Imagine if John 1:1 was rendered correctly...
There were times when Jesus answered his enemies and they left him without a response because they recognized his answer was 'the truth'. Who could argue against him? Those who recognized his teachings as truth had a choice to make. Do I humble myself and become a follower of Jesus Christ or do I choose to become an enemy of Christ and scatter his followers? Many are the latter!
Imagine if John 1:1 was rendered correctly... and the Public got to see that there is only one Bible in the World that read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the Son of God." Who could argue against Jesus being the Son of God? Imagine the lives that could be saved.
The argument that Jesus is God or a god would no longer be the center of controversy. Even trinitarians who deny Jesus' divinity as the Christ could not argue against Jesus being the Son of God. Sometimes, when it comes to saving lives, a person needs to hear the ring of truth. That truth is and the Word of God was the Son of God. The one chosen by God and sent to rescue humankind.
Notice Jesus response to his enemies:
- 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 10:36)
The scriptures are clear that Elohim can be rendered God or (gods) in referring to angels. Angels are spirit creatures that are sons of the true God. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.
In the Book of John, he uses two Greek terms to differentiate the difference between Almighty God and his Son. Theon is used to refer to Almighty God as the God and theos when referring to his Son as a god.
- In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God (theon) and the Word was a god (theos).
- No man has seen the God (theon) at any time; the only-begotten god (theos) who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.
- This means everlasting life, their coming to know You, the only true God (theon), and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
- 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 God (theon) and Your God (theon).’”
- Jesus is never called (theon) which refers to Almighty God.
With that being said, many will reject these facts. Imagine someday opening your Bible and for the first time, reading the following scriptures:
- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the Son of God.
- Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in my name,
- For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Angel of Great Counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.
Wouldn't these Bible truths bring the many to Salvation?
- "Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright." (2 Timothy 2:15)
- "Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him." (James 4:17)
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
-
"Imagine if John 1:1 was rendered correctly... and the Public got to see that there is only one Bible in the World that read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the Son of God.""
Are you suggesting that you somehow possess the infallibility of knowing what is correct in the absolute, contrary to extant manuscript testimony of Jn. 1:1?
Though, coming close to your personal conjecture is Joseph Smith's revision of the holy scripture of Jn. 1:1 as:
- "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God."
-
No, not at all. Translations are not inspired either. They are prone to mistakes and ideology. A literal translation of the Greek Scripture would read:
- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word
- Even Young's Literal translation is not literal. It reads "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
Most Bible Scholars don't mind the use of (theon) in the first instance but a good number do reject to (a god) in the second instance. They try so hard to manipulate (theos) to be the same God as (theon). Well, then why did John leave out (theon) in the second instance?
Since (theos) was in the second instance then the meaning of must be different, since the Word has a beginning. It would be in the feminine noun giving us a witness that he is the beginning. After a;;, it does state, "In the beginning was the Word"
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.
They usually make that claim you can't (a god) because there is no (a) in Greek. Then I show the the Jesus was consider (a son) and as they say, there is no (a0 in Greek. "Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered." (Hebrews 5:8) So why the hypocrisy?
In the Hebrew language there is no (a) either. So why does Exodus 7:1 read : And Yahweh said to Moses, “See, I have made you as (a god) to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet.
I showed proof that the Strong's Concordance has (a god) in meaning of theos but three is No (a) in its' explanation in Elohim, Simply God or god.
Strong's Concordance
elohim: God, god
Original Word: אֱלהִים
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: elohim
Phonetic Spelling: (el-o-heem')
Definition: God, god
In regards to Joseph's Smith translation, it sure is wordy. It seems he has no understanding that the beginning is not the beginning of the gospel but the beginning of Creation. That is why Jesus can say he existed before the earth came to be I was.....
- Yahweh created the first of his ways, before his acts ⌊of old⌋. (Proverbs 8:22)
- From eternity, I was set up from the first, from the beginning of the earth. (Proverbs 8:23)
- When there were no depths, I was brought forth, (Proverbs 8:24)
- Before mountains had been shaped, before hills, I was brought forth. or the first dust of the world, (Proverbs 8:25-26)
- when he established the heavens, there I was, (Proverbs 8:27)
- when he marked the foundations of the earth, (Proverbs 8:29-30)
- rejoicing in the world of his earth, and my delight was with the children of humankind. (Proverbs 8:31)
I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was. (John 17:4-5)
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)
-
"No, not at all. Translations are not inspired either. They are prone to mistakes and ideology. A literal translation of the Greek Scripture would read:"
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word"
"Even Young's Literal translation is not literal. It reads"
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
I'll make a brief comment regarding the above:
Literal is the exact representation of the original language word used, and follows word order. However, in translating into a target language this can, and does, become a difficult task at times to the point of being impossible.
In the examples presented neither example is literal. In the first, an article (a) is inserted into the text; in the second, word order is changed.
The third clause is simply and god was the word if one wishes to be literal in the full sense.
A good example of this follows in Jn. 1:6:
- "Became man having been delegated from God name to him John." (Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., Robinson, M. A., & Wikgren, A. (1993). The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (Interlinear with Morphology) (Jn 1:6). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.)
Not a very readable style in english is it? And this may vary depending on what gloss is chosen for a particular word. For instance, instead of Become another version has chosen There was for Ἐγένετο.
All in all, take the idea of literal with a grain of salt.
"In regards to Joseph's Smith translation, it sure is wordy. It seems he has no understanding that the beginning is not the beginning of the gospel but the beginning of Creation. That is why Jesus can say he existed before the earth came to be I was....."
Yes, it certainly is wordy – nearly an essay. Though, keep in mind they consider Joseph a great prophet and that his work of revision is inspired by God.
Which leads me to again comment on the proposed emendation of λόγος to the prepositional phrase Son of God in the third clause of Jn. 1:1.
How would you then respond to an adoptionist who agrees with this revision but doesn't believe it goes far enough – that it would be better read as and the Word was the adopted Son of God?
Once started where would it end, the Joseph Smith example from the 1830's is a good indication of the possibilities. My recommendation, stay with the manuscript witnesses to-date and work with the text as we have it.
-
@Pages Literal is the exact representation of the original language word used, and follows word order. However, in translating into a target language this can, and does, become a difficult task at times to the point of being impossible.
In the examples presented neither example is literal. In the first, an article (a) is inserted into the text; in the second, word order is changed. The third clause is simply and god was the word if one wishes to be literal in the full sense.
Yes, I see your point. I never came across a true literal translation. I don't think none exist. But if there was such a thing, the only fair thing to do is a literally translation without articles, capitalization and punctuation. Also the third clause was flipped but did not change the meaning from earlier translations. A literal translation often is cold and gives no meaning. Not only do we speak with words but we tend to emphasis our words with Capitalization, articles and punctuation!
The reason why we know the introduction of John is speaking about Michael is because of the meaning of Michael's name. The third clause is not speaking of the Logos identity but rather his qualitive sense. Case in point. Michael means "who is like God"? or "who is godlike"? We also know the qualitive sense of the Logos is divine.
Following comes from Our Research of the Logos: Quote-
1808 “and the word was a god”
The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1864 “and a god was the Word”
The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1935 “and the Word was divine”
The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1950 “and the Word was a god”
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.
1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.
1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
1979 “and a god was the Logos”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.
These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (the·osʹ) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·osʹ. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ θεός, that is, the·osʹ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·osʹ.
Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself. -End of Quote
-
The point I was trying to draw out. If we are going to use the third clause to identify whom the Word was, there are more accurate ways. No matter what identity is used, it is not totally accurate in the sense that the third clause is supposed to be used to express the Word's divinity.
Examples of identity could be one the following;
- and the word was a god
- and the word was godlike
- and the word was a messenger
- and the word was a son
- and the word was the son of God
- and the word was of God
Examples of divinity are in the feminine sense
- and the word was Divine
- and the word was a deity
- and the word was a god
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.
-
"The point I was trying to draw out. If we are going to use the third clause to identify whom the Word was, there are more accurate ways. No matter what identity is used, it is not totally accurate in the sense that the third clause is supposed to be used to express the Word's divinity."
Just a quick word.
John 1:14-18 provides identity in our time and space. John 1:1-4, 9 provides identity prior to time and space.
Yes, the predicate nominative gives a qualitative meaning in the fullest sense to the Word; in other words, one that is unrestricted in applying all attributes, character, and nature of God to the Word.
The WT disagrees with this and considers the text to express only a partial sense of this qualitativeness being applied to the Word, i.e. godlike.
I'll also mention that the WT further destroys the qualitative aspect by rendering the text as a god making it now have a quantitative sense.
Just my take, but we've been through this before on the forum.
Lastly, just a mention of your penchant for feminine nouns – you do realize that the Strong's being used in your example "Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine" most likely is following alphabetical order, F before M – it has nothing to do with lexical importance of gender. And the added bold emphasis doesn't increase importance either. The only instance in the NT of a feminine θεός is the θεὸν in Acts 19:37.
θεός is the lexical form of all other inflected forms of this word. θεός is even the root of θεός as far as lexicography has determined to-date.
The above has all been said multiple times, and by multiple posters, throughout forum encounters on this topic.
My original post was to the proposed emendation of θεός to a prepositional phrase "the Son of God"; and this brings up a logical question for that poster:
Why is it that you suggest a definite "the Son of God" against an indefinite "a son of god" which is in line with the NWT rendition a god and WT belief?
-
@Pages Yes, the predicate nominative gives a qualitative meaning in the fullest sense to the Word; in other words, one that is unrestricted in applying all attributes, character, and nature of God to the Word.
Interesting how you agree that the predicate nominative gives a qualitative meaning in the fullest sense to the Word. But then deny the divinity of Christ in the following:
Examples of divinity are in the feminine sense
- and the word was Divine
- and the word was a deity
- and the word was a god
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.
- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. John 1:1
- For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us;
-
The premise of your heading is misleading. One doesn't have to "imagine" what is plainly written and a reality in so many people's lives.
John 1:1, rendered correctly says thus:
- God the Son was the preexistent Logos (John 1:1).
- Who became incarnate (John 1:14).
- His glory was as the only Son from the Father (John 1:14).
As the earthly Son of Man:
- Jesus sowed the good seed (Matt. 13:37).
- He possessed authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:10; Matt 9:6; Luke 5:24).
- Came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10).
- He must suffer (Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22).
- Be delivered into the hands of men (Mark 9:31; Matt 17:22; Luke 9:44).
- Be condemned to death and crucified, and be raised on the third day (Matt 20:18-19; Mark 10:33-34).
- He came to do the Father's will (John 6:38), speak his words (John 14:10).
- Reveal the Father to men (Matt 11:27).
Have faith and worship God! CM
-
@C Mc The premise of your heading is misleading. One doesn't have to "imagine" what is plainly written and a reality in so many people's lives.
There are many scriptures that make the claim that Jesus is the Son of God of which you claim is misleading. Here's is just a few:
Mark 1:1
The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God:
John 1:49
Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.”
John 1:34
And I have seen it, and I have given witness that this one is the Son of God.”
Acts 9:20
and immediately in the synagogues he began to preach about Jesus, that this one is the Son of God.
Open your own Bible to John 20:17 and read Jesus’ own words near the end of that verse: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” If that surprises you, you may be amazed at some of the other things the Bible says about Jesus and God.
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”—MATTHEW 16:16. Trinitarians avoid Matthew 16:16 like the plaque because it exposes the trinity for what it really is.... A Lie.
However, your claim that he is God the Son is not existent in any of the Bibles. Care to show what scripture that states this?
With over 2.5 Billion trinitarians on earth, not a one has been able to show a single scripture that says God the Son.... Maybe your fellow trinitarians can help you? There's a big difference between the Son of God and God the Son.
-
"Interesting how you agree that the predicate nominative gives a qualitative meaning in the fullest sense to the Word. But then deny the divinity of Christ in the following:"
I believe this statement is in total contradiction to the position you and the WT hold.
If, as above, you are pleased to assert your strong agreement with "the predicate nominative gives a qualitative meaning in the fullest sense to the Word.", having God as the predicate nominative; and yet, turn around only allowing for a partial application of that fullest sense of God to be applied to the Word – is a denial in its own right.
Divinity in the context of the WT view of the Word is just a partial, watered-down, qualitative sense that could be applied to almost anything; and that is exactly what the examples of divine, godlike, a deity, a god, provide.
Though, as stated so many times before, the WT takes what is qualitative and makes it into a quantitative proposition.
The question in my previous post is still unanswered, so I'll post it again:
Why is it that you suggest a definite "the Son of God" against an indefinite "a son of god" which is in line with the NWT rendition a god and WT belief?
-
@Pages If, as above, you are pleased to assert your strong agreement with "the predicate nominative gives a qualitative meaning in the fullest sense to the Word.", having God as the predicate nominative; and yet, turn around only allowing for a partial application of that fullest sense of God to be applied to the Word – is a denial in its own right. Divinity in the context of the WT view of the Word is just a partial, watered-down, qualitative sense that could be applied to almost anything; and that is exactly what the examples of divine, godlike, a deity, a god, provide.
Feminine nouns point to Christ's Divinity. In the beginning was the Word
Strong's Lexicon
In the beginning
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית (bə·rê·šîṯ)
Preposition-b | Noun - feminine singular
Strong's Hebrew 7225: 1) first, beginning, best, chief 1a) beginning 1b) first 1c) chief 1d) choice part
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.
If the Word is first, beginning, best, chief 1a) beginning 1b) first 1c) chief 1d) choice part the Word is pre-eminent, ahead of the rest. 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").
However divine is existing in God's Form as an invisible spirit creature.
Strong's Concordance
theios: divine
Original Word: θεῖος, α, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: theios
Phonetic Spelling: (thi'-os)
Definition: divine
Usage: divine; subst: the Deity.
HELPS Word-studies
2304 theíos (an adjective, derived from 2316 /theós, "God") – divine, manifesting the characteristics of God's nature.
- and the word was a god
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.
@Pages Why is it that you suggest a definite "the Son of God" against an indefinite "a son of god" which is in line with the NWT rendition a god and WT belief?
Because not all sons of God are equal as scripture bears out. 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").
- Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. (Hebrews 1:2)
- So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. (Hebrews 1:4)
- After this I saw another angel descending from heaven with great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his glory. (Revelation 18:1)
-
Nothing in the entire response directed to my quoted statement has any meaningful relevance – I don't know how it could be any more vacuous.
"Feminine nouns point to Christ's Divinity. In the beginning was the Word"
"However divine is existing in God's Form as an invisible spirit creature."
"and the word was a god"
This is the sum of the argument against qualitative in the fullest sense to which you responded?
Mis-applying θεῖος to Jn. 1:1 is without merit – did John write καὶ θεῖος ἦν ὁ λόγος? Or did he write καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος? Did John ever once use θεῖος in his gospel, or his other writings?
Overall, the above repetitive misuse of lexical and grammatical information regarding John 1:1 is really quite astounding.
In researching JW.org I have yet to come across documentation that has the WT arguing "Feminine nouns point to Christ's Divinity." as stated above. Does it exist?
In fact, regarding the qualitative sense that has sparked this present discussion, The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom—1962 #64 quotes from C. D. F. Moule's 1953 edition (An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, page 116) for support on another John 1:1 issue.
In that quotation the WT fails to recognize a particular remark made having to do with the qualitative sense of θεὸς given to the Word that is in complete opposition to their stated belief.
- "No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word."
Based on their theological belief system the WT needs an "inferiority of nature" for the Word; in other words, the Word is divine, a god, etc. – anything that is less than the fullest sense of qualitative.
Moreover, the quote explicitly states that this qualitative sense "affirms the true deity of the Word." – not sort of, not less than, not partially – but, the all encompassing "true deity" as God is true deity.
-
@Pages Based on their theological belief system the WT needs an "inferiority of nature" for the Word; in other words, the Word is divine, a god, etc. – anything that is less than the fullest sense of qualitative.
- "If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28}
Trinitarians try so hard to make Jesus into God, that they deny him as 'the Christ, the son of the Living God.' (Matthew 16:16)
- For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
-
@Pages @Bill_Coley @C Mc @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
ChristJohn 1:1 tells us who it WAS in the beginning of Creation. "In the Beginning was the Word." The Word is no other than the Chief Messenger in how Jehovah brought in other Creation,
Yahweh created me, the first of his ways, before his acts of old.(Proverb 8:22)
"because the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first," (1 Thess 4:16)
-
"If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am. (John 14:28}"
It is obvious and most necessary under the WT theological grid that this statement by the Son has to be taken as an ontological comparison because the Son is decidedly of a lesser nature – that sorta qualitative sense applied in Jn. 1:1.
However, there is a perfectly sound interpretation alternative that recognizes the two separate categories of function and ontology which I believe is the better and more true to the intent of greater in Jn. 14:28.
Even our accepted conventional human relationship of father to son bears this out as we acknowledge the father as being greater over the son.
But, no one mistakes this description of greater to mean the father is ontologically more human, or even a better ontological quality of human than his own son – that would be a most unnatural way of thinking.
What we naturally understand is that the father is considered greater in his function as father compared to the function of son – there is no ontological inequality demanded by the use of greater as it relates to Father in this verse.
"Trinitarians try so hard to make Jesus into God, that they deny him as 'the Christ, the son of the Living God.' (Matthew 16:16)"
Contrary to this unsubstantiated assertion being made here there is no denial of Jesus being the Christ on the part of trinitarians; nor does the being of one deny Him the function of the other.
So, while we're here, I would like to point out that the above stated opinion is a great example of confusing ontological and functional categories as being one and the same. These two mentioned categories are neither equivalents of one another, nor are they interchangeable by definition or use.
In other words, the "...make Jesus into God" portion from your statement above is concerned with the ontological aspect directly relating to the being of Jesus; while, the "him as 'the Christ, the son of the Living God.'" is purely in the category of function, or role.
"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."
The use of 2Jn. 7 provides no legitimate support, or basis, for your immediately previous statement I quoted – "Trinitarians try so hard...".
The text of 2Jn. 7 is speaking of those who do not, or no longer, acknowledge the fleshness of Jesus – most likely aimed toward a gnostic thinking that Jesus only appeared to be of physical substance, i.e. flesh.
Trinitarians most assuredly believe and say Jesus came in the flesh.
"The Word is no other than the Chief Messenger in how Jehovah brought in other Creation,"
"Yahweh created me, the first of his ways, before his acts of old.(Proverb 8:22)"
"because the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first,"
Where exactly in scripture do you find the explicit reference, not some inference, of it being said wisdom is Michael?
Perhaps Prov. 2:6 establishes the context for the following usage of wisdom in Proverbs and the personified wisdom texts.
Your attempt to link archangel as having the Lord as its referent in 1Thes. 4:16 hoping to bolster support for the assertion that Michael is the Word in Jn. 1:1 is in my estimation futile.
It seems this interpretation of 1Thes. 4:16 is to be based on the genitive noun, archangel, as finding its referent in the subject Lord; however, this genitive noun is only modifying voice the prepositional object within the prepositional phrase ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου. The only word modifying the subject Lord is the intensive and emphatic αὐτός.
Further, if one asserts archangel as descriptive of the Lord then it follows that the connected and immediate following prepositional phrase ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ is also grammatically describing the Lord as well.
The two prepositional phrases, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ, are syntactically identical to one another and joined together by καὶ thereby linking them as one grammatical unit of textual thought.
Ultimately, and by necessity, in accordance to applying the interpretive grammatical grid you favor for 1Thes. 4:16, you are in effect unsoundly arguing that God is an archangel named Michael.
This is why, within this particular grammatical framework, I opt for interpreting the "voice of an archangel and trumpet of God" as being attendant to the Lord's "descent from heaven" and not descriptive of the subject.
Below is a diagram of this section of text:
(Diagram of Greek New Testament). Diagrams prepared by Steven LoVullo, Brian Baxter, Rodney Decker and team, and Rex A. Koivisto. Edited by Rex A. Koivisto, Multnomah University, Portland, Oregon USA. Copyright © 2019 OakTree Software, Inc.)
By the way, the following is from the July 15, 1898 Watchtower Magazine edited by Charles Taze Russell regarding the worship of Jesus.
I've quoted the first sentence of the short answer; but for anyone wishing to read the context here is the link.
- "Answer. Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so."
-
John 1:1 tells us who it WAS in the beginning of Creation. "In the Beginning was the Word." The Word is no other than the Chief Messenger in how Jehovah brought in other Creation,
Yahweh created me, the first of his ways, before his acts of old.(Proverb 8:22)
"because the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first," (1 Thess 4:16)
Notice it's not God that brings this resurrection but the Lord himself in the voice of a chief-messenger. Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth."
@Pages Where exactly in scripture do you find the explicit reference, not some inference, of it being said wisdom is Michael?
In the Beginning was Michael, The Archangel of the Word. He was with and toward God. An the Word was divine, the only begotten son of God.
-
"John 1:1 tells us who it WAS in the beginning of Creation. "In the Beginning was the Word." The Word is no other than the Chief Messenger in how Jehovah brought in other Creation,"
"Yahweh created me, the first of his ways, before his acts of old.(Proverb 8:22)"
"because the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first," (1 Thess 4:16)"
Your response is simply a copy and paste of your previous post with the addition of this line:
"Notice it's not God that brings this resurrection but the Lord himself in the voice of a chief-messenger. Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.""
Which fails to support your position that in this text the Lord is to be considered an archangel; while ignoring the grammatical issue this interpretation has as laid out in my prior post. The adding of Matt. 28:18 has zero relevance to the discussion of 1Thes. 4:16.
"In the Beginning was Michael, The Archangel of the Word. He was with and toward God. An the Word was divine, the only begotten son of God."
This is an absurd rendering of Jn. 1:1 with an addition from verse 14 or 18. I believe this paraphrase has topped Joseph Smith's rendition of this verse (quoted in my first post) and reached an incomparable height of distorting the scripture.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In this text of Jn. 1:1 where exactly are these words "Michael", "archangel", "the only begotten son of God" explicitly written?
The above response you have given doesn't even remotely address the question I posed to you.
The question I actually asked for your response to was the following:
- Where exactly in scripture do you find the explicit reference, not some inference, of it being said wisdom is Michael?
I asked for explicit reference – where is the exact and explicit scripture stating that wisdom is Michael – not an interpretational inference of some reference.
-
@Pages I asked for explicit reference – where is the exact and explicit scripture stating that wisdom is Michael – not an interpretational inference of some reference.
If you knew scripture you would have found it. Michael mean who is like God? That is why you keep thinking he is God. No, he is like God.
"In the Beginning was Michael, The Archangel of the Word. He was with and toward God. And the Word was divine, the only begotten son of God."
- So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.
- After this I saw another angel descending from heaven with great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his glory.
- Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord whom ye seek will suddenly come to his temple, and the Angel of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts. (Malachi 3:1)
- For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Angel of Great Counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. Isaiah 9 6 (LXX)
Grace and Wisdom both describes the Angel of Great Council who is the Angel of the Covenant identity in the feminine sense since he is the Firstborn of all Creation and was first "to be" brought forth before his acts ⌊of old⌋.i “Yahweh created me, the first of his ways, Wisdom at Creation 1510 eimí (the basic Greek verb which expresses being, i.e. "to be")
Strong's Concordance
charis: grace, kindness
Original Word: χάρις, ιτος, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: charis
Phonetic Spelling: (khar'-ece)
Definition: grace, kindness
Usage: (a) grace, as a gift or blessing brought to man by Jesus Christ, (b) favor, (c) gratitude, thanks, (d) a favor, kindness.
-
"If you knew scripture you would have found it. Michael mean who is like God? That is why you keep thinking he is God. No, he is like God."
Who is like God? is a question expecting an answer of no-one; it is not a statement of there being any similarity between Michael and God.
I certainly do not believe that Michael is God, nor do I believe he is wisdom, or the Word, or the Lord.
Nor have you engaged in any way with the grammatical issue built into your interpretive grid of 1Thes. 4:16; where, you would be essentially saying that the Lord is an archangel and God, or perhaps you prefer to say the Lord is a voice and trumpet. A re-reading of my previous post where I go into the issue confronting one's attempt to grammatically have the Lord be the antecedent of archangel in this verse may help.
"In the Beginning was Michael, The Archangel of the Word. He was with and toward God. And the Word was divine, the only begotten son of God."
So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.
After this I saw another angel descending from heaven with great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his glory.
Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord whom ye seek will suddenly come to his temple, and the Angel of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts. (Malachi 3:1)
For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Angel of Great Counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. Isaiah 9 6 (LXX)"
None of the above provides the answer to the specific questions you have been asked:
- I asked for explicit reference – where is the exact and explicit scripture stating that wisdom is Michael – not an interpretational inference.
- Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In this text of Jn. 1:1 where exactly are these words "Michael", "archangel", "the only begotten son of God" explicitly written?
These above repetitive responses from you have no relevance to the two questions asked of you. Do you intend to ever directly answer these two questions?
"Grace and Wisdom both describes the Angel of Great Council who is the Angel of the Covenant identity in the feminine sense since he is the Firstborn of all Creation and was first "to be" brought forth before his acts ⌊of old⌋.i “Yahweh created me, the first of his ways, Wisdom at Creation 1510 eimí (the basic Greek verb which expresses being, i.e. "to be")"
As far as the inclusion into this discussion regarding the word grace along with your idea of feminine sense is in itself, to me, a distraction and evasion from directly answering the actual questions you have been asked.
-
@Pages Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In this text of Jn. 1:1 where exactly are these words "", "", "" explicitly written?
The meanings are there. Whoa is like God? The one who was in God's Form. He did not consider himself equal to God. Was exalted by God and GIVEN THE name Jesus.
Since Michael is the only person to remove Satan from there is non-other that was able. Only Michael the Great Peace and also called the Prince of Peace, the Angle of Great Council.
- Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord whom ye seek will suddenly come to his temple, and the Angel of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts. (Malachi 3:1)
- For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Angel of Great Counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. Isaiah 9 6 (LXX)
- "because the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first," (1 Thess 4:16)"
To learn about the Kingdom that is not of this World. You must go to the only source on Earth. JW.org
Meaning of John 3:16
God loves us and wants us to live forever. For that reason, he sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to the earth. While on earth, Jesus accomplished much. For one thing, he taught his followers about his God and Father. (1 Peter 1:3) For another, he gave his life for mankind. To gain everlasting life, we must have faith in Jesus.
The depth of God’s love is expressed in the words, “he gave his only-begotten Son.”
a Jesus was a unique Son of God. How so? Jesus alone was created directly by God. (Colossians 1:17) He is “the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15) All other creations, including the other angels, came into existence through Jesus, or by means of him. Yet, Jehovah
b God was willing to send his dearest Son “to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.” (Matthew 20:28) Jesus suffered and died to liberate us from sin and death, which we inherited from the first man, Adam.—Romans 5:8, 12.
-
"The meanings are there. Whoa is like God? The one who was in God's Form. He did not consider himself equal to God. Was exalted by God and GIVEN THE name Jesus."
The question put to you was not about perceived meanings, inferences, interpretations, or Phil. 2:6-10; however, this above response is a roundabout way of saying none of those words, Michael, archangel, the only begotten son of God, exist in the text of Jn. 1:1.
If you will be kind enough to point out early Christian writing on Jn.1:1 that explicitly expresses these meanings you find here in this verse I will greatly appreciate it.
Thank you for directly answering one of my two questions.
-
@Pages If you will be kind enough to point out early Christian writing on Jn.1:1 that explicitly expresses these meanings you find here in this verse I will greatly appreciate it.
I have in multiple postings. There are three clauses to the introduction of John. In the third clause, the scripture is speaking about the Words Qualitive Sense of being like God, godlike, or divine.
- 1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)
- 1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago
- 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen
- 1956: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation
- 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
- 1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" – The Revised English Bible 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
So if the third clause of John's introduction is about the Word being divine and godlike, then who other would fit this scripture besides Michael whose name means who is like God?
- He said: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of God, but for the rest it is in illustrations so that, though looking, they may look in vain, and though hearing, they may not get the sense. Luke 8:10
-
"I have in multiple postings. There are three clauses to the introduction of John. In the third clause, the scripture is speaking about the Words Qualitive Sense of being like God, godlike, or divine."
Yes, you have posted these renderings of Jn. 1:1 many times, and they are explicit as to their interpretation of a lesser, divine, a deity, a god, or godlike status for the Word in the third clause; and, not one of those have "In the Beginning was Michael", or "The Archangel of the Word."
Before continuing, I'd like to point out that the Wuest translation you included is contra the theological position held by yourself. In his rendition of the third clause, "...the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" Wuest has deity modified by absolute, which together then modifies essence; put another way, the Word's essence was absolute deity – not a sorta, not a lesser, nor an inferior essence – I believe you get the point.
What I hoped for was an early Christian writing or commentary on Jn. 1:1 that explicitly stated as their interpretation "In the Beginning was Michael, or The Archangel of the Word." as you have posted in this thread.
By early, I mean far closer to the first century A.D. then the quoted Jn. 1:1 verse translations from the 20th century.
As an example of what I am interested in I'll post the following from Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-367):
- "GODHEAD IS AN INHERENT CHARACTER OF CHRIST’S NATURE. HILARY OF POITIERS: [The Son], being God, is nothing else than God. For when I hear the words “And the Word was God,” they do not merely tell me that the Son was called God; they reveal to my understanding that he is God. In those previous instances, where Moses was called god and others were styled gods, there was the mere addition of a name by way of title. Here a solid essential truth is stated: “The Word was God.” That was indicates no accidental title but an eternal reality, a permanent element of his existence, an inherent character of his nature. ON THE TRINITY 7.11." (Joel C. Elowsky, eds. John 1–10. vol. 4a of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. ICCS/Accordance electronic ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 14.)
Are you aware of any commentary from the early days of Christendom having your interpretation "In the Beginning was Michael" for Jn. 1:1?
"So if the third clause of John's introduction is about the Word being divine and godlike, then who other would fit this scripture besides Michael whose name means who is like God?"
Still missing is the significance of the ? attached to the phrase; for if, Michael truly was like God in every way he would be God; but, the name is a question expecting the negative answer – no one is like God, not even Michael.
Can Michael sin? Can God sin? Is Michael self-existing? Is God self-existing? Is Michael omnipresent? Is God omnipresent? The comparisons can go on, and almost no similarities exist; other than they both reside in the spiritual realm, but so do all the other angels, so nothing special can be attached to this.
A great question, "...then who other would fit this scripture...", one that I encourage you to research further.
-
@Pages Can Michael sin? Can God sin? Is Michael self-existing? Is God self-existing? Is Michael omnipresent? Is God omnipresent? The comparisons can go on, and almost no similarities exist; other than they both reside in the spiritual realm, but so do all the other angels, so nothing special can be attached to this.
Who can forgive sin except God? Mark 2:7
- See, I am sending an angel before you, to guard you on the way and bring you to the place I have prepared. Be attentive to him and obey him. Do not rebel against him, for he will not forgive your sin. My authority is within him Exodus 23:20-21
- However, in order for you to know that the the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins—” then he said to the paralytic: “Get up, pick up your stretcher, and go to your home.” Matthew 9:6
- If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you retain those of anyone, they are retained. John 20:23
- Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been GIVEN me in heaven and on the earth." Matthew 28:18
Trinitarians often reject the Divinity of Christ when confronted with scripture.
-
"Who can forgive sin except God? Mark 2:7"
Nothing in what I wrote, to which you are responding, had anything to do with "who can forgive sin".
"See, I am sending an angel before you, to guard you on the way and bring you to the place I have prepared. Be attentive to him and obey him. Do not rebel against him, for he will not forgive your sin. My authority is within him Exodus 23:20-21"
"However, in order for you to know that the the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins—” then he said to the paralytic: “Get up, pick up your stretcher, and go to your home.” Matthew 9:6"
"If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you retain those of anyone, they are retained. John 20:23"
"Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been GIVEN me in heaven and on the earth." Matthew 28:18"
Are you making the argument here that Michael is God? Sounds that way, as you start with Mk.2:7 and then bring in your favorite archangel who then morphs into Jesus as both being in the "Who can forgive sin except God" category.
Or, was this entire response of yours a comedy of error triggered by the first of comparisons I wrote, Can Michael sin? Can God sin?.
"Trinitarians often reject the Divinity of Christ when confronted with scripture."
Divinity is an interesting word. Historically, in and around the time of Jesus, a number of Roman Emperors were considered to be divinity, some even known to be the son of god, or savior of the world. Is this the kind of divinity you have in mind when you write "Divinity of Christ"?
Fortunately, trinitarians do reject that WT kind of divinity being applied to the Christ; and instead, apply a full and unreserved qualitative sense to Him "...and the Word was God".
-
@Pages Divinity is an interesting word. Historically, in and around the time of Jesus, a number of Roman Emperors were considered to be divinity, some even known to be the son of god, or savior of the world. Is this the kind of divinity you have in mind when you write "Divinity of Christ"?
Fortunately, trinitarians do reject that WT kind of divinity being applied to the Christ; and instead, apply a full and unreserved qualitative sense to Him "...and the Word was God".
If Jesus was God, then John would not say "In the Beginning was the Word" Trinitarians tend to forget that God is eternal and also existed. Trinitarian are not Christians.
Gospel of John 1:1 from 217 Bible Translations in English (2/20/2021)
What about the word "WITH" in John 1:1?
If Jesus 'was God', in what way could it be said that Jesus was 'with God' in the beginning?
The phrase "the word was with God" from John 1:1, sounds innocent enough but is it? John 1:14 establishes
that 'the word' is the only begotten son, who of course is Jesus Christ. This fact is our common ground
of understanding for all of us.
Since the word is Jesus, we could just as well say 'Jesus was with God', no problem. The trinity doctrine
claims that Jesus is God. So now can we say 'God was with God'? This does not sound right, it is very odd.
But why?
Please Google the word 'with' on the internet and read several definitions from different websites.
You will find that the word 'with' joins or associates two distinct and separate things together.
If a police detective asked a suspect "who were you with"? Suppose the suspect had actually been all
alone, so a thruthful and honest suspect might answer:
1. no one
2. I was alone
3. I was by myself
4. no one was with me
But the suspect would NOT say:
5. I was with myself
The word 'with' always indicates two objects, or two entities, or an object and and entity, never just one.
Saying 'I was with myself' is using the word 'with' incorrectly.
This lesson applies to John 1:1, where Jesus is the word, and where most translations read: "the word was
with God". Again, the trinitarians say Jesus is God, if this is true then one cannot say "God was with
God" because it violates the definition of the word 'with' since there are not two entities being spoken
about, but only one, namely God.
Compare these three equivalent versions of the middle phrase in John 1:1 in question:
1. 'the word was with God' (OK!)
2. 'Jesus was with God' (OK!)
3. 'God was with God' (What?)
Certainly saying 'God was with God' is rediculous. This absurdity is making a mockery of God.
In reality Jesus is a mighty one or 'a god'. Since Jesus is 'a god', it can be said that he is 'with God'.
1. 'the word was with God' (OK!)
2. 'Jesus was with God' (OK!)
3. 'a god was with God' (OK!)
These three equivalent phrases make sense since they all use the word 'with' properly each time
referencing two distinct and separate entities.
--
What was the actual 'beginning' that John was refering to at John 1:1?
We know God is eternal and had no beginning and will have no end.
The logos or word is a spokesman. When would God need a spokesman?
After Adam and Eve were created there were people that could speak.
This goes along quite well with John says at 1:3a - Through him all
things were made... - NIV. John is refering to the creation of
Genesis chapter 1.
The beginning of the dialog of God through his Son, Jesus Christ, to
humans is the 'beginning' that John was refering to at John 1:1.
There are several places in the Christian Greek scriptures that the
act of creation is mentioned such as: John 1:3, Colossians 1:15, 16
and Hebrews 1:2. At each occurrence God is said to create all things
"through" Jesus Christ.
How could God create anything "through" Jesus Christ if God and Jesus
Christ are one and the same? A person can write a letter through
their secretary to someone else. If the person dictating and the
secretary are one and the same person, how can it then be said the
writting was done through themself?
A person can walk from one room through a doorway into another room.
The doorway is separate and distinct from the person or rooms.
A person can talk to another person through a telephone. The
telephone is separate and distinct from the people.
If the Word was God, God could not create anything through the Word
because the Word is God and not separate and distinct.
By Jim Shook 03/20/2017
-
"If Jesus was God, then John would not say "In the Beginning was the Word" Trinitarians tend to forget that God is eternal and also existed. Trinitarian are not Christians."
We've been over this before in our discussions where you assign a finite meaning to this clause; this is based on your understanding of beginning as having to have a finite point within time, disregarding the ongoing nature of the verb ἦν as John has used it in all three clauses of Jn. 1:1.
I'll stress this again, ἦν, as used here, is in an infinite ongoing state not only within time; but, prior to the creation of time – ἦν in this instance is providing an always was, always is, always will be connotation – in other words, the Word has never not been in existence.
And, of course, John makes a clear distinction between the Word and God; yet, the Word was God, and in Jn. 1:14 the Word becomes flesh, and is named as the Son sent by the Father, and again in Jn. 1:18 both Son and Father are used as well as μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν of the Son.
Trinitarians, despite your delusion, do not "tend to forget that God is eternal and also existed" – quite the contrary. I wonder where you pick up this fanciful and incorrect information.
As you seem to not understand that there is one Being of God having co-eternal, co-equal, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and neither does the person arguing nonsensically about the preposition with in the writing you have quoted.
The Father can be with the Son, the Son can be with the Father, and the Holy Spirit can be with either the Father or the Son; this is what is generally known as Personhood within the one Being of God.
Moving on, I want to ask a question of you regarding the early days of the movement when Jesus was worshiped, as noted in the July 15, 1898 Watchtower Magazine pg. 216, "Answer. Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so.".
When was this worship of Jesus changed and by whom?
-
@ Pages Trinitarians, despite your delusion, do not "tend to forget that God is eternal and also existed" – quite the contrary. I wonder where you pick up this fanciful and incorrect information.
As you seem to not understand that there is one Being of God having co-eternal, co-equal, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and neither does the person arguing nonsensically about the preposition with in the writing you have quoted.
Trinitarians claim that "In the Beginning was God and God was with God" Of course reading this theology in print would offend your sense of justice. How can God be with God and at the same time be God?
It doesn't fit into scripture. There is no mention in any scripture that each God is co-equal to the other God. The trinity doctrine itself states, "the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Son or the Father"
Being co-eternal is not mentioned in scripture either. The trinity doctrine states that, "all of the three parts/persons are without Beginning" Yet the scripture states, "In the Beginning was the Word" which vomits the trinity theology out like food poisoning.
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.
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").
To claim God is 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") is FALSE.
The feminine noun is expressing the Word's Existence. When? In the Beginning was the Word. If you read about the Word of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 you would find many explanations that this one was with God before the earth was. (Proverbs 8:23)
Jesus himself even pleads with his Father, "So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was." (John 17:5)
Now, I already know you don't believe in Jesus Christ. You believe he is God. OK... answer this question. Who is the God and Father of My Lord Jesus Christ? Read 1 Peter 1:3 and Psalm 83:18.
All the Best in your endeavors in seeking My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
-
"Trinitarians claim that "In the Beginning was God and God was with God" Of course reading this theology in print would offend your sense of justice. How can God be with God and at the same time be God?"
On the contrary, no trinitarian makes the claim that "God was with God", this entire argument is fallacious and nonsensical.
John, as you know, did not write Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ θεός, καὶ ὁ θεός ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν as stated above, he instead wrote Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. "In the beginning was the Word" is the written text in all extant manuscripts for the first clause, not ...was the God.
In the third clause "and the Word was God" keeps the individual distinction, or differentiation, between Word and God given in the second clause; yet, in this final clause the text states that "the Word was God."
I see no relevance in your "How can God be with God and at the same time be God?" with regard to what John wrote.
"It doesn't fit into scripture. There is no mention in any scripture that each God is co-equal to the other God."
Quite right, and demonstrates the incorrect and false assumption of multiple Gods to what you imagine to be trinitarian. You're now mixing Tritheism, at the least, into this discussion.
"The trinity doctrine itself states, "the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Son or the Father""
Yes, clear distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and as I previously posted, the Father can be with the Son, the Son can be with the Father, and the Holy Spirit can be with either the Father or the Son; this is what is generally known as Personhood within the one Being of God.
"Being co-eternal is not mentioned in scripture either.
Neither are certain other words found in scripture – Bible, omnipresence, etc.
The trinity doctrine states that, "all of the three parts/persons are without Beginning"
There is no "...three parts" found in trinity doctrine; that would be Partialism where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each 1/3 of God.
"Yet the scripture states, "In the Beginning was the Word" which vomits the trinity theology out like food poisoning."
This assertion is assuming John wrote "In the Beginning the Word was created", against what he actually wrote "In the beginning was the Word". Which, as I've stated in other posts, the Word already "was" regardless of what you wish to assign as definitional of "beginning". Thereby, grammatically voiding any idea that the Word in Jn. 1:1 had once not existed.
Can you tell me who else, other than the WT, believes as you do that beginning in Jn. 1:1 has to be defined as a point of origin for the Word?
-
Mistake.
