The Trinity?

[Gibs]

Originally Posted By: Gibs

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}

No Jesus was not born until Bethlehem. It was Yahweh of Hosts, the commander of Heaven that Heaven was emptied of and come in the Babe Mary was to call Him Jesus. In that man baby then dwelt all the fullness of the Father in a body. He was Emmanuel, God the Father with us. There is no other God that could be in Him.

If Jesus and the Father are not truly one, then the following statement would be a paradox.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Isa 43:12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

I think that was Yahshua's statement, but would it matter even if the Father said it as either way it proves they are one, the one and only one.

1 Cor 15:24-28 cinchs it if you understand what is brought out there. The Father finally becomes ALL IN ALL again!

Yahweh of Hosts wasn't brought forth until the Father extended Him from Himself, the Father Redeemer, His Redeemer, then became ours at Bethlehem incorporated in the Babe Jesus.

This is why Philip should have seen the father when viewing Jesus, as that is who he was beholding in the Body of the man Jesus.

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Fully God the Father in Him.

"So with the followers of Christ. We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We cannot discern the character of God, or accept Christ by faith, unless we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. To all who do this the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and in Him ye are made full." Colossians 2:9, 10, R. V. {DA 181.1}

We too then can have His Power to overcome all evil!

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]

The point is that it isn't true that whenever a noun does not have a definite article, an indefinite article is always implied. You said, "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."

That is false. The fact that you said this is proof that you don't understand Koine Greek. If you did, you would never have made this statement or given the explanation you just gave. On the other hand, perhaps you misspoke or simply failed to express your thoughts very well.

In any case, please turn to the pages in any textbook for teaching Koine Greek and study the pages dealing with the use and special uses of the definite article.

For instance:

Quote:

"When a divine title ("God," "Holy Spirit") has the article there may be emphasis upon the person-- i.e., who he is, and when a divine title has no article there may be emphasis upon the nature or activity-- i.e., what he is. John 1: 1, ho logos een pros ton theon, kai theos een ho logos, the Word was with God (the Father considered as a person), and the Word was Deity (not identical with god the Father, but of the nature or quality of God). II Cor. 4: 4, ho theos tou aionos toutou the god of this age (a definite "god," but not God).A Concise Exegetical Grammar of the New Testament Greek, J. Herold Greenlee, Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, pages 26, 27.

Another instance:

Quote:

Pros ton theon (John 1: 1) points to Christ's fellowship with the person of the Father; theos een ho logos emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature. The former clearly applies to personality, while the latter applies to character. This distinction is in line with the general force of the article. It may be seen even in the papyri, as ho phos ek photos, theos alhthinos, O Light of light, true God, where the emphasis is clearly on God's character rather than His personality (Milligan: op. cit, p. 134).

vii. the articular construction emphasizes identity; the anarthrous construction emphasizes character. If the student will turn to Rom. 8: 1ff. and apply this principle, he will find how illuminating it becomes in actual interpretation. It is certain that one engaged in exegesis cannot afford to disregard the article. The New Testament justifies the observation of Buttmann that "the use of the article has everywhere its positive reason" (Bt. 88). A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, the Macmillan Company, page 140.

Also if you have The Elements of New Testament Greek by J. W. Wenham (Cambridge University Press), see pages 34, 35.

If you have Essentials of New Testament Greek by Ray Summers (Broadman Press), see pages 129, 130.

[Gerr]

No Jesus was not born until Bethlehem. It was Yahweh of Hosts, the commander of Heaven that Heaven was emptied of and come in the Babe Mary was to call Him Jesus. In that man baby then dwelt all the fullness of the Father in a body. He was Emmanuel, God the Father with us. There is no other God that could be in Him.

If Jesus and the Father are not truly one, then the following statement would be a paradox.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

So, what was Jesus before Bethlehem?

If Jesus is the same as the Father in human form, who is the Father referring to in this passage?

ESV | ‎Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. ‎9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

And you still haven't yet addressed the EGW quote from FLB.

"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}

[Ted Oplinger]

What I have noticed, Gibs, is that you are indeed playing a very careful word-parsing exercise in your posting.

You say Jesus was not *born* until Bethlehem - which is a true and correct statement. However, you imply by this that Jesus the Christ, "the Son of the Living God" (Peter's confession, Matthew 16:16) DID NOT EXIST prior to Bethlehem. You ignore the enlightened confessions of Jesus Himself of His pre-existence (John 17:5 is one such example).

You say it was the Father *in* Jesus by which Deity was revealed - which is true (John 14:10), yet you ignore the subsequent verse (John 14:11) which indicates two dwelling within each other.

The indwelling Deity does not destroy the person in whom Deity dwells. In an aside - this is an issue nearly every Christian addresses at some point in time - does God indwelling me destroy who and what I really am?

You also ignore events like Satan's temptation of Christ in Matthew 4:3. It makes absolutely no sense if Jesus is relegated to a mere indwelt mortal, as no human has the power to turn inorganic rocks into organic bread. Further, Satan knew he could not convince the indwelling Father to allow the powers of His Deity to be used to turn stones to bread...but to tempt the Son to break with the Father, then pick up His own powers of Deity to do this? Christ submitting to the Father's direction on how the Son's own prerogatives to exercise power should be used? That makes much more sense in the context of the issues of sin and the Great Controversy.

You can say your thesis explains it all, but I and others simply do not see how you have adequately addressed those points. You are very apparently cherry-picking your verses, then viewing them through the lens of your choice (a logical fallacy trap anyone can fall into).

There are too many Scripture references where trying to fit Deity into a mathematical "1" not only does not make sense, it goes contrary to what is plainly written.

That does not build a strong thesis of support, particularly when context and grammar within many of your texts give support to an opposing thesis, supporting the concept of a Trinity.

The more I study, the more I find there to be a case (Old and New Testament) for "Elohim" revealed to man in 3 different manifestations of a unity of Deity.

Blessings,

[John317]

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.

Originally Posted By: Gibs

I am not misunderstanding John, the trinity doctrine did not come in until around 300 yrs after Christ and the Apostles.

The Trinity doctrine as Seventh-day Adventists understand it is taught in the Bible. You are right, however, that it took the church a long time to understand the essential concepts involved in the Trinity and to define them, but that is always the way it is with understanding biblical truth. Just because the church is slow to understand a doctrine doesn't mean it isn't in the Bible. How long did it take the Jews to understand the truth about the Messiah? How long did it take the church to understand the Three Angels' Messages? Etc, etc.

Originally Posted By: Gibs

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.

Five years before Ellen White's death, F.M. Wilcox, editor of the R&H, published in that paper an article about Adventist beliefs in which he said that "Seventh-day Adventists believe in the Trinity." Ellen White soon afterwards appointed Wilcox to the original board of directors of the EGW Estate. The truth is that it was Ellen White's own writings (especially PP and DA) that in a large measure paved the way for the SDA Church's eventual acceptance of the Trinity doctrine.

The Trinity doctrine was not an important issue in the early SDA Church. James White wrote in the R&H that it was not a test of Christian character or of fellowship. Truth to tell, the early Pioneers disagreed among themselves about many things connected with the Trinity doctrine. There were Trinitarians among the early SDAs and these were never told they had to change their views. The church never had an official view condemning the Trinity doctrine, and Ellen White never condemned it as a whole. She condemned the false teachings that some groups and some people taught in connection with the Trinity doctrine, but significantly she never attacked the Trinity doctrine per se.

[John317]

No Jesus was not born until Bethlehem. It was Yahweh of Hosts, the commander of Heaven that Heaven was emptied of and come in the Babe Mary was to call Him Jesus. In that man baby then dwelt all the fullness of the Father in a body. He was Emmanuel, God the Father with us. There is no other God that could be in Him.

If Jesus and the Father are not truly one, then the following statement would be a paradox.

Jesus and the Father are truly one in the biblical sense, but they are not one in person. They are "one in purpose, mind and character, but not in person" (8 T 269). They are two separate and distinct persons.

It's true, of course, that Jesus the man was not born until Bethlehem. The pre-existent Christ was born as a baby, and then as He grew to adulthood He developed a human personality. This human personality did not exist before Bethlehem, but He was also the self-existent, eternal Son of God. Jesus the man was actually the same divine, omnipotent being who, in the form of God, had always lived in close relationship in heaven with the Father.

Originally Posted By: Gibs

In that man baby then dwelt all the fullness of the Father in a body. He was Emmanuel, God the Father with us. There is no other God that could be in Him.

The Bible doesn't say "all the fullness of the Father dwelt" in the man Jesus, and neither does Ellen White. What dwelt in Jesus was all the fullness of the Godhead. The Father is not the Godhead. The Godhead consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Emmanuel doesn't mean "God the Father with us." It means "God With Us." What the Bible says is that in Christ's body lives the whole fullness of the Godhead, or Deity. In other words, all the time that Christ lived on this earth, He was fully God. So Deity dwelt in Christ. Christ dwells in the Father in the same way that the Father dwells in Christ(John 14: 10, 11). How? Because both are "one in purpose, mind, and character."

But Christ is "self-existent." That means He doesn't depend on anyone for His existence. He is God in the highest sense and He didn't come into existence through the power of anyone outside Himself. He has always existed as God and is completely equal with the Father.

[John317]

You say Jesus was not *born* until Bethlehem - which is a true and correct statement. However, you imply by this that Jesus the Christ, "the Son of the Living God" (Peter's confession, Matthew 16:16) DID NOT EXIST prior to Bethlehem. You ignore the enlightened confessions of Jesus Himself of His pre-existence (John 17:5 is one such example).

You say it was the Father *in* Jesus by which Deity was revealed - which is true (John 14:10), yet you ignore the subsequent verse (John 14:11) which indicates two dwelling within each other.

YOu make true and important points here that deserve to be reposted.

[Gail]

Me3 on that one!

[Gibs]

Jesus was not until Bethlehem, Our Redeemer was Yahweh of Hosts before that, the commander of Heaven. The Father had Him to do all visible creation and all the Hosts. The Father had possessed Him of Himself for this giant task. He was the Father extended for this purpose.

He created all the Hosts, He then was to be their Redeemer as the Father knew one would be needed. Scripture calls Him the son of God but also reveals He was neither born or created. How did He come about then? The Father extended Himself to be also Redeemer.

He states in Isaiah 43:10 "before me no God was formed or will be after me" Who is first, the Father or the Son? There is only one answer, the Father extended Himself. Their substance is the same, one substance, same eternal substance!

How many Gods does that tell you there is? Jesus is God and the only way this can be reckoned with is that it is the Father manifest. How many firsts can there ever be? One!

Sister White, "The only begotten Son of God sweeps back the hellish shadow in which Satan has enveloped the Father, and declares, “I and My Father are one; look on Me and behold God.”Manuscript 25, 1890 (Manuscript Releases, vol. 13, pp. 240-243). {CTr 225.6}

I and my Father are one. John 10:30. {AG 189.1}

God Himself was crucified with Christ; for Christ was one with the Father. {AG 189.2}

Charged with his exalted mission, Jesus came into the world as the visible representative of the invisible God. He said to Philip: "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, Show us the Father? . . . From henceforth ye know him and have seen him." "I and my Father are one." What height, and depth, and breadth of meaning in the Saviour's words! They are clothed with a mysterious power that can only be spiritually discerned.{ST, November 21, 1892 par. 9}

Lu 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

Please hear Him and you will know!

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.

[joeb]

Jesus was not until Bethlehem, Our Redeemer was Yahweh of Hosts before that, the commander of Heaven. The Father had Him to do all visible creation and all the Hosts. The Father had possessed Him of Himself for this giant task. He was the Father extended for this purpose.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

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.

The Diaglott existed before the Jehovah's Witnesses. Does the fact that they use it make it wrong?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

I'd say Ellen White left it without question as to whether she believed in the 3 members of the Godhead, i.e. the doctrine of the Trinity. There is absolutely no wiggle room left in these statements of hers.

Ellen White also said pigs cause leprosy, there are many people in insane asylums because of the reading of novels and masturbation causes madness.

She also talked about Saturn having four moons. In "A word to the little flock" James White explicitly said she had talked about Saturn and she said nothing about it.

So, to be consistent you will have to believe things which we know are just not true.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

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).

This evaluates to nonsense. This is why:

First, "the" in English may indicate one definite one of a group or one as a representative of a group or a group as a whole. "When the English got to such and such an area they encountered the Apache." This means members of the Apache tribe. In the quote it seems a single entity is intended in all cases.

Secondly context. As the quote is, the three occurrences of the word "Word" all refer to the same single entity as do the two occurrences of the word "God."

Let's call "the Word" as it appears in the quote A and "the God" B.

"In beginning the Word was (is, and continues to be), and the Word was (is, and continues to be) with the God" No problems so far. In the second part (and the...) we have the two entities A and B in close proximity.

and the Word the God was

Here we have that A was B. The only possibility is that there was one entity with two names. That, you will agree, is further than even the trinitarians want to take it.

A problem is that passages are not translated on their own, separated from anything else. They are translated to fit in with existing concepts. The trinity was an existing concept since about 400AD. If you didn't believe it the church would burn you. So, John 1:1 is translated from a trinitarian viewpoint and then taken as support for the trinitarian viewpoint. Even the dimmest should be able to detect the circular reasoning here. Without this circular reasoning, and many other falsehoods, the trinitarian concept cannot exist.

[ClubV12]

Some, mistakenly, repeat the gossip and nasty rumor that Uriah Smith was arian in his view point. Arian meaning that Christ was a created being. Uriah Smith was not arian, Ellen White didn't have a problem with Smith's view point. She highly recommended his book, "Daniel and the Revelation" and said an interest in that book would continue until the close of probation.

So what DID Uriah Smith say about the trinity, the nature of Christ in particular? From the 1897 edition of Daniel and the Revelation here is a quote:

"To the Lamb, equally with the Father who sits upon the throne, praise is ascribed in this song of adoration. Commentators, with great unanimity, have seized upon this as proof that Christ must be coeval with the Father; for otherwise, say they, here would be worship paid to the creature which belongs only to the Creator. But this does not seem to be a necessary conclusion. The Scriptures nowhere speak of Christ as a created being, but on the contrary plainly state that he was begotten of the Father. (See remarks on Rev.3:14, where it is shown that Christ is not a created being.) But while as the Son he does not possess a co- eternity of past existence with the Father, the beginning of his existence, as the begotten of the Father, antedates the entire work of creation, in relation to which he stands as joint creator with God. John1:3; Heb.1:2. Could not the Father ordain that to such a being worship should be rendered equally with himself, without its being idolatry on the part of the worshiper? He has raised him to positions which make it proper that he should be worshiped, and has even commanded that worship should be rendered him, which would not have been necessary had he been equal with the Father in eternity of existence. Christ himself declares that "as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." John5:26. The Father has "highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name." Phil.2:9. And the Father himself says, "Let all the angels of God worship him." Heb.1:6. These testimonies show that Christ is now an object of worship equally with the Father; but they do not prove that with him he holds an eternity of past existence." D.A.R. page 430, 1897 edition.

[John317]

Quote:

ESV | Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Bible translators were all trinitarians. This is not the only verse in the Bible wrongly given a trinitarian slant. The comma Iohanneum (look it up) and the "I am" passage are others. That's why I say theologians are inherently dishonest.

Did the apostle John believe in "one God"? Or did he believe in the existence of another "god"? And what did Jesus Himself teach-- one God or "a god"?

Originally Posted By: epaminondas

The literal translation of John 1:1 is:

"In a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word."

You've copied the Emphatic Diaglott, a publication of the Jehovah's Witnesses. (It is published by the Watchtower organization who own the copyright.)

The Diaglott is wrong in its translation of John 1: 1. It cannot possibly be correct in that verse and at the same time be correct in its translation of Titus 2: 13 and 2 Peter 1: 1. (See explanation below.)

The apostle John is talking about a particular "beginning," the beginning spoken of in Genesis 1: 1. He is saying that at the time the world was created, Christ already existed. There's no intimation or suggestion that Christ Himself had a beginning.

Your mistake lies in your belief that whenever the definite article does not occur, the indefinite ["a"] "is always implied." This is why you render it as "in a beginning."

You've also rendered the third clause wrongly-- "and a god was the word."

Even when we translate literally, we need to put the words in the order in which they would occur if the writer had written in English. Otherwise, there is a good chance of the translation's causing misunderstanding.

In English we put the subject first, before the predicate. "The word" is the subject, so it should be translated (and almost always is), "And the Word was God," or "And the Word was Deity," etc.

The Bible doesn't teach that Christ was "a god." As a matter of fact, the Scriptures teach that Christ is "our great God and Savior" (Titus 2: 13; NASB, NKJV, ESV, CSB, CEB, NEB, REB, NRSV and many more).

Even the Emphatic Diaglott speaks of "the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." The Diaglott also translates 2 Peter 1: 1 correctly, showing that Jesus Christ is both "our God and Savior." This is in harmony with the rest of Scripture, which means that Jesus Christ is definitely not "a god."

In Isaiah 44 and 45, Yahweh denies that there is any God or god besides Yahweh, and He categorically denies that there was ever any "god" formed or made before Him or after Him. Therefore, besides being a bad translation, the false portrayal in John 1: 1 of Jesus Christ as "a god" runs clean contrary to the whole of Scripture. Jesus Christ cannot possibly be "a god" and at the same time be "our great God and Savior."

Robert Young's Literal Translation of John 1: 1 renders it correctly, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

J.W. Wenham's Elements of New Testament Greek, page 35, says, "theos estin ho logos can only be The Word is God."

Kenneth S. Wuest was Teacher Emeritus of New Testament Greek at the Moody Bible Institute. In his highly regarded translation of the New Testament, The Expanded Translation, he renders John 1:1, "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowhip with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity."

[John317]

X100

[John317]

Some, mistakenly, repeat the gossip and nasty rumor that Uriah Smith was arian in his view point. Arian meaning that Christ was a created being. Uriah Smith was not arian, Ellen White didn't have a problem with Smith's view point. She highly recommended his book, "Daniel and the Revelation" and said an interest in that book would continue until the close of probation.

Have you read the first editions of D&R?

Ellen White's recommendation of a book did not mean that she was saying the book was completely without error. She also recommended that people listen to Jones and Waggoner, but she wasn't meaning for people to think they were inspired prophets.

We have to realize that Uriah Smith was growing spiritually, and like all of his contempories in early Adventism, he had many false views of certain doctrines, and this included the Godhead/Trinity. We do them no injustice by freely confessing that they, like us today, didn't know all the truth and that they made errors in interpretation of the Bible.

It shouldn't be surprising-- or distressing-- to find that James White, Ellen White, and Uriah Smith did not always agree with each other.

[John317]

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).

The Word is clearly of Divine nature.

..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.

I've agreed completely with you up to this point, but I'm afraid I must disagree with you here.

You've translated it as, "and the Word the God was," but that's mistaken. The apostle John didn't write "the God". If he had written it that way, you'd be right. But by giving only "logos" the definite article, he made it clear that "the Word" is the subject and "theos" is the predicate/adjective. John's emphasis is upon the character or nature of the logos, not upon His identity. He's talking about WHAT the logos was rather than WHO He was. So His emphasis here is that the logos was just like God the Father. The reason John constructed his sentence as he did was precisely in order to avoid any confusion about very this point.

Therefore the third clause is not identifying the Word as the God of the second clause. Rather, the third clause is saying that the Word is just like the God of second clause. That's why the New English Bible renders it best, "And what God was the Word was." Jesus Christ was truly God and of the same essence or substance as the Father, but He wasn't the same Person as God the Father. This is what comes across clearly in John 1: 1 (last clause).

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

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.

I agree with your conclusion that both the Word and "the God" have a plurally distinct relationship with each other, yet are One; but I don't agree that this is what's being shown or emphasized in John 1: 1.

It seems to me that in order to make your case, you have to add a definite article to the last clause that isn't there.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, though. If so, let me know.

[John317]

Quote:

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).

This evaluates to nonsense. This is why:

First, "the" in English may indicate one definite one of a group or one as a representative of a group or a group as a whole. "When the English got to such and such an area they encountered the Apache." This means members of the Apache tribe. In the quote it seems a single entity is intended in all cases.

Secondly context. As the quote is, the three occurrences of the word "Word" all refer to the same single entity as do the two occurrences of the word "God."

Let's call "the Word" as it appears in the quote A and "the God" B.

"In beginning the Word was (is, and continues to be), and the Word was (is, and continues to be) with the God" No problems so far. In the second part (and the...) we have the two entities A and B in close proximity.

and the Word the God was

Here we have that A was B. The only possibility is that there was one entity with two names. That, you will agree, is further than even the trinitarians want to take it.

I agree that this is not how John 1: 1 should be translated or understood. As I explained earlier, this is exactly why the apostle John only gave one of the nouns in the last clause a definite article; it was in order to indicate which noun is the subject and which is the predicate. If he had made both "the word" and "God" the subjects of that last section, it would have meant that the Word and God were one and the same person. While they are certainly "one" in nature and character,they are not one in person; yet to say that "the God was the Word" or "the Word the God was" would mean that they are the same Person. As it is, "theos" [God] does not take a definite article in the third clause and thus it has reference to the character of the Word, not His identity.

This is explained in all Greek NT text-books designed to teach Koine Greek.

[Gerr]

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}

No Jesus was not born until Bethlehem. It was Yahweh of Hosts, the commander of Heaven that Heaven was emptied of and come in the Babe Mary was to call Him Jesus. In that man baby then dwelt all the fullness of the Father in a body. He was Emmanuel, God the Father with us. There is no other God that could be in Him.

So are you saying that when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am," (Jn 8:58) He was referring to Himself as THE FATHER?

[Gibs]

Yes Gerry, He was the Father extended to be His, the Fathers Redeemer at that time.

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.

That is saying to us in that verse that I am the first and the last, besise "me" there is no God.

Did you notice it is a simultanious proclamation!, "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and "his" redeemer the LORD of hosts;"

LORD in all caps. is Yahweh, notice Yahweh of Hosts, same name, there is only one YHWH, Yahweh. If LORD of Hosts had not been extended from the Father His name would not have been Yahweh!

The true Pronunciation of the Divine Name has been lost as in olden times they were afraid to try. Utmost Reverence is required of us to address Him or the Redeemer as now our Redeemer is no longer as He was as when with us, He is now all Glorious in the highest.

Yes fellows, John is correct in the way it reads literally,

Joh 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Notice, "with God, and the Word was God". That nails it right there! "God", Yahweh, Father and the Word waa "God", Yahweh, Father.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Divinity, Father in Him and His Glory!

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

No, no one has seen God the Father directly excepth the Son but Jesus did tell them when they beheld Him they had seen the Father. Only because He was covered with humanity could He have been with us until we are changed.

Notice Jesus revealing His equal of the Father, and then He tells us why,

Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

He is telling us you can no more pluck them out of my hand than the Fathers hand as we are one!

I have to run now, maybe more later,

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.

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

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).

The Word is clearly of Divine nature.

..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.

I've agreed completely with you up to this point, but I'm afraid I must disagree with you here.

You've translated it as, "and the Word the God was," but that's mistaken. The apostle John didn't write "the God". If he had written it that way, you'd be right. But by giving only "logos" the definite article, he made it clear that "the Word" is the subject and "theos" is the predicate/adjective. John's emphasis is upon the character or nature of the logos, not upon His identity. He's talking about WHAT the logos was rather than WHO He was. So His emphasis here is that the logos was just like God the Father. The reason John constructed his sentence as he did was precisely in order to avoid any confusion about very this point.

Therefore the third clause is not identifying the Word as the God of the second clause. Rather, the third clause is saying that the Word is just like the God of second clause. That's why the New English Bible renders it best, "And what God was the Word was." Jesus Christ was truly God and of the same essence or substance as the Father, but He wasn't the same Person as God the Father. This is what comes across clearly in John 1: 1 (last clause).

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

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.

I agree with your conclusion that both the Word and "the God" have a plurally distinct relationship with each other, yet are One; but I don't agree that this is what's being shown or emphasized in John 1: 1.

It seems to me that in order to make your case, you have to add a definite article to the last clause that isn't there.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, though. If so, let me know.

I checked my versions. I have multiple Greek versions in my Bibleworks software, plus an NIV Greek Interlinear hard back. You are right about the definite article on theos in the third phrase - there is no modifying article associated with theos. The article (h)o is there in some form, though, in the first two phrases, in every version I checked.

I am correct up until the very last phrase. It should be literally, "And God the Word was".

The previous two phrases of John 1:1 are spot on. Leaving out the definite article doesn't make my case any weaker.

While this verse in itself may show the "What" of the Word, it is clear in context with other verses (verses 2, 3, and 10-14) John is clearly defining "Who" the Word is.

Nice catch, John. Thanks for keeping my on my toes.

Blessings,

[Ted Oplinger]

I agree that this is not how John 1: 1 should be translated or understood. As I explained earlier, this is exactly why the apostle John only gave one of the nouns in the last clause a definite article; it was in order to indicate which noun is the subject and which is the predicate. If he had made both "the word" and "God" the subjects of that last section, it would have meant that the Word and God were one and the same person. While they are certainly "one" in nature and character,they are not one in person; yet to say that "the God was the Word" or "the Word the God was" would mean that they are the same Person. As it is, "theos" [God] does not take a definite article in the third clause and thus it has reference to the character of the Word, not His identity.

This is explained in all Greek NT text-books designed to teach Koine Greek.

The effort was not to render a translation, but a transliteration - a key difference.

When John 1:1 is transliterated into English, the words, with any associated articles, are lined up and placed into the grammatically equivalent spots for English.

In the first two phrases, logos and theos have definite articles associated with them, thus my placement of them.

Transliterations are often awkward in English. That being said, I made the associations I did because that is what the word positioning makes a strong case. I will stand by the literal renderings of the first two phrases, and gave you your argument on the third.

I don't have to insert articles to make my case. The cases and declensions of the nouns themselves make that case by themselves. I can leave "the" out of each phrase, and the word association (by case and declension) still makes my case.

You may have a different understanding and perspective on how to read word orders than I do. In the end, we are all trying to learn.

Blessings,

[Gibs]

Answer some questions for yourself.

Who is the one possessed here? - - Pr 8:22 ¶ The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. My Thoughts, My Word, My Wisdom.

Who is the Word that was made flesh, who is also known as Wisdom? Who also can have His the Fathers thoughts unless He is actually of one substance?

Who actually was first to appear, the Father or His Redeemer?

How then can Jesus Christ state "I am the first!.

Only one way don't you see, they are one, there is no other answer

He Jesus is also the first because He and His Father are for sure one and the same substance dwelling in the body of Jesus.

How does the Father become ALL IN ALL again? Read 1 Cor 15:24-28. Only one way and that is when Jesus finishes His Great task once and for all eternity, never having to happen again.

No Redeemer needed no more is the answer, Jesus returns His Deity to His Father, He now is ALL IN ALL and Jesus the great Prince and our King.

I believe this is when He will have a new name and will give us a new name,

Re 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Re 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

I pray for those who are edified by my testimony on this subject, Blessings I pray.

That can be better stated but I'm not a well oiled orator.

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]

Yes Gerry, He was the Father extended to be His, the Fathers Redeemer at that time.

LORD in all caps. is Yahweh, notice Yahweh of Hosts, same name, there is only one YHWH, Yahweh. If LORD of Hosts had not been extended from the Father His name would not have been Yahweh!

Gibs, you are driving me nuts with your "extended" theology. What does it mean?

Originally Posted By: gibs

Yes fellows, John is correct in the way it reads literally,

Joh 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Notice, "with God, and the Word was God". That nails it right there! "God", Yahweh, Father and the Word waa "God", Yahweh, Father.

"The Word was WITH God, and the Word was God." This sentence is talking about TWO persons NOT one!!! Otherwise, it would not make sense to say, "And the Father was with the Father!"

Originally Posted By: gibs

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

He is telling us you can no more pluck them out of my hand than the Fathers hand as we are one!

When you read Jn 10:30, you take it to mean Jesus and the Father are one & the same person, and yet when you read the oneness of believers, you recognize the multitude of persons in that oneness!!!

Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to see you comment on this passage:

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. This was no robbery of God.--The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906, p. 8.

Furthermore,

There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers--the Father, the Son, and the

Holy Spirit--those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.-- Evangelism, p. 615. {7ABC 441.9}