Those who deny the Lord Jesus is God (=YHWH) are not saved (2 Corinthians 11:4)

[Matthias]

As much as you want the Greek word to be αυτό in John 1:2, it is not αυτό. It is οὗτος. John penned οὗτος, not αυτό.

(John 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1:2) He (οὗτος) was in the beginning with God.

@civic made the point that you should have. I commended him for it.

If you did focus on what's actually in John 1:2 then we would be at least halfway to an agreeable resolution.

See Tyndale and the other trinitarians who translated the prologue as he did.

In due time.

That’s more noble than the others. Good on you.

How about you? How concerned are you of what you think are translation flaws of the dozens of Bibles that got John 1:2 right with "He"?

I’m very concerned about it. I’m in agreement with Tyndale and the other trinitarians who translated the prologue as he did. I write and speak about it everywhere I go.

 

[Matthias]

After Origen, which church forefathers of yours are you going to run to next: Arius, Nestorius, and Pelagius?

Methodius. Thanks for asking, but why did you?

 

[civic]

John 1:1-18 Robert Bowman

Some of my remarks here come from Putting Jesus in His Place (138-42).

John’s Prologue (John 1:1-18) begins and ends with references to Jesus Christ as “God.” These statements form an inclusio, marking the beginning and the ending of the Prologue. Between these two statements that call Jesus God is a rich tapestry of affirmations about Jesus that confirm his identity as God.

John says that the Word was already existing (ēn) “in the beginning” (vv. 1, 2). The opening words of the Gospel, “In the beginning” (en archē), are the same as the opening words of the OT, “In the beginning” (Gen. 1:1). This is not mere coincidence, since both passages go on immediately to talk about creation and light (Gen. 1:1, 3-5; John 1:3-5, 9). Thus, attempts to circumvent this point by referring to other texts using the word “beginning” in other ways miss or ignore the contextual evidence. John states that everything that came into existence—the world itself—did so through the Word (vv. 3, 9). These statements affirming the Word’s existence before creation and his involvement in bringing about the existence of all creation reveal him to be eternal and uncreated—two essential attributes of God.

Naturally, then, John affirms that “the Word was God” (1:1c). Those who advocate Arian or polytheistic theologies can try to justify the revisionist translation “the Word was a god,” but consistent Unitarians cannot. Nor can they consistently maintain that the Word was God, since this would lead ineluctably to the conclusion that God became incarnate (1:14). This puts Biblical Unitarians in something of a bind. For example, a Christadelphian book online entitled Jesus: God the Son or Son of God? explains 1:1 by saying, “In Jewish religious thinking and writing Word and Wisdom had come to be applied to God Himself…. In the Aramaic commentaries of the time Memra (word) came to be used as a name for God.” But in the same breath the book states, “So logos, first a thought conceived in the mind, then demonstrated in action, stands for the wisdom of God expressed in His purpose. The Word represents therefore the mind of God.” What all this really means, according to the author, is that “the Son perfectly reflected the mind and wisdom of the Father.” So, from the straightforward acknowledgment that the Word was God, the author veers away to the more theologically palatable explanation that the Word was a thought in God’s mind that Jesus perfectly reflected. This seems to be the conventional Biblical Unitarian explanation. For example, a Biblical Unitarian website article on John 1:1 endorses Anthony Buzzard’s claim that what John meant was that the Word “was fully expressive of God.” But this is not what John 1:1 says.

To justify this linguistically indefensible construal of “the Word was God,” the Biblical Unitarian article contends that it is necessary to avoid a logical contradiction in 1:1. “Logically, nothing can be both ‘identical to’ and ‘with’ anything else. Thus, the sense in which ‘the word’ was ‘God’ is limited by this statement that it was also ‘with God,’ and points to a meaning closer to ‘represents,’ ‘manifests,’ or ‘reveals.’” But why should the second clause (“the Word was with God”) override the otherwise evident meaning of the third clause (“the Word was God”)? Why not argue that the third clause overrides the apparent meaning of the second clause? Better still, why not allow the apparent paradox to stand and accept what both clauses say about the Word? This is what Trinitarians do. We accept that the Word was someone existing with God (the Father) and that the Word was himself God (the Son). On the other hand, in their zeal to avoid a divine preexistent Christ, the Biblical Unitarians end up misconstruing both the second and third clauses. The second clause affirms that the Word was personally with God (pros ton theon, cf. 13:3), which Biblical Unitarians reinterpret to mean that the idea or plan or thought that God had about Jesus was “with him” in his mind, while they interpret the third clause to mean that the Word was the revelation or expression of God’s mind.

John writes, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (v. 14 niv). The word that the niv translates “made his dwelling” (eskēnōsen) literally meant to pitch one’s tent in a place, and it alludes in this context to God’s dwelling among the Israelites in the tabernacle. The tabernacle was essentially a tent where God would make his presence known to the Israelites and meet with them (Ex. 33:7-11; 40:35). Later, the temple served the same purpose as the tabernacle (cf. Ps. 74:7). John says that the Word that made his dwelling among us has the “glory as of the only Son from the Father” (v. 14 esv). The Son is just like his Father when it comes to glory.

 

[Matthias]

John 1:1-18 Robert Bowman

Some of my remarks here come from Putting Jesus in His Place (138-42).

John’s Prologue (John 1:1-18) begins and ends with references to Jesus Christ as “God.” These statements form an inclusio, marking the beginning and the ending of the Prologue. Between these two statements that call Jesus God is a rich tapestry of affirmations about Jesus that confirm his identity as God.

John says that the Word was already existing (ēn) “in the beginning” (vv. 1, 2). The opening words of the Gospel, “In the beginning” (en archē), are the same as the opening words of the OT, “In the beginning” (Gen. 1:1). This is not mere coincidence, since both passages go on immediately to talk about creation and light (Gen. 1:1, 3-5; John 1:3-5, 9). Thus, attempts to circumvent this point by referring to other texts using the word “beginning” in other ways miss or ignore the contextual evidence. John states that everything that came into existence—the world itself—did so through the Word (vv. 3, 9). These statements affirming the Word’s existence before creation and his involvement in bringing about the existence of all creation reveal him to be eternal and uncreated—two essential attributes of God.

Naturally, then, John affirms that “the Word was God” (1:1c). Those who advocate Arian or polytheistic theologies can try to justify the revisionist translation “the Word was a god,” but consistent Unitarians cannot. Nor can they consistently maintain that the Word was God, since this would lead ineluctably to the conclusion that God became incarnate (1:14). This puts Biblical Unitarians in something of a bind. For example, a Christadelphian book online entitled Jesus: God the Son or Son of God? explains 1:1 by saying, “In Jewish religious thinking and writing Word and Wisdom had come to be applied to God Himself…. In the Aramaic commentaries of the time Memra (word) came to be used as a name for God.” But in the same breath the book states, “So logos, first a thought conceived in the mind, then demonstrated in action, stands for the wisdom of God expressed in His purpose. The Word represents therefore the mind of God.” What all this really means, according to the author, is that “the Son perfectly reflected the mind and wisdom of the Father.” So, from the straightforward acknowledgment that the Word was God, the author veers away to the more theologically palatable explanation that the Word was a thought in God’s mind that Jesus perfectly reflected. This seems to be the conventional Biblical Unitarian explanation. For example, a Biblical Unitarian website article on John 1:1 endorses Anthony Buzzard’s claim that what John meant was that the Word “was fully expressive of God.” But this is not what John 1:1 says.

To justify this linguistically indefensible construal of “the Word was God,” the Biblical Unitarian article contends that it is necessary to avoid a logical contradiction in 1:1. “Logically, nothing can be both ‘identical to’ and ‘with’ anything else. Thus, the sense in which ‘the word’ was ‘God’ is limited by this statement that it was also ‘with God,’ and points to a meaning closer to ‘represents,’ ‘manifests,’ or ‘reveals.’” But why should the second clause (“the Word was with God”) override the otherwise evident meaning of the third clause (“the Word was God”)? Why not argue that the third clause overrides the apparent meaning of the second clause? Better still, why not allow the apparent paradox to stand and accept what both clauses say about the Word? This is what Trinitarians do. We accept that the Word was someone existing with God (the Father) and that the Word was himself God (the Son). On the other hand, in their zeal to avoid a divine preexistent Christ, the Biblical Unitarians end up misconstruing both the second and third clauses. The second clause affirms that the Word was personally with God (pros ton theon, cf. 13:3), which Biblical Unitarians reinterpret to mean that the idea or plan or thought that God had about Jesus was “with him” in his mind, while they interpret the third clause to mean that the Word was the revelation or expression of God’s mind.

John writes, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (v. 14 niv). The word that the niv translates “made his dwelling” (eskēnōsen) literally meant to pitch one’s tent in a place, and it alludes in this context to God’s dwelling among the Israelites in the tabernacle. The tabernacle was essentially a tent where God would make his presence known to the Israelites and meet with them (Ex. 33:7-11; 40:35). Later, the temple served the same purpose as the tabernacle (cf. Ps. 74:7). John says that the Word that made his dwelling among us has the “glory as of the only Son from the Father” (v. 14 esv). The Son is just like his Father when it comes to glory.

Where does Bowman do to Tyndale and the other trinitarian translators what you and a few other trinitarians did to them?

Post it, and I’ll see to it that it makes headlines.

 

[civic]

Where does Bowman do to Tyndale and the other trinitarian translators what you and a few other trinitarians did to them?

Post it, and I’ll see that it makes headlines.

He agrees with me just like every other Greek scholar that tyndale was wrong in John 1:2-3 with autos. I know him and we have had discussions and email exchanges. I invited on CARM years ago and he made the Unitarians look silly. I know what he believes on the topic of the deity of Christ and the Trinity.

@synergy will confirm this as I’ve shared with him our exchanges.

 

[Matthias]

He agrees with me just like every other Greek scholar that tyndale was wrong in John 1:2-3 with autos

See Wallace. He conceded that what Tyndale and the other trinitarian translators did was acceptable.

 

[Matthias]

He agrees with me just like every other Greek scholar that tyndale was wrong in John 1:2-3 with autos. I know him and we have had discussions and email exchanges. I invited on CARM years ago and he made the Unitarians look silly. I know what he believes on the topic of the deity of Christ and the Trinity.

@synergy will confirm this as I’ve shared with him our exchanges.

I know him too.

Post what I requested, if you have it. You don’t have it because Dr. Bowman isn’t that foolish.

 

[synergy]

John 1:1-18 Robert Bowman

Some of my remarks here come from Putting Jesus in His Place (138-42).

John’s Prologue (John 1:1-18) begins and ends with references to Jesus Christ as “God.” These statements form an inclusio, marking the beginning and the ending of the Prologue. Between these two statements that call Jesus God is a rich tapestry of affirmations about Jesus that confirm his identity as God.

John says that the Word was already existing (ēn) “in the beginning” (vv. 1, 2). The opening words of the Gospel, “In the beginning” (en archē), are the same as the opening words of the OT, “In the beginning” (Gen. 1:1). This is not mere coincidence, since both passages go on immediately to talk about creation and light (Gen. 1:1, 3-5; John 1:3-5, 9). Thus, attempts to circumvent this point by referring to other texts using the word “beginning” in other ways miss or ignore the contextual evidence. John states that everything that came into existence—the world itself—did so through the Word (vv. 3, 9). These statements affirming the Word’s existence before creation and his involvement in bringing about the existence of all creation reveal him to be eternal and uncreated—two essential attributes of God.

Naturally, then, John affirms that “the Word was God” (1:1c). Those who advocate Arian or polytheistic theologies can try to justify the revisionist translation “the Word was a god,” but consistent Unitarians cannot. Nor can they consistently maintain that the Word was God, since this would lead ineluctably to the conclusion that God became incarnate (1:14). This puts Biblical Unitarians in something of a bind. For example, a Christadelphian book online entitled Jesus: God the Son or Son of God? explains 1:1 by saying, “In Jewish religious thinking and writing Word and Wisdom had come to be applied to God Himself…. In the Aramaic commentaries of the time Memra (word) came to be used as a name for God.” But in the same breath the book states, “So logos, first a thought conceived in the mind, then demonstrated in action, stands for the wisdom of God expressed in His purpose. The Word represents therefore the mind of God.” What all this really means, according to the author, is that “the Son perfectly reflected the mind and wisdom of the Father.” So, from the straightforward acknowledgment that the Word was God, the author veers away to the more theologically palatable explanation that the Word was a thought in God’s mind that Jesus perfectly reflected. This seems to be the conventional Biblical Unitarian explanation. For example, a Biblical Unitarian website article on John 1:1 endorses Anthony Buzzard’s claim that what John meant was that the Word “was fully expressive of God.” But this is not what John 1:1 says.

To justify this linguistically indefensible construal of “the Word was God,” the Biblical Unitarian article contends that it is necessary to avoid a logical contradiction in 1:1. “Logically, nothing can be both ‘identical to’ and ‘with’ anything else. Thus, the sense in which ‘the word’ was ‘God’ is limited by this statement that it was also ‘with God,’ and points to a meaning closer to ‘represents,’ ‘manifests,’ or ‘reveals.’” But why should the second clause (“the Word was with God”) override the otherwise evident meaning of the third clause (“the Word was God”)? Why not argue that the third clause overrides the apparent meaning of the second clause? Better still, why not allow the apparent paradox to stand and accept what both clauses say about the Word? This is what Trinitarians do. We accept that the Word was someone existing with God (the Father) and that the Word was himself God (the Son). On the other hand, in their zeal to avoid a divine preexistent Christ, the Biblical Unitarians end up misconstruing both the second and third clauses. The second clause affirms that the Word was personally with God (pros ton theon, cf. 13:3), which Biblical Unitarians reinterpret to mean that the idea or plan or thought that God had about Jesus was “with him” in his mind, while they interpret the third clause to mean that the Word was the revelation or expression of God’s mind.

John writes, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (v. 14 niv). The word that the niv translates “made his dwelling” (eskēnōsen) literally meant to pitch one’s tent in a place, and it alludes in this context to God’s dwelling among the Israelites in the tabernacle. The tabernacle was essentially a tent where God would make his presence known to the Israelites and meet with them (Ex. 33:7-11; 40:35). Later, the temple served the same purpose as the tabernacle (cf. Ps. 74:7). John says that the Word that made his dwelling among us has the “glory as of the only Son from the Father” (v. 14 esv). The Son is just like his Father when it comes to glory.

Robert certainly hangs Biblical Unitarians out to dry with comments like:

1) in their zeal to avoid a divine preexistent Christ, the Biblical Unitarians end up misconstruing  both the second and third clauses.

2) but consistent Unitarians cannot. Nor can they consistently maintain that the Word was God, since this would lead ineluctably to the conclusion that God became incarnate (1:14). This puts Biblical Unitarians in something of a bind.

This is food for thought for @APAK and possibly for @Matthias .

 

[Matthias]

Genesis 1:3 <- Isaiah 55:11 <- John 1:1-5

 

[synergy]

I’ve been having this conversation with trinitarians for three decades.

And the best you can present to support your side is the ad nauseum repetition of Tyndale, Tyndale, Tyndale, .... This is a classic case of an appeal to authority fallacy. Jed Clampett had a saying that is appropriate here. "Pityfull, Pityfull".

Trinitarianism is found all the way back in the Theophanies of the OT. Even though you are thousands of years behind history, you can still quickly catch up.

 

[synergy]

Genesis 1:3 <- Isaiah 55:11 <- John 1:1-5

Excellent verses for Trinitarianism that are all tied together by virtue of the fact that "the Word was God" (John 1:1). Keep those verses coming!

 

[APAK]

Robert certainly hangs Biblical Unitarians out to dry with comments like:

1) in their zeal to avoid a divine preexistent Christ, the Biblical Unitarians end up misconstruing  both the second and third clauses.

2) but consistent Unitarians cannot. Nor can they consistently maintain that the Word was God, since this would lead ineluctably to the conclusion that God became incarnate (1:14). This puts Biblical Unitarians in something of a bind.

This is food for thought for @APAK and possibly for @Matthias .

Well I do not know of Robert Bowman's writing here. I do know from this part of his writing he apparently does not know what a type of Unitarian or other flavors of these believe. He says, as was provided by civic,

"...Those who advocate Arian or polytheistic theologies can try to justify the revisionist translation “the Word was a god,” but consistent Unitarians cannot. Nor can they consistently maintain that the Word was God, since this would lead ineluctably to the conclusion that God became incarnate (1:14). This puts Biblical Unitarians in something of a bind. ..."

I do not believe in the idea that God's word was a god at all, as Bowman seems to think all Unitarians think this way. This is a JW belief I believe. The word here is described as being divine, of God. And in the sense that the word is a core attribute beside his ever present Spirit, both compose God so one can say the word is essentially God. And one better though, the word is divine, as I prefer. And so for me there is no tale for the crypt that says God became incarnate...So he is all confused and in a real bind or knot himself in who is a Unitarian and what they believe.

If Bowman is meant to be a Unitarian and believes in an incarnation of God and refers to it in verse 14 then he is a fake Unitarian.

And if I might have offended @Matthias because he might know him, personally, then I just have to say I cannot hide what he wrote if in fact he wrote these words as a pseudo-Unitarian.

Thanks for the post and sharing your view

 

[Matthias]

Well I do not know of Robert Bowman's writing here. I do know from this part of his writing he apparently does not know what a type of Unitarian or other flavors of these believe. He says, as was provided by civic,

"...Those who advocate Arian or polytheistic theologies can try to justify the revisionist translation “the Word was a god,” but consistent Unitarians cannot. Nor can they consistently maintain that the Word was God, since this would lead ineluctably to the conclusion that God became incarnate (1:14). This puts Biblical Unitarians in something of a bind. ..."

I do not believe in the idea that God's word was a god at all, as Bowman seems to think all Unitarians think this way. This is a JW belief I believe. The word here is described as being divine, of God. And in the sense that the word is a core attribute beside his ever present Spirit, both compose God so one can say the word is essentially God. And one better though, the word is divine, as I prefer. And so for me there is no tale for the crypt that says God became incarnate...So he is all confused and in a real bind or knot himself in who is a Unitarian and what they believe.

If Bowman is meant to be a Unitarian and believes in an incarnation of God and refers to it in verse 14 then he is a fake Unitarian.

And if I might have offended @Matthias because he might know him, personally, then I just have to say I cannot hide what he wrote if in fact he wrote these words as a pseudo-Unitarian.

Thanks for the post and sharing your view

You didn’t offend me in the least. I know a lot of people like Bowman.

I agree with everything you said in your post.

We’re dealing with zealots here. They told me everything I need to know when they ask questions and then say before receiving an answer that it doesn’t matter. (They aren’t looking for conversation.) People like Bowman don’t act like that. I get along well with people like him.

Isn’t it interesting that when I and/or other non-trinitarians quote trinitarian scholars, JAT says it’s an appeal to authority fallacy; but when JAT quotes them, it isn’t!

That’s the low level that virtually all Internet forums operate.

 

[civic]

And the best you can present to support your side is the ad nauseum repetition of Tyndale, Tyndale, Tyndale, .... This is a classic case of an appeal to authority fallacy. Jed Clampett had a saying that is appropriate here. "Pityfull, Pityfull".

Trinitarianism is found all the way back in the Theophanies of the OT. Even though you are thousands of years behind history, you can still quickly catch up.

I have been having this conversation with uni's for over 4 decades.

So I guess its more credible since I have another decade

 

[civic]

Well I do not know of Robert Bowman's writing here. I do know from this part of his writing he apparently does not know what a type of Unitarian or other flavors of these believe. He says, as was provided by civic,

"...Those who advocate Arian or polytheistic theologies can try to justify the revisionist translation “the Word was a god,” but consistent Unitarians cannot. Nor can they consistently maintain that the Word was God, since this would lead ineluctably to the conclusion that God became incarnate (1:14). This puts Biblical Unitarians in something of a bind. ..."

I do not believe in the idea that God's word was a god at all, as Bowman seems to think all Unitarians think this way. This is a JW belief I believe. The word here is described as being divine, of God. And in the sense that the word is a core attribute beside his ever present Spirit, both compose God so one can say the word is essentially God. And one better though, the word is divine, as I prefer. And so for me there is no tale for the crypt that says God became incarnate...So he is all confused and in a real bind or knot himself in who is a Unitarian and what they believe.

If Bowman is meant to be a Unitarian and believes in an incarnation of God and refers to it in verse 14 then he is a fake Unitarian.

And if I might have offended @Matthias because he might know him, personally, then I just have to say I cannot hide what he wrote if in fact he wrote these words as a pseudo-Unitarian.

Thanks for the post and sharing your view

Bowman is a staunch Trinitarian.

 

[Matthias]

And the best you can present to support your side is the ad nauseum repetition of Tyndale, Tyndale, Tyndale, .... This is a classic case of an appeal to authority fallacy. Jed Clampett had a saying that is appropriate here. "Pityfull, Pityfull".

Trinitarianism is found all the way back in the Theophanies of the OT. Even though you are thousands of years behind history, you can still quickly catch up.

What’s truly pathetic is idolatry.

 

[Matthias]

I have been having this conversation with uni's for over 4 decades.

So I guess its more credible since I have another decade

I have more decades than that, but several of them are from your side of the fence.

Trinitarians played a significant role in my exit from trinitarianism.

 

[Matthias]

Excellent verses for Trinitarianism that are all tied together by virtue of the fact that "the Word was God" (John 1:1). Keep those verses coming!

Tyndale, and the other trinitarians who translated the prologue as he did, saw in that simple depiction what you haven’t.

 

[Matthias]

Bowman is a staunch Trinitarian.

So were Tyndale and the other trinitarians who translated the prologue with the same understanding of what John was saying that he did.

 

[civic]

I have more decades than that, but several of them are from your side of the fence.

Trinitarians played a significant role in my exit from trinitarianism.

Since Jesus is a trinitarian thats why I'm one too. Its why I will always be one. The same with Peter, Paul, James, Jude, John and the Author of Hebrews, Matthew , Mark and Luke all Trins.