APAK
Active member
Is getting to be typical here I see, and quite alarming at times....keep on truckin'....
Even in John 1, Jesus is not God
- Thread starter Wrangler
- Start date
APAK
Active member
Why don't you do a better job of linking John 1:1 and these two Isaiah verses.
(Isa 41:4) Who has worked and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I Yahweh, the first and with the last, I am He.
Now the with here refers to YHWH being present with/at the last of the generations he shall cause/call to bring into existence. And I am he refers to the fact this it is only YHWH and no one else, who creates all the generations. It is used for emphasis.
(Isa 48:12) Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel My called: I am He; I am the first, I also am the last. (NEV)
And the same concept in this verse. For emphasis, that YHWH is not only the cause of the beginning of all things he is ALSO the last of all things.
Now what do these two OT verses have to do with John 1:1 I ask you?
The Word is with God (a separate entity to God the Father), was God, became flesh, and dwelt amongst them. So who fits the bill? Hmmm. God’s thoughts are not a separate God-entity so that’s ruled out. If it’s not obvious by now then permit Rev 19:11-16 to introduce you to the Word of God.
Rev 19:11 And I saw Heaven opened. And behold, a white horse! And He sitting on him was called Faithful and True. And in righteousness He judges and makes war.
Rev 19:12 And His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head many crowns. And He had a name written, one that no one knew except Himself.
Rev 19:13 And He had been clothed in a garment dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies in Heaven followed Him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15 And out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, so that with it He should strike the nations. And He will shepherd them with a rod of iron. And He treads the winepress of the wine of the anger and of the wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:16 And He has on His garment, and on His thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
As for the video, the presenter confuses person and essence/nature. As such, this video can be trashed.
CC: @APAK
Wrangler
Well-known member
Not WHO but WHAT fits the bill. The literal thoughts of God. Words are WHAT's not WHO's. The basic error in trinity land is denying a rational explanation for how a word can be with God and be God - not in the flesh (for that idea is expressed in a later verse, adding to your already confused foundation).
You suppose there is a metaphysical entity that "fits the bill" when it is merely figurative use of language.
How can my friend Ralph and be Ralph?
How can my friend Rob and be Rob?
How can my friend have a ick and be ick?
Again, if your take had any legitimacy, overturning the 1,000's of times God has been identified as singular being, singular pronoun, it would disprove the trinity and John 20:31 would not state his whole purpose was to prove something else; namely that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God - not God in the flesh.But these are written so that you will put your faith in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God.
If you were right, John 20:31 would say these are written so that you put your faith in Jesus, WHO is God incarnate. It doesn't say that. Profound!
Trinitarians want to assert there are 4 Gospels but they don't all testify and give witness to the same thing - when they obviously do. None claim Jesus is God, all claim he is the object of God's anointing.
Wrangler
Well-known member
APAK
Active member
This Synergy person, he will not shut up for anything. He keeps dribbling on like he know people's thoughts, and understands scripture, and goes on and on and on...Is his function on this site to troll and hound folks that are not of his cloth and of the Trini mindset. I wonder.
He does not make any sense most of the time and now in post #23 he's bringing up an old worn out illogical argument again - speaking about the word OF the Father God in Rev. He gets confused easily and thinks the Father's word in Christ, that was given to him whilst he was on earth that he acted upon and spoke in power, even today, means that Christ is now both this word, the Fathers' word, and therefore God himself at the same time. So ridiculous. it is so laughable.
101G
Well-known member
GINOLJC, to all
this is where you made your first mistake of the day. the Last here is not plural at Isaiah 41:4. and here is the reason why. go to bible hub and click on the Hebrew and come down to 314. acharon click on it and one will get the Strong definition, and also the Brown-Driver-Briggs definition and how it is used in context. here is the LINK, https://biblehub.com/hebrew/314.htm
and in the Brown-Driver-Briggs definition, come down to the section,
b. of time, latter or last (according to context) Exodus 4:8; Deuteronomy 24:3; 2 Samuel 19:12; Isaiah 8:23, of God Isaiah 44:6 ("" רִאשׁוֺן) Isaiah 48:12 (do.) compare Isaiah 41:4; in Genl. subsequent (vaguely), ׳יוֺם א = time to come Isaiah 30:8; Proverbs 31:25 (but Nehemiah 8:18 הַיוֺם ׳הָאַ = the last day), ׳(הָ)אַ (הַ)דּוֺר the following Generation Deuteronomy 29:21; Psalm 48:14; Psalm 78:4; Psalm 78:6; Psalm 102:19, (הָ)אַחֲרֹנִים they that come after Job 18:20 (Ges Schl) Ecclesiastes 1:11; Ecclesiastes 4:16, but Isaiah 41:4 the last, Job 19:25 וְאַחֲרוֺן עַלעָֿפָר יָקוּם and as one coming after (me) (and so able to establish my innocence when I am dead) will he (גָֹּֽאֲלִי my Vindicator) arise upon the dust. — The feminine is used adverbially (compare רִאשֹׁנָה) = afterwards or at the last (according to context): (a) absolute Daniel 11:29; (β) בָּאַחֲרוֺנָה (opposed to בָּרִאשֹׁנָה) Deuteronomy 13:10; Deuteronomy 17:7; 1 Samuel 29:2; 2 Samuel 2:26; 1 Kings 17:13; Daniel 8:3; (γ) ׳לָאַ Numbers 2:31 (P) Ecclesiastes 1:11.
Bingo, there it is "but Isaiah 41:4 the last" it's not plural at Isaiah 41:4, God is with "THE" Last.... (smile). when 101G pointed this out to a none believing Jew his jaw hit the floor. just like you also, you assume it was plural there in Isaiah 41:4. see how mistakes can be made without proper research.
God is the First and the Last in Ordinal Designations in .... "TIME", just as the Hebrew term "BEGINNING" in Genesis 1:1 clearly states.
so 101G suggest you go back and correct your mistake. God is the First and the Last because he God is JESUS, who is First and Last. 101G is Only aware of ONE Hebrew Rabbi who teaches this correctly. there may be others. but understanding the CONTEXT correctly is very important.
now, knowing this, the term "WITH" in John 1:1b is correct in relations to the c Part of John, "and the Word was God"
101G suggest you re-assess your thinking and your belief.
101G.
Last edited:
101G
Well-known member
@civic @Fred
in speaking with APAK on Isaiah 41:4 and the term "WITH" above in post #27, you two might want to examine those finding. for the Last in the verse is the Lord Jesus who was "WITH" God in the beginning as John 1:1b clearly states. and was God, as John 1:1c also states. the implication come from the term "WITH" as in the same one person concerning God. and here it is,
Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." here the LORD is "WITH" the Last, and LORD here is a single Person. now this,
Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."
the First who is the LORD, all caps is "ALSO" the Last. not two separate persons, the same one person. for the term "ALSO" means, "in addition; too". now the question arise ... "How is one PERSON is in addition to oneself?". it cannot be in separation, for that will make two distinct persons. it cannot be Division, same result. the ONLY ANSWER is EQUALLY "SHARED, just as Philippians 2:6 clearly states. "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" there is that term "WITH" again. meaning the same one person.
101G suggest, one need to rethink their position on the Godhead. remember bible 101......... if God says one thing over here, he must say the same thing over there.
101G.
in speaking with APAK on Isaiah 41:4 and the term "WITH" above in post #27, you two might want to examine those finding. for the Last in the verse is the Lord Jesus who was "WITH" God in the beginning as John 1:1b clearly states. and was God, as John 1:1c also states. the implication come from the term "WITH" as in the same one person concerning God. and here it is,
Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." here the LORD is "WITH" the Last, and LORD here is a single Person. now this,
Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."
the First who is the LORD, all caps is "ALSO" the Last. not two separate persons, the same one person. for the term "ALSO" means, "in addition; too". now the question arise ... "How is one PERSON is in addition to oneself?". it cannot be in separation, for that will make two distinct persons. it cannot be Division, same result. the ONLY ANSWER is EQUALLY "SHARED, just as Philippians 2:6 clearly states. "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" there is that term "WITH" again. meaning the same one person.
101G suggest, one need to rethink their position on the Godhead. remember bible 101......... if God says one thing over here, he must say the same thing over there.
101G.
civic
Well-known member
If I'm together with you I'm not you. 2 distinct persons.
101G
Well-known member
did you read the whole Post? for if so, you contradict God WORD. listen, Learn,
Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." if you think this is two separate and distinct persons, (First and Last), you have another thing coming, and here it is.
now this, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."
there is the TRUTH, it's not two distinct separate persons, it's the same one person. for "ALSO", means, "in addition; too"
civic, we suggest you rethink your position.
101G.
Wrangler
Well-known member
IF he did not believe it so fully it would be laughable.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Funny how they seek to make up new meanings and standards of proof as they go. One poster did not know the difference between the Creator and the Created and projecting that lack of discernment onto non-trinitarians.IF he did not believe it so fully it would be laughable.
101G
Well-known member
@Wrangler, @APAK
your unitarian views on Isaiah 9:6 betray you. do you both not believe that the Lord Jesus was Just a man who was a shaliah, or Agent of God Correct?
and the unitarian claim, the term Mighty God was incorrectly translated.... correct. meaning it should be mighty" god" is this correct? and everlasting Father, simply means the first one to do somethings. or to start something as in Genesis 4:20 "And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle."
and the term "god" and "father" always referred to human men. as with the term "god" in John 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" meaning human men in authority, as Judges, Governors, kings.... ect.
and that the Lord Jesus was just a Man who is the, or just another in the line of many shaliah, or Agent of God Correct?
well you have a problem, the Lord Jesu is not HUMAN, but God in Human Flesh as, or in LIKENESS as a Man. you missed the first part of the verse. listen, Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
do you two see your mistake? the son is NOT "BORN", God is NEVER BORN, as with human men, the spirit is Given. and the spirit that was Given to the Flesh that was born is not of this World. but from HEAVEN.
so Isaiah 9:6 is translated correctly as in the KJV states of the Bible, now you two must tell us how the spirit from heaven, note from Heaven is called a "god". your answers please.
101G.
your unitarian views on Isaiah 9:6 betray you. do you both not believe that the Lord Jesus was Just a man who was a shaliah, or Agent of God Correct?
and the unitarian claim, the term Mighty God was incorrectly translated.... correct. meaning it should be mighty" god" is this correct? and everlasting Father, simply means the first one to do somethings. or to start something as in Genesis 4:20 "And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle."
and the term "god" and "father" always referred to human men. as with the term "god" in John 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" meaning human men in authority, as Judges, Governors, kings.... ect.
and that the Lord Jesus was just a Man who is the, or just another in the line of many shaliah, or Agent of God Correct?
well you have a problem, the Lord Jesu is not HUMAN, but God in Human Flesh as, or in LIKENESS as a Man. you missed the first part of the verse. listen, Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
do you two see your mistake? the son is NOT "BORN", God is NEVER BORN, as with human men, the spirit is Given. and the spirit that was Given to the Flesh that was born is not of this World. but from HEAVEN.
so Isaiah 9:6 is translated correctly as in the KJV states of the Bible, now you two must tell us how the spirit from heaven, note from Heaven is called a "god". your answers please.
101G.
Wrangler
Well-known member
No just applied to a 4th century BC prince - not Yeshua.
101G
Well-known member
101G
Well-known member
Wrangler said
No just applied to a 4th century BC prince - not Yeshua.
well your unitarian teacher say different. https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/isaiah-9-6
101G.
Literal Translation of John 1:1c
Even the trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.
Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:
“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.
The reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upset his trinitarian interpretations of John’s Gospel!
Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god [God]’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.
"In John i.1 (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), the article could not have been omitted if John had wished to designate the λόγος as ὁ θεὸς, because in such a connexion θεὸς without the article would be ambiguous." - A treatise on the grammar of New Testament Greek: regarded as a sure basis for New Testament exegesis, p. 151, G. B. Winer.
Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God.
And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:
“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.
Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God[2] (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.
And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.
You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.
Yes, as trinitarian scholar Dr. Robert Young tells us in the preface to Young’s Analytical Concordance in the section entitled “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:
“65. God—is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, Magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. Ex. 7:1; ... John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28 ....” - Eerdmans Publ., 1978.
Notice how John 1:1 has been listed as an example of “God” (or “god”) being applied to someone other than the true God (as in the case of “judges, angels, prophets, etc.”). Dr. Young also specifically tells us that John 1:1 is literally “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word.” p. 54, Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary. Certainly a trinitarian scholar such as Dr. Young would interpret John 1:1c to mean “the Word was the true God” if he could honestly do so! Obviously he felt there was something wrong with that interpretation.
New Testament Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer also defined theos:
“θεὸς [theos] is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, i.q. God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges.” - p. 288, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
Angels are literally called “gods” (Hebrew - elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know angels are called “gods” here because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels” is used in New Testament Greek. In fact, the highly trinitarian NKJV actually translates the elohim of Ps. 8:5, 6 as ‘angels’ (“For you have made him a little lower than the angels.”)
The very trinitarian New American Bible (1970), St. Joseph ed., states in a footnote for Ps. 8:6:
“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods;’ hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].” So how does noted trinitarian Dr. James Moffatt translate (at Ps. 8:6) this word that means “God” or “gods” and which is here applied to angels? Again, as at John 1:1, he translates the word for “God/god” as “divine”! “Yet thou hast made him little less than divine [elohim].” (“Heavenly beings,” NIV - see NIVSB footnote for Heb. 2:7.)
This is a tiny part of my personal study of John 1:1c and John's intended meaning as determi9ned by his grammatical usage.
Don' worry, after forty plus years of presenting it to trinitarians, Im don't expect anyone to actually read it (and NEVER attempt to reply to what I have written in it.
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/definite-john-11c.html
Even the trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.
Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:
“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.
The reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upset his trinitarian interpretations of John’s Gospel!
Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god [God]’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.
"In John i.1 (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), the article could not have been omitted if John had wished to designate the λόγος as ὁ θεὸς, because in such a connexion θεὸς without the article would be ambiguous." - A treatise on the grammar of New Testament Greek: regarded as a sure basis for New Testament exegesis, p. 151, G. B. Winer.
Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God.
And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:
“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.
Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God[2] (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.
And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.
You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.
Yes, as trinitarian scholar Dr. Robert Young tells us in the preface to Young’s Analytical Concordance in the section entitled “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:
“65. God—is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, Magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. Ex. 7:1; ... John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28 ....” - Eerdmans Publ., 1978.
Notice how John 1:1 has been listed as an example of “God” (or “god”) being applied to someone other than the true God (as in the case of “judges, angels, prophets, etc.”). Dr. Young also specifically tells us that John 1:1 is literally “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word.” p. 54, Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary. Certainly a trinitarian scholar such as Dr. Young would interpret John 1:1c to mean “the Word was the true God” if he could honestly do so! Obviously he felt there was something wrong with that interpretation.
New Testament Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer also defined theos:
“θεὸς [theos] is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, i.q. God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges.” - p. 288, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
Angels are literally called “gods” (Hebrew - elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know angels are called “gods” here because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels” is used in New Testament Greek. In fact, the highly trinitarian NKJV actually translates the elohim of Ps. 8:5, 6 as ‘angels’ (“For you have made him a little lower than the angels.”)
The very trinitarian New American Bible (1970), St. Joseph ed., states in a footnote for Ps. 8:6:
“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods;’ hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].” So how does noted trinitarian Dr. James Moffatt translate (at Ps. 8:6) this word that means “God” or “gods” and which is here applied to angels? Again, as at John 1:1, he translates the word for “God/god” as “divine”! “Yet thou hast made him little less than divine [elohim].” (“Heavenly beings,” NIV - see NIVSB footnote for Heb. 2:7.)
This is a tiny part of my personal study of John 1:1c and John's intended meaning as determi9ned by his grammatical usage.
Don' worry, after forty plus years of presenting it to trinitarians, Im don't expect anyone to actually read it (and NEVER attempt to reply to what I have written in it.
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/definite-john-11c.html
101G
Well-known member
thanks for your post. but God settle this long ago. Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
if God said, "and there is no god with me", who is any man to say otherwise?
101G.
101G
Well-known member
Similar threads
