The Trinity?

[phkrause]

Here's how the Complete Jewish Bible translate's that verse: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. So I disagree with you 100%.

And here's John 17:3 And eternal life is this: to know you, the one true God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah. Doesn't seem to contradict the other verse.

[John317]

They are one, to worship one is to worship the other. Our Father in Heaven is not Jealous if we worship Yahweh of Hosts nor is Yahweh of Hosts, Jesus, jealous if we worship Yahweh King of Israel.

There just is no basis for Trinity in scripture. If EGW was a Trinitarian she would never have made the following statement.

The Jews had never before heard such words from human lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.--The Signs of the Times, Nov. 27, 1893, p. 54. {7ABC 437.3}

Joh 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Joh 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Gibs, can you explain why Ellen White's statement above shows you that she could not have believed in the Trinity (as SDAs understand it)?

Please notice that Ellen White says that Christ and the Father were of the same (identical) substance. What substance? The very essence of God. Only true God shares in the essence/substance of God. Similarly only humans share in the essence of humanity.

[John317]

Here's how the Complete Jewish Bible translate's that verse: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Important verse. The CJB gives it about as literally as it can. The last part of the sentence is saying that the Word (Christ) is of the same essence and attributes as the God of the second clause. The Revised English Version renders it well: "And what God was the Word was."

The second clause leaves no doubt whatsoever that "the Word" has reference to a living being, not merely a concept or an idea. It's talking about an intimate, personal, dynamic, loving, eternal relationship between the Word and God. There's also the sense of "the Word was toward God..."

[John317]

Actually, the translation "a god was the word" is precisely what the Scriptures do NOT say and cannot say.

Let me ask you:

In the last clause of John 1: 1, what is the subject and what is the predicate? And how do we know which word is the subject and which is the predicate?

Originally Posted By: epaminondas

If John meant John 1:1 to be taken as trinitarians take it and John 17:3 to be taken as it stands, he contradicts himself and is therefore unreliable...

In what way do you think the apostle John contradicts himself if John 1: 1 is translated as the King James Version or RSV or NASB read? How do those translations make John unreliable?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Here's how the Complete Jewish Bible translate's that verse: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. So I disagree with you 100%.

Look at Young's Literal Translation, do a bit of research on the Internet. This is not too difficult.

[Gerr]

Pr 8:22 ¶ The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

Pr 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Pr 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

Possessed there means, extension, or procured.

Prov 8 is talking about wisdom.

ESV | ‎Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ‎2 He was in the beginning with God. ‎3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John the Apostle makes it absolutely clear that the Word (Christ) was God, was with God in the beginning (whenever that was), and was the creator of ALL things. Paul affirms the same truth:

ESV | ‎Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. ‎17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Originally Posted By: gibs

We can make this easy with some hard facts, scripture by Jesus,

Re 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Well it is plumb clear that in time Jesus is not the first, so what is the answer?

HUH? How readest thou? The text you just quoted says, "I am Alpha & Omega, the BEGINNING and the END, the FIRST and the LAST," and now you say, "well it is plumb clear that in time Jesus is not the first"?

What is the answer? Believe what it says, not the opposite of what it says!!!

Originally Posted By: gibs

Well it is ridiculously easy. He was the Father extended from Himself answers it and so many more questions. Yes Yahweh of Hosts before Bethlehem was exactly the same age as the Father because He was out of the Father Himself.

"The Father extended from Himself?" Like He stretched out? Increased in bulk? Space? Distance? Or did the Father undergo fission and split into two?

Originally Posted By: gibs

But know at the same time He was not a born, created or formed being but is one and the same substance as the Father. Jesus then ends the mystery of this with this statement,

Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

[color:blue]

All Jesus was saying is that He came from God; God sent Him to this earth.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Actually, the translation "a god was the word" is precisely what the Scriptures do NOT say and cannot say.

Quote:

Diaglott: John 1:1. In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.

The Diaglott is:

Quote:

It is an interlinear translation with the original Greek text and a word-for-word English translation in the left column, and a full English translation in the right column.

This from Wikipedia.

Do a search for "literal translation of John 1:1" or "John 1:1 literal translation."

Koine Greek does not have the indefinite article, only the definite. When the definite is not used the indefinite, or something equivalent, is always implied. In English you say something is made of wood. Neither the definite nor the indefinite article is used before the noun "wood." One can do this in translating from Koine Greek to English. Therefore, saying "the word was god" does not refer to the proper noun (name) God, but refers to the nature of "the Word," namely a god. This cannot be the "only true God" John referred to in John 17:3, otherwise John would be contradicting himself, saying in John 17:3 there is "only" one "true God" and in John 1:1 there are at least two true gods.

If you look at the Wikipedia entry of John 1:1 you will see that it presents many problems and is the cause of much disagreement. Wikipedia may not be of the ultimate academical standard, but it is of a many orders of magnitude higher standard than Club Adventist.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

All Jesus was saying is that He came from God; God sent Him to this earth.

And Jesus also said the message he delivered was not his, but from the Father. Jesus also said he could do nothing of himself but did everything as empowered by the Father. This is clearly not Jesus putting himself on the same plane/level as the Father.

[Gibs]

Proverbs 8:22 tells us Jesus was possessed in the begining, wisdom if you like,

Then Jesus claims He is the first. First before the Father Gerry, you better think again.

Yes Jesus can say He is first because He and the Father are one, the Father extended Him from Himself in the beginning, possessed if you will.

Yes there was a time that Yahweh of Hosts, latter Jesus was not, but when the Father extended forth from Himself His Redeemer, being God also, to do the part of Redeemer the Father knew He would need.

The Redeemer was Himself extended. They are one as Jesus Himself tells us and He also solidified that in this statement.

Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Gerry you are being rediculous in your statements as there is more,

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

He was Emmanuel, God with us! Yes God the Father with us in the body of Jesus prepared for Him.

There is no other God but Yahweh the Father and Jesus informed Philip that was who He was seeing.

One can say there is 2 persons in the Godhead as Jesus being a man also was the second person in that way, the Deity however in Him was the Father.

The Holy Spirit is what God is, Spirit, Jesus Himself said so and if anyone would know I reckon He would, John 4:24, I've posted it here in this thread several times now.

He came out from God Gerry, out with the same substance.

The Jews had never before heard such words from human lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.--The Signs of the Times, Nov. 27, 1893, p. 54. {7ABC 437.3}

Our Father and our Redeemer are one, to worship one is to worship the other. He is a jealous God, none other is to be worshipped!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

In the last clause of John 1: 1, what is the subject and what is the predicate? And how do we know which word is the subject and which is the predicate?

Simple, "the word" is the subject and "was a god" is the predicate. The word order is not that important in many languages. Therefore, "a god was the word" and "the word was a god" are equivalent. "Mariam Paulus amat" and "Maria Paulum amat" have the same word order, but one means Paulus loves Maria and the second one Maria loves Paulus. It's Latin where word order matters little as every noun has six declensions.

I don't see the relevance of your predicate question.

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

In the last clause of John 1: 1, what is the subject and what is the predicate? And how do we know which word is the subject and which is the predicate?

Simple, "the word" is the subject and "was a god" is the predicate. The word order is not that important in many languages. Therefore, "a god was the word" and "the word was a god" are equivalent. "Mariam Paulus amat" and "Maria Paulum amat" have the same word order, but one means Paulus loves Maria and the second one Maria loves Paulus. It's Latin where word order matters little as every noun has six declensions.

I don't see the relevance of your predicate question.

Unfortunately, the Greek does not agree with your transliteration of what you call a predicate, either. I do agree, though, that word order is not that important, because the case, voice, and declension tell us what goes where.

Subject/predicate do matter, though, when dealing with nominative/accusative tenses.

For the matter, Young's Literal Translation says this:

YLT John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

which isn't any different from the context of the NASB, the RSV, or the KJV:

NASB John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

RSV John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

KJV John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John is written in perhaps the simplest Koine Greek. John's writings are structured very simply, and are well-suited to the student of first-year studies in Greek. That makes the following quite profound, really. I write the following also for the non-scholars reading along...

The Greek transliteration goes like this:

En arche ayn (h)o logos, kai (h)o logos ayn pros ton theon, kai theos ayn (h)o logos.

For those unfamiliar with Greek, the (h) means to pronounce the short "o" sound as if it began with an "h" . The article o has what is called a "hard breathing" mark atop it. And (h)o is most definitely a definite article.

Literally, this says

In beginning the Word was (is, and continues to be), and the Word was (is, and continues to be) with the God, and the Word the God was (is, and continues to be).

What we translate as "was" is in the imperfect past tense - meaning it is an action begun in the past, and does not have a completion in the past: this action continues through to the present, and will continue on until said action is modified with a restatement in the perfect past tense (which then means to action is BOTH begun and completed in the past).

The first phrase has "in beginning" in a case (dative) showing relationship to "the Word". The part "the Word", by case (nominative) being clearly the subject. Essentially, this is saying when there was a beginning, the Word already was; it is now, and will continue to be the Word with respect to "in beginning". It always has been, is, and always will be in a state of "being". "The Word" always has existence.

The Word is clearly of Divine nature.

The second part is quite locked in: "the Word" is the subject (nominative), and "with the God" is in the accusative (the predicate) - it has only one way to be interpreted by the reader/listener. It cannot be interpreted as "the God was (is...continues) with the Word". "The Word" always was with, is now with, and will always be with, "the God". The plural distinction is clear.

In the third phrase: "the Word" and "the God" are both nominative - they both belong in the subject. They belong on the same side of the verb when we put it into our English grammar, making this a statement of equivalence.

Interestingly, both "theon" (second phrase) and "theos" (third phrase) are singular forms of "God". I know of no language construction in the nominative (subject) or accusative (object modifier) tenses/cases that allow for someone/something to be with another AND be that "another" at the same time.

With the second and third phrases, the Greek is clearly declaring "the Word" which is with "the God", is that "the God" at the same time - a single Deity with two clear manifestations. Both "the Word" and "the God" have a plurally distinct relationship with each other, yet are One.

It is this same Word (which verse 1 says always has been, is, and always will be in a state of "being") that verse 14 states "flesh became" to dwell among us, further emphasizing that relational point. Yet, they are One.

Even in the Greek, trying to equate God into a single manifestation here brings us to the equivalent of saying you can have your slice of cake, AND eat that slice, too. A logical impossibility, for those appealing to logic.

Blessings,

[Gerr]

Quote:

All Jesus was saying is that He came from God; God sent Him to this earth.

And Jesus also said the message he delivered was not his, but from the Father. Jesus also said he could do nothing of himself but did everything as empowered by the Father. This is clearly not Jesus putting himself on the same plane/level as the Father.

Jesus did not come as Jehovah, but as a messenger from the Father.

ESV | ‎Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, ‎6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ‎7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. ‎8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

[Gerr]

He came out from God Gerry, out with the same substance.

The Jews had never before heard such words from human lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.--The Signs of the Times, Nov. 27, 1893, p. 54. {7ABC 437.3}

Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by Him as His right. {FLB 46.5}

ESV | ‎Mt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

[joeb]

I just have a few OT texts to contribute to this discussion. These texts show the cooperation of two individuals who are God by the use of the conjunction and, one of them is our Redeemer, thus showing Jesus as God before His incarnation. They also show the Hebrews/Jews believed that there was a distinction between God and Redeemer as far as individuality but both were God.

Quote:

Isaiah 44:5 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:23 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 47:4 As for our redeemer, the LORD of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel.

Isaiah 48:17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

Isaiah 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

6 For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God

Psalm 78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

Other texts clearly show they believed in the Spirit of God as distinguished from their promised Redeemer and God.

Also, the Hebrew word for God in the texts above is elohiym. Strong's says it is plural in meaning.

Quote:

430 'elohiym el-o-heem' plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. see HEBREW for 0433

This shows me that the Hebrews/Jews believed in a God of more than one individual which shows strong support, to me, for the trinity even though that word is not used.

[Gibs]

No Trinity, as Jesus makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is what God is. Read John 4:24

If you see Wisdom as the one in Proverbs 8:22 that is fine, Enoch in the book "Secrets of Enoch", he reveals the Father telling him that He created all things from my Wisdom and Word. Wisdom or Word is His Redeemer of Himself!

Not another God at all but by THE GOD and Father of all.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Again and again the scripture stands for only ONE God and Father of all.

He possessed HIS Redeemer before any other works. There was a time the Redeemer was not but did proceed and come from the Father as Jesus told you He did!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[John317]

Quote:

Here's how the Complete Jewish Bible translate's that verse: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. So I disagree with you 100%.

Look at Young's Literal Translation, do a bit of research on the Internet. This is not too difficult.

Young's Literal Translation at John 1: 1 is virtually the same as the Complete Jewish Bible's translation of that verse. The reason that so many translations are basically the same at John 1: 1 is that this is the only correct way to translate it. It is actually one of the simplest sentences to translate in the Greek New Testament. Rotherham's Emphasized Bible is one of the most literal and accurate translations published. It reads, "Originally was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

[John317]

Again and again the scripture stands for only ONE God and Father of all.

Gibs, your mistake is in understanding "one" to be the same as the mathematical "1." It is the "one" of unity, not of number. The same principle applies to the statements of Jesus about His followers being "one," and when He said, "I and the Father are one." Such statements do not refer to "1" person but to 2 or more persons who are "one" in unity.

[John317]

Quote:

In the last clause of John 1: 1, what is the subject and what is the predicate? And how do we know which word is the subject and which is the predicate?

Simple, "the word" is the subject and "was a god" is the predicate. The word order is not that important in many languages. Therefore, "a god was the word" and "the word was a god" are equivalent.

It's true that in Greek, word order is not important, but when we translate into English, word order becomes important. In English, the subject usually preceeds the prediate. Despite this, there are some terrible so-called translations of John 1: 1 that render it, "And God was the Word." Your translation-- "and a god was the word"-- is only a slight improvement over that one.

In the second clause of John 1: 1, it says that "the Word was with God." The last clause is saying that the Word was just like the God that is referred to in the second clause. It is not saying that the "God" of the second clause is truly "God" whereas the Word is merely "a god."

The reason John wrote it as he did was in order to avoid confusion over the identity of the Word. One thing John is not saying is that the God of the second clause is the Word. That would have meant the verse is talking about a single Person, so that God and the Word would be identical. As it is, John wrote the sentence in the best way possible in order to say that although the Word is a different Person, He is exactly like the God of the second clause. In other words, the third clause of John 1: 1 is saying the same thing as Heb 1: 3, that Christ is the exact image [copy, representation] of the Father's person [nature].

[John317]

Diaglott: John 1:1. In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.

The Diaglott is:

Quote:

It is an interlinear translation with the original Greek text and a word-for-word English translation in the left column, and a full English translation in the right column.

The Diaglott used to be the main source and defense of many Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs about how John 1: 1 should be translated. So they used it (and often still use it) to defend their serious errors. Both "a god was the Word" and "the Word was a god" are equally wrong.

[John317]

Do a search for "literal translation of John 1:1" or "John 1:1 literal translation."

Koine Greek does not have the indefinite article, only the definite. When the definite is not used the indefinite, or something equivalent, is always implied.

How about John 1: 12 & 13 where "theos" is used without the definite article? Is the indefinite article "a" implied? If so, it would read "children of a god" and "were born of a god." Verse 18 would also then be translated "No one has ever seen a god." Obviously that doesn't work.

The truth is that "theos" occurs many times in the NT without the definite article, and these are translated "God," not "a god."

[John317]

If you look at the Wikipedia entry of John 1:1 you will see that it presents many problems and is the cause of much disagreement. Wikipedia may not be of the ultimate academical standard, but it is of a many orders of magnitude higher standard than Club Adventist.

You are one of those on the Forum who is making poor translations and mistaken explanations of them. I commend your attempts to study these issues, but it's apparent that you are still learning just as everyone else on Adventist Forum is. None of us knows everything, right? :-)

[Gibs]

Originally Posted By: Gibs

Again and again the scripture stands for only ONE God and Father of all.

Gibs, your mistake is in understanding "one" to be the same as the mathematical "1." It is the "one" of unity, not of number. The same principle applies to the statements of Jesus about His followers being "one," and when He said, "I and the Father are one." Such statements do not refer to "1" person but to 2 or more persons who are "one" in unity.

I am not misunderstanding John, the trinity doctrine did not come in until around 300 yrs after Christ and the Apostles. Original Adventism had it right, it was after 1950 and EGW had passed on and all the old men that false teachers began to slick oil it into a doctrine of Adventism.

2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

He was not another God, it was THE GOD who was in Him. The Father, Yahweh!

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Jesus said it and I believe it.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Gerr]

No Trinity, as Jesus makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is what God is. Read John 4:24

Gibs, was there a Jesus before the child of Bethlehem was born?

Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by Him as His right. {FLB 46.5}

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Literally, this says

In beginning the Word was (is, and continues to be), and the Word was (is, and continues to be) with the God, and the Word the God was (is, and continues to be).

Quote:

C. H. Dodd says: "If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted."

So, there is no clear agreement about this.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

How about John 1: 12 & 13 where "theos" is used without the definite article? Is the indefinite article "a" implied? If so, it would read "children of a god" and "were born of a god." Verse 18 would also then be translated "No one has ever seen a god." Obviously that doesn't work.

The truth is that "theos" occurs many times in the NT without the definite article, and these are translated "God," not "a god."

This is why natural languages are not used where absolute accuracy is essential, like computer programming. The server can't wake up the programmer at 04H30 in the morning (that's about an hour after he went to bed), asking him what he meant in line 355 in the class Customer.class, obviously a Java file. In business processes structured English is used. Don't treat the language the Bible is written in as as clear and unambiguous as programming code. It isn't. There often will be times when one just doesn't know exactly what the writer meant.