The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[Runningman]

Carson is correct and fully supports the deity of Christ

More, the Word was God. That is the translation demanded by the Greek structure, theos ēn ho logos. A long string of writers has argued that because theos, ‘God’, here has no article, John is not referring to God as a specific being, but to mere qualities of ‘God-ness’. The Word, they say, was not God, but divine. This will not do. There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios). More importantly, there are many places in the New Testament where the predicate noun has no article, and yet is specific. Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20). It has been shown that it is common for a definite predicate noun in this construction, placed before the verb, to be anarthrous (that is, to have no article; cf. Additional Note). Indeed, the effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word. In that case, it would be nonsense to say (in the words of the second clause of this verse) that the Word was with God. The ‘Word does not by Himself make up the entire Godhead; nevertheless the divinity that belongs to the rest of the Godhead belongs also to Him’ (Tasker, p. 45). ‘The Word was with God, God’s eternal Fellow; the Word was God, God’s own Self.’

D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 117.

Both Brown and Dunn have a concern of showing that the logos is not the person (ton theon) he is with.

Rather the Logos is of the same quality (deity) as the God he is with

Were a definite article to appear in clause c that would teach modalism -

the Logos is the God he is with, but that would not be trinitarianism



u

C. K.Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theoshad been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The GospelAccording to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76.C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightlydenominated theos...That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, t heNicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase. "New Testament Translation Problems II," The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan.1977), p. 104.

The fact that I quoted Trinitarians who believe in the deity of Jesus isn't on trial here. The matter is that each and every last one of them confirms that John 1:1 can be translated other ways because the Greek allows it. Absolutely. While I am not a JW, their NWT version is more of a literal translation than the typical dogmatic translation the Trinitarians have published.

Remember, the Word was with The God and the Word was theos. Contextually, this doesn't allow for the Word to be The God. The translations that calls the Word God while ignoring this distinction is perverse.

I expect some intellectual honesty here, too. It doesn't pay to argue and deny everything that you don't like. Some things we don't like are true.

 

[mikesw]

The fact that I quoted Trinitarians who believe in the deity of Jesus isn't on trial here. The matter is that each and every last one of them confirms that John 1:1 can be translated other ways because the Greek allows it. Absolutely. While I am not a JW, their NWT version is more of a literal translation than the typical dogmatic translation the Trinitarians have published.

Remember, the Word was with The God and the Word was theos. Contextually, this doesn't allow for the Word to be The God. The translations that calls the Word God while ignoring this distinction is perverse.

I expect some intellectual honesty here, too. It doesn't pay to argue and deny everything that you don't like. Some things we don't like are true.

I would think that their testimony is critical here, namely that the passage cannot follow variant translations in these verses. The passage as a whole cannot be translated differently in a fashion that does not match with the broad scriptures. You for example cannot say the Word was a god, even if that were a possible translation of a verse, since that does not fit with the rest of scripture.

Sorry that the things you like are not true.

 

[Runningman]

BTW

NOTE: The often quoted Jason BeDuhn, as in favour of the rendering 'a god', has his PhD in Comparative Religious studies, not in Biblical languages and, unlike the above mentioned scholars, is not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek, although his degree does require an intermediate level of competence in Greek.

He's basing his study off of Greek experts who agree with him. Ever heard of Dr. Daniel B. Wallace? He's a Trinitarian theologian and Greek expert. He acknowledges the nuances of the Greek text, particularly the significance of the absence of the definite article before "theos" (God) in John 1:1c even though he doesn't believe it. Check out Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics for further reading.

There is also Trinitarian Dr. Bruce Metzger. In his book, The Text of the New Testament he acknowledged the possibility of translating John 1:1 as "the Word was a god." He also discusses various other translations.

Don't forget Dr. William L. Lane in his New International Commentary on the New Testament. He says the Word can be a god.

Wow. There's a lot of them aren't there? They're all sourced as well. I would say the scholarly community is divided by those with intellectual and scholarly integrity and those loyal to dogma.

 

[Runningman]

Just a reminder Paul prayed to Christ

2 Corinthians 12:8–10 (UASV) — 8 Three times I implored the Lord about this, that it would depart from me. 9 And he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I take delight in weaknesses, in insults, in times of need, in persecutions and difficulties for the sake of Christ, for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.

showing the op title is false

Great example of praying to the Father since contextually that passage doesn't say Paul was speaking to Jesus nor is their precedent for this.

For example, in Acts 1:24 they prayed to the Lord and all examples prior to this were of praying to the Father. In Acts 4:24-27, it's clearer because they prayed to the "Sovereign Lord and Creator" while referring to to Jesus in the same prayer as His servant or Son and thus showing distinction between God and Jesus.

 

[Runningman]

This is what Brown does state

View attachment 940

Exactly. He acknowledged the possibility of different translations of John 1:1. As I have already been saying, but no one believed until they heard it from the experts, the Word is not the same being the The God in John 1:1, but is rather something or someone godly. Understand why 1 John 1:1-2 calls the Word of life an it now?

 

[mikesw]

Exactly. He acknowledged the possibility of different translations of John 1:1. As I have already been saying, but no one believed until they heard it from the experts, the Word is not the same being the The God in John 1:1, but is rather something or someone godly. Understand why 1 John 1:1-2 calls the Word of life an it now?

No wonder you are a Unitarian. You have not learned anything in the weeks of discussion here. You just have wishful ideas about denying the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. Facts do not help you change your mind.
It could be an interesting experiment to have someone translate the Greek most favorably to your view and see if it makes any sense.

 

[synergy]

The Athanasian Creed shows awareness that what it says reads like three distinct Gods because it calls each of them God then immediately says one God. That isn't even a sleight of hand, it's obviously false. Furthermore, since the Athanasian creed confirms that each distinct person of the Trinity is God then saying that there is one God is actually a lie. When you going to stop defending what you know to be nonsense?

You're forgetting that the Athanasian Creed was written in Greek, not English. The Greek language is a much more philosophical language than English. Greeks can easily talk about forms, nature, essence, personhood, classes, images, and other philosophical topics in their language. English is much more restricted. That's why in Greek "God" can be viewed as a person or as nature/essence, depending on the context. English has a hard time distinguishing between person and nature/essence. That's why learning the NT without understanding Greek is like having both your hands tied behind your back. A perfect example are JWs who are notoriously anti-Greek.

 

[Runningman]

I would think that their testimony is critical here, namely that the passage cannot follow variant translations in these verses. The passage as a whole cannot be translated differently in a fashion that does not match with the broad scriptures. You for example cannot say the Word was a god, even if that were a possible translation of a verse, since that does not fit with the rest of scripture.

Sorry that the things you like are not true.

John 1:1 where the "Word was God" doesn't match the rest of Scripture, hence why it can be translated in other ways. On top of that, the Greek grammar demonstrates the Word is not The God. Not sure what your disconnect here is. You disagree that if a sentence employs two usages of the word God and calls one The God and the other just god that it wouldn't render as "The God" and "a god?" Why do you ignore the distinction between God and the Word?

 

[Runningman]

No wonder you are a Unitarian. You have not learned anything in the weeks of discussion here. You just have wishful ideas about denying the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. Facts do not help you change your mind.
It could be an interesting experiment to have someone translate the Greek most favorably to your view and see if it makes any sense.

I could say the same exact things about you. What's your point?

 

[Runningman]

You're forgetting that the Athanasian Creed was written in Greek, not English. The Greek language is a much more philosophical language than English. Greeks can easily talk about forms, nature, essence, personhood, classes, images, and other philosophical topics in their language. English is much more restricted. That's why in Greek "God" can be viewed as a person or as nature/essence, depending on the context. English has a hard time distinguishing between person and nature/essence. That's why learning the NT without understanding Greek is like having both your hands tied behind your back. A perfect example are JWs who are notoriously anti-Greek.

The Athanasian creed doesn't invite the reader to interpret it philosophically, but to rather use it as a companion to Scripture to interpret who God is. The Athanasian Creed is your Scripture and is the gold standard to define orthodox Trinitarianism. Don't try to distance yourself from it, though I can see why you would.

 

[synergy]

The Athanasian creed doesn't invite the reader to interpret it philosophically, but to rather use it as a companion to Scripture to interpret who God is. The Athanasian Creed is your Scripture and is the gold standard to define orthodox Trinitarianism. Don't try to distance yourself from it, though I can see why you would.

It invites you to read it in the Greek language with all the linguistic structures and nuances that go into defining the Greek language. I would much rather toss your anti-Greek sentiments out the window than forsake the Greek language.

 

[mikesw]

John 1:1 where the "Word was God" doesn't match the rest of Scripture, hence why it can be translated in other ways. On top of that, the Greek grammar demonstrates the Word is not The God. Not sure what your disconnect here is. You disagree that if a sentence employs two usages of the word God and calls one The God and the other just god that it wouldn't render as "The God" and "a god?" Why do you ignore the distinction between God and the Word?

sorry. i have no idea what you are saying here.

 

[Runningman]

It invites you to read it in the Greek language with all the linguistic structures and nuances that go into defining the Greek language. I would much rather toss your anti-Greek sentiments out the window than forsake the Greek language.

According to what I just read, the Athanasian creed was most likely originally written in Latin. The Internet is wonderful. You know, we can look up anything and fact check any claim. So if it was written in Greek after the fact then that's a re-translation.

This is the site I usually use when I read the Creed. https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/athanasian-creed

"It is not from Greek (Eastern), but from Latin (Western) origin, and is not recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church today."

Numerous other sources say it was most likely originally written in Latin. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Athanasian_Creed

"Some of today's historians believe that it was originally written in Latin, not in Greek, and thus Athanasius cannot have been the original author."

 

[Runningman]

sorry. i have no idea what you are saying here.

If you are looking for an out, you can just stop replying. I won't blame you.

 

[mikesw]

If you are looking for an out, you can just stop replying. I won't blame you.

If you do not know what you said, how is anyone else supposed to follow it?
I cannot even say if it makes sense or not. There is nothing I can respond to when your point is unclear to me.

 

[Runningman]

If you do not know what you said, how is anyone else supposed to follow it?
I cannot even say if it makes sense or not. There is nothing I can respond to when your point is unclear to me.

It's pretty clear. There isn't anything wrong with what I wrote. This makes me believe you've just been arguing for the sake of arguing. You haven't read the Greek of John 1:1?

 

[mikesw]

It's pretty clear. There isn't anything wrong with what I wrote. This makes me believe you've just been arguing for the sake of arguing. You haven't read the Greek of John 1:1?

Oh. that was your version of Greek? Maybe tomorrow someone else will explain what yous said -- if that person can make sense of it.

 

[Runningman]

Oh. that was your version of Greek?

I am using the exact same Greek everyone else is using. I typically use Bible Hub.

https://biblehub.com/text/john/1-1.htm

Read it. The Word was with The God and the Word was a god.

John 1:1 fully supports Unitarianism.

Maybe tomorrow someone else will explain what yous said -- if that person can make sense of it.

I already had it looked it. It's perfectly clear but feel free.

 

[mikesw]

I am using the exact same Greek everyone else is using. I typically use Bible Hub.

https://biblehub.com/text/john/1-1.htm

Read it. The Word was with The God and the Word was a god.

John 1:1 fully supports Unitarianism.

I already had it looked it. It's perfectly clear but feel free.

so you like to show your ignorance on Greek and translation principles.

 

[Runningman]

so you like to show your ignorance on Greek and translation principles.

Try me. I have already came to the right conclusion on the Greek in my own studies and have already found around 10 Greek experts, some who are Trinitarian, who either outright agree with me or say it's plausible.