The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning

[mikesw]

All of this is blown out of the water by the fact that the "Word as God" is an anarthrous predicate nominative. There is literally no way for the trinitarian or the JW version of John 1:1. Biblical Unitarians got this right. Want to really prove it?

You go against common knowledge of Greek grammar. Is that altering of Greek grammar the best path for unitarians to follow? I have no idea how you have gotten so off track here. You did not even make anything sound sensible let alone be proper Greek grammar.

The word of God is personified repeatedly throughout the Old Testament, but never represented as a distinct being or a God with God.

That is evidence of the Spirit or of the preexistent One identified as the Word in the OT. It is not like ideas were just floating around in space. You have just provided evidence of the Triune God but pretend that it defends a unitarian idea.

Also, the Word is still called a that, which, this, that, and it. Argue all you want, but those are non-person pronouns, meaning the Word can be 100% honestly and accurately understood to be a thing.

Pronouns are not way to determine whether metalepsis is used or not. Also, pronouns are often used in other languages to match with the word gender rather than a logical gender. You also conveyed that the Word having been godly gave that up and became ungodly.

No mention or any incarnation anywhere in all of Scripture. The case against your theories about the Word is overwhelming. There are even passages where the Word is next to Jesus in the same context as something distinct from him and not him.

You deny use of the English language (i.e. "incarnation") and use that as an excuse to deny who Christ is. That argument hardly works in the real world.

 

[Runningman]

You go against common knowledge of Greek grammar. Is that altering of Greek grammar the best path for unitarians to follow? I have no idea how you have gotten so off track here. You did not even make anything sound sensible let alone be proper Greek grammar.


That is evidence of the Spirit or of the preexistent One identified as the Word in the OT. It is not like ideas were just floating around in space. You have just provided evidence of the Triune God but pretend that it defends a unitarian idea.

Pronouns are not way to determine whether metalepsis is used or not. Also, pronouns are often used in other languages to match with the word gender rather than a logical gender. You also conveyed that the Word having been godly gave that up and became ungodly.

You deny use of the English language (i.e. "incarnation") and use that as an excuse to deny who Christ is. That argument hardly works in the real world.

I think we can agree that most of the English translation of the Bibles have been translated theologically and philosophically in a way unfaithful to the general message about who God is throughout the Bible. Too many misunderstandings about God and Jesus perpetuated by trinitarians for centuries are reflected in poor translations and endless eisegesis. This is why the Bible contests, refutes, or contradicts almost everything you guys say, sometimes directly in your own English translations, or otherwise in the Greek.

A recommendation to get you on track is believe what the Bible says, don't redefine words, don't try to change the language to support a false premise that is never mentioned in the Bible.

 

[mikesw]

I think we can agree that most of the English translation of the Bibles have been translated theologically and philosophically in a way unfaithful to the general message about who God is throughout the Bible. Too many misunderstandings about God and Jesus perpetuated by trinitarians for centuries are reflected in poor translations and endless eisegesis. This is why the Bible contests, refutes, or contradicts almost everything you guys say, sometimes directly in your own English translations, or otherwise in the Greek.

A recommendation to get you on track is believe what the Bible says, don't redefine words, don't try to change the language to support a false premise that is never mentioned in the Bible.

You have not addressed your misunderstanding of Greek grammar yet. You have not shown any basis for your treatment of the Greek. Nothing and nothing else but nothing. You just say in one place that the grammar should be interpreted differently and somehow that changes the breadth of the translation. You cannot just do those errors and hope it convinces people of your novel, new, gnostic, private teachings. Then you get a small group of unitarian "translators" and say that is the authoritative group.

 

[Runningman]

You have not addressed your misunderstanding of Greek grammar yet. You have not shown any basis for your treatment of the Greek. Nothing and nothing else but nothing. You just say in one place that the grammar should be interpreted differently and somehow that changes the breadth of the translation. You cannot just do those errors and hope it convinces people of your novel, new, gnostic, private teachings. Then you get a small group of unitarian "translators" and say that is the authoritative group.

You have a misunderstanding of the Greek grammar that you have not addressed yet. Do you deny the Word as God in John 1:1 is an anarthrous predicate nominative? If you do, then you need a reality check, not a schooling in what John 1:1 says. If you do agree with it, then you have completely lost your points.

 

[Runningman]

As far as I understand salvation... you either have the spirit or you don't. I believe the following may not get you spirit...

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord God, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Himself from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Yep exactly. That's the false gospel that I have seen most trinitarians push around everywhere.

 

[mikesw]

You have a misunderstanding of the Greek grammar that you have not addressed yet. Do you deny the Word as God in John 1:1 is an anarthrous predicate nominative? If you do, then you need a reality check, not a schooling in what John 1:1 says. If you do agree with it, then you have completely lost your points.

Please establish your deep understanding of Greek grammar before you try to preach your expertise. I cannot even tell what you are trying to say in making a difference in some sort of point you are making on λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν and καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. You already failed by essentially by conveying the Word was godly but no longer was godly when Jesus became incarnate. If you can explain that, you will have a chance to change people's minds.

 

[mikesw]

You have a misunderstanding of the Greek grammar that you have not addressed yet. Do you deny the Word as God in John 1:1 is an anarthrous predicate nominative? If you do, then you need a reality check, not a schooling in what John 1:1 says. If you do agree with it, then you have completely lost your points.

Sure you copied down the grammatical details in noting it as an anarthrous predicate nominative. The discussions mention that this does not say "was a god" or "was the god." So there is a qualitative sense -- "was God." This elaborates and corrects Philo's concept of wisdom acting in conscious co-creation rather than a separate god.
The qualitative sense of John 1:1c is "the Word was deity." The test for this is that one could add a modifier like "fully" to it. This translation as "the Word was deity" is perhaps a more wooden translation while "the Word was God" is a simpler way of translating the idea.
One can follow the discussion at: https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4135

If trying to translate as "the Word was godly," an understatement occurs. It is better to say "what God was, the Word was." That of course creates an unrecognizable sense that God changed sometime in the course of the Word coming. Edited: Oops. This rewording would apparently be seen as giving a continuous past existence, not an end.

 

[Runningman]

Please establish your deep understanding of Greek grammar before you try to preach your expertise. I cannot even tell what you are trying to say in making a difference in some sort of point you are making on λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν and καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. You already failed by essentially by conveying the Word was godly but no longer was godly when Jesus became incarnate. If you can explain that, you will have a chance to change people's minds.

The grammar of John 1 doesn't require the Word be identified with personal masculine pronouns throughout the passage, but if you insist on going that direction, it would only necessitate interpreting the Word as a thing personified. We know that the Word is a thing as 1 John 1:1-3 states, we also know the Word isn't The God, and we know that the Word as God is an anarthrous predicate nominative in John 1:1.

What does this mean? This means that the Word is qualitative; meaning it has qualities and characteristics, but is not a person. An acceptable translation of John 1:1 could be “the Word was divine / godlike / of God-nature / godly" or something like that, but not God. That contradicts the Bible's clear and explicit teaching that the Father is God alone, there are no other God's aside from the Father according to God and all of the prophets. (John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6)

 

[Runningman]

Sure you copied down the grammatical details in noting it as an anarthrous predicate nominative. The discussions mention that this does not say "was a god" or "was the god." So there is a qualitative sense -- "was God." This elaborates and corrects Philo's concept of wisdom acting in conscious co-creation rather than a separate god.
The qualitative sense of John 1:1c is "the Word was deity." The test for this is that one could add a modifier like "fully" to it. This translation as "the Word was deity" is perhaps a more wooden translation while "the Word was God" is a simpler way of translating the idea.
One can follow the discussion at: https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4135

If trying to translate as "the Word was godly," an understatement occurs. It is better to say "what God was, the Word was." That of course creates an unrecognizable sense that God changed sometime in the course of the Word coming.

Means the Word isn't God. Seems you are getting close to admitting that. I haven't even started quoting all of the trinitarian commentators, theologians, and Greek grammar experts who admit I am correct about what I am pointing out here.

So what is the point of all of this? You don't have a definitive, solid, undeniable, or unquestionable reference to the Word being God. You might have a get-out-of-jail free card if you could find some other references to the Word being God, but based on what I have seen the rest of the Bible refutes Logos theology. That's why you can't just live in John 1:1 and pretend like the rest of the Bible isn't there refuting the way you say it should be translated.

 

[mikesw]

The grammar of John 1 doesn't require the Word be identified with personal masculine pronouns throughout the passage, but if you insist on going that direction, it would only necessitate interpreting the Word as a thing personified. We know that the Word is a thing as 1 John 1:1-3 states,

you keep on speaking of 1 John 1:1-3 as if it were not focused specifically on the word or message of life rather than on Jesus. The topic is the message not the person of Jesus. But to the unitarian, any specific Greek word can only have a hyperliteralist, narrow meaning despite the corruption of interpretation that happens.

we also know the Word isn't The God, and be know that the Word as God is an anarthrous predicate nominative in John 1:1. What does this mean? This means that the Word is qualitative; meaning it has qualities and characteristics, but not a person.

You make nonsensical interpretation. There is no support for saying "godly" here.

An acceptable translation of John 1:1 could be “the Word was divine / godlike / of God-nature / godly" or something like that, but not God.

So you are manlike but not a man. I have possibly edited the earlier remark where that would be understating the meaning of "the Word is deity."

That contradicts the Bible's clear and explicit teaching that the Father is God alone, there are no other God's aside from the Father according to God and all of the prophets. (John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6)

There you go again mentioning John 17:3 without verse 5. Repetition does not make your error into truth.

 

[mikesw]

Means the Word isn't God. Seems you are getting close to admitting that. I haven't even started quoting all of the trinitarian commentators, theologians, and Greek grammar experts who admit I am correct about what I am pointing out here.

So what is the point of all of this? You don't have a definitive, solid, undeniable, or unquestionable reference to the Word being God.

You are right. You ask unreasonable questions and thus the standard knowledge of Greek is questioned. But that does not support the illogic of your questioning.

You might have a get-out-of-jail free card if you could find some other references to the Word being God, but based on what I have seen the rest of the Bible refutes Logos theology. That's why you can't just live in John 1:1 and pretend like the rest of the Bible isn't there refuting the way you say it should be translated.

You are gambling on a unique, unsupported, illogical mis-translation of the Greek. Nor have you made an argument sufficient to deny the deity of Christ.

 

[mikesw]

Means the Word isn't God. Seems you are getting close to admitting that. I haven't even started quoting all of the trinitarian commentators, theologians, and Greek grammar experts who admit I am correct about what I am pointing out here.

So what is the point of all of this? You don't have a definitive, solid, undeniable, or unquestionable reference to the Word being God. You might have a get-out-of-jail free card if you could find some other references to the Word being God, but based on what I have seen the rest of the Bible refutes Logos theology. That's why you can't just live in John 1:1 and pretend like the rest of the Bible isn't there refuting the way you say it should be translated.

Another problem with your proposal is that the Greek would have the word theios if "godly" was the intent.

Third, the Greek word theios means divine. So John could have used this term explicitly. But he doesn’t. He uses theos, which means God (Carson, John, 177). So even if theos contextually has a qualitative sense to it (as someone like Dan Wallace argues), the word itself remains theos. This matters.

John 1:1 Says the Word Is God, Not Merely Divine

Does John 1:1c say that the Word is only divine but not the God of Israel? No. The Word is God. Here is why.

ca.thegospelcoalition.org

 

[Runningman]

you keep on speaking of 1 John 1:1-3 as if it were not focused specifically on the word or message of life rather than on Jesus. The topic is the message not the person of Jesus. But to the unitarian, any specific Greek word can only have a hyperliteralist, narrow meaning despite the corruption of interpretation that happens.

You make nonsensical interpretation. There is no support for saying "godly" here.


So you are manlike but not a man. I have possibly edited the earlier remark where that would be understating the meaning of "the Word is deity."

There you go again mentioning John 17:3 without verse 5. Repetition does not make your error into truth.

This isn't a rebuttal. It's noise and foot stomping, but it does not disprove the Word can be a thing. The Bible provides enough material to explicitly identify the Word as a thing and enough material to disprove the Word is God Himself. The talking points I've provided are scriptural, coherent, and Biblically sound. Disagree if you want, I am still going to bringing up points about the Word have the qualities of God in John 1:1, but not God Himself. The Christian God is the Father only, also the God of the Jews.

 

[Runningman]

You are right. You ask unreasonable questions and thus the standard knowledge of Greek is questioned. But that does not support the illogic of your questioning.

You are gambling on a unique, unsupported, illogical mis-translation of the Greek. Nor have you made an argument sufficient to deny the deity of Christ.

I think you are just attempting to defend what you believe, but hopefully you will make an effort to get honest with yourself and learn some Greek. It isn't a secret that John 1:1 refers to the Word as having the qualities of God without proving that the Word is actually God in the same way the Father is. Don't you want to be an intellectually honest Bible scholar instead of the sock puppet propaganda arm of your organization?

 

[Runningman]

Another problem with your proposal is that the Greek would have the word theios if "godly" was the intent.

This demonstrates a poor understanding of Greek. I wager none of us are experts here, but that doesn't mean we can't learn and study. Obviously I wouldn't be here unwavering on the point of the Word being a thing with divine characteristics if I couldn't prove it. Theos can, and is, translated as godly, or of God, or like god. KJV isn't the only version doing this. Sometimes the contexts requires this. John 1:1 is a similar case as the below verses in which the Word is godly/divine/god-like, etc

Same root word, theos, translated as godly elsewhere in the NT.

2 Corinthians 1 (KJV)
12For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

2 Corinthians 7 (KJV)
10For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 11For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

2 Corinthians 11 (KJV)
2For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

1 Tim 1:4 (KJV)
4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

 

[mikesw]

This isn't a rebuttal. It's noise and foot stomping, but it does not disprove the Word can be a thing. The Bible provides enough material to explicitly identify the Word as a thing and enough material to disprove the Word is God Himself. The talking points I've provided are scriptural, coherent, and Biblically sound. Disagree if you want, I am still going to bringing up points about the Word have the qualities of God in John 1:1, but not God Himself. The Christian God is the Father only, also the God of the Jews.

I get it. you lack a rubuttal so you just share inaccurate grammar. You share a hyperextensive use of a single meaning of words so that nothing means anything. You can still bring up confused readings but it will not support a unitarian hypothesis. It is foolish pushing your experimental, novel doctrine

 

[mikesw]

I think you are just attempting to defend what you believe, but hopefully you will make an effort to get honest with yourself and learn some Greek. It isn't a secret that John 1:1 refers to the Word as having the qualities of God without proving that the Word is actually God in the same way the Father is. Don't you want to be an intellectually honest Bible scholar instead of the sock puppet propaganda arm of your organization?

Of course I teach how to believe the scripture. You are silly suggesting to learn Greek when you speak against basic Greek grammar. If you have some alternative meaning that makes sense, just give a decent argument. If you have a complaint against the organization called Christianity that flows from Christ as the head, you take that up with him, not with me.
Your grammar interpretation is wrong. You abuse the word logos as if it controls the context instead of the context determining the word's usage. We see also that John 1:1 could have conveyed Christ as godly by using theios instead of theos. But what significance is that to someone who continues to deny who Christ is shown to be.

 

[Runningman]

I get it. you lack a rubuttal so you just share inaccurate grammar. You share a hyperextensive use of a single meaning of words so that nothing means anything. You can still bring up confused readings but it will not support a unitarian hypothesis. It is foolish pushing your experimental, novel doctrine

I imagine you're shaking your fist a lot at what the Bible explicitly says. Why does no one say what you say in Scripture?

 

[mikesw]

This demonstrates a poor understanding of Greek. I wager none of us are experts here, but that doesn't mean we can't learn and study. Obviously I wouldn't be here unwavering on the point of the Word being a thing with divine characteristics if I couldn't prove it. Theos can, and is, translated as godly, or of God, or like god. KJV isn't the only version doing this. Sometimes the contexts requires this. John 1:1 is a similar case as the below verses in which the Word is godly/divine/god-like, etc

Then prove it instead of just sharing Schoenheit grammar. Your ideas do not convince anyone except those who deny the testimony of scripture beforehand.

Same root word, theos, translated as godly elsewhere in the NT.

2 Corinthians 1 (KJV)
12For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

Uh. That can simply be said God's sincerity. If you want to word it that way, then theos in a genitive concept is not a problem

2 Corinthians 7 (KJV)
10For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 11For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

that is sorrow according to God's will, if you want to go with a wooden translation. a similar idea is in verse 11. This again shows you taking shortcuts in interpretation so you can make another failed argument.

2 Corinthians 11 (KJV)
2For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Again, this is a the genitive of theos. It is clearer to say godly jealousy than saying God's jealousy. Never is theos used directly as an adjective form in your examples

1 Tim 1:4 (KJV)
4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

This again is the idea of God's stewardship -- but translating for simplicity and ease of reading as "godly"

You are getting too desperate and continuing deeper into sloppy prooftexts.

 

[Runningman]

Of course I teach how to believe the scripture. You are silly suggesting to learn Greek when you speak against basic Greek grammar. If you have some alternative meaning that makes sense, just give a decent argument. If you have a complaint against the organization called Christianity that flows from Christ as the head, you take that up with him, not with me.
Your grammar interpretation is wrong. You abuse the word logos as if it controls the context instead of the context determining the word's usage. We see also that John 1:1 could have conveyed Christ as godly by using theios instead of theos. But what significance is that to someone who continues to deny who Christ is shown to be.

Do you deny the Word as God in John 1:1 is an anarthrous predicate nominative? If you do, then you need a reality check, not a schooling in what John 1:1 says. If you do agree with it, then you have completely lost your points.