Do you belong to a CULT?

Well...

..that's what I thought.

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

Click to expand...

And that explains much.

Hey, I proved my point, and it remains unassailable.

What more can I ask for?

See, the really sad thing about all of this is that even if I asked you to tell me which grammatical errors I am referring to when I criticise Mr Shamoun's argument, you wouldn't be able to tell me.

Evangelion... you must realize that you have yet to take what I posted and show its error. You have stated that it is incorrect... too long... etc, but have not addressed it at all.

Your theory pertaining to John 1 is that... it doesn't really mean what it says: The Word was God. You don't think that Christ is the Word... you think that the Word came into Him... yet... it doesn't say the word came into flesh... it says it became it. Read Rev 19:13

You assert that you are well aware of my "points", so please... show the errors that you assume to be there. You will not be able to do so with the Bible.

take care

FOW

Hey, I proved my point, and it remains unassailable.

What more can I ask for?

Click to expand...

If 2Peter1:4 was your "point" then I'm a happy man.

See, the really sad thing about all of this is that even if I asked you to tell me which grammatical errors I am referring to when I criticise Mr Shamoun's argument, you wouldn't be able to tell me.

Click to expand...

The sad reality being that I've asked you [this being twice] to refute his argument, and you won't (and can't do it). Therefore you are humbled to your usual *snip* and ><, and wasting my time with the brave mask of "I can answer it but I'll let you figure it out" escape route...but no argument. Maybe Buzzard needs to write a new book. His disciples are running out of material .

God bless--FM

FOW -

Evangelion... you must realize that you have yet to take what I posted and show its error. You have stated that it is incorrect... too long... etc, but have not addressed it at all.

Click to expand...

I am not going to debate your proof texts unless you start presenting them one by one. I have told you this before.

Your theory pertaining to John 1 is that... it doesn't really mean what it says: The Word was God.

Click to expand...

No, my theory pertaining to John 1:1 is that it means exactly what it says, and that you're not reading it properly.

You don't think that Christ is the Word...

Click to expand...

He is not the logos of John 1:1-3, no. He is the logos-made-flesh of John 1:14.

you think that the Word came into Him...

Click to expand...

No, I don't. I think that the logos became him.

yet... it doesn't say the word came into flesh...

Click to expand...

...which I don't believe anyway. So please, stop wasting your time and mine with straw men, and try to find out what I believe, instead of telling me what I believe and getting it wrong.

it says it became it.

Click to expand...

I know. And I agree with this.

YesRead Rev 19:13

Click to expand...

Why? What's that going to prove? That Christ bears a particular title which reflects the Johannine prologue? So what?

You assert that you are well aware of my "points", so please... show the errors that you assume to be there. You will not be able to do so with the Bible.

Click to expand...

Post them one by one, instead of spamming the board.

Then we'll talk.

AV -

If 2Peter1:4 was your "point" then I'm a happy man.

Click to expand...

II Peter 1:4 + Louw Nida + LSJ was my point. If you're still a happy man after all that, then you missed my point. Sorry.

The sad reality being that I've asked you [this being twice] to refute his argument

Click to expand...

I've given you a hint. Now you work it out.

and you won't

Click to expand...

*snip*

I've done more than enough with it. Certainly more than it deserves.

Read Shamoun's proof texts very carefully. They don't say what he claims.

ROBBERY---harpagmos (seize-or-grasp-by-force, steal)

Exactly. He did not seize equality with God.

quote:
EQUAL---isos

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

Jesus was equal with God---but He did not consider it to be robbery, but emptied Himself, and laid aside His privileges.

Which part of that are we presenting to you inadequately?

AND---help me to understand your view. You agree that "THE WORD-BECAME-FLESH" was Jesus. You agree that there are not "TWO DIFFERENT WORDS". So then, in your view, the WORD must have CHANGED.

What was the Word, when the Word was in the beginning with God?

Hello Ev and God bless-

>

No, my theory pertaining to John 1:1 is that it means exactly what it says, and that you're not reading it properly.

Click to expand...

Assertion with no supporting argument. You ought to see how HE feels it should read

He is not the logos of John 1:1-3, no. He is the logos-made-flesh of John 1:14.

Click to expand...

Assertion. His reasoning is baseless and easily refuted [as has been done]. Also, Jesus is the logos not only of Jn1 but of Rev19:13 and 1John1:1-2. Need I mention the parallels to 'Wisdom'?

Rev19:13
Why? What's that going to prove? That Christ bears a particular title which reflects the Johannine prologue? So what?

Click to expand...

A little closer to that 'reflection'- 1John1:1-2. Did he mention his explanation of Jn1:10?
>
FOW, don't expect him to actually engage in a full arguement with you on this topic. He and his Anthony Buzzard copy/pastes have been smacked down before. If by chance he does, PM me.
>
In the meantime, see these links:

http://www.christianwebsite.com/talk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3018&perpage=15&pagenumber=15 -yet to be given a descent response.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/23426.html -still going strong.

Unless he provides something new, it won't be worth it.

II Peter 1:4 + Louw Nida + LSJ was my point. If you're still a happy man after all that, then you missed my point. Sorry.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't.

I've given you a hint. Now you work it out.

Click to expand...

Or in other words "I don't actually have an argument so I'll jump up and down and wave my hands to distract you". Please.

*snip*

Click to expand...

I've done more than enough with it. Certainly more than it deserves.

Read Shamoun's proof texts very carefully. They don't say what he claims

Click to expand...

They say precisely what he intended to convey. Now provide a full rebuttal.

God bless--FM

Ben -

Which part of that are we presenting to you inadequately?

Click to expand...

The Scriptures themselves. More specifically, the definitions of the very words on which your entire argument relies.

AND---help me to understand your view. You agree that "THE WORD-BECAME-FLESH" was Jesus.

Click to expand...

Yep.

You agree that there are not "TWO DIFFERENT WORDS".

Click to expand...

Yep.

So then, in your view, the WORD must have CHANGED.

Click to expand...

Yep. The logos ginomai sarx.

What was the Word, when the Word was in the beginning with God?

Click to expand...

I'll let the Liddell-Scott-James Greek Lexicon answer that one:

• 
  logos, ho, verbal noun of legô:
  
  I. computation, reckoning (cf. legô (B) II).
  
  II. relation, correspondence, proportion.
  
  III. explanation,
  
  IV. inward debate of the soul (cf. l. hon autê pros hautên hê psuchê diexerchetai.
  
  V. continuous statement, narrative (whether fact or fiction), oration, etc.
  
  VI. verbal expression or utterance.
  
  VIII. thing spoken of, subject-matter.
  
  IX. expression, utterance, speech regarded formally, to apo [psuchês] rheuma dia tou stomatos ion meta phthongou.
  
  X. Word or Wisdom of God, personified as his agent in creation and world-government.

AV -

*snip*

They say precisely what he intended to convey.

Click to expand...

No, they say nothing of the kind - and your consistent refusal to explain why you think that they do, only goes to show that you haven't examined his proof texts in any detail whatsoever.

Now provide a full rebuttal.

Click to expand...

I have already presented a perfectly adequate rebuttal, and you are in no position to ask for more.

quote:
So then, in your view, the WORD must have CHANGED.

Yep.

Click to expand...

So the WORD was God, but the WORD was not Jesus; then the WORD (God) changed and became Jesus. Is that what you believe?

No, I believe that the word was divine, and that it was not a person until it "became flesh" in the form of Jesus of Nazareth.

John's use of theos in verse 1 is qualitative, not definitive.

I suggest you read Paul Dixon's thesis on this subject, and forget about Colwell's Rule.

Evangelion... since you love "scholars"... here are a few of their writings pertaining to your assertions: (from http://www.equip.org/free/DJ520.htm )



A. T. Robertson: "So in Jo. 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, not God was the Logos." A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, by A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, 1977), p. 279.

E. M. Sidebottom: "...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho logos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to John." The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S. P. C. K., 1961), p. 461. E. C.

Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context and in the case of John 1:1c this is not so." "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.

C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76.

C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos...That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase. "New Testament Translation Problems II," The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), p. 104.

Randolph O. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate '...and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that logos is the subject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), p.4.

James Moffatt: "'The Word was God...And the Word became flesh,' simply means "The word was divine...And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man..." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p.61.

Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos." "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.

Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II (Guardian Press, 1975; originally published 1871), p. 681.

Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into thinking that the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.

Bruce Metzger: "It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists... As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.

Julius R. Mantey: "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering... In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.' is shockingly mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices of Jehovah's Witnesses." Statement by J. R. Mantey, published in various sources. B. F. Westcott: "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3.

Who are these scholars? Many of them are world-renowned Greek scholars whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves have quoted in their publications, notably Robertson, Harner, and Mantey, in defense of their "a god" translation of John 1:1! Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this caliber who insist that the words of John 1:1 cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.

This is another "greek-guy's" writing pertaining to John 1:1

His name is Corey Keating:

http://www.heartlandchapel.org/studies/essentials/trinity/understand.htm

by Corey Keating
Ministry of the Word Homepage



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 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'.



The Context of All of the Apostle John's Writings:

It is also necessary to see this statement in context of the rest of John's writings. When comparing this with other statements about who the person and nature of Jesus Christ really is, it adds to what is already made clear by the Greek grammar. See for instance: John 8:56-59 (cf. Exo. 3:13-14); 10:28-33; 14:6-11; 1 John 5:20; (also John 8:23; 3:12-13; 5:17-18). These verses also indicate that, in John's understanding and thus the Bible's clear statements, Jesus Christ is the same essence and nature as God the Father, but distinct in their person-hood.



Consulting with Other Well Respected Greek Scholars and Grammarians:

For a further explanation and clarification about these items, it is helpful to consult with many of the well respected Greek scholars and expositors. Personally I have never come across any objective, well respected Greek grammarian that has come up with different conclusions that what has been presented here. Many of them go into much more detail than I have in these few short paragraphs. See for instance the writings of Daniel Wallace ('Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics'), A.T. Robertson (both his 'Grammar' and 'Word Pictures'), R.C.H. Lenski (in his commentary on the Gospel of John), Henry Alford ('Greek Testament'), J.A. Bengel ('Word Studies), Albert Barnes ('Barnes' Notes'), B.F. Westcott, and F.L. Godet, (and many others).



take care

FOW

FOW -

*snip*

Thankyou for posting the opinions of men who support your conclusions by default.

Now I would like you to argue your case by quoting scholars whose Christology is in opposition to your own, as I have done.

That is the only way you will win any credibility with me.

I couldn't care less if I win credibility with you. You like "scholars"... so you were given scholars. I like the word of God... and with that you have yet to return an arguement.

All original posts were not from others... however, you began to bring all sorts our "texts" to the floor, so I gathered some and posted... take them for what they say

take care

FOW

all sorts of "our" should be "other" texts... and should say outside opinions based on the research of others besides yourself.

thanks

FOW

gotta love the humor