Christ Divinity Explained in John 1:1c

2

Comments

  • @Pages 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. 

    @BroRando 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 Gives witness to Jehovah who is the existing One and to the proper name of the one true God. Since the Bibles of Chrstsendom make it point of removing God's name and then replacing it with LORD. This deception was done some 7,000 times!

    https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502018464_1_VIDEO


    @Pages 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. 

    @BroRando The purpose of using two different greek words is to illuminate the difference. The accusative "theon" is used in the first instance alone and the second instance is differentiated. That is why the Apostle John uses the normative "theos". Otherwise "theon" would have been used in both instances, which it is not. En archí en o lógos, kaí o lógos en prós tón theón, kaí theós en o lógos. Even a youngster can See the difference. Jesus is never called theon.

    @Pages 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. 12:27Lk. 20:38Jn. 1:18Rom. 8:331 Cor. 8:62 Cor. 5:19Gal. 6:7Eph. 4:6Phil. 2:131 Th. 2:51 Tim. 2:5).

    @BroRando When there is one instance of God in the scripture, no differentiation is needed in greek grammer, it's only required when two instances of God is in the same sentence to help determine the identities to which God.

    @Pages 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). 

    @BroRando The nominative theos is invoked with a indefinite article. It de-emphasizes the second instance of God to "a god". The reason theon is "the God" because it is accusitive, drawing attention and ephasizing God to mean "the God". Didn't Jesus proclaim that "the Father is Greater then I am"? (John 14:28) On numerous occasions, Jesus acknowledged his Father’s greatness, authority, and superior position. (Mt 4:9, 10; 20:23; Lu 22:41, 42; Joh 5:19; 8:42; 13:16) Even after Jesus’ ascension to heaven, his apostles described the Father as having a separate and superior position in relation to Jesus. (1Co 11:3; 15:20, 24-28; 1Pe 1:3; 1Jo 2:1; 4:9, 10) The Greek word here rendered “greater” (meiʹzon) is the comparative form of the word for “great” (meʹgas), and it is used in many contexts where one person or thing is said to be superior to another.​—Mt 18:1; 23:17; Mr 9:34; 12:31; Lu 22:24; Joh 13:16; 1Co 13:13.

    The Bible does not teach polytheism. Jesus Christ said: “It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” (Matthew 4:10) Jesus uses τὸν θεόν (theon) is the one who must be worshiped. https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/4-10.htm

    The Bible states: “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.

    @Pages 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.

    The same ones also make the claim that theos cannot be expressed as a feminine noun. Is that the truth or trintarian bias?

    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)

    Definition: God, a god

    Usage: (a) God, (b) a god, generally.


    Before trintarians got there grubby hands on the Bible to twist and turn the Greek language, the Coptic transaltion already existed in the second century. 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.”

    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 18:24-28Titus 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.

    One should note Apollos was a disciple of John the Baptizer before becoming a Christian through the witness of Priscilla and Aquila. Read Acts Chapter 18. "With great intensity he thoroughly proved the Jews to be wrong, showing them from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ."

    "With great intensity BroRando thoroughly proved the trinitarians to be wrong, showing them from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." (Matthew 16:16)

    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • PagesPages Posts: 152
    edited December 2021

    @BroRando

    @BroRandoStrong'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.htmGives witness to Jehovah who is the existing One and to the proper name of the one true God. Since the Bibles of Chrstsendom make it point of removing God's name and then replacing it with LORD. This deception was done some 7,000 times!

    This is irrelevant to our discussion of Jn. 1:1 as was the first posting of it.

    @BroRando The purpose of using two different greek words is to illuminate the difference. The accusative "theon" is used in the first instance alone and the second instance is differentiated.

    Seriously, ...alone? Both God and Word are used together in each of the last two clauses of Jn 1:1 ...Word was with God, and ...Word was God

    I think it is time for a return to our discussion of the third clause of Jn. 1:1, as this side excursion has ran its course. I would most appreciate direct answers relevant to my questions raised. 

  • Final Continuation of the Coptic Scripture “And the Word was with the God, and the Word was god.” There is also the matter of precision in rendering John 1:1c. The Koine Greek language has only the definite article, with indefiniteness being indicated by the lack of the article (called the “anarthrous” construction). Of the other early translations from the Greek, Latin has no articles, definite or indefinite, and Syriac has only the definite determinator in its grammatical structure. The Sahidic Coptic language, however – like English – has both the definite article and the indefinite article as part of its syntactical system.

    This means that when the Coptic translators wrote ou noute, “a god,” at John 1:1c, referring to the entity that is the Word, they were being specific, not ambiguous. They could have used the definite article and written p.noute at this verse if they had meant “God,” just as they did at John 1:1b: auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute, “and the Word was with [literally, “in the presence of] God.”

    Therefore, the Sahidic Coptic version, the earliest translation of the Greek originals into a language that contained the indefinite article, used that indefinite article at John 1:1c: “the Word was a god.” Is “the Word was a god” the only English translation of this verse that is possible within the parameters of the Coptic indefinite article? It should be stressed that this is the literal translation. However, this semantic domain may allow, in context, English translations such as “the Word was divine” or a divine being, or “the Word was godlike.”

    But a translation such as the traditional “the Word was God” would require the Coptic definite article, thus falling outside of the nonspecific semantic domain signaled by the Coptic indefinite article. 12 It is sometimes charged, incorrectly, that the translation of John 1:1c as “the Word was a god” is an incorrect, sectarian translation. Yet, in rendering John 1:1c from Greek into their own native language, the Coptic scribes came to the same understanding of that Greek text some 1,700 years ago.

    Translating John 1:`1c literally to say “the Word was a god” is, therefore, not any innovation. Rather, it appears to be an ancient way of understanding the meaning of this text, before the ascension and formal installation of philosophical Trinitarianism in the fourth century.


    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • @Pages This is irrelevant to our discussion of Jn. 1:1 as was the first posting of it.

    It proves that the theon has a Name even though trintarians fasley claim that God's Name is God.  Jehovah = 'the existing One' 1) the proper name of the one true God  https://biblehub.com/strongs/exodus/7-1.htm God is a title given to angels and even men.

    @BroRando The purpose of using two different greek words is to illuminate the difference. The accusative "theon" is used in the first instance alone and the second instance is differentiated.

    @Pages Seriously, ...alone? Both God and Word are used together in each of the last two clauses of Jn 1:1 ...Word was with God, and ...Word was God

    Yes, the imperfect ἦν (was) is applied to the Word and theos (a god) but never applied to (ton theon). The Word is a god with a beginning but (ton theon) is eternal.  Everything in the first three clauses has a denfinite article with one exception. The exception of leaving out the definite article in relating to (theos) de-emphasizes it to (a god). This was done by design. The Apostle John personally heard Jesus calling his Father in (John 17:3) "You are the only true theon" https://biblehub.com/text/john/17-3.htm. It can't be dismissed. The word (only) can also read (alone) which is singular. "You alone are the only true theon"

    Now, you would have a case if John applied (ton theon) in the second instance but he does not. You can claim he does all you want, but it does not change the facts that two different greek words were used to show the differentiation.

    @Pages I think it is time for a return to our discussion of the third clause of Jn. 1:1, as this side excursion has ran its course. I would most appreciate direct answers relevant to my questions raised. 

    Sure. But we need to complete the first clause before moving on to the other two clauses. I know we disagree, but at least the CD reader can see both views since they are totally opposites.

    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.”

    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • PagesPages Posts: 152

    @BroRando

    The Apostle John personally heard Jesus calling his Father in (John 17:3) "You are the only true theon" https://biblehub.com/text/john/17-3.htm. It can't be dismissed. The word (only) can also read (alone) which is singular. "You alone are the only true theon"

    Okay, if the only true God is the accusative τὸν θεὸν then by that logic every and any other θεὸς is a false god including of course the a god written about in John 1.

  • PagesPages Posts: 152
    edited December 2021

    @BroRando

    After our brief interlude with other items of discussion I believe we should now return to the specific verse of John 1:1. So, I will start over in our discussion of the grammar used in John 1:1 within the immediate context of John 1:1-18.

    "In the beginning was the Word," the imperfect verb ἦν used is expressing the absolute sense of being (to be, exist). In other words, wherever one places In the beginning within time, or outside of time as we know time, the Word already was (existing). 

    "and the Word was with God," using the preposition with provides distinction between the Word and God. The accusative πρὸς gives finer detail to with – that of a close proximity and face to face relationship between the two. The verb ἦν is used again to express whether in the temporal or supra-temporal the Word already was (existing) with God.  

    "and the Word was God." the anarthrous θεὸς is a predicate nominative seen as qualitative in this clause. The subject, ὁ λόγος, is then the recipient of all that θεὸς is. In other words, all the divine attributes of θεὸς are found in the Word. For the third time ἦν is used to communicate that the Word has always had these divine attributes. 

    Overall, in summing up the grammar of this verse, it can be said of the Word that – the Word has never not existed, never not been with God, and was never not existing as God.

    Next is the distinction between God and the Word made in clause two and once more in the final clause. In clause two as already mentioned the preposition, with, provides distinction, and in the last clause distinction is by λόγος having the article and θεὸς without article. 

    Were both θεὸς and λόγος arthrous, or anarthrous, then they would be one in the same. Were λόγος to become the anarthrous predicate nominative and θεὸς the articular subject then the sum total of God would be whatever λόγος is defined as. Both conditions would be most odd after reading the second clause as it stands.  

    I am aware of agreement between us with the qualitative aspect of the predicate nominative θεὸς in clause three. However, are you at all aware that by adding the indefinite article "a" to God, the predicate nominative is then no longer a qualitative sense but now is changed to quantitative? 

    In this quantitative sense nothing more can be attributed to ὁ λόγος than the category of his type of being – just"a god" – and only that. And so, by inserting that indefinite article into the written text, the original sense of the qualitative predicate nominative is destroyed.

    Grammar, so far, is all that has been applied to this text in what I've written above – theological interpretation of the text has not yet been entered into. 

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,425
    edited December 2021

    Fellow Posters (Believers in the Divinity of Christ),

    Let's continue to feed the sober mind on the "inspired" Word and leave the spurious interpretations to the religious bottom-feeders to consume the chaff of their creation. To shut-less eyes, θεὸς is anarthorous sixteen times throughout the Fourth Gospel:

    • Two times only apply to the Son: John 1:1c and 10:33, both rendered "a god" in the NWT.
    • The other fourteen are rendered "God," including John 8:54 where the anarthrous θεὸς is predicative (as in John 1:1c) and applicable to the Father


    This means that John could have reversed himself and applied an anarthrous θεὸς in John 1:1b, 2 to the Father, and in the light of John 20:28, an arthrous θεὸς to the Son in 1:1c. But he wrote in the way he did for the sake of identification.

    Raymond E. Brown said:

    "Perhaps the best explanation of why the author of the Prologue chose to use theos without the article to refer to the Word is that he desired to keep the Word distinct from the Father (ho theos)."

    J. Gwyn Griffiths points out there can be no differentiation between O θεὸς and θεὸς since, throughout the Gospel, "the article is inserted or omitted, at will, in phrases which obviously bear the same meaning." He mentioned as examples the following groups of texts:

    • John 1:6 and 9:33 compared to John 4:44; 6:46; 8:40; 7:17
    • John 8:42, 46 compared to John 1:13
    • John 19:7 compared to John 1:34, 49; 3:18; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4; 20:31

    Here, there is an inconsistency with what Jehovah's Witnesses themselves affirm. If the truth is allowed to be written, John 1:1c is not translated but interpreted in JWs NWT.

    Another scholar, R. H. Countess has made a critical evaluation of the NWT rendering of θεὸς in John 1:1c and concluded that Jehovah's Witnesses are not only "inconsistent with themselves" but "arbitrary in their translation of the Bible." With the help of Moulton and Geden's Concordance to the Greek Testament, he determined how many times θεὸς is anarthrous in all the NT, checking the passages in the NWT. His conclusion is as follows:

    "Throughout the New Testament, the arthrous θεός far exceeds the anarthrous, and of 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεός NWT sixteen times has either 'a god, god, gods, or godly'. The translators were, therefore, only 6% faithful to their canons enunciated in the appendix to John 1:1—i.e., θεόςa god and O θεόςGod. On the other hand, they were 94% unfaithful."

    94% unfaithful"! This is interpretational malpractice. There is no justification for such behavior. Are you aware of this, @BroRando? Why should I or anyone trust the NWT with such blatant inconsistency and disregard for the truth? This is indefensible for you, @BroRando, or any JW. Why would the NWT Committee saddle you with this unbearable load? We know the NWT Committee Members were, woefully, inadequate when it comes to biblical translations. Must they continue in their blindness? After the passing of years, with the increase of knowledge and biblical fines, why do the JWs continue in the current vain? All must see this translational recklessness for what it isdeceptive! 

    And you,  @BroRando, got the "chutzpah" to point the finger at the Lexham English Bible (LEB)! I deemed JWs handling of the Holy Scriptures as spiritually criminal. I agree with Wainwright, "There is no reason to suppose that a deliberate contrast is intended" in John 1:1. The correct translation is "God" and NOT "a god"! I hope this is additional help for the true seekers of better knowledge. CM


    SOURCES:

    • Raymond E. Brown. Jesus God and Man (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1967), p. 26.
    • J. Gwyn Griffiths. "A Note on the Anarthrous Predicate in Hellenistic Greek," The Expository Times 62 (1950-1951): p 315.
    • A. W. Wainwright, "The Confession 'Jesus Is God' in the New Testament," Scottish Journal of Theology 10 (Sept. 1957): p. 288.
    • R. H. Countess. "The Translation of θΣOΣ in the New World Translation," Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 10 (Sumner 1967): p. 160.
    • W.F. Moulton, A.S. Geden & I.H. Marshall, eds. Moulton and Geden: A Concordance to the Greek Testament
    Post edited by C Mc on
  • 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

    Word for word transaltion: “In the beginning was the word with nd the Word was with the God, and the Word was a god.”

    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • Brother RandoBrother Rando Posts: 767
    edited December 2021

    @BroRando

    The Apostle John personally heard Jesus calling his Father in (John 17:3) "You are the only true theonhttps://biblehub.com/text/john/17-3.htm. It can't be dismissed. The word (only) can also read (alone) which is singular. "You alone are the only true theon"


    @Pages Okay, if the only true God is the accusative τὸν θεὸν then by that logic every and any other θεὸς is a false god including of course the a god written about in John 1.

    Your disagreement is not with me, but Jesus Christ himself. I simply quoted his words in (John 17:3) It should not take any more than one scripture to see the truth.

    But here is another quote from Jesus after his resurrection... Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my theon and your theon." (John 20:17) https://biblehub.com/text/john/20-17.htm

    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,425
    edited December 2021

    @BroRando Please see John 1:1 in the English Bibles: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%201:1

    Are they all wrong? CM


    PS. @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus -- This is an example when you have a long unedited passage you want to share with posters. It takes up less space and is easier on the eyes. You have made your point, and everybody is enlightened. Just sharing. CM

  • Yes, Jesus was never the theon in the past nor will be in the future. But here is another quote from Jesus after his resurrection... 

    Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my theon and your theon." (John 20:17https://biblehub.com/text/john/20-17.htm

    Is Jesus Christ wrong or a liar? If not, then why are you fighting so hard against him? You already rejected his words at (John 17:3).

    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and the word was a god.


    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,425
    edited December 2021

    The argument from grammar posed to JWs, please Note:

    • In general, theos is frequently used without the article in the sense of "God," e.g. John 1: 12, 18, but here we are dealing Only with the predicate usage.

    The New World Translation argues that the omission of the definite article before theos in John 1: 1 shows that the word must be translated as indefinite and not definite. i.e. as "a god" and not "God."

    • To show that the article is used with the predicate, a footnote (p. 776) quotes thirty-five verses, containing thirty-six examples, from John alone. This is an impressive list. But in John 1:1, the predicate, which does not have the article, comes before the verb, whereas in thirty-three of the thirty-six examples quoted by the Jehovah's Witnesses it comes after the verb.

    This agrees with the rule formulated by Colwell: 

    "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb... The opening verse of John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of the predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. 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". 


    So of the thirty-six examples quoted in the New World Translation thirty-three are irrelevant. 

    • Of the other three, the article before "prophet" in John 1:21 is demonstrative, i.e. "the expected, predicted prophet." The New World Translation brings this out well by its use of capitals, ... Are you The Prophet?"


    JWs replied: 

    Appendix of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scripture on John 1: 1. The Appendix quotes various authorities on Greek grammar to support its own view about an anarthrous noon in a predicate. None of these authorities say anything about predicates before the verb differing from predicates after the verb. .

    Colwell, who does say the position of the predicate makes a difference. JWs try to say:

    • Colwell does not suggest the position of the predicate is conclusive.
    • He simply says that this rule "suggests" that the noun under discussion in John 1: 1 is a definite noun.
    • He goes on to say that the context is the deciding factor but concludes that the context in John's Gospel argues for the verse to be translated in the way already suggested.
    • So, finally, he relies on interpretation, not grammar.
    • Colwell's final point is not right.

    The context of the whole Bible, let alone the gospel of John, suggests that the verse be translated as it is in the New World Translation. 

    • As for Colwell's comment about the "confession of Thomas", please see The Watchtower of 1955, page 543.
    • The New World Translation, therefore, quotes many recognized authorities which support its translation; this Claims Colwell who would disagree. It is a question of which authority a person takes.
    • Similarly with Bible translations and even Bible manuscripts. One differs from another.
    • Grammar and authorities are not always conclusive.

    They prove very helpful but consistency, the internal harmony of the Bible, and many other things play their part.


    Again the JWs evade the charge of misrepresentation. They show a real misunderstanding of the nature of scholarship.

    • First, we should be clear that it is not the number of "authorities" that matter, but whether their statements fit the facts.
      • Any reader who knows Greek can check for himself whether Colwell is right.
    • Secondly, how the JWs give a completely false impression of what Colwell wrote: 
      • His clearly stated rule appears very indefinite by extremely partial quotation.
    • As the article in to which reference is made, turns on their belief in the existence of other gods, it has been sufficiently dealt with above.


    SOURCE:

    • 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.
  • The Apostle John withheld the definite article from theos in the second instance. The first instance wasn't theos at all but rather ton theon.

    Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος 

    In the beginnig was the word, and the word was with the God, and word was a god

    Other correct transaltions

    • In the beginnig was the word, and the word was with the God, and word was divine
    • In the beginnig was the word, and the word was with the God, and word was a godlike sort


    WHEN ARTICLES WERE USED.

    ὁ λόγος, the word

     τὸν θεόν the God

    θεὸς definite article with held invoking the feminine noun a god


    The same ones who deny Christ also make the claim that theos cannot be expressed as a feminine noun toward his divinity and deny the deity of Christ. 

    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)

    Definition: God, a god

    Usage: (a) God, (b) a god, generally.

    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • Many who take issue with Jehovah's Witnesses'  New World Translation of theos in John 1:1c (as, "a god") often miss the point that this is 'a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (stated or implied)' – that is, not just that use of the noun theos in the third clause lacks the Greek definite article. (In the Greek language of this period, there was no such thing as an indefinite article; therefore, depending upon the grammar, syntax and immediate and global context of the phrase, when translating to English, the decision on whether to add an indefinite article or not would be decided by the translator).

    This would also explain why some of the examples many feel inclined to provide (John 1, verses 2, 6, 12, 13, 18 and 51), that is, as NWT violations of this supposed guideline (that these also do not have the Greek definite article, and yet, they have otherwise translated theos there as "God"), do not apply; and this is simply because, those other instances do not fit the same grammatical, syntactical criteria as that found within John 1:1c.

     Now, with regard to some specific examples of Biblical verses which do represent the same, basic, Greek grammatical construction of John 1:1c, please examine the following within your own preferred translation of the Bible and see whether the translators had, themselves, appreciated the need to insert either an "a" or "an" there. At each of the cases below, it has been found that most Bibles consistently do: Mark 6:49, Mark 11:32, John 4:19, John 6:70, John 8:44a, John 8:44b, John 9:17, John 10:1, John 10:13.

    As can be seen, within each of the above verses, identity of the one being discussed was not at issue; no, but rather, the class of the individual is. Following this same syntactatical pattern (word order) as that found within John 1:1c, it should be easy to appreciate how that Jesus ("the Word") can also be properly identified as "a god"; but certainly not as "the God," the one of whom he was just said to be "with" (1:1b) τὸν θεόν which is rendered ton theon as "the God".

    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • TruthTruth Posts: 521

    Such an odd polytheistic notion JW' invent. According to the post above, YHWH is God; Jesus is a little god. Like something pulled out of ancient Canaanite religions with a Watchtower twist. Yet in 2021, people will still buy that devil's bait, fancy art and all.

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,425

    My Fellow posters,

    Behold the truth for these times for all to see, θεός and κύριος (God and Lord)

    Since these words come near to being proper nouns in NT, it is not surprising that the art. is so often omitted. Κύριος, even more than θεός, seems to have assumed this rôle:

    • Mt 21:9 ὀνόματι κυρίου
    • Ac 2:20 vl. τὴν ἡμέραν κυρίου
    • Acts 5:9 τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου
    • 2 Co 3:17f τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου, τὴν δόξαν κυρίου
    • Jas 5:11 τὸ τέλος κυρίου.

    These names are especially anarthrous after a preposition, e.g., ἐν κυρίῳ, ἀπὸ θεοῦ, or when they depend in the gen. on another anarthrous noun:  θεοῦ εἰμι υἱός,  ἐγένετο ῥῆμα θεοῦ.


    Another near-proper name is θεὸς πατήρ 2 Pt 1:17 Jude 1:1.

    • In the LXX the anarthrous יהוה is rendered by the more slavish translators employing anarthrous κύριος; but the addition of ל, אל, and את causes the art. to be used, hence: τῷ κυρίῳ, τὸν κύριον.
    • In NT, we have both ἄγγελος κυρίου and ἐν κυρίῳ. Like the LXX is κύριος ὁ θεός, with and without gen.: 
      • Lk 1:68 OT κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ
      • Rev 1:8 etc. κύριος ὁ θεός.


    As a general rule, it may be said that for Paul ὁ κύριος=Christ, and κύριος=Yahweh (Zerwick § 125a); in which case, we must understand ὁ δὲ Κύριος τὸ πν. ἐστιν (2 Co 3:17) as= Yahweh but anaphoric ("occurs when a word or phrase refers to something mentioned earlier in the discourse").

    Here's an example of anaphoric reference:

    • Michael went to the bank.
    • He was annoyed because it was closed.
    • He refers to Michael.


    οὐρανός, γῆ, θάλασσα, κόσμος

    These words are frequently anarthrous, especially after a preposition. But οὐρανός is anarthrous where there is no preposition: 

    • Ac 3:21 17:24 2 Pt 3:10 (ABC add οἱ). Papyri: Mayser II 2, 29. Γῆ prefers the art., even sometimes with a preposition; however, we have it anarthrous: 
      • Mk 13:27 ἀπὸ ἄκρου γῆς ἕως ἄκρου οὐρανοῦ
      • Ac 17:24 οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς κύριος
      • 2 Pt 3:5 οὐρανοὶ … καὶ γῆ, 10 οὐρανοί (ABC add οἱ) … στοιχεῖα … γῆ (CP add ἡ)


    With the preposition, anarthrous: 

    Φάλασσα too is anarthrous after a preposition or in gen. after another noun:  

    • OT ὁδὸν θαλάσσης 
    • ἤχους θαλάσσης
    • κλύδωνι θαλάσσης
    • κύματα ἄγρια θαλ

    The same is true of κόσμος: 

    In propositional formulae: 

    Also, anarthrous: 2 Co 5:19 Ga 6:14.


    Oh, say, @BroRando and others, can you see the facts and be blessed? CM


    Source:


  • Brother RandoBrother Rando Posts: 767
    edited December 2021

     θεός and κύριος (God and Lord) are not Names but titles. One should easily note that Jehovah is referred to τὸν θεόν which means the God and the definite article is added for emphasis.

    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

    Word for word transaltion: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God, and the Word was a god.”

    No man has seen theon at any time; the only-begotten theos who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. (John 1:18) "Jehovah is the God that no man has seen at any time" However notice Jesus is not ertnal but is referred by the Apostle John has the the only-begotten theos who is at the Father’s side. (Proverbs 8:22 and Proverbs 8:30)

    We can go even further using scripture where Jesus approaches his Father in prayer and calls him "the only true theon" in (John 17:3) This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.

    Apostate and opposers of Jesus Christ never mention (John 17:3) for three reasons.

    • One, it shows that the Jesus has a theon above him who is the only true God. (The Father is Greater then I am) John 14:28
    • Two, it shows that Jesus was SENT by the the only true God. Trinitarians don't beleive Jesus was sent nor begotten. They cling to the pagan and demonic teaching of incarnation.
    • And three, no such thing as a trinity in these scriptures. Constantine a pagan roman emperor was a Sun Worshiper whom was the founder of Catholicism. Those caught up in this Cult are not Christians but are trinitarians, they burned Christians at the stauros and fed Christians to the lions.

    Pagan Holy days such as Eastre' and Saturnalia is still worshipped to this very day by trinitarians.

    Post edited by Brother Rando on

    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • In Ancient times, the trinity was symbolized by three snakes, each snake would chase its own tail looking like the number 666.   “And it was permitted to give breath to the image of the wild beast, so that the image of the wild beast should both speak and cause to be killed all those who refuse to worship the image of the wild beast.” (Rev 13:15

     The trinity is the Biggest Occult ever, with a Worldwide membership of 2.8 Billion People and growing!  Mankind who are both weak or strong, slave or king, such ones march in the streets to protest.  They place themselves above others claiming they have rights that no one else can have.  They proclaim they even have the right to end life, should they carry a life inside them. They make themselves like God in know good and bad, and others have to bend their knee to their superiority.  (Read 2 Timothy 3:1-5)

    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • Here you can see the third clause stating "and a god was the word" Translators ignore the Greek and insert their error (God).

    Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then.

    What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.”

    Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.



    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • TruthTruth Posts: 521

    Fundamentals of Greek grammar have been explained to you. If you make up your own grammar you have…the Watchtower!

  • Brother RandoBrother Rando Posts: 767
    edited December 2021

    How can Jesus be God if 1Cor. 15:23-24 states it is Christ who will hand over the Kingdom to his God and Father? As you conitnue to deny Christ, I will continue to expose your fasle teachings.


    • Christ, belongs to God. 1 Corinthians 3:23
    • I am nailed to the stake along with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who is living in union with me. Indeed, the life that I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and handed himself over for me. Galatians 2:20
    • Jesus is the same yesterday and today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8


    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • PagesPages Posts: 152

    @BroRando

    How can Jesus be God if 1Cor. 15:23-24 states it is Christ who will hand over the Kingdom to his God and Father? As you conitnue to deny Christ, I will continue to expose your fasle teachings.

    Let's re-state the above question to ask: 

    How can Jesus be "a god" if 1Cor. 15:23-24 states it is Christ who will hand over the Kingdom to his God and Father? As you conitnue [sic] to deny Christ, I will continue to expose your fasle [sic] teachings.

  • @Pages How can Jesus be "a god" if 1Cor. 15:23-24 states it is Christ who will hand over the Kingdom to his God and Father? As you conitnue [sic] to deny Christ, I will continue to expose your fasle [sic] teachings.

    “Who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one that denies the Father and the Son.”​—1 John 2:22.

    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • PagesPages Posts: 152

    @BroRando

    “Who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one that denies the Father and the Son.”​—1 John 2:22.

    Not a meaningful response. 

  • It shows how trintarians deny the Father and Son relationship. The Son hands over the Kingdom to His God and Father. 1Cor. 15:23-24

    Notice trintarians spend zero time in witnessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of living God (Matthew 16L16) but spend all their time in denouncing Christ. Look at this scripture that shed the light how trintarians act: “Who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one that denies the Father and the Son.”​—1 John 2:22.

    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,625


    @BroRando posted:

    Notice trintarians spend zero time in witnessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of living God (Matthew 16L16) but spend all their time in denouncing Christ. Look at this scripture that shed the light how trintarians act: “Who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one that denies the Father and the Son.”​—1 John 2:22.

    There are CD posters who embrace Trinitarian Christology. I have never read anything in any of their posts that denounced Christ or denied that Jesus was the Christ. From their posts it's always been clear to me that none of them would ever denounce Christ or deny that Jesus was the Christ. Please post quotations from applicable posts to demonstrate the validity of your accusation. If you can't do so - and you can't - then please retract your accusation.

    As for their alleged denial of the Father and the Son, though Christians who embrace Trinitarian Christology understand the Father and the Son differently than the I do, in no way do I believe they deny either.

    It's bad enough when in these forums Trinitarian-leaning Christians toss dismissive names and commentary at those who disagree with them. It's even worse when those who don't embrace Trinitarian Christology return the favor.

  • Who Is the Archangel Michael?

    JEHOVAH’S witnesses hold that the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ, and they not at all alone or unique in doing so. Hengstenberg, one of the foremost German Bible scholars of the nineteenth century, argues at great length to that effect in his Christology and Commentary on the Apocalypse. A strong case for this position is also made in the Imperial Bible Dictionary, edited by the British Bible scholar Fairbairn. And Clarke, in his Commentary, holds that, at least at times, Michael refers to Jesus Christ.

    As for the Scriptural testimony, in the first place note the very meaning of the name “Michael,” namely, “Who is like God?” There is no one else to whom that name could so fittingly apply as to Jesus, either before he came to earth or since his ascension. He alone is described as “the image of God,” “the reflection of his glory and the exact representation of his very being,” and as “the image of the invisible God.”—2 Cor. 4:4; Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:15.

    Further, note his title “archangel.” This term occurs only twice in the Scriptures (AV), at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 9. The prefix “arch” means “chief, principal, great.” Certainly both before his coming to earth as a man and since his return to heaven he is the chief or principal one of all God’s spirit creatures or angels. Trinitarians may consider this a downgrading of the “Second Person of the Trinity,” but if we accept the Scriptural testimony that Jesus was “the beginning of the creation by God,” and “the firstborn of all creation,” we will have no diffidence about applying to him the term archangel.—Rev. 3:19; Col. 1:15.

    Of the five references to the spirit prince or archangel Michael—there are also ten references to as many different humans by that name—the first two are found at Daniel 10:13, 21 (RS).

    There he is shown to be a mighty angel rescuing from the clutches of one of Satan’s demon princes an angel of Jehovah God who had been sent to Daniel with a message of comfort. There Michael is also referred to as Daniel’s prince, even as at Daniel 12:1 (RS) he is spoken of as “the great prince who has charge of your people.” This is in keeping with Exodus 32:34 and similar scriptures that tell of God as appointing his angel to lead Israel. This being so makes clear why “Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body.” The full force of Jude’s condemnation of rebellious ones, incidentally, becomes apparent when we note that not even Jesus Christ, the highest of all God’s creatures, dared render abusive judgment upon the Devil but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.”—Jude 9; Zech. 3:2.

    And finally we have Revelation 12:7, 8, where we read: “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled but it did not prevail.” The context tells of the birth of God’s kingdom, whose king is Jesus Christ, and identifies the dragon as Satan the Devil. Surely Jesus as King would be the one to take action upon the birth of God’s kingdom even as David took action against his enemies upon his becoming king. Did not Jesus state, upon his resurrection, that all power had been given him in heaven and on earth? Does not Psalm 110:1, 2 command him to rule in the midst of his enemies? And does not the apostle Paul show, at Hebrews 2:14, that it is Jesus who will destroy the Devil, thereby identifying him as the angel of Revelation 20:1 that will bind Satan?

    All relevant Scriptural testimony unites to prove that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ, both before he became a man, as at Daniel 10:13, 21 and Jude 9, and after his ascension into heaven, as at Daniel 12:1 and Revelation 12:7.

    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,425

    @BroRando, please see @C Mc thread on Michael: https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/18486#Comment_18486


    This is a repost from: https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/20386#Comment_20386

    C Mc  Posts: 4,371November 18  Flag

    CD Readers,

    With harden minds and in tandem harden hearts, the saturating waters of truth can't penetrate or soften. "Like water on a duck's back," the softening agent of truth rolls right off. As evident in biblical teachings, I suggest sharing previous posts once again compiled for a snapshot of what some cannot see or refuse to accept. Necessity requires this when we don't stay on topic within a thread or threads containing more or less the same materials. For its weight in revelatory truth, see Jesus-God again through the eyes and work of the "inspired writers:


    Revelation 12:79 -- "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought...So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." Revelation 12:79. NKJV.


    The Bible mentions Michael (his name means "Who is like God?") in five (5) passages:

    1. In Dan 10:13, Michael is presented as one of the chief princes.

    2. In Dan 10:21, Michael is the only One who can help Gabriel in his battle over the minds of the Persian leaders. He is also portrayed as the Prince of God's people.

    3. Dan 12:1 depicts Michael as the One who stands for His people, i.e., he is their intercessor, protector, and help in the time of trouble. He is pictured as the great Prince.

    4. According to Jude 1:9, Michael has the authority to resurrect Moses and is characterized as an archangel.

    5. In Rev 12:7, Michael is the leader of the heavenly army and defeats Satan and his fallen angels. His victory is described colorfully. 

    When the above texts are connected with 1 Thess 4:16–18 and John 5:26–29, it becomes evident that Michael's voice is the voice of the archangel, which is the voice of Jesus on the resurrection day. Based on his role, authority, position, and mission, one may conclude that Michael is Christ.


    Daniel chapter 12, Michael stands up at the end of time, and God's people will be delivered as Christ's everlasting kingdom is established. "Michael the archangel":

    • Portrayed as opposing the devil (Jude 9Rev 12:7-9).
    • Opposing the "Prince of Persia" (שׂר מלכות פּרס) in Daniel 10:13
    • The term ὁ ἀρχάγγελος "the archangel," (Jude 9) is a reference to Michael's title the first of the chief princes," אחד השׂרים הראשׁנים Dan 10:13 and recall the terminology שׂר־צבא יהוה, "Prince of the Host of YHWH" (Josh 5:14).


    Jesus Before the Incarnation:


    The Book of Daniel, Chapter 12:

    • Dan 12:1-7 -- exercised a strong influence on the eschatology of Jesus. 
    • Dan 12:1 -- the source for the unprecedented tribulation of Mark 13:19/Matt 24:21, but Dan. 12:2 is the source for Jesus' description of the resurrection in John 5:28-29.
    • Dan 12:3 -- is the source for Matt 13:43, "Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father."
    • Dan 12:7, "When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed," is a source for both Mark 13:4 and Mark 13:30b/Matt 24:34b.
    • Dan 12:13, like Dan. 12:2 -- indicates that the resurrection will occur "at the end of the days"—i.e., the days of persecution that begin when the daily sacrifice is abolished (Dan. 12:11). 

     

    Archangel

    • This term comprises two Greek words Archos + Angelos, which means Ruler of the Angels. Therefore, Michael is the Ruler of the Angels
    • The Hebrew word Michael is composed of three words: 
    • MI = "Who"
    • CHA = "As"
    • EL = "God"
    • It means "Who is like God" or "Who is as God." 
    • The very name Michael draws attention to His equality with God

    Since Michael is the Old Testament name for Jesus Christ, Michael is not created. He is the eternal Son of God. If God disguised Himself among the angels in how He disguised Himself among humans, it may explain why Satan thought he could become God. "Come now, let's reason together": The Creator-Jesus can choose whatever means, at will, to reveal Himself to humanity. The created (man) doesn't have this option. CM


    PS.  @BroRando,

    I responded to your OP above in light of my May 2018 thread: https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/18486#Comment_18486. I want to bring old truths to a new location. CM


     @BroRando

    Do you read posts? Do you see any common ground? CM

  • Archangel means Beginning Angel or Chief Messenger. It comes from the root word Arche'.


    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"). (Proverbs 8:22)

    "In the beginning was the Word." (John 1:1)

    Strong's Concordance

    arché: beginning, origin

    Original Word: ἀρχή, ῆς, ἡ

    Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine

    Transliteration: arché

    Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khay')

    Definition: beginning, origin

    Usage: (a) rule (kingly or magisterial), (b) plur: in a quasi-personal sense, almost: rulers, magistrates, (c) beginning.

    Meaning of John 1:1

    This scripture reveals details about Jesus Christ’s life before he came to earth as a human. (John 1:14-17) In verse 14, “the Word” (or “the Logos,” Greek, ho loʹgos) is used as a title. The title “the Word” apparently describes Jesus’ role in communicating God’s commands and instructions to others. Jesus continued to make known God’s word during his ministry on earth and after he returned to heaven.—John 7:16; Revelation 1:1.

     “The beginning” refers to the time when God began his creative work and produced the Word. Thereafter, the Word was used by God in the creation of all other things. (John 1:2, 3) The Bible states that Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” and that “by means of him all other things were created.”—Colossians 1:15, 16.

     The phrase “the Word was a god” describes the divine or godlike nature that Jesus possessed before he came to earth. He can be described in this way because of his role as God’s Spokesman and his unique position as the firstborn Son of God through whom God created all other things.

    Visit JW.org Get Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible is in over 120 (tongues) and over 1,067 languages of Bible Literature.

Sign In or Register to comment.