- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Would you like to comment on this now?I would say the Father created everything through His Son, but the Son was not "the Word" (logos) before he was made flesh. The concept of creating "through" the Son is something I will address later on. I would like others to comment on the verses provided first.
I was not addressing Mounce's personal beliefs, but only the grammar. In spite of the Grammar, he still reads the Son into John 1:1. Consider his words I put in red above:Hi GP, Mounce is about as orthodox as you can get concerning the Trinity of YHWH. Here is the entirety of what he wrote on the page of his Grammar that your excerpt was taken from (the portion of it that you posited for us earlier is in blue below).
//////////
Chapter 6
Nominative and Accusative;
Definite Article
(First and Second Declension Nouns)
Exegetical Insight
The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case— the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.
As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,
We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.
In brief, 1 its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find.
As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.
To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεόςJesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. ~Mounce, William D, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 3rd edition, Chpt 6, pg 1, Zondervan
“and the Word was the God”
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god”
(Arianism)
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God”
(Orthodoxy).
//////////
NOTHING Mounce said above lends support to your non-Trinitarian POV, neither does your summation logically follow the point(s) he makes in his Grammar.
For anyone who is interested, here's an excerpt from Professor Mounce's personal Statement of Faith:
Article Two: The TrinityYours and His,
There is one God, infinitely perfect, without change, creator of all yet not created, distinct from His creation yet everywhere present, perfectly balanced in all His attribute, omniscient over all time, wholly sovereign. He alone is the sole object of worship.
God exists eternally in three persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-equal in essence and divine perfection, all three uncreated, executing distinct but harmonious offices.
Article Three: God the Father
God the Father is an infinite, personal spirit, perfect in holiness, wisdom, power and love. He concerns himself mercifully in the affairs of his creation, hearing and answering prayers, saving from sin all who come to him through Jesus Christ. All life is to be lived ultimately for his glory.
Article Four: God the Son
God the Son is fully God and fully human, without confusion or mixture, the unique and only Son. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, died on the cross as the sacrifice for our sins, was physically raised from the dead as prophesied, ascended into heaven, and now sits at the right hand of God the Father, interceding for the saints as the sole mediator. He will return to earth and ultimately every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Article Five: God the Holy Spirit
God the Spirit is sent to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. He fully indwells every true believer as a guarantee of his inheritance, guides and empowers them, interceding in accordance with the will of God. ~Beliefs | billmounce.com
David
Matthew 22
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question:
42 What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He? They said to Him, The son of David.
43 He said to them, Then how does David, speaking in the Spirit, call Him Lord, saying,
44 THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET?
45 If David calls Him 'Lord', how can He be his son?
"Yahweh" and "Yahweh of hosts" refer to the same being/person who is not only the "king of Israel", but Israel's redeemer. He redeemed Israel from Egypt. Later, He would send Yeshua to redeem the world from sin.Love that verse.
The chapter or passage must take into account all the attributes addressed.
Starting with Isaiah 44:6 we have the following:
6 Thus says Yahweh, the king of Israel,
and its redeemer, Yahweh of hosts:
“I am the first, and I am the last,
and there is no god besides me.
7 And who is like me? Let him proclaim it!
Yes, I accept the entire NT as canon. I reject the modern church's interpretation of a good portion of it.Also it would help if you could reveal if you accept the New Testament as canon or portions of it. If so we can do an attribute crosswalk and clarify a few passages
I will try to address it tonight.Would you like to comment on this now?
Hi GP, I appreciate your reply, but before I answer, I'd like to hear what you have to say to @redleghunter concerning this:I was not addressing Mounce's personal beliefs, but only the grammar. In spite of the Grammar, he still reads the Son into John 1:1. Consider his words I put in red above:
"John's wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find." Amein! But when the author's own theological sentiments are removed the true clarity and meaning of the verse comes out.
Did you notice the subtle way that the author inserted his own theology? This is no different than how many different scholars and theologians subtly introduce their own doctrines in their works, which has led to the deception of many. Pay close attention to the following sentences.
"Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of 'God' (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has, lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father."
He introduces his own theology, and that of the majority of traditional Christianity, by placing "Jesus Christ" and "the Father" in parentheses after the words he is describing. He then proceeds to use his theological sentiments from that point forward, completely skewing the true interpretation. Let's look at the statement again without the author's theology being inserted (including the unfounded capitalization mentioned in a previous section).
"Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the word with the person of 'God'. That is to say, the word order tells us that the word has all the divine attributes that the Father has, lack of the article tells us that the word is not the Father."
Removing the author's theology from the statement completely changes the meaning and brings out the true meaning of the verse without bias. John 1:1c is not making some complex theological statement about how Yeshua is part of some mystical Trinity or Binity. On the contrary, John is making it extremely clear that the "word" is not to be identified with "God" in any way in this verse. John is emphasizing the qualities of the "word" as they relate to the qualities of Elohim [God].
Doesn't it just make sense? If יהוה our Elohim is holy, so is His word. If יהוה is powerful, so is His word. If יהוה is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of יהוה are the same as the attributes of יהוה Himself. The personification of the "word" in this verse is simply an assumption and incorrect eisegetical insertion into the text. There is no need to make such an assumption or insertion when the correct understanding of the Greek text is understood. Reference
I would say the Father created everything through His Son, but the Son was not "the Word" (logos) before he was made flesh. The concept of creating "through" the Son is something I will address later on.
Here are a few Biblical facts;
1) Yeshua’s Father is the “only true God” (John 17:3)
2) Yeshua’s Father is YHWH (Psalm 2:7)
3) YHWH created everything alone, all by Himself (Isaiah 44:24)
4) Yeshua, the Lamb, takes a book out of the hand of the Creator (Revelation 4:10-11; 5:7)
Based on those facts we MUST conclude that Yeshua is not our Creator.
His Father YHWH is the ultimate Savior. The way He chose to save the world is through the death of His Son which makes Yeshua our Savior as well. YHWH chose to save Israel through several men in the past which makes them saviors as well.Hi again GP, actually, based on these facts, and many more that tell us Jesus is Divine, the church created the doctrine of the Trinity to both define and safeguard exactly what is meant by this great mystery.
On the same subject (but on a slightly different note), who do you believe the "Savior" is, Jesus or His Father?
Thanks!
--David
How can the church "define" something that is a "great mystery"? In actuality, the church created a great mystery when they created the man made doctrine of the trinity and their new teaching has led to the erroneous translations of trinitarian translators who imposed their preconceived ideas into scripture.Hi again GP, actually, based on these facts, and many more that tell us Jesus is Divine, the church created the doctrine of the Trinity to both define and safeguard exactly what is meant by this great mystery.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?