Is Jesus God?

[truthofscripture]

The reason why John did not place a DEFINITE ARTICLE in front of “GOD/THEOS” in the 3rd clause is to indicate that “THE WORD” was NOT “THE GOD” in the 2nd clause where it says “AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD”

YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS WHY THERE WAS NO DEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE 3RD CLAUSE. THE ABSENT OF THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN FRONT OF “THEOS” IN THE 3RD CLAUSE DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD PLACE AN INDEFINITE ARTICLE IN FRONT OF “THEOS”.

Don't forget that each scripture MUST harmonize with each other scripture. In order for Jesus to be his own father, thousands of other scriptures would be wrong. It would change the entire meaning of all scriptures. These people adhere only to religious reasonings and tradition, and cannot bring themselves to study the scriptures on their own merits. They pick and choose, believe one scripture and disbelieve another, and so on. Quite sad.

 

[JM2C]

LOOK at your elementary mistakes : You said : “in Greek should be “kai theos en ho logos” “and God was the Word”. In koine greek, the article IS the subject. Thus, your english translation of this simple, five word sentence, is incorrect. In english the Subject MUST come first. One does not say in English, “Blue is the pencil.” but rather, the Subject comes first. “The pencil is blue.” In greek, it does not matter. Have a friend who knows greek, HELP you.

PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND:

In the natural word order in Greek it should read “KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS” and if we translate this in English word for word it should read “GOD WAS THE WORD”. Now, in all English translations for better English grammar it reads like this, “AND THE WORD WAS GOD”.

STOP AND LISTEN TO YOURSELF. “In koine greek, the article IS the subject. -CLEAR”

AND THIS WAS MY FIRST ARGUMENT TO YOURS:

The one with the DEFINITE ARTICLE is the SUBJECT, i.e., “THE WORD/noun” and the one WITHOUT THE DEFINITE ARTICLE is what you call the PREDICATE NOMINATIVE, i.e., “GOD/noun” and to link the SUBJECT [THE WORD/noun] to the PREDICATE NOMINATIVE [GOD/noun] you would need a LINKING VERB, and the is, the “EN/WAS”.

Now, tell me or the READERS OF THIS THREAD who cannot understand you or me?

 

[JM2C]

Don't forget that each scripture MUST harmonize with each other scripture. In order for Jesus to be his own father, thousands of other scriptures would be wrong. It would change the entire meaning of all scriptures. These people adhere only to religious reasonings and tradition, and cannot bring themselves to study the scriptures on their own merits. They pick and choose, believe one scripture and disbelieve another, and so on. Quite sad.

Please if you/jw/nwt have something or anything to say about John 1:1c “And the Word was God” on which you/jw/nwt ADULTERATED/FORGED into another/different/heteros ALTERATION, i.e., “and the Word was a god” then get back to me otherwise keep your rhetorical arguments to yourself.

 

[JM2C]

3) JM2C said (post # 365) - “Yes, I would write it differently because I can only write what I’ve read, and that is, “kai theos en ho logos” without the indefinite article.

BUT YOU AREN’T WRITING IT DIFFERENTLY. Your cut and paste is the same.

In writing "The Word is a God." You wrote “Θεος ην ο λογος”. To translate "The Word is a God." I ALSO wrote “θεος ην ο λογος”. This is EXACTLY the same as what John wrote. Your “translation” uses the same words in the same order as mine and the writer of John.

Again, for the 100 times, ahem, ahem, ahem.
The word order in Greek, if one reads it in Greek [C&P, Xerox it or whatever you want], should be, “KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS”. Your translation in English [the word is a god] from the Greek that John wrote “KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS” cannot support the 1st and 2nd clauses.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE 1ST AND 2ND CLAUSES FIRST BEFORE YOU COULD MAKE A CONCLUSION IN THE 3RD CLAUSE.

 

[JM2C]

4) JM2C said (post # 365) - Without the definite article in front of the “theos” does not mean there is an indefinite article in front of “theos”.

I very MUCH agree with you here, since, as I've said before, an indefinite article does not even EXIST in greek. ASK someone who reads greek to HELP you.

NO CLEAR, YOU DID NOT SAY THAT BECAUSE I DID SAY THAT.

LISTEN TO YOURSELF ON HOW YOU CONTRADICT YOUR OWN STATEMENT!

One indicates indefiniteness in Greek by omitting the definite article.

You and jw/nwt and all the Unitarians out there CANNOT JUST SLAP AN INDEFINITE ARTICLE “a” IN FRONT OF “THEOS” IN THE 3RD CLAUSE JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DEFINITE ARTICLE THERE IN FRONT OF “THEOS” TO BEGIN WITH.

 

[JM2C]

5) JM2C said (post # 365) - You need to read and understand all the 3 clauses involve in this verse to be able to conclude correctly.


Ah, so, a greek atheist or greek agnostic or greek of any other persuasion but yours would not be able to understand this greek?? Really?

You can argue the 3rd clause and forget about the 1st and 2nd clauses where John based his arguments in the 3rd clause. Now, should I listen to John’s arguments or to Clear’s and jw/nwt and all the Unitarians out there? I think John’s arguments are more credible than any of you guys.

 

[JM2C]

FORUM MEMBERS :

In translating “The word was A God.” into clear greek :


Clear wrote “Θεος ην ο λογος”

JM2C wrote : “Θεος ην ο λογος”.

John 1:1 wrote ”Θεος ην ο λογος”.


Does ANYONE in the forum see any difference? Anyone?

Johns writing can mean either "The God" or "A God". It is that simple, no amount of cutting and pasting of grammarian jargon was ever necessary.



Clear

Neither one! If you read it correctly neither one, “the God”, nor “A god”, fits into John’s 1st and 2nd premises.

 

[JM2C]

PS : katiemygirl, Katzpur is correct. I am an adult convert to the LDS / Mormon theological model. I used to have this designation under my avatar but never re-entered it when the forum database changed.

The post-enlightenment Mormons. You know what LDS stands for?

 

[JM2C]

You have some explaining to do on that one.

Why was the Emperor FIRST called "son of god" before Jesus was born? Who was the ruler of the world Jesus lived in, who places Antipas in power. Why was that mortal man given divinity?

their gods or the gods of the pagans are not the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You need to understand the difference. Not because one is called the “son of god” by pagans in the pagan world does not mean “the Son of God”, i.e., the Lord Jesus Christ is the same with them pagans. Do you understand this?

You were one of the proponents in the "How certain are we that Jesus was historical" thread along with LOM, an agnostic guy, not unless you were just sucking up to his knowledge about the historical Jesus. I could understand that because that guy is really a genuine Scholar. IOW, he does not use the wiki university like the other self-proclaimed scholars.

And you said it yourself here

There is plenty of evidence in the NT for Jesus divinity. Just because the trinity slowly evolved hundreds of years later, does not mean there is no evidence in support.

I wonder where you got this or learned it from. Perhaps from that thread?

 

[JM2C]

Why were the Roman Christians in the Diaspora proselytizing to the Emperors followers to come and join their movement and telling them to come worship the true god, the real son of god?

Difference is I study the cultural and social anthropology surrounding the text. You have not. No, I use academia and universities to justify my position. Not faith.

Aha! Now, as a self-proclaimed scholar I think you need to explain why there were Christians already during the Diaspora. Are you confused about the timeline?

 

[JM2C]

Its my opinion it was quite normal to deify mortal men. There is a pattern here.

Not only that you see in scripture as the mythology is layered, contradictions on what and how divine Jesus was, as well as we see an evolution of divinity growing from the beginning.

Opinion breeds nothing but ignorance. The words “ignorance” and “ignorant” are not insult it’s just lack of knowledge.

How can you lack knowledge if you “used academia and universities to justify your position” and “Not Faith”

You have knowledge or earthly knowledge and I have faith.

By faith, the things to be revealed by GOD are "unsearchable" because they are beyond the grasp of human knowledge or the earthly knowledge.

You see the difference?

 

[Katzpur]

The post-enlightenment Mormons. You know what LDS stands for?

Surely, you're not about to say something rude?

 

[Clear]

Truth of Scripture : While I do not know that all scripture must agree since the apostles were, like us, continually learning what the gospel was and how to act wisely upon this knowledge, I do think there is a base context and historical framework of principles which can coordinate and make sense of mortality. We are, all of us thrown into a mix in the forum and inside of mortality and are all trying to make sense of it.

Regarding the translation of John 1:1 : I hope the Jehovah’s witnesses and other readers interested understood that the NWT translation of this phrase is perfectly legitimate. Once this point was been made, and unless there is actually any NEW and legitimate data to discuss, the issue is a dead horse.

Clear

 

[JM2C]

Surely, you're not about to say something rude?

Rude? should I be thinking what you are thinking right now?

 

[Katzpur]

Rude? should I be thinking what you are thinking right now?

You tell me. So what does LDS stand for?

 

[JM2C]

Truth of Scripture : While I do not know that all scripture must agree since the apostles were, like us, continually learning what the gospel was and how to act wisely upon this knowledge, I do think there is a base context and historical framework of principles which can coordinate and make sense of mortality. We are, all of us thrown into a mix in the forum and inside of mortality and are all trying to make sense of it.


Regarding the translation of John 1:1 : I hope the Jehovah’s witnesses and other readers interested understood that the NWT translation of this phrase is perfectly legitimate. Once this point was been made, and unless there is actually any NEW and legitimate data to discuss, the issue is a dead horse.

Clear

Converting again? Exegetically, you and jw/nwt and all the Unitarians out there did not prove anything at all.

Honestly, What would you, as a non-greek reader-writer know about “natural word order” in ancient greek?

Ancient Greek, but before you are talking about Koine Greek. Now, can you tell the difference between Ancient classical Greek from Koine Greek, so that the READERS may understand what you are talking about since you acknowledge your fluency of the Greek language.

I was hoping that you, as a self-proclaimed Greek reader-writer, would answer this.

 

[JM2C]

You tell me. So what does LDS stand for?

No! You tell me

PS : katiemygirl, Katzpur is correct. I am an adult convert to the LDS / Mormon theological model. I used to have this designation under my avatar but never re-entered it when the forum database changed.

The post-enlightenment Mormons. You know what LDS stands for?

 

[Katzpur]

No! You tell meThe post-enlightenment Mormons. You know what LDS stands for?

I think you already know, and I'm not sure why you're asking, but whatever. LDS = Latter-day Saints. Christ's followers in biblical times were referred to as "saints." Since we believe we are living in the "latter-days" now, we call ourselves "Latter-day Saints."

 

[Clear]

JM2C

I apologize for any embarrassment you may have felt in the discussion. It was NOT my goal to embarrass you or to harm your credibility.

However, the readers are able to make up their own minds regarding the translation of John 1:1, given the data we exposed them to. I am quite comfortable with that. To simply turn a coherent discussion into a petty sniping harangue will not be of any benefit.

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of our discussion regarding John 1:1, it will not matter. The horse is dead; the train has left the station, the ship has sailed, etc.

Clear
τςφιτζδρω

 

[outhouse]

Tell me who wrote the gospel of John.

A possible Johannine community, in at least 3 parts, compiled around the beginning of the second century.

None of the gospel authors are known.