

    Two points:
    • This is a post-resurrection passage. Naturally, Christ has received the divine nature by this stage.
    • What do you understand "all the fulness of the Godhead" to mean? According to Trinitarianism, "the Godhead" consists of three separate persons, sharing the same essence. Is that what you claim to exist in Jesus, "bodily"?
    Of course, there is no real Koine Greek equivalent for the English word "Godhead", which has been inserted into the text without any reference to the original language.

    Now look at this:
    • Acts 17:29.
      Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
    • Romans 1:20.
      For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    • Colossians 2:9.
      For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
    • II Peter 1:3.
      According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
    • II Peter 1:4.
      Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
    The same Greek word (theios) is used in all of these verses. :D In Colossians 2:9 it appears in a slightly different form (theiotes), but the meaning remains the same.

    Thus, from the Liddell-Scott-James Greek Lexicon:
    • theios (A), a, on: late Ep. theeios Procl.H.2.16; theêïos Bion Fr.15.9; late Aeol. thêïos Epigr.Gr.989.4 (Balbilla); Lacon. seios (v. infr. 1.3): Comp. and Sup. theioteros, -otatos, freq. in Pl., Phdr.279a, Mx. 244d, al.: ( [theos] ):

      1. of or from the gods, divine, genos Il.6.180 ; omphê 2.41 ; Oneiros ib.22; epipnoiais A.Supp.577 , cf. Pl.R.499c; mastix A. Pr.682 ; mania S.Aj.611 (lyr.); nosos ib.185 (lyr.) (but th. nosos, of a dust-storm, Id.Ant.421); kindunoi And.1.139 ; th. tini moirai by divine intervention, X.HG7.5.10; th. tuchêi gegonôs Hdt.1.126 ; th. tuchêi chreômenos Id.3.139 ; th. kaponôi tuchêi, of an easy death, S.OC1585; ek th. tuchês Id.Ph.1326 ; emathe hôs th. eiê to prêgma Hdt.6.69 ; ho th. nomos Th.3.82 ; phusis th. SIG1125.8 (Eleusis), cf. 2 Ep.Pet.1.4; appointed of God, basilêes Od.4.691 ; skêptron given by God, S.Ph.139 (lyr.); v. infr. 2.

      2. belonging or sacred to a god, holy, agôn, choros, Il.7.298, Od. 8.264; under divine protection, purgos, domos, Il.21.526, Od.4.43; of heralds and bards, Il.4.192, Od.4.17, al.; so perh., of kings, ib. 691.

      3. more than human, of heroes, Odusseus Il.2.335 , al., Cratin. 144.4 (lyr.); th. anêr Pi.P.6.38 , A.Ag.1548 (lyr.), Pl.R.331e, Men.99d (esp. at Sparta (Lacon. seios), Arist.EN1145a29; ô theie (in the mouth of a Spartan) Pl.Lg.626c); meta sou tês theias kephalês Id.Phdr.234d , cf. Them.Or.9.128a, Lib.Or.19.66.
      b. of things, excellent, theion poton Od.2.341 , 9.205; halos theioio Il.9.214 ; th. prêgmata marvellous things, Hdt.2.66; en toisi theiotaton Id.7.137.

      4. = Lat. divinus (or sacer), Imperial, diataxeis prob. in BGU473.5(200 A.D.), etc.; thêsauroi PLips.62ii14 (iv A.D.); th. horkos oath by the Emperor, POxy.83.6 (iv A.D.), etc.; theiotatos, of living Emperors, Inscr.Prien.105.22 (9 B.C.), etc.

      b. = Lat.divus, of deified Emperors, th. Sebastos Edict.Claud. ap.J.AJ19.5.3, cf.Inscr.Perg.283 (iii A.D.), Lyd.Mag.2.3.

      II. as Subst., theion, to, the Divinity, Hdt.1.32,3.108, al., A.Ch.958 (lyr.); tou th. charin Th.5.70 ; hêmartêkota eis to th. Pl.Phdr.242c.

      2. in an abstract sense, divinity, kekoinônêke . . tou th. ib.246d; ê monon metechei tou th . . . , ê malista [anthrôpos] Arist.PA656a8, etc.; kata theion or kata ti th., Aen.Gaz.Thphr.p.37 B., p.4 B.

      3. theia, ta, the acts of the gods, course of providence, S.Ph.452, etc.; ta th. thnêtous ontas eupetôs pherein S.Fr.585 ; ta th. mê phaulôs pherein Ar.Av.961 .

      b. matters of religion, errei ta th. religion is no more, S.OT910 (lyr.), cf. OC1537, X.Cyr.8.8.2, etc.
      c. inquiries concerning the divine, Pl.Sph.232c; ta phanera tôn theiôn, i.e. the heavenly bodies, Arist.Metaph.1026a18, cf. GA731b24, Ph.196a33 (Sup.), EN1141b1.

      III. Adv. theiôs by divine providence, th. pôs X.Cyr.4.2.1 , etc.; theioterôs by special providence, Hdt.1.122; mallon ti kai -oteron ib.174.

      2. divinely, excellently, eu ge kai th. Pl.Tht.154d; theiôs eirêsthai Arist.Metaph.1074b9.


    • theiotês , êtos, hê, divine nature, divinity, LXX Wi.18.9,Ep.Rom.1.20, SIG867.31 (Ephesus, ii A.D.), Plu.2.665a, etc.
    There is no way in the world that anyone can wring the deity of Christ from this word. It does not mean "the state of being God", and it is applied to the faithful, who will receive theois if they are accepted at the Judgement seat.

    *snip*

    No, I believe that there is only one. Please go back and read what I wrote.

    No, he is the word made flesh.

    I agree.

    I agree.

    No, the word was divine.

    *snip*

    I agree that all things were made by the word, and that without it, nothing was made that was made. :cool:
     
  16. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Shamoun's article is founded entirely on two grammatical errors. :p
     
  17. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    You really need to debate someone of the likes of Robert Hommel, Dr. Hartley, etc. Did you ignore the points made from my post to FOW?

    Is it apparent that he read the link to Hommel's Col2:9 rebuttal to Greg Stafford? Obviously not. :rolleyes: The only credible explaination for such ignorance is that he slapped us *both* on ignore.

    Ah, I suppose the word 'theios' was later changed by pagan scribes to read 'theos'. :( Refer back to my previous post on 'articles' and the lack thereof. See also this article http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/topics/colwell.htm while you're at it.

    Really Ev, mainstream apolgetics are way past this stage. :D

    So unless you want to misquote a Mr. B like Anastasis or cite a rank and file JW again......

    Thank you for blessing us with that detailed analysis of Mr. Shamoun's argument. Too bad you left the refutation in your imagination :cool:. Now get to the specifics. :)

    God bless--FM
     
  18. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Oh for crying out loud! :(

    This is a *classical* Greek lexicon. This very point concerning classical Greek was brought up in the Col2:9 article. He didn't even *skim* it. :idea:
     
  19. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    I think it's rather odd that Ev would want to argue the meaning of Jn1:1 in regards to the second occurence of 'theos' being that he does not believe that Jesus is the 'Word' here nor does he believe that Jesus even pre-existed prior to His birth in Bethlehem. :confused: Very *odd* indeed :cool:.

    Aside from that, I will nevertheless reiterate a post from TOL:

    >

    Had John wanted to merely imply "divine" he could have much more easily used the word 'theios' as opposed to 'theos'.
    ____________

    Several examples of scriptures speaking of God [theos] WITHOUT the definite article. Note how the passage reads with the indefinite article [a] inserted where the definite does not occur. Read:
    • Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called children of [a] God.
    • Mat 6:24 "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both [a] God and Mammon.
    • Joh 1:6 There came a man, sent from [a] God, whose name was John.
    • Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become [a] God's children, to those who believe in his name:
    • Joh 1:13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of [a] God.
    • Joh 3:2 The same came to him by night, and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from [a] God, for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him."
    • 1Co 1:30 But of him, you are in Christ Jesus, who was made to us wisdom from [a] God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption..'
    ______________

    Some links on Jn1. They go into it [Colwell's rule etc..] a lot better than I can do here:

    Excerpt from http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-john1_1.htm

    Verse in Question: John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

    Question:
    My name is Bethany, and recently I have been trying to learn Greek. One reason is to be able to (hopefully) better understand the bible. But also because of what it says at John 1:1. There it says that the Word was with God and the word was God. But a friend of mine, who is a devote Christian, pointed out the Greek there. The spelling for God, in the sentence 'and the word was God' is different than the spelling of God else where. I looked at this and saw it too. This same spelling is seen when referring to 'other' gods. My friend and I are wondering if maybe the translation wasn't done correctly. Maybe it should say 'and the word was a god' or something of the sort. Please look into this, with an open mind.
    Thank you for your help. May God guide you and protect you.
    Bethany.

    Answer:
    In answering your question, let me first note that understanding the Greek text of the New Testament is extremely important and necessary for a clear apprehension of what the writers of the New Testament meant as they wrote the letters and accounts that we now enjoy. One note of caution is needful because Greek, like every language, has its own nuances and ways of saying things that can lead to confusion or misunderstanding when looking at it from the perspective of an English (or foreign) reader. An excellent example of this is the phrase you asked about in John 1:1.

    The Apparent Difference in Spelling

    First of all, the same Greek word is used in both occurrences of the word "God" in John 1:1. This same word is used in many contexts, whether it refers to the Only True God or whether it is referring to a false god - such as a man-made god (1 Cor. 8:5) or Satan as the ‘god of this age’ (2 Cor. 4:4). The apparent differences in spelling between the word ‘God’ in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’ (‘theos’) and in other places, (even in the previous phrase, ‘and the Word was with God’ (‘theon’)) is due to inflection in the Greek language. Each Greek noun normally has 8 or 9 forms (cases) in which it can appear. (See my page on ‘Inflection’ and ‘Cases’ on the Web site). In the first instance in John 1:1 it is the object of preposition and thus is in the accusative case. In the phrase in question, it is in the nominative case (indicating the subject or predicate nominative - equal to the subject). But it is the same word for ‘God’, and in both phrases here indicates the One and Only True God. So the apparent difference is spelling is not because ‘theos’ is a different word than ‘theon’, but is a different form of the identical word.

    The Lack of a Greek Definite Article

    Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article "a". Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god," rather than "the word was God." It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’. In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it. (We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.) (See Note 1, below.) And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (See Note 2, below.) Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, see an example of the use of the word ‘God’ and the definite article in John chapter one.) Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
    In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.
    (For a more thorough explanation of the function and use of the Greek article (and meaning of its absence), see ‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’, by Daniel Wallace. He includes fifty pages - entitled ‘The Article, Part I’ - which is a more complete treatment of the subject that many grammar books present and explains all the general uses of the article. He actually has a ‘Part II’ which discusses some special issues with the article. Fifteen pages of this second section apply directly to understanding this passage in John 1:1. It is highly recommended for those who really desire an honest and thorough understanding of this passage.)

    The Predicate Coming Before the Subject

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

    ..........

    Here is an excellent article on the topic:

    http://www.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

    James White uses the following citation from the work of Dr. A T Robertson in the above article:

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

    >

    God bless--FM
     
  20. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    AV -

    Why? Just so I could have the pleasure of hearing all the old fallacies again?

    Yes. :)

    *snip*

    You are wrong. I took a quick glance at it, found what I wanted, and went my way.

    Nope.

    *snip*

    What stage? You don't even have a systematic theology. What would you know about apologetics?

    *snip*

    You're welcome. I was more than generous. :)

    *snip*

    Irrelevant. The meaning of both words remains the same, as demonstrated by the fact that the LSJ references Romans 1:20 in its own definition of theiotes. Even Captain Hommel admits:

    • Louw & Nida do not semantically distinguish theotes, theiotes, and theios, treating them each as synonymous with "divine nature" as they define it here.
    This (combined with the old "it's-got-to-mean-literal-deity-or-nothing" chestnut) poses a bit of a problem for Trinitarians in II Peter 1:4 - but of course, if people will insist on double standards and biased "definitions", they must expect that their birds will eventually come home to roost. :p

    And rather pointlessly too, I might add.

    *snip*

    Finis. :cool:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...