Non-Trinitarian The God or a god

[he-man]

Which God is it?

 

[faroukfarouk]

John 1.1 says God.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Just explaining the LDS view:

There are multiple divine persons, whom are all together 1 God. This is through unity: they have 1 Goodness, 1 Perfection, 1 Justice, 1 Mercy, 1 will, 1 honor, etc.

 

[carrwinn]

The word "beginning" at John 1:1 cannot refer to God the Creator, for he is eternal, having no beginning. It must therefore refer to the beginning of creation, when the word was brought forth by God as his firstborn Son. This is none other than Jesus Christ. He was God's Word of communication for conveying information and instructions to the Creator's other spirit and human sons.

 

[DW1980]

The word "beginning" at John 1:1 cannot refer to God the Creator, for he is eternal, having no beginning. It must therefore refer to the beginning of creation, when the word was brought forth by God as his firstborn Son. This is none other than Jesus Christ. He was God's Word of communication for conveying information and instructions to the Creator's other spirit and human sons.

I agree with your identification of Jesus as "the Word". I also agree with "the beginning" referring to the beginning of creation - obviously God exists outside of time and space, he is eternal. But I see no reason to disconnect "the Word" from "God".

If we read John 1:1-3 it's clear: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

How could Jesus make himself?

The other major issue with translating John 1:1 as "a god" (as the New World Translation does) is this makes Jesus a false god. In John 17:3 he clearly states that there is only one true God. By definition, all other gods would be false gods.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

read to here

 

[Ratiocination]

Interesting to note that John says Ho theos (The God) whom the Word is with, then calls the Word thoes (God). So a distinction is made in the Greek by means of the article HO, this is a distinction that should be carried over into the English. There's a difference when you're trying to make a difference...

Who is the God whom The Word is said to be "with"? And what is an obvious problem with calling The Word "God" the same as the "God" in 1:1b

 

[DW1980]

Interesting to note that John says Ho theos (The God) whom the Word is with, then calls the Word thoes (God). So a distinction is made in the Greek by means of the article HO, this is a distinction that should be carried over into the English. There's a difference when you're trying to make a difference...

Who is the God whom The Word is said to be "with"? And what is an obvious problem with calling The Word "God" the same as the "God" in 1:1b

There is no problem precisely because the definite article is omitted the second time.

If it said "the word was The God", it would create a legitimate question. How can the word be God, and be with God? It would make Jesus and the Father the same person because it would make logos and theos interchangeable. By omitting "the" the second time John tells us that Jesus has the same nature as God, but keeps him as a distinct person. I found this online:

To summarize: The phrase kai theos en ho logos is most literally translated as "and the Word was God." (Robertson, Bruce). The reason that theos is anarthrous is both that it is the predicate nominative (Robertson, Dana and Mantey) and that it is demanded by the fact that if it had the article, it would be then interchangeable with logos, which is contextually impossible. (Robertson, Dana and Mantey, Bruce, Nicoll) Colwell's rule also comes into play at this point. We have seen that the majority of scholarship sees the theos as indicating the nature of the Word, that He is God as to His nature. The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as "god-like."

Hence, John 1:1 teaches that the Word is eternal (the imperfect form of eimi, en), that He has always been in communion with God (pros ton theon), and hence is an individual and recognizable as such, and that, as to His essential nature, He is God.

 

[Ratiocination]

Hi Thanks for the reply...

There is no problem precisely because the definite article is omitted the second time.

There is a problem if the English translation makes no mention of the distinction! The point here is not CAN one translate as "word was God", that is most definitely a valid translation. The point is that it makes the Greek sound like there is no distinction between the "theos's", and therefore reads that the Word was the Father, and this is not the intention...

If it said "the word was The God", it would create a legitimate question.

That's the question raised by the English translation "was God". Because it's precisely the same [in English] as "with God". The "God's" are the same.

How can the word be God, and be with God? It would make Jesus and the Father the same person because it would make logos and theos interchangeable. By omitting "the" the second time John tells us that Jesus has the same nature as God, but keeps him as a distinct person.

Who said the Word was with the "father"??? John 1:1 uses "Theos", there is a distinction made by the use of "theos" not persons or essence. John 1:1 introduces 2 individual deities, not persons...

I found this online:

To summarize: The phrase kai theos en ho logos is most literally translated as "and the Word was God." (Robertson, Bruce). The reason that theos is anarthrous is both that it is the predicate nominative (Robertson, Dana and Mantey) and that it is demanded by the fact that if it had the article, it would be then interchangeable with logos, which is contextually impossible. (Robertson, Dana and Mantey, Bruce, Nicoll)

Why translate it as if it does then?

Colwell's rule also comes into play at this point. We have seen that the majority of scholarship sees the theos as indicating the nature of the Word, that He is God as to His nature. The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as "god-like."

Lol, it's so easy to write that "Jesus is God as to his nature..." So why does John never do it? Why do we have these kind of explanations that use wording and phrases never found in the bible?

Hence, John 1:1 teaches that the Word is eternal (the imperfect form of eimi, en), that He has always been in communion with God (pros ton theon), and hence is an individual and recognizable as such, and that, as to His essential nature, He is God.

Marks out of 10 for teaching "eternality" by using the word "beginning" 0/10...
"Essential nature", good one, where is that little phrase found in the scriptures?

The Trinity is extra-biblical as evidenced by your source. Words and phrases are always borrowed to explain it that simply are never found within the scriptures. The bible says quite clearly not to go beyond the things that are written! 1Cor. 4:6, and if we applied this rule strictly, it would be impossible to teach A trinity doctrine similar to the one that appeared in the 4th century AD.

Regards

 

[drstevej]

Just explaining the LDS view:

There are multiple divine persons, whom are all together 1 God.

Is LDS Heavenly Mother in this list?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Which God is it?

The Logos is ho theos.

Interesting to note that John says Ho theos (The God) whom the Word is with, then calls the Word thoes (God). So a distinction is made in the Greek by means of the article HO, this is a distinction that should be carried over into the English. There's a difference when you're trying to make a difference...

Who is the God whom The Word is said to be "with"? And what is an obvious problem with calling The Word "God" the same as the "God" in 1:1b

The presence or absence of the definite article is not itself sufficient. As the Greek text frequently lacks the definite article when it is unambiguously referring to capital-G God. As just one example, Matthew 4:4

Ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν γέγραπται Οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ἄνθρωπος ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος θεοῦ

No definite article before theou. But there's no reason to translate it as "out of the mouth of a god".

To even bring things further home, the definite article is used unmistakably in reference to the Son, consider Hebrews 1:8

πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου

This statement is made explicitly concerning the Son, and it says ho theos.

Context is critical. In the case of John 1:1 a distinction is made between the first theos and the second theos, because there is a distinction between God (the Father) and His Logos. But it is not a distinction between God and a god; it is the distinction between the Father and the Son.

The presence or absence of the definite article is not the sole basis for understanding the meaning of the text.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rajni]

Which God is it?

From my monotheistic perspective, there is only one.

 

[he-man]

The Logos is ho theos. The presence or absence of the definite article is not itself sufficient. As the Greek text frequently lacks the definite article when it is unambiguously referring to capital-G God. Context is critical. In the case of John 1:1 a distinction is made between the first theos and the second theos.
The presence or absence of the definite article is not the sole basis for understanding the meaning of the text.
-CryptoLutheran

Tyndale New Testament > John 1 John 1 Tyndale New Testament. 1 In the beginning was that word, and that word was with god: and god was that word.

 

[he-man]

From my monotheistic perspective, there is only one.

John 1 Tyndale New Testament. 1 In the beginning was that word, and that word was with [regard to] god: and god was that word. Codex Sinaiticus εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θν και θς ην ο λογος
John 1 Interline 1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος .
N-NMS
The Greek word λόγος or logos is a word with various meanings. It is often translated into English as word, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard, or logic, among other things. It has varied use in the fields of philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric and religion. Short Definition: πρὸς with regard to, to, towards, of the goal or limit toward which a movement is directed: πρός metaphorically, of mental direction, with words denoting desires and emotions of the mind, to, toward

 

[Ratiocination]

Hi thanks for the reply...

The Logos is ho theos.

Not according to John 1:1

The presence or absence of the definite article is not itself sufficient. As the Greek text frequently lacks the definite article when it is unambiguously referring to capital-G God. As just one example, Matthew 4:4

Ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν γέγραπται Οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ἄνθρωπος ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος θεοῦ

No definite article before theou. But there's no reason to translate it as "out of the mouth of a god".

Not my argument!

To even bring things further home, the definite article is used unmistakably in reference to the Son, consider Hebrews 1:8

πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου

This statement is made explicitly concerning the Son, and it says ho theos.

I think a stronger case could be made using John 20:28, rather than using a verse that applies a title to Christ that was originally applied to an Israelite king.

But that's interesting isn't it? Instead of quoting a verse from the OT that calls Jehovah God, God, he uses a verse that was applied to an Israelite king. Does that not say to you that the writer of Hebrews views Jesus along those lines, paralleling him with kings of old?

The verse goes on to say (and I'd like your opinion on it) that Christ has a God above him...

Hebrews 8:9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.”

So while I do not deny that Jesus has the title of theos applied to him on a few occasions within the scriptures, my study does not stop there, there's more truth to go...

Context is critical. In the case of John 1:1 a distinction is made between the first theos and the second theos, because there is a distinction between God (the Father) and His Logos. But it is not a distinction between God and a god; it is the distinction between the Father and the Son.

I looked up the meaning of Exegesis and it's opposite meaning for the purpose of this thread, if you don't mind I've quoted it below...

Eisegesis. ... While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text.

Was the simplest definition I could find!

So, where in the text does it use the terms "Father" and "Son" to draw a distinction?

John is very clear that the distinction must to be drawn exegetically using the terms "Theos" and "Ho Theos". I realise this is a challenge for Trinitarians as no such distinction is allowable according to your theology.

Context is important absolutely, but context doesn't change the deliberate use of grammar or the words. My position here, and I'll state it again, is as follows;

1. "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (A definite translation) implies that the Word is the God whom he is with. Jesus is either the Trinity, or he is the Father.
2. Such a translation does not take into account the deliberate use of grammar, within the same sentance, to highlight the fact that there are 2 separate deities here in John 1:1.
3. My position is not that everywhere you see the article is should be translated God, and everywhere it's missing it should be "a god". That's a strawman of my argument.

The presence or absence of the definite article is not the sole basis for understanding the meaning of the text.

-CryptoLutheran

Do you agree that "the Word was a god" is a literal translation of the text?

Regards

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do you agree that "the Word was a god" is a literal translation of the text?

No.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ratiocination]

No.

-CryptoLutheran

Grammatically I mean?

 

[Rajni]

Meanwhile (because the thread title had reminded me of it)...

 

[DW1980]

Hi Thanks for the reply...

There is a problem if the English translation makes no mention of the distinction! The point here is not CAN one translate as "word was God", that is most definitely a valid translation. The point is that it makes the Greek sound like there is no distinction between the "theos's", and therefore reads that the Word was the Father, and this is not the intention...


That's the question raised by the English translation "was God". Because it's precisely the same [in English] as "with God". The "God's" are the same.

Who said the Word was with the "father"??? John 1:1 uses "Theos", there is a distinction made by the use of "theos" not persons or essence. John 1:1 introduces 2 individual deities, not persons...


Why translate it as if it does then?

Lol, it's so easy to write that "Jesus is God as to his nature..." So why does John never do it? Why do we have these kind of explanations that use wording and phrases never found in the bible?


Marks out of 10 for teaching "eternality" by using the word "beginning" 0/10...
"Essential nature", good one, where is that little phrase found in the scriptures?

The Trinity is extra-biblical as evidenced by your source. Words and phrases are always borrowed to explain it that simply are never found within the scriptures. The bible says quite clearly not to go beyond the things that are written! 1Cor. 4:6, and if we applied this rule strictly, it would be impossible to teach A trinity doctrine similar to the one that appeared in the 4th century AD.

Regards

The Trinity is NOT extra-Biblical, nor did it appear in the 4th century. It's taught in the Bible, it's in the writings of the Church fathers. There is abundant evidence for this.

If you want to say that Jesus is not God, that he is a creation, then that is a teaching that originated in the 4th century. One interesting thing is that Christians were persecuted for worshiping Jesus as God. There is a painting from the early second century (I read about this a while back) done by a Roman mocking Christians. It depicts Christians worshiping a donkey on a cross. Now why would they do that if early Christians were not worshiping Jesus? And what Christian would worship someone other than the Almighty God?

 

[DW1980]

Lol, it's so easy to write that "Jesus is God as to his nature..." So why does John never do it? Why do we have these kind of explanations that use wording and phrases never found in the bible?


Marks out of 10 for teaching "eternality" by using the word "beginning" 0/10...
"Essential nature", good one, where is that little phrase found in the scriptures?

Just picking up on these...

As a JW you believe that the Watchtower is God's organisation, right? I've read a lot of WT literature and have spoken to JWs on several occasions. Some WT literature uses specific terminology. Such as "theocratic arrangement". Do we argue that the concept isn't biblical just because the terminology we use isn't there? Of course not.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is God, as there is only one God he has the same essence and nature as God:

[Jesus] Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage (Phil 2:6)​