The Religion Discussion

[meccalli]

Here are the two being described, THE Word and THE God.
'The' here is the definite article in the passage.
The last part that we are apparently divided on is,
'and the word was God'
theos en ho logos
There is no definite article on theos. Otherwise it would have read the The Word was The God as it mentions earlier, The Word was with The God. Did John forget to cross his t's and dot his i's. I doubt it.

Since I'm no expert on Koine Greek, here's what a Biblical Koine Greek scholar, Kenneth Wuest, transliterates John 1.1 as.
“In the beginning was the Logos (Ëïãïò) (the Word), and the Word (Logos (Ëïãïò)) was in
fellowship with God (the Father), and the Logos (Ëïãïò) was as to His nature Deity” (John 1:1).

I didn't need to read that to get what it says when the rest of scripture agrees with this meaning.
Isaiah 45 is also in agreement, the one, The God.

learn the concept of it so you can at least be informed on

Sometimes, I wonder if you even read my posts lol.

[megadoc1]

meccalli have you seen a bible translation that agrees with what you saying? so far there is only one that tries to go such route and its the new world translation (the bible translation done by the Jehovah witnesses) what bible translation do you use?

[Habit7]

Wow, glad to see you start back trusting men.

I agree with Wuest. The Word was as to His nature Deity, Isaiah 45:5 says that only God's nature is deity. Isaiah 46:9 states, "For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me." Isaiah 44:6, "I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me."

If you want to distinguish "the son" or "the word" as some being with deity but not God, you are free to. But it is not biblical Christianity.

I also agree with Wuest when he says

The Word was God. Here the word "God" is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes. Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenter, the teacher, is Very God.

Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, vol. 3, "Golden Nuggets," p. 52.

Please cite your references.

[meccalli]

Wow, glad to see you start back trusting men.

I didn't need to read that to get what it says when the rest of scripture agrees with this meaning.

It seem's I have no choice but to quote other men, since you won't accept the primary source of information, The Son of God himself. So here we are.
I'm well aware of Isaiah ,that there is one God, the father, Yehoshua said it many times.

the Word was Divine" (Goodspeed, E.J. An American Translation N.T. 1923).

"the Logos was Divine" (Moffatt, J. The Bible 1950).

"And what God was, the Word was" (New English Bible 1961).

"the Word was Divine" (Schonfield, H.L. Authentic N.T. 1956).

"The Word was with God and shared his nature" (Translator's N.T. 1973).

"and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" (Barclay, W. N.T. 1968).

W. E. Vine - "a god was the Word" - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament.

C. H. Dodd - "The Word was a god" - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jan., 1977.

Murray J. Harris - "the Word was a god" - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Robert Young - "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary.


1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

I agree with Wuest.

If, you read his translation and get that the Word is given the title of supreme God and not a description of his nature as divinity. *shrugs* what more can I say.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

[meccalli]

meccalli have you seen a bible translation that agrees with what you saying? so far there is only one that tries to go such route and its the new world translation (the bible translation done by the Jehovah witnesses) what bible translation do you use?

I own several Bibles, none of which are the new world.

[megadoc1]

Wow, glad to see you start back trusting men.

I agree with Wuest. The Word was as to His nature Deity, Isaiah 45:5 says that only God's nature is deity. Isaiah 46:9 states, "For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me." Isaiah 44:6, "I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me."

If you want to distinguish "the son" or "the word" as some being with deity but not God, you are free to. But it is not biblical Christianity.

I also agree with Wuest when he says

The Word was God. Here the word "God" is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes. Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenter, the teacher, is Very God.

Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, vol. 3, "Golden Nuggets," p. 52.

Please cite your references.

I don't think he is wants to cite references ,he says

the thing is i'm never going to classify an explanation under some name to give tribute to some person who made some particular view popular

so in one breath he tries to give the impression that he rejects anything thought by man,
then sets out to form his own view , but so far all that he have put forth are recycled stuff that has been shown to be seriously flawed over the centuries

[megadoc1]

meccalli have you seen a bible translation that agrees with what you saying? so far there is only one that tries to go such route and its the new world translation (the bible translation done by the Jehovah witnesses) what bible translation do you use?

I own several Bibles, none of which are the new world.

which translation you trust the most ?
does it translate the passage that you quoted in such a way that you want it to be?

Here are the two being described, THE Word and THE God.
'The' here is the definite article in the passage.
The last part that we are apparently divided on is,
'and the word was God'
theos en ho logos
There is no definite article on theos. Otherwise it would have read the The Word was The God as it mentions earlier, The Word was with The God. Did John forget to cross his t's and dot his i's. I doubt it.

[meccalli]

which translation you trust the most ?
does it translate the passage that you quoted in such a way that you want it to be?

I quoted the original greek, I'm interested in what the author had to say, not what a particular Bible translates.
I generally read the kjv, a thompson's chain ref. Bible.

so in one breath he tries to give the impression that he rejects anything thought by man,
then sets out to form his own view , but so far all that he have put forth are recycled stuff that has been shown to be seriously flawed over the centuries

I won't trust what people have to say, I'll also tell you the same, don't trust me. Study the word of God for yourselves.
Pray without ceasing.

18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.

Jeremiah 17:5
Thus says the Lord: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the Lord.

Psalm 118:8 ESV
It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.

[RBphoto]

Wow.. why can't you guys have faith and just believe in the same fiction instead of trying to understand it?

[Slartibartfast]

First ask if it makes sense to try to understand an eternal "mystery"

[Habit7]

It is funny however you line up attested Bible translations that say that the Word is God or divine alongside individuals who input an indefinite article and say that the Word is a god. Also you snuck in the Jehovah Witness translation as if anyone credible outside of Watchtower endorses the New World Translation.

Nevertheless Isaiah clearly states there is no other gods exist, there is none like God and all other gods are idols. In addition, Isaiah said the Messiah is the "Mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus is divine because He is God, there are no divine creatures, there is only one God.

If, you read his translation and get that the Word is given the title of supreme God and not a description of his nature as divinity.

Umm, West made and read his translation, and concluded that the Word is the Very God.

[meccalli]

Word is the Very God.

Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenter, the teacher, is Very God.

It's a description not a title.

Also you snuck in the Jehovah Witness translation

I'm not familiar with jehovah witness doctrine. If it correlates to theirs, it was unknowingly done. I did not 'sneak ' anything in.

[Habit7]

A title is a description, some descriptions have official titles but they are all descriptions

Likewise Mighty God is a title the inspired prophet Isaiah gives to Jesus, El Gibbôr (Isaiah 9:6). That same title is El Gibbôr is used in Isaiah 10:21, "A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God."

Jesus is the God of Jacob, the Mighty God, El Gibbôr.

[meccalli]

Guess we might as well include Gabriel- strength of God and Michael- Who is like God in the trinity as well and make it penta on that aspect if their names are attributed to an aspect of God. I think the seven days guys already do this with Michael, if i'm not mistaken.

[megadoc1]

meccalli did you know the concept of the trinity was around before we had the English translations?
so tell me when do you think the error was made regarding john 1?

[Habit7]

Guess we might as well include Gabriel- strength of God and Michael- Who is like God in the trinity as well and make it penta on that aspect if their names are attributed to an aspect of God. I think the seven days guys already do this with Michael, if i'm not mistaken.

Gabriel - God is my strength : My strength lies in God, not myself
Michael - Who is like God : Answer - no one, only God is divine

None of these created beings possess the unique titles or attributes attributed only to God.

Your point is moot and your christology is not much different to the Seventh Day Adventists.

[meccalli]

You realise that very term el and gibbor are the 2 root words which form gabriel's name. Gabriel isn't the mighty god.
Ezekiel 32;21 also uses the same term.
From within the realm of the dead the mighty leaders(el gibbor) will say of Egypt and her allies, 'They have come down and they lie with the uncircumcised, with those killed by the sword.' Where YHVH is referenced in the scripture, we see el gadol or el haggadol as well as a couple other names, but gibbor is an adjective which describes strength whether they be men of God, or mighty men.

To solidify that can of worms with names and descriptions,
In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.

Jerusalem is God?
not so moot.

[Habit7]

Gabriel's root words is as irrelevant as Eli's. Stop obfuscating.

Proper exegesis considers the immediate context along with the intent of author within the book. So for you to correlate the title form of El Gibbôr Isaiah gives to Messiah and a chapter later gives the same title to the God of Jacob, then say it is no different than eley gibborim in another book, is a deliberate attempt to poorly handle Scripture. No translation translates Isaiah 9:6 or 10:21 as a mighty leader.

Jeremiah 33:14-16 ‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she will be called: the Lord is our righteousness.’

The Messianic Branch of David will execute righteousness and save Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not God because it is not righteous, the work of the Messiah will make Jerusalem righteous and it will be a testament that Lord caused their righteousness, that is why they will be called that.

[meccalli]

eley gibborim is the plural of the same term, Genesis also uses a plural term Elohim. In exodus 21. we also see elohim being translated as judges. So yes as you quoted.
Proper exegesis considers the immediate context along with the intent of author within the book.

Likewise you should also do the same, rather than suggest a term used in 2 separate instances that describe one and names the other are the same person.
Isaiah clearly says his name shall be called. Many persons are named after God which describes numerous aspects about himself.


This only goes to show, that not everything named after God, including the very name of God in scripture refers to God himself as the subject but glorifies the work done through those named after him. It's alot simpler to take Yehoshua's word as well as Paul, it's no wonder God chose an expert, a student of Gamaliel who understood the language, customs and context of the scriptures and had to explain and export to the Gentiles.

[RBphoto]

Christian ah beatup.

[Habit7]

No one is named after God. They are named after attributes of God.

Using the semantic range of word to cast doubt on its meaning when the context clearly gives its meaning is intellectually dishonest. No one translates Elohim as judges in Genesis, because we know its context. Likewise no one translates El Gibbôr in Isaiah 9:6 and 10:21 to mighty leaders because the context doesn't allow for it.

You are just trying to muddle the facts. It still stands that there is no other god or divine being besides God and God shares His glory with no one. Your graven image contradicts that.

Christian ah beatup.

I know you are not that versed in religion but I represent biblical, historical teaching of God. Meccalli is teaching heresy and is mirrored in cult movements.

This isn't Christian vs. Christian. This is Christian vs. heretic/Mormon/Jehovah Witness/Muslim/everyone else who perverts the identity of Jesus.

[meccalli]

after attributes of God.

which describes numerous aspects about himself.

You know what i'm saying, i've shown it before with Gabriel and Michael, you see it with the prophets as well.
God is mighty, it's an attribute.

No one translates Elohim as judges in Genesis,

kjv, niv, ist, net etc?

Likewise no one translates El Gibbôr in Isaiah 9:6 and 10:21 to mighty leaders because the context doesn't allow for it.

Obviously so. That isn't the point behind the discussion, that was an offshoot of you trying to prove God and Yehoshua are the same person by highlighting terms out of context.
Only trinitarians take Isaiah 9:6 to mean the messiah is God himself.

This is Christian vs. heretic

Ephesians 3:14
This is the reason I bow my knees before the Father of our Lord Jesus, the Messiah,

You can trust the doctrine of men who castrated themselves, its your decision. I'll trust my Bible.

[rspann]

Even our lord prayed to his father.

[Chimera]

I saw god today in the line in republic bank.

Apparently Jesus saves.

[megadoc1]

No one is named after God. They are named after attributes of God.

Using the semantic range of word to cast doubt on its meaning when the context clearly gives its meaning is intellectually dishonest. No one translates Elohim as judges in Genesis, because we know its context. Likewise no one translates El Gibbôr in Isaiah 9:6 and 10:21 to mighty leaders because the context doesn't allow for it.

You are just trying to muddle the facts. It still stands that there is no other god or divine being besides God and God shares His glory with no one. Your graven image contradicts that.

Christian ah beatup.

I know you are not that versed in religion but I represent biblical, historical teaching of God. Meccalli is teaching heresy and is mirrored in cult movements.

This isn't Christian vs. Christian. This is Christian vs. heretic/Mormon/Jehovah Witness/Muslim/everyone else who perverts the identity of Jesus.

exactly! in mecalli's zeal to refute the Trinity, he resorted to dishonest reasoning of the scriptures, I did tell him that whatever he tried to replace the trinity with will come in second. this happens because he did not conclude that the Trinity was false by thoroughly examining the scriptures, but by starting from the position that the Trinity must be false, then set out to prove it with the bible, he then found himself having problems with that, then conclude that it must be the translation..it goes on and on
he claims that he came to such conclusion by himself but its evident that it was taught to him, I credit him with most of the nonsense he put out though...lol

[The Paleontologist]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

No one is named after God. They are named after attributes of God.

Using the semantic range of word to cast doubt on its meaning when the context clearly gives its meaning is intellectually dishonest. No one translates Elohim as judges in Genesis, because we know its context. Likewise no one translates El Gibbôr in Isaiah 9:6 and 10:21 to mighty leaders because the context doesn't allow for it.

You are just trying to muddle the facts. It still stands that there is no other god or divine being besides God and God shares His glory with no one. Your graven image contradicts that.

Christian ah beatup.

I know you are not that versed in religion but I represent biblical, historical teaching of God. Meccalli is teaching heresy and is mirrored in cult movements.

This isn't Christian vs. Christian. This is Christian vs. heretic/Mormon/Jehovah Witness/Muslim/everyone else who perverts the identity of Jesus.

exactly! in mecalli's zeal to refute the Trinity, he resorted to dishonest reasoning of the scriptures, I did tell him that whatever he tried to replace the trinity with will come in second. this happens because he did not conclude that the Trinity was false by thoroughly examining the scriptures, but by starting from the position that the Trinity must be false, then set out to prove it with the bible, he then found himself having problems with that, then conclude that it must be the translation..it goes on and on
he claims that he came to such conclusion by himself but its evident that it was taught to him, I credit him with most of the nonsense he put out though...lol

I am thoroughly impressed with the level of detail that Habit7 and megadoc1 dismissed Mecalli's point.

But what makes everything else besides what you believe "a cult"?
Faith?

[megadoc1]

No one is named after God. They are named after attributes of God.

Using the semantic range of word to cast doubt on its meaning when the context clearly gives its meaning is intellectually dishonest. No one translates Elohim as judges in Genesis, because we know its context. Likewise no one translates El Gibbôr in Isaiah 9:6 and 10:21 to mighty leaders because the context doesn't allow for it.

You are just trying to muddle the facts. It still stands that there is no other god or divine being besides God and God shares His glory with no one. Your graven image contradicts that.

Christian ah beatup.

I know you are not that versed in religion but I represent biblical, historical teaching of God. Meccalli is teaching heresy and is mirrored in cult movements.

This isn't Christian vs. Christian. This is Christian vs. heretic/Mormon/Jehovah Witness/Muslim/everyone else who perverts the identity of Jesus.

exactly! in mecalli's zeal to refute the Trinity, he resorted to dishonest reasoning of the scriptures, I did tell him that whatever he tried to replace the trinity with will come in second. this happens because he did not conclude that the Trinity was false by thoroughly examining the scriptures, but by starting from the position that the Trinity must be false, then set out to prove it with the bible, he then found himself having problems with that, then conclude that it must be the translation..it goes on and on
he claims that he came to such conclusion by himself but its evident that it was taught to him, I credit him with most of the nonsense he put out though...lol

what makes everything else besides what you believe "a cult"? faith?

just basically stuff like this, what all cults have in common is that they try attack any of the basic orthodox and crucial tenets of the christian faith ...what meccalli is trying here now is the reason there were those councils back then, to affirm what was truth and to condemn what was heresy

btw .. cool feature you have here Duane that alerts us when our posts are quoted

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

No one is named after God. They are named after attributes of God.

Using the semantic range of word to cast doubt on its meaning when the context clearly gives its meaning is intellectually dishonest. No one translates Elohim as judges in Genesis, because we know its context. Likewise no one translates El Gibbôr in Isaiah 9:6 and 10:21 to mighty leaders because the context doesn't allow for it.

You are just trying to muddle the facts. It still stands that there is no other god or divine being besides God and God shares His glory with no one. Your graven image contradicts that.

Christian ah beatup.

I know you are not that versed in religion but I represent biblical, historical teaching of God. Meccalli is teaching heresy and is mirrored in cult movements.

This isn't Christian vs. Christian. This is Christian vs. heretic/Mormon/Jehovah Witness/Muslim/everyone else who perverts the identity of Jesus.

exactly! in mecalli's zeal to refute the Trinity, he resorted to dishonest reasoning of the scriptures, I did tell him that whatever he tried to replace the trinity with will come in second. this happens because he did not conclude that the Trinity was false by thoroughly examining the scriptures, but by starting from the position that the Trinity must be false, then set out to prove it with the bible, he then found himself having problems with that, then conclude that it must be the translation..it goes on and on
he claims that he came to such conclusion by himself but its evident that it was taught to him, I credit him with most of the nonsense he put out though...lol

what makes everything else besides what you believe "a cult"? faith?

just basically stuff like this, what all cults have in common is that they try attack any of the basic orthodox and crucial tenets of the christian faith ...what meccalli is trying here now is the reason there were those councils back then, to affirm what was truth and to condemn what was heresy

but the "cults" have councils too. The biggest sect of Christians are Catholics and they had their councils too.

btw .. cool feature you have here Duane that alerts us when our posts are quoted

thanks, it will be more consistent in the upcoming app update.
it works for PM's and subscribed topics and forums too.

[megadoc1]

the Catholics were part of the council that condemned those very heresies, sadly, the roman Catholics went into crazy stuff some time after but they do hold to many of the basic tenets