Christ Divinity Explained in John 1:1c
Christ Divinity Explained in John 1:1c
John 1:1 is the Beginning of Creation that supersedes Genesis 1:1. For example, we read, "When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?" (Job 38:7)
Morning stars are among the first angels or the beginning angels of creation. Morning Stars and all the sons of God are the angels that existed before Abraham was and before the earth itself. After all, it was the newly created earth that they were applauding.
Jesus even admitted of coming from the gods whom the word of God came! Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:34-36)
The Hebrew and Greek languages often use feminine nouns to point to a creation. According to the strong concordance theos can be rendered two ways. One way, is in the Masculine sense as in the first instance of (John 1:1) But what about in the second instance as in John 1:1c? Isn't that scripture describing his qualitative sense? His divinity in being divine?
Strong's Concordance
theos: God, a god
Original Word: θεός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: theos
Phonetic Spelling: (theh'-os)
Short Definition: God, a god
Definition: (a) God, (b) a god, generally.
Many Scholars know this, but withhold the fact that theos can be rendered (a god) as it was with Paul and Moses. Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist:
1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament
1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English
1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists
1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation (Herman Heinfetter)
1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)
1935: "and the Word was divine" – An American Translation, John M. P. Smith & Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago
1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin
(en arche en ho logos) Words such as arche', godlike, wisdom, grace, divinity, or deity are all in the feminine sense.
The use of a feminine nouns emphasis the fact that the Word was created. When?
“In the beginning was the Word . . . ”
Many religions teach that God has a beginning but if the truth be known, God is eternal.
Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)
Comments
-
There above you have in writing the JW polygamy forbidden by YHWH.
-
Brother Rando is a student of Prophecy and one of Jehovah's Witnesses. His interests are directed towards how the time of the end would come about. His Goal is to educate the public that Jehovah Witnesses have accepted the Sacrifice in Christ, whose Blood was shed for many as a ransom and exercise faith in 'Jesus Christ' for salvation. (Romans 10:9)
Therefore, Jehovah Witnesses are the true worshippers who worship the God and Father of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1:3) We also adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ to learn how His God and Father wants to be Worshipped.
- "God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.” (John 4:24)
- "Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him" (John 4:23)
Surprised by Jesus witness about God, the Samaritan woman tells Jesus, “I know that Mes·siʹah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one comes, he will declare all things to us openly.” (John 4:25)
What was Jesus repsonse to the Samaritan woman about the Christ? " Jesus said to her: “I am he, the one speaking to you.” (John 4:26)
Just think of it, Jesus was tired, thirsty, and hungry, and yet he was feeding the Samaritan woman spiritual truths about how His God and Father wants to be worshipped, with sprit and truth. When Jehovah Witnesses worship Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus Christ, they are often persecuted and treated as outcasts and even imprisoned for their faith that Jesus Christ had given them.
Jesus forewarned the true worshippers of his God and Father what is to come, since Jesus himself suffered from worshipping his God and Father with spirit and truth. "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you. Keep in mind the word I said to you: A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have observed my word, they will also observe yours. But they will do all these things against you on account of my name, because they do not know the One who sent me. (John 15:18-21)
"Beloved ones, do not be surprised about the fiery trials that you are experiencing, as though something strange were happening to you. On the contrary, go on rejoicing over the extent to which you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, so that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory." (1 Peter 4:12-13)
"For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6).
-
@BroRando reported said:
Brother Rando is a student of Prophecy and one of Jehovah's Witnesses. His interests are directed towards how the time of the end would come about. His Goal is to educate the public that Jehovah Witnesses have accepted the Sacrifice in Christ, whose Blood was shed for many as a ransom and exercise faith in 'Jesus Christ' for salvation. (Romans 10:9)
Who wrote or posted this? The above sentence alone shows you're a slave to the JW website. It should have read: I am "a student of Prophecy" or I, Brother Rando, "a student of Prophecy." Either of the sentences would have shown that an individual wrote it. @BroRando, ARE YOU REAL? Better yet, who's posting JW's doctrines in @BroRando 's name? This is deceptive and ashamed. This slip-up does more harm to JWs than your bruised ego.
You are NOT a person! You are a member of the JW governing body, posing as a person. You have been exposed! This explains why your pass posts were so mechanical, and you couldn't respond directly to any questions asked. This site (CD) is not for JW Church officials masking as an individual. Jan needs to look into this immediately!
Just recently, someone tried to embody @BroRando. I wonder if @Bill_Coley observed or knew about this? Why would an organization do this kind of thing? CM
PS. @Bill_Coley, you want justice, fairness, and to be a mediator in CD, find the truth to authenticate @BroRando is a person or a committee. Until then, he is a fake and fraud not worth any poster's time.
-
I think his cheese has fallen off his cracker. "With some, make a differnce."
-
Jehovah Witnesses have accepted the Sacrifice in Christ, whose Blood was shed for many as a ransom and exercise faith in 'Jesus Christ' for salvation. (Romans 10:9)
Why would this scripture send trintarians into a frenzy? If you read this scripture, it entitles the beleiver to be saved. The trinty never publically anounces Jesus Christ as Lord and trinitarians don't believe in their heart that God resurrected Jesus from the DEAD.
Acts 4:2
These were annoyed because the apostles were teaching the people and were openly declaring the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
-
@C Mc posted:
Just recently, someone tried to embody @BroRando. I wonder if @Bill_Coley observed or knew about this? Why would an organization do this kind of thing?
PS. @Bill_Coley, you want justice, fairness, and to be a mediator in CD, find the truth to authenticate @BroRando is a person or a committee. Until then, he is a fake and fraud not worth any poster's time.
I know nothing more about @BroRando than you do, if what you know is what he has revealed in his posts and is available on the website to which he has linked in his posts.
As for your P.S., it's not my responsibility in these forums to authenticate any participant's ID, whether @BroRando's, @Truth's, or any other poster's, regardless of the questions that arise about their identities.
-
Such a post seems odd. What am I missing? Something is afoot that is greased up so well that I’m not getting it.
-
@Bill_Coley said to @C Mc:
Bill,
You are correct, "it's not my responsibility in these forums to authenticate any participant's ID...". I am sorry to have asked or imposed this upon you. Let peace abide between us. Va bene? CM
-
@C Mc posted:
You are correct, "it's not my responsibility in these forums to authenticate any participant's ID...". I am sorry to have asked or imposed this upon you. Let peace abide between us. Va bene?
The ID authentication matter was water well under the bridge for me, but thanks for the apology, which of course I accept.
"Va bene?" Si.
-
CD Posters,
The Chairman has spoken will give @BroRando a pass to continue sharing and directing links to the JWs website. So, please, join me in getting back to the OP of this thread or reasonably close to it. I say this assuming @BroRando satisfied @Jan with his ability to function as human intelligence vs. "artificial intelligence."
It's no secret that JWs, currently, teach as many as possible that John 1:1 defines Jesus as "a god" to the chagrin of "orthodoxy." They baked it into their biased and flawed "Bible" called the New World Translation (NWT). Its translators were less than equipped to take on the scholarship demanded. Up to 1950, JWs acknowledged and worshiped Jesus as God. To justify their Arian views of Jesus and other spurious doctrines, JWs can come up with a plan to have their own Bible Translation (NWT).
So, let's look at the NWT and John 1:1. We must first go to Genesis 1:1 -- “In the beginning God created.
- “God” (Elohim) is plural.
- “Created” is singular (Heb: He created)
- Did God make a grammatical mistake?
- Same as saying “They was. ”
- God is a plurality and a singularity.
- The God of the Bible is three in one.
- Father, Son and Holy Spirit = One God
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
- Universe is time, space, matter
- “In the beginning…” = Time
- “. . . God created the heavens…” = Space
- “. . . And the earth. ” = Matter
- Time = Past, Present, Future
- Space = Width, Depth, Height
- Matter = Solid, Liquid, Gas
JW’S SUBTRACT FROM THE BIBLE
- Jesus was not Jehovah God.
- He was the first son that Jehovah God brought forth. (Michael the Archangel)
- Jesus was truly man, but not YWHW God.
- Jesus was a god, but not Jehovah God.
- Jesus had pre-existence, but not eternal.
- Jesus was the first creation of God.
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD (John 1: 1).
- The JW’s version of the Bible (New World Translation) erroneously states: “…and the word was a god. ”
- Breaks a rule of Greek grammar: Colwell’s rule = “God” is an anarthrous (no article for emphasis) predicate nominative!
- Jesus is the Word, Jesus is GOD (emphatic)
JOHN 1: 1 DOES NOT TEACH POLYTHEISM!!!
- The JW’s New World Translation version of the Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus is an inferior god to Jehovah God.
- This makes JW’s polytheists (many gods)
- Jesus claimed to be God: “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins (John 8:24).
@BroRando, is there any part of this post inaccurate. I didn't say whether you accept it or not. Now, can you see why mainstream Christianity is so passionate about Jesus? It's biblical without the INSERTIONS or the SUBTRACTIONS. Let's keep searching for truth and studying for understanding. CM
SOURCE:
-
I can debunk your whole argument with two scriptures.
- Simon Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16)
- "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22)
-
The JW tweaked Bible also adds to their Bible “Christ” where scholars agree it almost certainly does not exist.
-
Let's proceed through the grammar of John 1:1, clause by clause, within the immediate context in which it was written (vv.1-18).
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
A single question to start:
In this first clause, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, I would like to ask what affect the use of the imperfect ἦν has on your understanding of Ἐν ἀρχῇ?
-
Well, I'm not in ANY way equipped to enter this ongoing and newly-moved original languages exchange between @Pages and @BroRando, but I am equipped to give you both props for the content of your posts and the manner in which you have conducted your exchange.
I am not an original languages person at all, so your discussion is WAY out of my league, but I've followed as best I could, or at least closely enough to be impressed by what you've created: an exchange that has reflected the very essence of these forums' expectation that we discuss/critique ideas, not people.
As an outsider(!) I say to you both, well done and thanks for the model.
-
Well, I'm not in ANY way equipped to enter this ongoing and newly-moved original languages exchange between @Pages and @BroRando, but I am equipped to give you both props for the content of your posts and the manner in which you have conducted your exchange.
I am not an original languages person at all, so your discussion is WAY out of my league, but I've followed as best I could, or at least closely enough to be impressed by what you've created: an exchange that has reflected the very essence of these forums' expectation that we discuss/critique ideas, not people.
As an outsider(!) I say to you both, well done and thanks for the model.
Thank you for your encouraging words!
-
@Bill_Coley said to @Pages his purposed exchange with @BroRando on John 1:1
"... I'm not in ANY way equipped to enter this ongoing and newly-moved original languages exchange..."
I, too, would like to thank you for your efforts to establish some reasonable (intelligence) exchanges with @BroRando. Where I am unable to succeed, I wish you well in your endeavors. Since the Chairman, Jan's remarks, you have seen my recent efforts to reach (since the Chairman, Jan's remarks) out to @BroRando here and around the forums. To my dismay, the said party remains unwilling or incapable of appropriate exchanges on the topic (opened records).
Once again, as a recent pattern, we hear from @Bill_Coley once again before @BroRando, just an observation. @Bill_Coley 's statement tells me two things:
- He will not be able to contribute to the conversation in any substantive way.
- @Bill_Coley 's statement reminds me of the Committee members who crafted the New World "Bible" (NWT). The translators were woefully inadequate ("in ANY way equipped"), possibly except one. It's no secret they (translators) were religious partisans in an arena where a working knowledge of Greek and Hebrews was required. This is not to disparage Bill for his hindrances. It's a good thing when a man knows his limitations. He is wise.
Primarily as an observer, I want you to exceed. I encourage you to remain focused on the text to understand better who John said Jesus is ( John 1:1). Therefore for all readers and @Pages, in particular, have an advanced agreement and understanding of the following:
- Agreed to the exchanges and established ground rules for them.
- @BroRando agreed to the exchange on the substance of John 1:1.
- @BroRando would avoid unsolicited JWs talking points.
- @BroRando avoids the standard at-the-door maneuverings of evasions, detractions, distortions, and outright demagogy. I speak from personal experience and study.
- @BroRando acknowledges his proficiency or limited knowledge of Greek (like @Bill_Coley ).
- The two of would you affirm one another's points of agreement.
- Occasionally, cite sources when they are appropriate and necessary.
These and other factors you may want to consider. If you don't need them and have it all secured, more power to you. Regardless, I have taken the liberty to draft these guidelines for my fellow posters and silent readers in relating to one who is prone to be ambiguous and elusive.
If no one needs the above guidelines, view them as a harbinger of improving these forums. Until next time, keep reading, studying, and posting. CM
-
@Pages A single question to start:
In this first clause, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, I would like to ask what affect the use of the imperfect ἦν has on your understanding of Ἐν ἀρχῇ?
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος En archí ín o lógos rendered "In the beginning was the Word"
The use of the imperfect ἦν (in) translated to (was) affects the first clause by changing the present tense of the sentence back to the past. This shows that the Word had a pre-existence.
-
The use of the imperfect ἦν (in) translated to (was) affects the first clause by changing the present tense of the sentence back to the past. This shows that the Word had a pre-existence.
I assume spell correct helpfully changed the transliteration of ἦν (ēn) to (in) for you. 😯
Just one more question before moving to the second clause.
Would you consider there to be any change in the function or meaning given to the verb ἦν if this clause read Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ θεὸς instead of Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος?
-
No. the imperfect meaning of (was) would still apply the present tense and shift it back to past tense. Notice that the imperfect ἦν applies to the logos and theos (a god) which points to the same person. It never pointed to (ton theon) because the God always existed and is eternal.
Further explaination of the first clause is the feminine noun (Beginning) which points to the Logos (the Word). "In the beginning was the Word" The explaination given by HELPS can then be applied to whom? The Word alone who was begotten. (John 1:14)
HELPS Word-studies
746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning (temporal sense), i.e. "the initial (starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").
The Word was from the beginning, "the initial (starting) point, what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").
In the beginning was the Word (Proverbs 8:22)
-
CD Posters,
To avoid getting in the way of the conversation, I will hold my contributions to background information. In John, "the divinity of Christ is dominant." The most controversial text for Jehovah's Witnesses is John 1:1. Other texts in this gospel are John 1:18; 20:28; and 1 John 5:20, 21.
"και θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος," literally, this means "God was the Word." In this syntax, λόγος is the subject since the article precedes it, so the correct translation is "the Word was God" (See Robertson). Our JW friend translates this phrase as "the Word was a god" (NWT/their book). They expressed their belief that in deity, Jesus is inferior to the Father. NWT uses a lower case letter in the word God here. Since the inferiority of the Son is implied in His creation, it is note worthy that this translation disagrees with the very text constantly mentioned to identify their religious movement, Isa 43:10, where it is stated that no God was formed after Jehovah.
To get around the indefinite article in their translation, they argue that the Greek text θεὸς is anarthrous (without the article). The phrase "a god" would point to the inferiority of the Son since θεὸς in John 1:1b, 2, referring to the Father, is preceded by the article: "και ὁ λόγος ἦν προς τὸν θεόν "the Word was with God." Keep in mind, A. T. Robertson has made clear the meaning of the preposition προς, "with," here is "face to face" and implies "the most intimate fellowship as equals."
On the other hand, the lack of the article is due simply to a matter of phraseology conditioned to that which John wanted to transmit. We can hardly suppose that he wanted to affirm that the Word was "a god," not only because of his monotheistic religious background but primarily because his gospel reaches its climax with the confession of the full deity of Jesus in John 20:28, where θεὸς applied to Jesus is preceded by the article.
E. C. Colwell's rule for the use of the article in the Greek of the NT establishes that
"a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . . The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualificative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it."
Regarding John 1:1, Colwell noted:
"The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the Prologue of the Gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas" (p. 21).
The viability of this rule can be evidenced in such passages as John 3:10; 19:21; 9:5; 10:7; Heb 5:5, among others. The conclusions of Colwell also conspire against the idea that the anarthrous predicate in John 1:1 is a mere generality, as alleged by Jehovah's Witnesses (See WBTS book below).
The simple fact that John was a monotheist Jew discards any hypothesis of possible grammatical parallelism between John 1:1c and Acts 28:6 as Jehovah's Witnesses intend (Kingdom Interlinear). Here the inhabitants of Malta believed Paul to be "a god" (θεὸν), but they were pagan Gentiles (See Mattingly).
I hope this helps everyone. Different sources are below for the serious posters and better understand the facts. I have even included the JWs/WBTS books below. Let's keep studying and dig a little deeper. Next time. CM
SOURCES:
- "The Christology of the Fourth Gospel," Scottish Journal of Theology 31 (Oct. 1978): 452.
- A. T. Robertson, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament (New York and London: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1933), p. 279.
- Let God Be True. Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible &Tract Society, Inc., 1952, p. 106
- The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1969), pp. 1158, 1159, 1160 -- See appendix).
- A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 625.
- A. T. Robertson, The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1916), p. 39.
- Colwell, E. C. "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament." Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):12-21.
- Equipped for Every Good Work (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1946), pp. 34, 35.
- Bruce M. Metzger's comment on Colwell's rule in "On the Translation of John 1:1," The Expository Times 63 (1951/1952): 125, 126.
- John F. Mattingly, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Translate the New Testament," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 13 (Oct. 1951): 441
-
Trintarians reject the Deity of Christ. They falsely claim that Jesus is the theon which is a lie. In scripture Jesus calls his Father the Only True God in (John 17:3) which trinitarians reject. I don't beleive the antichirsts attacks against Jesus Christ but will expose them for what they are. Notice theon at https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/17-3.htm
The word Jesus calls his Father is theon whom the Apostle John heard with his own ears, since Jesus Christ was making a plea to the only true God. Jesus stated which is REJECTED by the antichrists is, "I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one." (John 17:11)
"I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one." (John 17:22)
By the way, there were no articles in kione greek in the first century. So when Johh introduced his book, he puprosely use two different greek forms for God. Theon refers to the eternal God and theos refers to the begotten god and his divine and godlike qualities.
-
John 17:3 also exposes the trinitarian lie that Jesus was was the incarnation of God. We clearly read Jesus Christ own words state "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you SENT, Jesus Christ.
- For the one whom God sent speaks the sayings of God, for He does not give the spirit sparingly. (John 3:34)
- Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me. John 7:16
- Jesus then said: “After you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things. John 8:28
- For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment means everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.” John 12:49, 50
- Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is not mine, but belongs to the Father who sent me. John 14:24
-
By the way, there were no articles in kione greek in the first century.
While browsing through your response to me I saw this post and just want to say something very quickly about this statement.
I think you meant to say there were no indefinite articles to be found in the Greek language. Articles certainly existed in the first century AD – check out the LXX and NT they're chock full of 'em.
So when Johh introduced his book, he puprosely use two different greek forms for God. Theon refers to the eternal God and theos refers to the begotten god and his divine and godlike qualities.
John, in roughly 81 occasions used θεὸς, θεόν, θεοῦ, θεῷ, to speak of the one true God. He used nominative, accusative, genitive, and dative grammatical cases.
Once again, I'd like to ask you a question of grammar regarding the accusative case theon you are so fond of.
Let's stay in John..., Jn. 10:33 at the end of the verse this is stated ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν (claim to be God). The ones saying this didn't accuse Jesus of claiming to be the Father as you like to assign to τὸν θεὸν in Jn. 1:1. My point is this, an anarthrous accusative θεόν is God – just as θεὸς in the nominative is.
A second verse Jn. 13:3 is interesting in that it includes Jesus, ὁ πατὴρ, θεοῦ, and τὸν θεὸν. I would ask if in reading this verse and by the grammatical standards you like to apply regarding τὸν θεὸν; should we read this as Jesus (a god), the Father (eternal God), anarthrous θεοῦ (another God), and last but not least, τὸν θεὸν (the Father)?
Honestly, I'm confused by all that.
-
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος reads
En archí ín o lógos, kaí o lógos ín prós tón theón, kaí theós ín o lógos
“And the Word was with the God, and the Word was a god.”
Since there was no indefinite articles in Kione Greek. Therefore the Apostle John used theon for the existing one. Strong's Lexicon The LORD יְהוָה֙ (Yah·weh) Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 3068: Jehovah = 'the existing One' 1) the proper name of the one true God 1a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of H0136 https://biblehub.com/strongs/exodus/7-1.htm
Jesus is never referred to theon because Jesus was begotten and came into exisitence. Therefore the Apostle John used the nominative title theos which means a god referring to the Word's divinity anf godlike qualities.
- 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
- 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin
Other languages use the definite articles but Kione Greek did not. That is the very reason why two different forms of greek words was used.
John also did the same with "No man has ever seen theon at any time" (John 1:18) Again, Jesus is never mentioned as the theon. The Apostle John also personally heard the words of Jesus Christ when Jesus told his Father in Prayer, "This means everlasting life, their coming to know You, the only true theon" (John 17:3)
To claim Jesus is the theon is not only inaccurate but deceptive and a lie. One the first Greek Languages that used indefinite articles is the Sahidic Coptic dialect which has an indefinite article (in some ways corresponding to “a” and “an” in English). Thus, when rendered literally into English, the translation would read: “And the Word was with the God, and the Word was a god.”
Translating “the Word was a god” – 1700 Years Ago
As the early Christians continued to carry out Jesus’ command to preach to all nations, the good news or gospel had to be translated into many languages. (Mat 28:19, 20) “At least by the third century C.E., the first translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures had been made for the Coptic natives of Egypt.” – (Insight on the Scriptures,Volume 2, page 1153) Similarly, the Anchor Bible Dictionary states, “All these data point to the 3rd century as the latest terminus a quo [point of origin] for the earliest Coptic translation.” ** This earliest Coptic (from an Arabic/Greek word for “Egyptian”) translation was in the Sahidic dialect, approximately 1,700 years ago. The scribes who were translating the Gospel of John from Koine Greek into their own Egyptian language encountered an issue that still faces translators today. It is the question of correctly translating John 1:1.
The Coptic translators rendered John 1:1 in this way (Transliterated):
1. a. Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje
1. b. Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute
1. c. Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje 1
Literally, the Coptic says:
1. a. In the beginning existed the word
1. b. And the word existed in the presence of the god
1. c. And a god was the word
We can see at the outset that the Coptic translators used the Coptic definite article (p) in referring to the One the Word was with or “in the presence of” (nnahrm): p.noute, “the” god, i.e., God. And we can see that in referring to the Word, the Coptic translators employed the Coptic indefinite article (ou; just “u” following the vowel “e”): ne.u.noute, “was a god.”
-
My Fellow Posters,
Above I provide adequate reference to satisfy any reasonable mind to understand
I believe the key to @BroRando's “bot”-like behavior in these forums stems from the JW Organization (The Watchtower Society). @BroRando sees himself as:
- God’s faithful and discreet slave Matthew 24:45-47
- “God’s sole channel of communication to His people.”
- “Avoid independent thinking or questioning the counsel that is provided by God’s invisible organization.”
“We recognize not only Jehovah God as our father, but his organization (The Watchtower Society) as our mother and the wife of our Father, Jehovah God” (The Watchtower, May 1, 1957, p. 285).
@BroRando needs to admit the statement above; so we all can understand better his limitations (what he can read, acknowledge, and say). When it comes to exercising freedom of thought and speech, he@BroRando has no choice. This is problematic and sad when people expect him to respond currently and relevantly. Therefore, who can reason and speak for JW/WBTS? We know who can’t. CM
-
Constantine is a Pagan Roman Emperor. While we are told the first “Pope” was the disciple Peter (Peter never kept Sunday/Easter/Christmas nor did he believe in a Trinity God) it was actually Emperor Constantine.
Constantine held the title “Pontifex Maximus” which literally means “High Priest” of the sun god Zeus/Apollo (Greek incarnations of Nimrod/Tammuz). He was the High Priest of his god Apollo also known as Mithra the sungod. Apollo and Mithra are just other name for Nimrod/Tammuz that evolved out of ancient Babylon as the languages were confused at the Tower of Babel.
Constantine’s religion was called The Cult of Sol Invictus which means the Cult of the Invincible Sun. Constantine was a sun worshipper as the religion of Babylon was literally transplanted to Rome. I covered that in my last book and again in both The Kingdom of YHVH and The Yahushaic Covenant.
The Pope of Rome to this day holds the same title of Pontiff and to this day worships the same sungod. This “Roman religion” is known as The Cult of Sol Invictus or The Cult of the Invincible Sun. The Cult of Sol Invictus dates back to the Babylonian religion created by Semiramis defined in my book Mystery Babylon – The Religion of the Beast..
Revelation 13:11
Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb (mitre), but he spoke like a dragon (a puppet for Dagon). Dagon, the fish-god, represented that deity as a manifestation of the same patriarch who had lived so long in the waters of the deluge. As the Pope bears thekey of Janus, so he wears the mitre of Dagon. The excavations of Nineveh have put this beyond all possibility of doubt. The Papal mitre is entirely different from the mitre of Aaron and the Jewish high priests. That mitre was a turban. The two-horned mitre, which the Pope wears, when he sits on the high altar at Rome and receives the adoration of the Cardinals, is the very mitre worn by Dagon, the fish-god of the Philistines and Babylonians
-
Yes, @BroRando‘s posts are exhibit A for all things JW, especially the Watchtower.
From within such a person might be proud of that.
From a Christian perspective, this behavior is a prime example of what to beware. These forums are an excellent teaching resource for Christian apologists Learn JW behavior.
-
In the near future as our preaching work will come to its end. Jehovah's Witnesses will not always be witnessing to those in (2 Timothy 3:1-5) We will soon turn away from those...who do not know God (theon) and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus as they die the second death. (2 Thess 1:8)
Marshmellows anyone? 😀
-
Continuation of the Coptic Scripture “And the Word was with the God, and the Word was a god.” Though scholars claim the Coptic translation came around 300 AD, there is secular proof of talk about the Sahidic Coptic dialect in the Second Century before the trinity came about. Over time the trintarian church not only burned the scriptures but burned Christians at the Starous for wanting to translate into common languages, After the Cult of the catholic church Hellenized scripture, especially since the 4th century, various scriptures no longer read in the form of the original writings.
Thus, it can be said that the Coptic indefinite article does not correspond exactly in usage to the English indefinite article, but does correspond closely to it. 7 Because it modifies a noun referring to an entity, the Word, at John 1:1c, the translation “a god” is proper. How competent were the ancient Coptic Egyptian translators to convey the sense of the Greek text of John? Egypt was conquered by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE and the country was subsequently Hellenized. Greek had been a legacy of Egypt for some 500 years by the time those translators began their work, and it was still a living language. According to Coptic grammarian Bentley Layton, the Coptic translation is “a very early indirect attestation of the Greek text and a direct indication of an Egyptian (perhaps Alexandrian) understanding of what it meant.” 8 Likely made well before Nicea (325 CE), the Coptic text tells us how early exegetes interpreted John 1:1, apart from the influence of later dogma and church tradition. Although the third century may be the latest date for the Sahidic Coptic translation, can a date for its beginning be more clearly ascertained?
Christianity may have come early to Egypt. The Bible book Acts of the Apostles lists Egyptian Jews and proselytes as being present at Pentecost, when 3,000 became Christian believers. (Acts 2:5-11) The eloquent Christian speaker Apollos was an Alexandrian and his travels may have taken him back to Egypt. (Acts 18:24-28; Titus 3:13) Coptic translator George Horner notes: “Clement of Alexandria, born about 150 [CE], speaks of the Christians spreading all over the land….The internal character of the Sahidic [version] supplies confirmation of a date earlier than the third century.” Horner favors a date closer to 188 CE as the inception of the Sahidic Coptic version 9
The value of the Coptic text lies not only in its indication of how early scribes understood the Greek of John 1:1, but also in its value for determining the correct text of that gospel. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger wrote: “[The] Alexandrian text [is] the best text and most faithful in preserving the original….The Sahidic and Bohairic versions frequently contain typically Alexandrian readings.” 10
Additionally, one can note readings in the Coptic text that are found in the earliest existing manuscripts of John, the p66 (Papyrus Bodmer II, middle second century CE) and p75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV, late second century CE). 11 The value of the Coptic translations, particularly the early ones, is that they were based on Greek texts that predate many existing Greek manuscripts. The Coptic translations may shed light on the ancient texts from which they were translated. For example, some Coptic translations render Joh 1:1 in a way that indicates that Jesus, who is referred to as “a god,” is not the same person as Almighty God.
Early Manuscript of John’s Gospel
Shown here is the first page of an early Bible manuscript called Papyrus Bodmer 2 (P66), which was copied and bound as a codex about 200 C.E. This manuscript contains a large part of the Greek text of the Good News (or, Gospel) According to John. The first page of this manuscript begins with the title (highlighted) Eu·ag·geʹli·on Ka·taʹ I·o·anʹnen (“Good News According to John”). Titles were evidently not part of the original text but were added later by copyists. The use of such titles along with the name of the writer may have come about for practical reasons, providing a clear means of identification of the books. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/gallery/r1/lp-e/nwtsty/43/1001072118#chapter=1
-
Therefore the Apostle John used theon for the existing one. Strong's Lexicon The LORD יְהוָה֙ (Yah·weh) Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 3068: Jehovah = 'the existing One' 1) the proper name of the one true God 1a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of H0136 https://biblehub.com/strongs/exodus/7-1.htm
To start, I'm not at all certain what Strong's Hebrew has to do with "theon" in John's gospel, or how it ought to be considered as proof of something.
I assure you the use of the accusative "theon" in John's gospel is his using this particular form to designate what grammatical function that word, derived from the lexeme θεός, is performing in the Greek sentence.
Moving on, I don't wish to get to far away from our specific Jn. 1:1 discussion, though this little excursion is relative to it (θεός vs. τὸν θεὸν). So, in general...
The following 11 instances are using the anarthrous nominative θεός (Mk. 12:27; Lk. 20:38; Jn. 1:18; Rom. 8:33; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 5:19; Gal. 6:7; Eph. 4:6; Phil. 2:13; 1 Th. 2:5; 1 Tim. 2:5).
Aside from your past explanation to me regarding the anarthrous θεός and θεὸν in Jn. 1:18 , to which I disagree, how would these other anarthrous nominative uses fit within your, and I emphasize your, grammar guidelines as have been applied to Jn. 1:1?
Consistent with the rule imposed on Jn. 1:1, it seems to me, we would have to place an "a" in front of the nominative θεός in our translation of those verses above, giving the meaning of another god apart from God (theon).
And by the way are any of these verses I've mentioned above translated with the indefinite article in the Sahidic text to read "a god"? Or is it only at Jn. 1:1 where this phenomenon occurs?
A noun, sans article, does not necessarily denote that noun as indefinite in Greek – their language rules.
It would seem, so far from these discussions, that a particular theological grid is imposed on grammar, and lexeme definition, at Jn. 1:1 in a way that is entirely foreign to Greek language.
