John P You clearly didn’t watch the video. Also, the word for one in the Shema often implies unified oneness, not a numerical one. There is another word for a specific numeric one in Hebrew that is never used in reference to God.
@@gabesantamaria3805 you are wrong. Your are redefining the word YEHOVAH and the word Almighty. You playing with words to fit your position. And pagan Gods are triune in nature. Does God identify with the enemy? Or is God of the bible set apart. You know why you must not keep the commandments and its the Law. Because the commandments identify Gid, the first four. Re-read them and see the hidden agenda of the Catholic World system. PAGAN religions hold value of the Sunday and The Triune nature. With these two non biblical sabbath and the identity of God it is very easy to come to a common new world religion. They have they same commonality. This is how the beast system will be established. We who keep commandments and are set apart and we know good. As the bible says those who do the commandments have great wisdom and understanding and God will reveal himself to us. Since you speak like the world it is clear you have received the spirit of the world. I have received the Spirit of Truth. I have the way, the way is truth it leads to life. My God took me out of bondage and out of Egypt and gave commandments and i listen to Him. Ex 20. Read up. I then dollow God Almighty and not build for myself a golden calf . Iam worshipping the MOST HIGH one True God, not a theology jesuit god of the pagans. Let God be true and everyman a liar.
THINK about The writer, Ἰωάννης, the Apostle. And HOW an "envoy/sent one" is a god, for WHO represents: 📜 Exodus 4:16, (4:12: "Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak") 📜 Exodus 7:1 (7:2: "You are to say everything I command you") 📜 Psalms 82:6 (82:3: "Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.") 📖 John 10:34-36 (12:49: "For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken").
@@raulramos5246 "...Whereas the inclusion of Jesus in the eschatological sovereignty of God is found in all the New Testament literature, his inclusion in the work of creation is less widespread, but is found in 1 Corinthians, Colossians, Hebrews, Revelation and the Gospel of John. Since it is of less direct relevance to most of the concerns of the New Testament writers, this is not surprising. What is noteworthy is that in three of these cases (1 Corinthians, Hebrews and John) the purpose, in my view, is precisely to express Jewish monotheism in christological terms. It is not that these writers wish to say anything about the work of creation for its own sake or even that they wish to say anything about the relationship of Christ to creation for its own sake, but that they wish precisely to include Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. Including him precisely in the divine activity of creation is the most unequivocal way of excluding any threat to monotheism-as though Jesus were a subordinate demigod while redefining the unique identity of God in a way that includes Jesus. To illustrate the point, we shall examine the earliest of these texts: 1 Corinthians 8:6. This passage in its context reads: 'Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'there is no idol in the world' and that 'there is no God except one.' 'Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -as in fact there are many gods and many lords -but for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.' Paul's concern in this context is explicitly monotheistic. The issue of eating meat offered to idols and participation in temple banquets is an instance of the highly traditional Jewish monotheistic concern for loyalty to the only true God in a context of pagan polytheistic worship. What Paul does is to maintain this Jewish monotheistic concern in a Christian interpretation for which loyalty to the only true God entails loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ. He takes up from the Corinthians' letter (at the end of verse 4) the typical Jewish monotheistic formula 'there is no God except one' in order to agree with it and to give, in verse 6, his own fuller monotheistic formulation, which contrasts the 'many gods and many lords' of the Corinthians' pagan environment (verse 5) with the one God and one Lord to whom Christians owe exclusive allegiance. Verse 6 is a carefully formulated statement, a. but for us [there is] one God, the Father, b. from whom [are] all things and we for him, c. and one Lord, Jesus Christ, d. through whom [are] all things and we through him. The statement has been composed from two sources, both clearly recognizable. One is the Shema`, the classic Jewish statement of the uniqueness of God, taken from the Torah itself, recited twice daily by all observant Jews...It is now commonly recognized that Paul has here adapted the Shema° and produced, as it were, a Christian version of it. Not so widely recognized is the full significance of this. In the first and third lines of Paul's formula (labelled a and c above), Paul has, in fact, reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema` (Deut. 6:4: 'The LORD our God, the LORD, is one'), but Paul has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the Shema` speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing, not christological monotheism, but outright ditheism. The addition of a unique Lord to the unique God of the Shema` would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter. The only possible way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God affirmed in the Shema. But this is, in any case, clear from the fact that the term 'Lord', applied here to Jesus as the 'one Lord, is taken from the Shema` itself. Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema` a 'Lord' the Shema` does not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the 'Lord' whom the Shema` affirms to be one. Thus, in Paul's quite unprecedented reformulation of the Shema`, the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah. Contrary to what many exegetes who have not sufficiently understood the way in which the unique identity of God was understood in Second Temple Judaism seem to suppose, by including Jesus in this unique identity Paul is certainly not repudiating Jewish monotheism, whereas were he merely associating Jesus with the unique God he certainly would be repudiating monotheism."-Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity John 1:1-5; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12; Rev. 3:14. The 'our' of the Shema` appears as the 'for us' at the beginning of Paul's reformulation. F.F. Bruce, I and 2 Corinthians (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971), 80; D.R. de Lacey, "'One Lord" in Pauline Christology,' in Christ the Lord, ed. Harold H. Rowdon (D. Guthrie FS; Leicester: IVP, 1982), 191-203; Dunn, Christology, 180; Hurtado, One God, 97; N. Thomas Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 128-9; D.A. Hagner, 'Paul's Christology and Jewish Monotheism,' in Perspectives on Christology, ed. M. Shuster and R. Muller (P.K. Jewett; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 28-9; Neil Richardson, Paul's Language about God (JSNTSup 99; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 300; B. Witherington III, Jesus the Sage (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 316.
@@raulramos5246 "'In what did Second Temple Judaism consider the uniqueness of the one God to consist, what distinguished God as unique from all other reality, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles?, the answer given again and again, in a wide variety of Second Temple Jewish literature, is that the only true God, YHWH, the God of Israel, is sole Creator of all things and sole Ruler of all things. While these characteristics are by no means sufficient to identify God (since they say nothing, for example, about his goodness or his justice), they are the features which most readily distinguish God absolutely from all other reality. God alone created all things; all other things, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles, are created by him. God alone rules supreme over all things; all other things, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles, are subject to him. These ways of distinguishing God as unique formed a very easily intelligible way of defining the uniqueness of the God they worshipped which every Jew in every synagogue in the late Second Temple period would certainly have known. However diverse Judaism may have been in many other respects, this was common: only the God of Israel is worthy of worship because he is sole Creator of all things and sole Ruler of all things. Other beings who might otherwise be thought divine are by these criteria God's creatures and subjects."-Richard Bauckham Isa. 40:26, 28; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12, 18; 48:13; 51:16; Neh. 9:6; Hos. 13:4 LXX; 2 Macc. 1:24; Sir. 43:33; Bel 5; Jub. 12:3-5; Sib. Or. 3:20-35; 8:375-76; Sib. Or. frg. 1:5-6; Sib. Or. frg. 3; Sib. Or. frg. 5; 2 En. 47:3-4; 66:4; Apoc. Ab. 7:10; Ps-Sophocles; Jos. Asen. 12:1-2; T. Job 2:4. Dan. 4:34-35; Bel 5; Add. Esth. 13:9-11; 16:18, 21; 3 Macc. 2:2-3; 6:2; Wis. 12:13; Sir. 18:1-3; Sib. Or. 3:10, 19; Sib. Or. frg. 1:7,15,17,35; 1 En. 9:5; 84:3; 2 En. 33:7; 2 Bar. 54:13; Josephus, A.J. 1:155-6.
What is Colwell's "rule"? I know it had too many exceptions to be a real rule, but I can't remember what it was supposed to be...? (what he wanted it to be). John 1:1 reminded me of my conversations Jehovah's Witnesses and what Colwell's rule implied, and their objections to what John was saying left them with a Big GOD and a little god, making them sound like polytheists, in spite of their militant claims to monotheism. Thank you. I just subscribed.
Actually their assertion is valid. I've thoroughly studied and earned my Master of Divinity (M.Div.) with a specialization in Orthodox Theology. When examining John 1:1 in its original Greek, the difference between "ὁ θεός" (ho theos) and "θεὸς" (theos) is of considerable significance. The former, with the definite article "ὁ" (ho), denotes "the God" or "the divine one," typically referring to the Father in the New Testament. On the other hand, the latter, lacking the definite article, "θεὸς" (theos), can be translated simply as "God" or "a god." This contrast has led to various interpretations of the verse, including some that support the idea of the Word (λόγος) being divine in likeness but not necessarily identical to the Father.
Dr. Plummer, I am so very pleased with this. Years ago I took Greek, taught in the classical way, but have never been able to get fluent in it. As missionary in Africa I learned from Proff Ted and Elizabeth Brewster (from Fuller) how to learn a language in context, not individual words. In a very short time I mastered Zulu, a language with very many conjugations and no words that are familiar to us. I am telling others about this. You are doing what the Brewsters taught: "Learn a little, repeat it a lot" I am re-playing every verse over and over.
Breaking down verses like you do is my preferred method of learning. I like the Inductive approach with just enough grammar sprinkled in to answer the question: "Why is the word or phrase written as it is"? With you as a teacher, it is hard to believe that anyone would not be able to learn NT Greek. Thanks for your work!
In John 20:28 the article is included entirely grammatically. It's common in Greek to say "the servant of me" rather than just "my servant" or "the father of me" rather than just "my father." Either one can work. In this verse Thomas says "the lord of me and the god of me." Now you can argue what he meant by "the god of me" but to claim that "the god" here is grammatically equivalent to "the god" in say John 3:2 is just wrong. In John 20:28 it's part of a construction meant to indicate possession.
Why did you disregard translating the article "ton" that precedes God; this "ton/the" demonstrates the subtle distinction between THE Being and His Logos.
Thank you for the videos. Great way to practice grammar. I hated Greek grammar, but I did well. understanding was not an issue. I failed to exercise patience. I continue to learn daily. Many blessings to you and yours, in Jesus name.
Hi.. i just want to aks you about the gramatical rules regarding the articles. Is that true there is rules if in 1 clause you found 2 nouns where each noun have an article, like kai ho logos en pros ton theon, that is shown that ho logos and ton theon is 2 diferent "person"? And if in 1 clause there are 2 nouns, but only 1 noun that have an article, this mean the non article noun is explaining the quality of the noun whit article? Like kai theos en ho logos, this mean theos is describing the quality of ho logos, which mean ho logos is having a divine quality? Thank you for your time to answer my question.
I have so many questions, what is the use of tòv and what is the difference between the two different words both used to mean God, why use two different words, is this implicate of the trinity? I love John, but I only know it’s English translations and am just starting to learn Greek and Hebrew. So much to learn! Im grateful for this channel
some greek scholars translate this passage as " the word was deity" or "the word was divine ". Also, in John 17:3 Jesus clearly says that the only true God is the Father. Very confusing, for it to be the word of God....
Okay, I'm working through the theological implications of this verse from the Greek, and it appears that we can infer that there is a distinction between God and the Word, while deity is being predicated of the Word in much the same way that "maleness" is being predicated of the Word in this made up verse: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the male, and male was the Word. The reason for substituting "male" for God, and including the definite articles seen in the Greek is that I think that this bypasses the peculiarities of the word "God" in English. (God is a name in English, and also a noun) However, in the Greek the presence of the definite article indicates that God is not a name, so the article is needed to show that the subject is particular. Hence, the word "God" in Greek is analogous to the word "Male" in English. Consequently, as it the case that "Male" and "the male" are not equivalent, and therefore we may not infer that "the male" is the Word, so it is also the case that the two instances of the word "God" in the English translation are not equivalent, and therefore we may not infer that God was the Word (Modalism). Yet, as in our made up verse maleness is predicated of the Word equally as it holds of "the Male", we must similarly infer that in John 1:1 deity is predicated of the Word, I.e : The Word was God.
So I would argue, out of ignorance of Greek knowledge, that adding the word “the” in a typical modern Bible is equivalent to JWs adding the word “a” at the end of the verse. The reasoning you gave to adding “the” is similar to the reasoning they gave to adding “a”.
I would disagree because the reason JWs use to defend the indefinite article is theological as opposed to it being grammatical. They assume the indefinite article because it proves their point.
Either rendering is ultimately theological. Whether it be “a god” or “God”. There’s no rule of Greek grammar which demands either translation (in this instance). It ultimately depends on the theological background assumptions of the translators.
@@fearoftehdark That is untrue. Their's, the NWT's, is a grammatical and syntactical basis for an indefinite translation of the anarthrous theos of John 1.1c. It basically concerns it being a singular anarthrous predicate nominative. It is one of predication not identification. There is no basis for it being definite which the "the Word/Logos was God" translation requires.
Is there anything in the greek context or following verses that would refute the common unitarian idea that "the word" is simply God the Father's wisdom and later on when the "word becomes flesh" they just see this as the wisdom of God becoming flesh and not an actual person?
The Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinate article ("a" or "an"), so it is not surprising that indefinate articles are missing from the original ancient text. As to the meaning of John 1:1, one must then consider the context. The fact that the verse says that the Word was with God helps to clarify the meaning, since one cannot be "with" another being, and also "be" that being. Also, consider the context of the chapter, further on in verse 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.” John 1:18. Some translate this bosom position as being close to his heart, which, Jesus, being beloved, was and is close to his Father's heart. So, no man has seen God AT ANY TIME, in other words, EVER, but many people, both men and woman saw Jesus Christ. The scriptures refer to Jesus Christ many times as the Son of God, but did Jesus ever say that he was God? No. A voice from a cloud, from God, however clearly identified who Jesus was, "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." Luke 9:35. Also, at Jesus baptism God speaking from heaven clearly identifed who Jesus was, "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17. Was God declaring that he was pleased with Himself? Or does it not make more sense that he was pleased with his Son Jesus and wanted others to know that this was the long awaited Messiah and that they should listen to and follow Chist? Jesus referred to his Father as his God at John 20:17, "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." Therefore, by considering the context of John 1:1, the chapter of John 1, and the book of John, the true identity of Jesus becomes very clear. There are many other Bible verses that clearly identify Jesus. Truth is revealed by searching the entire word of God, not just one verse by itself, which can be misunderstood due to translation.
Your presupposition that Jesus could not be with God and be God is just wrong. It confuses the essence of the Being with the person. That's aways where anti-trinitarian interpretations fall apart. However TBH one does not have to be a scholar to figure out this. The implications of making Jesus a god with a lower case basically destroys all the rest of Christian theology and empties it from any meaning die to it's inconsistency.
@@Luiz__Silva I'm sure that we can agree that God is a God of truth, and therefore He cannot lie, nor can He contradict himself. Also, it appears that you view the Scriptures as God's word of truth, do you not? Therefore, it should be considered that Jesus stated clearly in Scripture that he was God's son, however, Jesus never states anywhere in Scripture that he is God. It is only men who said this, enemies of Jesus when accusingnhim of blasphemy actually said Jesus was making himself equal to God. Another thought to consider or question to ask is this: We know that Jesus was a real person, a real man, and many men were eyewitnesses of this fact, correct? How is is then, that the Bible clearly states that no man has seen God at any time? John 1:18 And, in addition God himself states in Scripture that 'no man may see me and yet live', Exodus 33:20, and yet again, many, many people saw the man Jesus Christ. How is this possible? Another question to consider, if Jesus is God, why did he pray to God, was he pleading with tears and sweat like drops of blood to himself, pleading with himself to give help to himself? Jesus speaks of his Father as his Father, but also as his God. John 20:17 Was Jesus a god to himself? At w Cor 1:3 the Apostle Paul states that the Father is the God of Jesus Christ. Far from being un-Christian to state the truth of God's word, it is entirely Christian to speak the unadulterated truth. The trinity doctrine is not found anywhere in Scripture, but Jesus simple and truthful words about himself and his Father are found in the Bible, as well as God's own statements about himself ("no man may see me and live"), and additionally the Apostles and other Bible writer's statements about Jesus and about the Father, the only true God John 17:3, are found in Scripture for all who seek and desire the truth.
Sorry about typos above: 2 Cor. 1:3 is where Paul state that the Father is the God of Jesus. Jesus enemies, when accusing Jesus of blasphemy said Jesus was making himself equal to God.
Yes, I believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God. However, I don't presume the being of God can be easily understood by the human mind. Actually, the Bible clearly states unregenerate minds cannot understand spiritual things. Now, in all your answers, you tried to use basic human logic but failed to understand important truths about God. When you argue that Jesus would not pray to God if he was God, you fail to recognize, again, the distinction between the being and nature of God and the personhood of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And also how the Son emptied himself from the equality he had with the Father. Jesus is the logos and the Word incarnate. Nothing that was created was created without Him. And all that was made was made by and for Him. You also misunderstood the naturen of His Sonship. Why would you assume that being called Son of God means He was created? He is also called Son of Man, isn't he? Does it mean he was created by men? These are messianic titles and they denote Jesus had two natures: divine and human. Being called Son of God, just as then gospels affirm, attests to the fact that Jesus made himself equal with God, again, in nature and not in person. Making Jesus less than God would make him less than an ideal salvation. Animal sacrifices would not pay for our infinite offenses to God, our sins. Human sacrifices wouldn't do either. An angelic sacrifice, maybe? An angel, no matter how powerful, wouldn't have power to give his life and to take it back away, because angels don't have power over life or death, as they are not divine and not creators. My sins were paid on the cross by the God-man Jesus to save His chosen people and that's what gives me confidence of an eternal life I cannot lose or forsake. There's nothing more precious than my savior because God is my savior and no one else.
@@Luiz__Silva @Luiz Silva You obviously have very deep seated beliefs, strong convictions about what you believe. I agree that, as humans, and especially as imperfect, fallen humans, we cannot fully understand all that there is to know about God, (Rom 11:33-34) however, the Scriptures clearly inform us that our very salvation is completely dependant upon our coming to know God (John 17:3, 1 John 4:6), that it is possible to know God and understand Him (Jeremiah 31:34) to the extent required for salvation, and they, the Scriptures, also inform us that Jesus has explained God, made him known, in order that we may come to know Him, that is Our Father. "No man has ever seen God at any time; the only begotton god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him." John 1:18. Jesus taught his followers to pray and address God in prayer as, "Our Father" just as he addressed his Father as Father. Does this mean that we, because we address God as "Our Father" that we are also God. No, it is very simple and clear that we are to have a close, personal relationship with God, as children have with their Fathers (or ought to). God is not to be to us a being so strange and foreign that we cannot relate to Him and really love Him. James says that if we "Draw close to God" He will draw close to us. James 4:8. And, it is certainly true, Jesus did enjoy a pre-human existance with his Father, in heaven, and as a spirit person, prior to his Father sending him to earth (John 1:15; John 3:16; see also John 13:17, "For God sent fort his Son into the world..." "Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is the one sent forth greater than the one that sent him.", this shows the Father is greater than the Son, whereas the trinity doctrine states none is greater or less than the other.. Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I am." John 14:28) He, Jesus, at that time was "with God" John 1:1. Also, being a heavenly Son of God, he was a spirit and had a divine nature, being a god, god-like, thus John says so in John 1:1, where a number of translators use the term "and he was divine" in order to convey the writer's intended meaning. As stated above, the ancient Greek had no article "a" so it would not read in Greek as "a god"; the meaning can only be determined by the context of the phrase, and that context, by saying the Word was "with God" makes it obvious that the Word was "with God", and and therefore apart from and outside of God. He was like God, being of divine nature, the same type of spirit being. Also, in understanding John 1:1, the surrounding context of John 1 needs to be considered as well, vs. 18 states clearly, "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotton god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him." And, the Scriptures state, when he was with his Father, all other things were created through him and for him. Along this line of thought if we examine Genesis we see that when about to create mankind, there is more than one person spoken of involved in the creation of man, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness..." Therefore, even prior to Jesus being sent by his Father to the earth, they was more than a single personage, referred to as, "us" and the possessive "in our image....our likeness". Further on that thought then, man, being created in God's image and likeness and also like his Son, was mankind created as a trinity, three persons in one? Of course not. We know that a son is not the same person as a father, and a father is not his son, though they are of the same nature and may be very much alike in many ways. The Scriptures, in portraying God the Creator as a Father with a son, make God understandable and relatable to his human children, as we understand the relationship of fathers and sons, they are not the same people, although alike, and related. As for the ransom for our souls, you are correct, animals are below man and could not truly be an adequate sacrifice for mankind's sins. The Scriptures state that a corresponding or equal ransom was required to pay the price. Only a perfect man could pay the price and repurchase mankind from sin and death. Jesus is referred to as the "last Adam" because by giving his perfect human life he repurchased mankind from sin and death and opened the way to reconciliation with God and the hope of eternal life. John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22; 1 Tim 2:6; Matt. 20:28
Question: Similar to the last statement (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), is not the first statement (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος) an example where λόγος is the subject-nominative? In other words, I submit an English translation might better read, "The Word was in the beginning, the Word was with God and the Word was God." Thoughts?
I don’t speak Greek but I’m becoming more and more interested in a non biased take on John 1 because people seem to need this verse to confirm the divinity of Jesus. I’m a believer who doesn’t believe Jesus is God. “Pros” means “towards” right? The piece should say “… and the logos was towards God”. “With” is not a great word to solve the closeness between this logos and God. If pros means towards as in the logos was moving in the direction of God, then use a word like “followed” “chased” “moves with” anything that doesn’t suggest equality between the logos and God. The sentence structure early in this verse reads like English: “in the beginning was the word”. I see the definite article next to logos and yet it doesn’t say “the logos in the beginning”. If we don’t change the structure due to the article in this part of the verse, why do reverse the Greek word structure at the end of the verse from “God was the word” to “The word was God”??? I don’t want my bias to inform what I’m reading in the Greek. Are there any thoughts about this?
So what is Jesus? Is he someone picked up off the street an decided to use? What are the good points and bad point of Jesus being God, or Jesus NOT being God?
Writing with Johnnie: I find it interested that you say you are a believer and yet you add that you do not believe Jesus is God. By that, I assume you are saying you don't believe that Jesus share the attributes that the Father has. If we were looking at only this verse, perhaps you could have reason for your conclusion. However, by reading the rest of the Gospel of John and by reading the other gospels, I would have a hard time understanding why you do not think Jesus had the same attributes that his Father had. There is so much to say here, but I would ask you what do you think about Jesus.
@@barryhohulin5634 Jesus was a man, "born of a woman" flesh and blood, not God. God can not be born, or grow older, or hunger and thirst, or feel pain, or die. If a god can die, I don't think a cross and nails could kill it. Jesus was the messiah, the anointed, and he was a man. He becomes the Son of God, and THIS is the only claim that Jesus made. How do I know this? Consider the trial scene in each gospel account. Imagine watching the OJ Simpson trial and no one in the prosecution brings up the murder of two people. Imagine watching the Bill Cosby trial and no one in the prosecution brings up drugging women or rape. In the prosecution of Jesus, "false witnesses" were used, which is odd, if he is on trial for blasphemy wouldn't he have truthful witnesses? But also the high priest asks the question, "are you the christ, the son of Son" and Jesus responds, "you have said". If an objective non bias law student read the case file of Jesus's blasphemy trial, they would come to the conclusion that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God but his opponents didn't believe him. They would not say, Jesus claimed to be God. The prosecution has him, got him, all they need is proof, and no one mentions John 10:30, no one quotes Jesus from John 8:58, the false witnesses only say that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple and rebuild it. To them this guy was crazy, not someone who claimed to be God or else the case files would reflect it. Or perhaps, the prosecution sucked and refused to use the claims to divinity that you read in the gospels, but I doubt that. I think we have been taught poorly about the divinity of jesus and are recycling bad teachings, teachings I used to believe
I would suggest reading Philip B Harners take on this.. I think you'll find most of the time if a predicate noun precedes the verb it has a primarily qualitive meaning, a better rendering is probably "and the word had the nature of God" If John wants to say The Word is a third person in a triune God, why make "God" the object of the sentence?, Why not "The Father" and "Holy spirit" isn't identity definite in Greek? e.g The Peter/ The Satan/ The Jesus?
Elohai which we have been told is singular of Elohim is the only word found in both the OT and NT. This word is divine or immortal in meaning. It corresponds to Theos in the NT. If it meant god then that would make Abraham, Issac and Jacob all gods also but looking at Luke 20:37-39 in context of what is being said you can tell that immortal is a better meaning for the word "Theos"
@@ΊριδαΠρωτοσύγκελλου Ancient Greek Alternative forms θέος (théos) - Lesbian θεύς (theús) - Doric θιός (thiós) - Boeotian, Arcadocypriot θιός (thiós) - Laconian Etymology From Proto-Hellenic *tʰehós (whence also Mycenaean Greek 𐀳𐀃 (te-o)), a thematicization of Proto-Indo-European *dʰéh₁s, from *dʰeh₁- (“to do, to put, to place”) + *-s. Cognate with Phrygian δεως (deōs, “to the gods”), Old Armenian դիք (dikʿ, “pagan gods”) and Latin fēriae (“festival days”), fānum (“temple”) and fēstus (“festive”). Despite its similarity in form and meaning, the word is not related to Latin deus; the two come from different roots. A true cognate of deus is Ζεύς (Zeús).[1][2] Pronunciation
IPA(key): /tʰe.ós/ → /θeˈos/ → /θeˈos/ Adjective θεός • (theós) divine (used only in comparative: θεώτερος (theṓteros)) Noun θεός • (theós) m or f (genitive θεοῦ); second declension (Epic, Attic, Ionic, Doric, Koine) a deity, a god, God title of a ruler sometimes feminine (ἡ θεός): a goddess
@@ΊριδαΠρωτοσύγκελλου θεῖος is the usual adjective for “god-like” or “divine”, but θεός sometimes doubles as an adjective, “divine” being probably the best English rendering (rather than, say, “holy” which has connotations in English that would be misleading). Hellenistic and Roman kings often ascribed the title of θεός to kings, though almost no one took that literally as a statement of belief: it’s better read as a symbol of exaggerated respect. It could be used that way outside of politics too; for example, when the Jewish philosopher Philo describes Plato as θεώτερος (the ending is just the superlative form of θεός) he definitely does not mean that Plato is a god. In some cases you can find Christian writers using this sense relating to, for example, Christians who have become θεοί by adhering to virtue: they have become “divine” - maybe here “holy” would work - but not deities. In the Greek version of the Old Testament θεοί is sometimes used to indicate appointed authorities, especially judges, where the Hebrew has Elohim. אֱלֹהִים (showing a different version of the one-many tension present in Greek). If you don’t know about that usage something like Exodus 7.1 If Theos means god then Jesus called ABRAAM, ISSAC AND JACOB all gods
@Scriptural Truth you are right they took the title of god but they where also worshipped as gods so I think what happened there was that they claimed to actually be gods. In exodus it is explained also in 4:16 and there it says that in the eyes of pharaoh he would have the place of god. He was not god but that is what he would be for pharaoh. I haven't studied Greek literature so I can't tell you about Plato but I am pretty sure that Θεός means god. I am from Greece and that's always the word that is used in the place of the English word god.
📚 I clearly read πρὸς τὸν Θεόν (With ([The)] GOD) καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος (AND GOD was (the) Word). ΤΌΝ ΘΕΌΝ and ΘΕῸC it is SO different. Is not like latin Deus and Deum, or Iesus and Iesum grammatical rule. Koine Greek and Attic Greek are different too. Plus, there's NOT ONE mention, from Genesis 1:1 all the way through Revelation 22:21, about ANY "tri-un" god. Not even a Pagan god.
@@leef_me8112 that is correct. There is only one Almighty God and a god with him: a righteous person, a prophet, word of God, delivering the word of God. Please check how word 'god (Elohim) is used for entities other than Almighty God in old testament.
Interesting Logos is mentioned three times and Theos is mentioned twice. I don’t believe in the Trinity. When scripture states that they are one, I think of celestial events such as eclipses or conjunctions that have two bodies as one.
I heard him mention Colwell's Rule. But this rule does not determine whether an anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative is definite. Also, he keeps saying theos of 1.1c is "God"(it appears he means God not god)but that would make theos definite and most scholars today reject this understanding of it. In fact many translators and commentators for many years have rejected this and why there are translations that read "and the Word was divine" or give non-literal interpretative renderings. To use what one reads at John 20.28 to determine the definiteness of the theos of 1.1c is unsound as one must not pour into the simple Greek clause of 1.1c everything John wrote elsewhere! Translate it correctly first then interpret it along side other places John used theos for the Son. All in all I am unimpressed with this short video.
After reading many Jehovah’s Witnesses’s comments on this and other platforms I have noticed they do a lot of cut and paste from Watchtower articles and presenting them as their own thoughts.
Is a fair translation of “..καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος” -> “and the Word was ‘Divine’”? edit: (I'm a Christian in full agreement that Jesus is God (ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, John 20:28))
@@brucebarnard Yes. God is eternally existent as three persons (revealing Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Sprit) of One Divine Essence or Nature, without division of nature, essence, or being. Trinity.
@@jonathanputnam2178 Originally you stated that "Jesus is God". Now you say " God is three persons". So a syllogism from the above premises will be: 1. Jesus is God 2. God is three persons. So the conclusion is 3. Jesus is three persons. Whenever the expression "one God" occurs in the NT who is the referent? Whenever the expression "true God" occur in the NT who is the referent? Whenever the expression "only God" occur in the NT who is the referent? Whenever a NT author writes "our God" who is the referent?
And example of the Greek (2316) “God” in the nomitive case, and without the article, as being capitalized: Mark 12:27 “He is not (the) God of the dead, but of the living: ye do greatly err.” (hint!) Interlinear: “ not He is God of [the] dead but” The article “the” is not there preceding the noun. And yet the context demands the capitalization of “God.” And so it does in JN 1:1C Using this example, Jn 1:1C could just as legally, by biblical Greek example, be translated: “The Logos was the God.”
In English we can safely omit "The" as We don't do this behind names, In Greek for a person however you put the article infront of a name, making it definite The nominative [Subject] clause is heavily reliant on the article to be considered definite..
Because "God" being virtually a proper noun in English is definite without the definite article so no need to translate τὸν of τὸν θεόν. The Greek article here before a noun in the accusative will make the noun definite. It is like saying "I was with Jesus," rather than saying "I was with the Jesus" when context shows who is being mentioned. We in English needn't use the article before a proper name in a prepositional phrase
I honestly can’t believe that this scripture plainly teaches that there isn’t a second or third person in the trinity.. this scripture actually teaches the oneness of God and the truth is that you can’t see it.. but it’s there in plain sight… If you need assistance I can definitely help you.. if you’re interested and willing to be corrected?
Amen. Jesus is the only begotten Son meaning unique, Jesus the man was not God because flesh cannot be God but Jesus was God because “ on him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily” Colossians 2:9 and also we see Jesus declares his deity in John 8:58 by saying “before Abraham was, I Am” than after this verse the Jews try to stone him because they knew what he was claiming to be, Jesus claimed to be the I AM or the hâyâh in exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 43:13
@@SunnyLaraJr. Test Paul as a true apostle. I don't know if he wrote Colossians. Maybe you could interpret the text as saying that the father was in Jesus like Jesus said. He did not declare the deity, see ego eimi usage in John 4 in the Samaritan woman passage that Jesus says that he is the messiah and John 9 9. He also did not cite all that is in Exodus and see the passage in Isaiah with context with the verse before.
What is the difference between "a person" with or "a god" with God? Especially when logos by definition definition didn't mean person/son. No second person here. Understanding the meaning of logos in ancient Greek. Word is how someone reading this and Understand my logos. My logos is my is my thoughts, ideas, reason, logic, wisdom, and plan. God created nothing without this. Just as my thoughts, ideas have always been with me, but I already am flesh. We are not told Jesus took on the form of man. Nor are we told the 2nd person or the Son was manifest in the flesh. God was manifest. Unless we can show that there was a person with God we need to stay with what we are told..
if only English translations had kept the Greek word order because as the JWs would like to purport then would be silly-sounding : "the Word was with God, and a god was the Word."
The word God isn't exclusive the Almighty. Kings, Priests, judges, Moses and Abraham and Angels are called God. Elohim doesn't make Jehovah a plurality anymore than Ba'al being called Elohim made him a plurality.
0:41.... In NO way is this obvious.. In fact this verse is speaking of the BEGINNING of the New Creation. That is why it immediately introduces John the Baptist.
In a beginning (of something) the logos was with YHWH and the logos was YHWH. Great.... What is the logos? It is YHWH and also something which was in His possession at a beginning of something?
LOL 2:15 I laughed with you.... Because it is NOT very clear. And since a lot CAN be said, it should be said. You are making a case for polytheism because you are translating this verse through the lens of a false man made doctrine.
2:54 I had to laugh with you again... Because John literally tells us what the purpose of his gospel is. Lets see: John 20 : 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Repent of this false teaching and step into the light of the Truth. THE ONE TRUE GOD IS JESUS CHRIST'S GOD. John 20:17
so τὸν means 'the': the word was with THE God (τὸν theos.) And the word was a god. So why Bibles don't translate this correctly? it seems like they want to give the impression that all same God. Word God is used for a lot of people oe entities as well throughout the old and new testaments. It is what it is.
This is quite dismissive regarding usage of the word 'theos' and 'theon' when it comes down to Greek historical context. The Greeks did not have a word for God as they believed in many gods.
I disagree the Logos/Word is being identified as "God." The anarthrous theos of 1.1c surely is not definite? As the English noun "God" is, to translate it with this English noun is incorrect. John is describing what, not who, the Word was. Or he was placing the Word in the category of theos. This is why some translate "the Word was divine."- Moffatt and Goodspeed being two that opt for this. Whether this is the best translation or not(as Greek had a word meaning "divine") it does show that scholars recognise John was not saying the Word "was God".
If John is describing what, not who, isn’t that just a matter of depth. If the what is actually a who, why is it illogical to take the next step. Something like, Mr. Jones was the doctor. Or the man. Or the ____ “particular thing”. The what, noun, being a who.
@@andyayala5639 None of your nouns are proper names. They are describing what Mr Jones was or is, not who. That is why you used lower case letters in both.
@@andyayala5639 Yes, the doctor is the what(a predicate nominative)the who, Mr Jones, is. It is describing what Mr Jones is, not making a personal identification. Hence this fits with the anarthrous predicate theos of John 1.1c. The Logos(the who) was a what(theos). In English we supply the indefinite article many times when translating Greek anarthrous predicate nominatives in equative(is) sentences.
@@brucebarnard understand. And The Who is made up of many what’s. The what’s are portions of the fullness of the who. So is it accurate to say that the what is is indicative of the who?
John 20:28. The entire context of the story is important. As always. Jesus Christ first appeared to Mary Magdalene and told her. Go to my brothers and tell them. I ascend to my Father and to your Father. 1Messiah 1GOD. Also John 17:3 This clearly confirms that the true monoteistic belief is the one and only GOD YHWH. Mark 12:29. And neither Jesus claimed anywhere that He was GOD, nor can you find other people who called Him GOD. The slang But gods often appear as an expression of authority for people in powerful positions. Shalom.
If you check out 'John 1:1 in 'Google', under the heading 'English translations there are at leastr over 20 that translate the greek "The word was a god"! So all these attacks on the JW translastion are not correct on this verse! ( I am not a JW)
@@Hikariett Good point. The greek of the bible is 2000 years old! However the best way to understand what John meant about the Christ is in the verse by verse narative which clearly presents Jesus as 'God's Son, who was 'sent forth' whom God 'gave' who is' entirely dependant on the Father' who 'lives becaause of the Father' who has been 'granted life' e.t.c. ( John chapter 5-7 almost every word therein!). John 20:31 sums up John's purpose in writing the gospel, he says "These things have been written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through your faith in him you may have life". Amen to that!
@@kiwihans100 I don't disagree with you, I'm not advocating Jesus is God.. I say he is the son of God. "a god" - really just denotes the category to which The word belongs.. Angels, Moses, human judges and Satan are all called "gods" Philip B Harner explains it best imo, Jesus had the "nature of God" i.e image of the invisible God/ reflection of his very being [or nature] having the nature of God doesnt make him God... as we are all encouraged to have the "nature of God"
@@Hikariett Totally agree! The fact that the Father has given His Son full authority to act on His behalf has caused many to misunderstand the relationship between the Father & the Son. They give ultimate worship to the one sent and appointed, rather than the sender, appointer and originator of it all ! ( Phil 2:11 sums up the correct attitude we should have!).
@@kiwihans100 if he was already God he wouldn't be "Given" that authority he would already have it, he would be speaking and doing of his initiative, He wouldn't have to be exalted above the angels and inherit a better name than theirs.. The one who sent is greater than the one sent.. and a whole lot more
John 1:1 is a minefield and to pretend everything is clear in ancient Greek is misleading. I don't even mean the standard point of contention regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ, which should actually be clarified by the overall statement of the text if you have understood it to some extent. I tend to think of such abstract concepts as ἀρχῇ and especially λόγος. The dictionaries allow for many more possible interpretations than is suggested by the monotonous repetition of church translation traditions (Vulgate, Luther, etc.). Is it because of the simplemindedness or rather the fear of speculation à la Faust?
OR the reason the translation "and the Word was God" or "and the Word was fully God" has endured is because it is the correct way to translate the verse.
@@BasicBiblicalTruth Of course, everyone is free to accept what they want. However, if you want to investigate further how the matter is doing, you should have something better to show for it.
@@BasicBiblicalTruth In the meantime, I've watched your first video on the subject and it does contain approaches to independent thinking, so in that respect it's quite a step forward. But look, in my Greek dictionary the meaning of Ἐν ἀρχῇ εἶναι is given as “to administer or hold a (principal) office”, yet all your standard translations do so, as if by analogy with Gen 1:1 it says ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν would. Ultimately, this just shows that you are all copying each other.
@@kataiwannhn You have to read v. 1 in context. In v. 3 the word is the one who made all things. Even Non-Christian scholars like Daniel Boyarian recognize John 1:1-5 as a Christian midrash on Gen 1. The various elements of "beginning," "word," things that "came into existence," "light," "darkness," "life," all point back to the original creation. John will use the same elements throughout his Gospel to show that the Word (Jesus) is effecting new creation. The "darkness" is not simply the absence of light as it was in the original creation, but evil forces that oppose the gospel. Jesus is the light that brings salvation. At the end of the gospel he breathed (ἐνεφύσησεν) on his disciples which echoes the original creation (Gen 2:7) but this time it is in reference to new creation or eternal life. Anyways, my point is that we are not copying each other, as you claim, rather we reiterate the same things because we are in agreement on what the text is proclaiming.
ἦν IS PECIFICALLY "I WAS" G2258 ἦν ēn Thayer Definition: 1) I was, etc. Verb ἦν • (ên) first/third-person singular imperfect indicative of εἰμί (eimí): I/he/she/it was Why is this consistently mis-translated ?
Did you know that in John 1:1-3, there are different Greek words for both Gods mentioned? The Word, Jesus, (Λόγος or Logos), was with God (Θεόν, or Theon). The Word was God (Θεὸς, or Theos). He, Jesus, was in the beginning with God (Θεόν, Theon). Even though these are different cases of the same word, they are nevertheless differentiated. Satan was also called θεὸς, or Theos at 2 Corinthians 4:4. Is Satan also God? Don’t know Greek? Neither do I. Let’s break this down a little further shall we? In the beginning was the word (Jesus, Son of God), and the word (Jesus, Son of God) was with God (Almighty God, God the Father), and the word (Jesus, Son of God) was God (Almighty God, God the Father)? No matter how you put it, it doesn’t make sense!! What does make sense is that Jesus, being in the beginning with God (Genesis 1:26, John 1:1), in fact being God’s very first creation (Colossians 1:15, Proverbs 8:22, Revelation 3:14), actually calls God his God and worships God the Father. (Revelation 3:12, John 20:17)
It is sad that this has brought out from the woodwork those people who like to tear Jesus away from his eternal father and demote him to a mere man or creation.
John 1:1 Does not tell us who the word is. In John 1:3 We learn that all things were made through HIM. In John 1:18 we read “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made (HIM) known. Notice how Jesus has made HIM known, who is HIM ? The word = HIM And if you can bear to hear it HIM is the Holy Spirit The WORD of God. If you read John 1 :1-18 And replace HIM with THE HOLY SPIRIT/WORD You will understand that THE WORD is the HOLY SPIRIT which is the word of God… Those with ears let them hear. Those with eyes to see Let them see.
Logos = Jesus. God = trinity. In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with the trinity, Jesus was the trinity. Jesus was in the beginning with the trinity. Not a chance, folks. Deut 6.4-6, Mark 12.28-32, John 17.3, John 20.17, Rom 15.6, Rom 16.27, I Cor 8.6, II Cor 11.31, I Tim 2.5, Rev 3.2, Rev 3.12, and many other scriptures.
Hello Where is the word of God ever a person in the Old Testament? In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with the Father and Jesus was the Father?? That won’t work The word is a personification of God’s word Similar to Wisdom in Proverbs Jesus is referred to by Paul as the Wisdom if God Does that mean a female spirit being named Wisdom transformed into a human named Jesus?? And the word did to? Two being transformed into a human? No Jesus is the embodiment of God’s word and wisdom Jesus is the Messiah The Son of God The Son of David The Son of man The man God has chosen to be his anointed king The man God will judge the world through The man God raised from the dead Jesus will return and rule the nations with believers in the kingdom of God on the earth Jesus has a God There is no triune god in scripture Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. - Acts 3 13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him. 14 But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you, 15 and killed the Prince of life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. Notice Jesus is NOT the God of Abraham 13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him.
“Theos” is a count noun just as is “G/god” in English. So if Jesus is “with God” (the Father) and is God he is either the Father or he’s a separate and distinct G/god. When count nouns are applied to separate and distinct individuals they MUST BE counted separately. Therefore if two people are called “G/god” you have two “G/gods”. Thus, this verse either teaches Modalism or it harmonizes with John 1:18 (Christ is the “only begotten god”) John 10:35, 36, (Christ is a son of God or “a god” just like the angels Ps. 82:1, 6) and 1 Cor. 8:4-6 (which clearly says not only are there those “called gods” but that there “are many gods whether in heaven or on earth”) It certainly doesn’t teach Trinitarianism. That’s just laughable and anyone that uses this verse to prove/teach it is an embarrassment to Christianity.
I see you didn’t address ton Theon (The God). The word was with The God and was god. To simplify this for a Greek scholar such as yourself. The word was a god (theos, Elohim) and was with The God aka the Father. The one and only true God. Sorry to see the false trinity doctrine make you do linguistic gymnastics and ignore obvious signs attesting to the supremacy of the Father.
bible does not have a trinity of gods in any form. We are not sure who told catholics to add or use or imply a trinity. Jews also no nothing of trinities
It was Satan who blinded them to believe that God is a trinity. The SHEMA tell us: Hear O Israel, Jehovah our God is ONE Jehovah! (Deut 6:4) Jesus foretold the apostasy in his parable of the Wheat and the Weeds.
@@othenz9966 Is the Trinity taught in the Old Testament? The word Trinity is not used in the Bible, but the doctrine of the tri-unity of God is clearly taught in the New Testament. The Old Testament does not explicitly teach the doctrine, but the concept of the Trinity is hinted at in certain places. We could say that the Old Testament lays a foundation for the later revelation concerning the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the Hebrew concept of plurality in unity: Deuteronomy 6:4 is a verse that seems, at first, to wholly negate the doctrine of the Trinity: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” (Interestingly, the singular Yahweh is coupled with the plural Elohim in this verse.) The word translated “one” is ehad, which means “one” or “unity”; however, the word is also used in other contexts to suggest a plurality within unity. For example, the word ehad also appears in Genesis 2:24, which considers two persons as one: “[A man] is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one [ehad]” (NLT). Obviously, the husband and wife are distinct persons, but they are called “one”-there is diversity within the unity. The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the names for God: The very fact that God reveals Himself using multiple names in the Old Testament could be a clue pointing to His triune nature. Two of the names show up right away: Elohim in Genesis 1:1, and Yahweh in Genesis 2:4. Some scholars believe the multiple names for God imply a diversity within the Godhead. One of the Hebrew names for “God” in our Bible, Elohim, is plural in form. The -im suffix is plural, and elohim, when not referring to the One True God, is translated as “gods” (plural) in Scripture. The plural form of a name for the One God could be seen as implying a perfect unity of Persons and is certainly consistent with the New Testament teaching of the Trinity. Adonai, translated in our Bibles as “Lord,” occurs about 300 times in the Old Testament. This title for God is also plural. One writer comments on the word Adonai, “It is significant that it is almost always in the plural and possessive, meaning ‘my Lords.’ It confirms the idea of a trinity as found also in the name of Elohim” (Stone, Nathan, The Names of God, Moody Publishers, 2010, p. 35). The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the appearances of the Angel of the Lord: In several places, the Old Testament records encounters with someone called “the Angel of the Lord.” This supernatural presence speaks as if He is God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God. For example, in Genesis 16:10, the Angel of the Lord says to Hagar, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.” Of course, God is the One who blesses Ishmael, but it’s the Angel of the Lord who personally makes the promise to his mother. The same Angel of the Lord appears to Abraham and assumes the role of God, saying, “Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son” (Genesis 22:12, emphasis added ). See also Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8. In several passages, those who see the Angel of the Lord fear for their lives because they had “seen the Lord.” It’s clear that the Angel of the Lord was no mere angel. Viewed through the lens of the New Testament teaching of the Trinity, it’s easy to conclude that the Angel of the Lord could be a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in its descriptions of the Spirit of God: The post-exilic Levites speak of the Spirit of God as being sent by God and speaking for God: “You also gave Your good Spirit to instruct them” (Nehemiah 9:20, NKJV); and “For many years you were patient with them. By your Spirit you warned them through your prophets” (Nehemiah 9:30). Both verses seem to make a distinction between God and another personality called the Spirit of God. See also Isaiah 48:16 and Isaiah 63:10. The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in God’s self-references: Most of the time, God speaks of Himself using singular pronouns (e.g., Exodus 33:19; Hosea 11:9); at other times, He uses plural pronouns: “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness’” (Genesis 1:26, emphasis added). “And the LORD God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil’” (Genesis 3:22, emphasis added). As sinful humanity was erecting the tower of Babel, God said, “Come, let Us go down and confuse their language” (Genesis 11:7, BSB, emphasis added). In Isaiah 6:8, God refers to Himself in both singular and plural terms: “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’” (emphasis added). We could assume that, in each of the above passages, God is simply using the majestic plural to emphasize His power and greatness. Or we could also assume that there’s something more going on-viz., that these statements hint at discrete personalities existing as a unified whole. The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in Messianic passages: In Psalm 110:1, David writes, “The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool’” (NKJV). Here is an example of Yahweh speaking to Adonai and giving Him the place of highest honor in heaven. Jesus pointed to this psalm as proof that the Christ is more than David’s descendant-He is the pre-existent Lord and much greater than David (Matthew 22:41-45). Another Messianic prophecy is found in Psalm 45:6-7: “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” The psalmist, addressing Elohim, suddenly speaks of “your God” who honors and anoints the Addressee. The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the repetition of God’s qualities or His name: In Isaiah 6:3, the angels surrounding God praise Him as being “holy, holy, holy.” The threefold repetition expresses the intensity and completeness of God’s holiness. Some scholars also infer from the angels’ words an expression of the triune nature of God, as the three Persons of the Godhead are each equal in holiness and majesty. Similarly, we have a threefold repetition of God’s name in Numbers 6:24-26: “The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face shine on you and be gracious to you; the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace.” The blessing’s appeal to “the Lord . . . the Lord . . . the Lord” is seen by some scholars as providing a glimpse of the Trinity. In many ways, the Old Testament gives a preview of the New Testament’s fuller revelation, including the doctrine of God as a triune Being. While the Trinity is not clearly seen in the Old Testament, there are certainly indicators of that truth.
@@SunnyLaraJr. Centuries before Jesus gave the illustration of the wheat and the weeds, Jehovah inspired prophet Malachi to foretell events that are reflected in Jesus’ illustration. Malachi 3:1-4 “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight. Look! He will certainly come,” says Jehovah of armies.2 “But who will endure the day of his coming, and who will be able to stand when he appears? For he will be like the fire of a refiner and like the lye of laundrymen.3 And he will sit as a refiner and cleanser of silver and will cleanse the sons of Leʹvi; and he will clarify them like gold and like silver, and they will certainly become to Jehovah people presenting a gift offering in righteousness.4 And the gift offering of Judah and of Jerusalem will actually be pleasing to Jehovah, as in the days of long ago and as in the years of antiquity. John the Baptizer was the ‘messenger who cleared up the way.’ (Matt. 11:10, 11) When he came in 29 C.E., a time of judgment for the nation of Israel had drawn close. Jesus was the second messenger. He cleansed the temple in Jerusalem twice-first at the start of his ministry and second toward the end. (Matt. 21:12, 13; John 2:14-17) Hence, Jesus’ cleansing work involved a period of time. The larger fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy is during the decades leading up to 1914, C. T. Russell and his close associates did a work like that of John the Baptizer. That vital work involved restoring Bible truths. The Bible Students taught the true meaning of Christ’s ransom sacrifice, exposed the hellfire lie, and proclaimed the coming end of the Gentile Times. Still, there were numerous religious groups who claimed to be Christ’s followers. So a crucial question needed to be answered: Who among those groups were the wheat? To settle that question, Jesus began to inspect the spiritual temple in 1914. That inspection and cleansing work involved a period of time-from 1914 to the early part of 1919. When Jesus began his inspection, he find a small group of zealous Bible Students who for well over 30 years had given their strength and fortunes to pursue a vigorous preaching campaign. What a joy it must have been for Jesus and the angels to find that those relatively few but sturdy wheat stalks had not been choked by Satan’s weeds! Still, there arose a need to “cleanse the sons of Levi,” the anointed ones. (Mal. 3:2, 3; 1 Pet. 4:17) In late 1914, some Bible Students were disheartened because they had not gone to heaven. During 1915 and 1916, opposition from outside the organization slowed down the preaching work. Worse, after Brother Russell’s death in October 1916, opposition arose from inside the organization. Four of the seven directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society rebelled against the decision to have Brother Rutherford take the lead. They tried to cause division among the brothers, but in August 1917, they left Bethel-a cleansing indeed! Also, some Bible Students gave in to the fear of man. Still, as a whole, they willingly responded to Jesus’ cleansing work and made the needed changes. Hence, Jesus judged them to be true Christian wheat, but he rejected all imitation Christians, including all of those found within the churches of Christendom. (Mal. 3:5; 2 Tim. 2:19)
PART 2 THEY CELEBRATE ALL THE PAGAN GODS AND TRADTIONS>... JUST IMPLEMENTED IN CHRISTIANITY FROM CONSTANTINE WHO USE THE RELIGION TO GO TO WAR... AND WHAT YESHUA TEACHES ABOUT THOSE WHO USE SWARDS... TO NOT USE THEM... TO NOT KILL, TO LOVE THEIR NUMBERS... WHY BECAUSE IN ORDER TO INHERIT HEAVENLY KINGDOM, YOU SHOULD OBEY YAHS COMMANDMENTS WHICH ARE THE SAME IN OLD AND NEW TESTAMeNT... CAUSE THEY ARE THE MORAL STANDARD OF YAH... AND NOT CEREMONIAL THAT WAS GIVEN AS INSTRUCTION TO SAVE PEOPLE FROM DISEASES, PURITY AND NOT LIKE HOLY... BUT REALLY DON'T EAT THESE ANIMALS < CAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE VETS, TO CHECK THE MEAT< AND YOU ARE IN THE DESERT AND DOES ANIMA EAT DEAD MEANT WIT BACTERIA... YOU SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM MEN WHO HAVE WET DREAMS... CAUSE MAYBE THERE IS A CHANCE THAT YOU CAN CONCEIVE THE BABY THAT YOU DON'T WANT... YOU SHOULD PUT YOUR PUP OUTSIDE OF THE CAMPUS AND BURIED... IN ORDER TO FLY DON'T PASS THAT TO FOODS... AND YOU ALL CAN BE REAL...AND WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT... IT WAS IMPORTANT SO MESSIAH CAN COME FROM THE CLEAN BLOODLINE OF MARY... CAUSE PROMISES WERE GIVEN ABUT WOMAN SID...AND YESHUA'S FATHER WAS NOT MAN... BUT YAH... THAT'S WHY HE WAS A PERFECT PASSOVER LAMB...CAUSE SIN WAS NOT PASSED THROUGH HIM OVER FATHERS BLOOD... MARY WAS FROM DAVID LINES...AND JOESPH WHO WAS NOT HIS FATHER... AND WHO IS THE DAN MESSIAH... CAUSE PROMISES WERE GIVEN FROM WOMAN SEAD... AND DAVID BLOODLINE... MARY HAS DAVID DNA... EVEN IF SHE DIDN'T PASS HIS BLOOD THROUGH, CHRIST... WHY? CAUSE HE CAN'T BE A SINNER... THAT'S WHY DISCIPLES TACH THAT GENEALOGY WAS GIVEN TO SEE, BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT... AND THAT WHAT HE CLEAN IT WAS CLEAN... AND HE DIDN'T CLEAN OUR FLESH AND BLOOD... CAUSE THEY ALL DIE IN FLASH, OR STILL HAVE DESIS, AND STILL ARE OPPRESS..> BUT HE TEACH THEM THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN ME WILL LIVE EVEN IF THEY DIE...AND JOHN SEES THEM IN HEAVEN... SOULS THAT WERE KILLED FOR HIS NAME... CAUSE THEY DIDN'T FIGHT BACK... AND DIDN'T DENIED HIM... AND HE SAW THAT THEY GOT NEW WHITE GARMENTS... WHAT (NEW GLORIFIED BODYS) THEY WERE IN HEAVEN ... ALL THE TIMES... FROM SEALS< TRUMPETS< BOWLS WITCH WAS EVENT NOT IN ONE DAY>... BUT ITS THE SERIES OF EVENTS... FOR DIFFERENT TIMES...THEY ALL BELIEVED THAT RESURRECTION WILL BE ON THE LAST DAY... BUT HE RISEN PROPHETS AS THE FIRST FRUIT TO GODS..>TO SEAT ON THORNES... AND HE SEYS IN JOHN... NOW IS THE TIME TO JUDGE THE WORLD... AND THOSE WHO DIE IN CHRIST WILL LIVE EVEN IF THEY DIE... CAUSE THEY WILL GET NEW BODYS IN HEAVEN, IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE... AND THAT IS HOW THOSE WHO DIE IN HIM WILL BECOME LAST... AND THOSE WHO DIDN'T KNOW HIM (GENERATIONS BEFORE HIM) THE FIRSTS WILL BECOME LASTS...CAUSE THEY WILL HAVE RISEN IN THE END...BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO DIE IN CHRIST... AND HE TELLS THEM YAH IS NOT GOD OF THE DEATH... LIKE THEY BELIEVED EVEN DAVID WROTE ABOUT THAT...AND WHO APPEAR WHEN YESHUA TRENSFIGURATES... ARE MOSES WAS NOT DEAD? MOSES APPEARS AND ELIJAH...WHAT MOESE IS ALIVE? AND WHAT PARABLE ABOUT LAZURUS HE TELLS... AND LATER LAZARUS DIE AND HE RISEN HIM... HE WAS NOT SAD BECAUSE HE DIES... BUT BECAUSE LAZARUS WAS WITH AVRAHAM...ON A GOOD PLACE>...AND HE TAKES HIM BACK TO THIS PURGATORY... ON EARTH... AND HE KNOWS THAT THEY WILL CHASE HIM, OPPRESS HIM AND TRY TO KILL HIM AGAIN... AND WHEN HE SAW HOW PEOPLE DONT HAVE AN IDEA ABOUT THE DETH... HE WAS SAD FOR THEIR UNKNOLAGE>...HE SAW HOW THEY CRY...AND HE DOESN'T HAS AN IDEA... THAT'S WHY HE LATER SAYS I GIVE YOU PEACE THAT THE WORLD WHO DOESN'T KNOW THAT DOESN'T HAVE...CAUSE THEY AFRAID OF DEATH, CAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW>... BUT YOU KNOW... AND YOU HAVE PEACE>... YOU WILL HAVE PERSECUTION, AND SOME OF YOU WILL DIE...BUT DONT BE AFRAID OF THOSE WHO CAN KILL YOUR BODY...BUT BE AFRAID OF THOSE WHO CAN KILL YOUR SOUL... THAT'S WHY BY THAT TEACHINGS FIRST BELIEVERS DIE IN HIM...NOT AFRAID BUT WITH SONG...BE BLESSED AND UNDERSTAND WHAT HE TEACHES...NOT WAT CONSTANTINE'S RELIGION EXPLAIN CAUSE THEY ARE FALSE TEACHERS...CAUSE THEY PREACH AND TWIST HIS WORS...
This John 1:1 means Jesus is God. Read Rev 1:8. There is no trinity. Made man philosophy. Read the 1st commandment. If you believe there are commandments.
@@bobpolo2964 to ask me that: I dont think you read Rev 1:8. “"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the ALMIGHTY."” - Rev 1:8 (NKJV) HE doesn't say his another person besides God. He claims to be God. So how then do you arrive at a trinity? On Earth God came as a part of himself a man on earth. He had to die, so on earth in flesh he was not fully God in flesh, but had the Spirit of the Almighty. God cannot die, a man can. So saved by His blood. He returns to heaven as the Almighty. God is Spirit in heaven. One spirit, one God. Please read the first commandment in exodus 20. And read deuteronomy 6. Hope you understand. Lets move from being fed milk and solid food. From babes to men led by the spirit of the Most High. God bless you further.
@@bobpolo2964 not at all. On earth Jesus is a man because He had to die for our sins. Mine and your included. God cannot DIE. So john 1:1 God put on flesh and died. Not He returns to being the Father in Heaven again. In the fullness Rev 1: 8 I Am the Almighty. Jesus said. Who is worthy of opening the scrolls? No not one...Not God...God can't open the scrolls? Because its open Him on the throne. Seated at the right hand is not literal...its an expression to mean...My right hand man..He is the one who can do it. Him only. There is no evidence in the entity of book of revelation that three or even two sit on the throne. Please Note further that in Heaven God is not a man but a Spirit. ...if you holding to a bodily Jesus in heaven then this leads to the carnal thinking that God is three. I hope you understand. Ask again or dispute this its fine brother. I am in the Father and the FATHER the Lord Lord Jesus is in me. I choose to walk in HIM and not pagan christian philosophy. Dr dee and dr dum cannot help you serve God and he will reveal himself to you. GOD IS a Great God and he is powerful and Mighty as one ....he don't need to be lowered as 3 persons in one. GOD IS NOT A PERSON!! He is the Great I AM. NOT want you want to define him as. He defines Himself. I am not screaming or ranting I'm just highlighting the point. THE ALMIGHTY bless you.
@@bobpolo2964 No. The Earthly reign of Jesus is over. HE reigns in the heart of man as a Spirit. At one stage two thousand years ago Jesus walked the earth. He is not Walking the earth now. Please note God is a Spirit and one spirit. Please search in a bible app one Spirit, then one God. TYPE god the son, and god the holy spirit. You do it and search these phrases. Search " faith alone". You will be alarmed my friend. God The Almighty be with you.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος Translation: In the beginning. Comment: And you will notice that there is no Greek word ‘τη’, the article corresponding with the English translation “the”, but Greek can often imply the definiteness of the object in a prepositional phrase. Therefore, within the context, I think we are very right to add the word, “the” here. The word “The” is often implied for the object of a preposition. The author is clearly alluding to Genesis chapter one verse one. This phrase, “Ἐν ἀρχῇ” is referring to the pre-temporal existence of the λόγος. Notice how your nominative subject (ὁ λόγος) is marked with the article. The word was in existence. The verb ἦν is the third-person singular imperfect indicative of the verb εἰμί, to be.
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν The Word was with God. The Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (EGGNT) Murray J. Harris. Dr. Rob Plummer says, “I think Murray Harris is right in his EGGNT commentary to note that the preposition “πρὸς” is frequently used to speak of just close personal relationship among people. Therefore, we should not make too much of the word “πρὸς” within this phrase. Therefore, we can translate this phrase to say that the λόγος is in close communion with or close relationship with God, τὸν θεόν. The Word was with God. θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος Here we have the verb ἦν, and it is acting like an equal sign. We have a subject nominative and we have a predicative nominative. A question arises. How do we know which one is the subject of this sentence? The subject in such cases is marked frequently with the article. Therefore, we can translate this phrase to say, “…and the Word was God.” This is a striking language. In this verse, we see that the Word is distinguished from God. We see this concept in the second statement. The Word is with God. Yet, the Word is himself also called “God”. "We can say so much about this." Rob Plummer says, “I think what is very clear is that the full deity of the second person of the triune God is being asserted here. He is called, “God”. We can get into all the reasons why the article is not present here. I will put a footnote here. If you struggle with why the article is not in front of the word “θεὸς”, there are many different ways we can explain this. Colwell's Rule and sentence structure. Yet, if you look at John chapter 20 and verse 28, Jesus is unambiguously called ὁ θεὸς. The article is there." He goes onto say, “If there is any gospel in the New Testament that is extremely clear about the full deity of the second person of the triune God, it is the Gospel of John.”
Thanks for this. I've shared it on my community tab and hope others will watch. Good stuff!
Subscribed to both daily dose of Hebrew and daily dose of Greek thanks to you 😁 love this kind of stuff!
Didn’t expect to find you here, Mike! 😂
John P You clearly didn’t watch the video. Also, the word for one in the Shema often implies unified oneness, not a numerical one. There is another word for a specific numeric one in Hebrew that is never used in reference to God.
@@gabesantamaria3805 you are wrong. Your are redefining the word YEHOVAH and the word Almighty. You playing with words to fit your position. And pagan Gods are triune in nature. Does God identify with the enemy? Or is God of the bible set apart. You know why you must not keep the commandments and its the Law. Because the commandments identify Gid, the first four. Re-read them and see the hidden agenda of the Catholic World system. PAGAN religions hold value of the Sunday and The Triune nature. With these two non biblical sabbath and the identity of God it is very easy to come to a common new world religion. They have they same commonality. This is how the beast system will be established. We who keep commandments and are set apart and we know good. As the bible says those who do the commandments have great wisdom and understanding and God will reveal himself to us. Since you speak like the world it is clear you have received the spirit of the world. I have received the Spirit of Truth. I have the way, the way is truth it leads to life. My God took me out of bondage and out of Egypt and gave commandments and i listen to Him. Ex 20. Read up. I then dollow God Almighty and not build for myself a golden calf . Iam worshipping the MOST HIGH one True God, not a theology jesuit god of the pagans. Let God be true and everyman a liar.
@@johnp3081 wow! Where did that come from? MikeinMinnesota
These are truly gold. Still gold 3 years later.
Still good 4 years later! 😊
Insider joke; we are all thinking about Jehovah’s Witnesses when we read this verse lol
Most definitely
THINK about The writer, Ἰωάννης, the Apostle. And HOW an "envoy/sent one" is a god, for WHO represents:
📜 Exodus 4:16, (4:12: "Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak")
📜 Exodus 7:1 (7:2: "You are to say everything I command you")
📜 Psalms 82:6 (82:3: "Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.")
📖 John 10:34-36 (12:49: "For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken").
@@raulramos5246
"...Whereas the inclusion of Jesus in the eschatological sovereignty of God is found in all the New Testament literature, his inclusion in the work of creation is less widespread, but is found in 1 Corinthians, Colossians, Hebrews, Revelation and the Gospel of John. Since it is of less direct relevance to most of the concerns of the New Testament writers, this is not surprising. What is noteworthy is that in three of these cases (1 Corinthians, Hebrews and John) the purpose, in my view, is precisely to express Jewish monotheism in christological terms. It is not that these writers wish to say anything about the work of creation for its own sake or even that they wish to say anything about the relationship of Christ to creation for its own sake, but that they wish precisely to include Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. Including him precisely in the divine activity of creation is the most unequivocal way of excluding any threat to monotheism-as though Jesus were a subordinate demigod while redefining the unique identity of God in a way that includes Jesus. To illustrate the point, we shall examine the earliest of these texts: 1 Corinthians 8:6. This passage in its context reads:
'Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'there is no idol in the world' and that 'there is no God except one.' 'Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -as in fact there are many gods and many lords -but for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.'
Paul's concern in this context is explicitly monotheistic. The issue of eating meat offered to idols and participation in temple banquets is an instance of the highly traditional Jewish monotheistic concern for loyalty to the only true God in a context of pagan polytheistic worship. What Paul does is to maintain this Jewish monotheistic concern in a Christian interpretation for which loyalty to the only true God entails loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ. He takes up from the Corinthians' letter (at the end of verse 4) the typical Jewish monotheistic formula 'there is no God except one' in order to agree with it and to give, in verse 6, his own fuller monotheistic formulation, which contrasts the 'many gods and many lords' of the Corinthians' pagan environment (verse 5) with the one God and one Lord to whom Christians owe exclusive allegiance.
Verse 6 is a carefully formulated statement,
a. but for us [there is] one God, the Father,
b. from whom [are] all things and we for him,
c. and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
d. through whom [are] all things and we through him.
The statement has been composed from two sources, both clearly recognizable. One is the Shema`, the classic Jewish statement of the uniqueness of God, taken from the Torah itself, recited twice daily by all observant Jews...It is now commonly recognized that Paul has here adapted the Shema° and produced, as it were, a Christian version of it. Not so widely recognized is the full significance of this. In the first and third lines of Paul's formula (labelled a and c above), Paul has, in fact, reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema` (Deut. 6:4: 'The LORD our God, the LORD, is one'), but Paul has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the Shema` speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing, not christological monotheism, but outright ditheism. The addition of a unique Lord to the unique God of the Shema` would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter. The only possible way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God affirmed in the Shema. But this is, in any case, clear from the fact that the term 'Lord', applied here to Jesus as the 'one Lord, is taken from the Shema` itself. Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema` a 'Lord' the Shema` does not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the 'Lord' whom the Shema` affirms to be one. Thus, in Paul's quite unprecedented reformulation of the Shema`, the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah. Contrary to what many exegetes who have not sufficiently understood the way in which the unique identity of God was understood in Second Temple Judaism seem to suppose, by including Jesus in this unique identity Paul is certainly not repudiating Jewish monotheism, whereas were he merely associating Jesus with the unique God he certainly would be repudiating monotheism."-Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity
John 1:1-5; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12; Rev. 3:14.
The 'our' of the Shema` appears as the 'for us' at the beginning of Paul's reformulation.
F.F. Bruce, I and 2 Corinthians (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971), 80; D.R. de Lacey, "'One Lord" in Pauline Christology,' in Christ the Lord, ed. Harold H. Rowdon (D. Guthrie FS; Leicester: IVP, 1982), 191-203; Dunn, Christology, 180; Hurtado, One God, 97; N. Thomas Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 128-9; D.A. Hagner, 'Paul's Christology and Jewish Monotheism,' in Perspectives on Christology, ed. M. Shuster and R. Muller (P.K. Jewett; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 28-9; Neil Richardson, Paul's Language about God (JSNTSup 99; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 300; B. Witherington III, Jesus the Sage (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 316.
@@raulramos5246
"'In what did Second Temple Judaism consider the uniqueness of the one God to consist, what distinguished God as unique from all other reality, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles?, the answer given again and again, in a wide variety of Second Temple Jewish literature, is that the only true God, YHWH, the God of Israel, is sole Creator of all things and sole Ruler of all things.
While these characteristics are by no means sufficient to identify God (since they say nothing, for example, about his goodness or his justice), they are the features which most readily distinguish God absolutely from all other reality. God alone created all things; all other things, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles, are created by him. God alone rules supreme over all things; all other things, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles, are subject to him. These ways of distinguishing God as unique formed a very easily intelligible way of defining the uniqueness of the God they worshipped which every Jew in every synagogue in the late Second Temple period would certainly have known. However diverse Judaism may have been in many other respects, this was common: only the God of Israel is worthy of worship because he is sole Creator of all things and sole Ruler of all things. Other beings who might otherwise be thought divine are by these criteria God's creatures and subjects."-Richard Bauckham
Isa. 40:26, 28; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12, 18; 48:13; 51:16; Neh. 9:6; Hos. 13:4 LXX; 2 Macc. 1:24; Sir. 43:33; Bel 5; Jub. 12:3-5; Sib. Or. 3:20-35; 8:375-76; Sib. Or. frg. 1:5-6; Sib. Or. frg. 3; Sib. Or. frg. 5; 2 En. 47:3-4; 66:4; Apoc. Ab. 7:10; Ps-Sophocles; Jos. Asen. 12:1-2; T. Job 2:4.
Dan. 4:34-35; Bel 5; Add. Esth. 13:9-11; 16:18, 21; 3 Macc. 2:2-3; 6:2; Wis. 12:13; Sir. 18:1-3; Sib. Or. 3:10, 19; Sib. Or. frg. 1:7,15,17,35; 1 En. 9:5; 84:3; 2 En. 33:7; 2 Bar. 54:13; Josephus, A.J. 1:155-6.
Read my mind or should I say read my the mind?
I'm so grateful to the Lord that I found your channel! God bless your efforts!
Thank you so much for doing this! For years, your daily video has given me fresh learning and refreshing of greek.
Great to hear! Thank you.
What is Colwell's "rule"? I know it had too many exceptions to be a real rule, but I can't remember what it was supposed to be...? (what he wanted it to be). John 1:1 reminded me of my conversations Jehovah's Witnesses
and what Colwell's rule implied, and their objections to what John was saying left them with a Big GOD and a little god, making them sound like polytheists, in spite of their militant claims to monotheism. Thank you.
I just subscribed.
One other thing that JWs get wrong is that John would never have said “a god” because even as a Jew he only believed that there was ever only one God.
Actually their assertion is valid. I've thoroughly studied and earned my Master of Divinity (M.Div.) with a specialization in Orthodox Theology. When examining John 1:1 in its original Greek, the difference between "ὁ θεός" (ho theos) and "θεὸς" (theos) is of considerable significance. The former, with the definite article "ὁ" (ho), denotes "the God" or "the divine one," typically referring to the Father in the New Testament. On the other hand, the latter, lacking the definite article, "θεὸς" (theos), can be translated simply as "God" or "a god." This contrast has led to various interpretations of the verse, including some that support the idea of the Word (λόγος) being divine in likeness but not necessarily identical to the Father.
Awesome! Great way to refresh my Biblical Greek
Dr. Plummer, I am so very pleased with this. Years ago I took Greek, taught in the classical way, but have never been able to get fluent in it. As missionary in Africa I learned from Proff Ted and Elizabeth Brewster (from Fuller) how to learn a language in context, not individual words. In a very short time I mastered Zulu, a language with very many conjugations and no words that are familiar to us. I am telling others about this.
You are doing what the Brewsters taught: "Learn a little, repeat it a lot" I am re-playing every verse over and over.
Breaking down verses like you do is my preferred method of learning. I like the Inductive approach with just enough grammar sprinkled in to answer the question: "Why is the word or phrase written as it is"? With you as a teacher, it is hard to believe that anyone would not be able to learn NT Greek. Thanks for your work!
I love these videos, because they are concise, thorough and not taken out of context.
I've subscribed.
In John 20:28 the article is included entirely grammatically.
It's common in Greek to say "the servant of me" rather than just "my servant" or "the father of me" rather than just "my father." Either one can work.
In this verse Thomas says "the lord of me and the god of me." Now you can argue what he meant by "the god of me" but to claim that "the god" here is grammatically equivalent to "the god" in say John 3:2 is just wrong. In John 20:28 it's part of a construction meant to indicate possession.
Why did you disregard translating the article "ton" that precedes God; this "ton/the" demonstrates the subtle distinction between THE Being and His Logos.
Thank you for the videos. Great way to practice grammar. I hated Greek grammar, but I did well. understanding was not an issue. I failed to exercise patience. I continue to learn daily. Many blessings to you and yours, in Jesus name.
Looking foward to this new series through John 😁
Great to hear Simon!
I beginning learn the greek. Yours regulaty podcast, it's great support to me. Спасибо!)
It actually would be interesting to hear your comments on the article in Jn 1:1C. It seems to be a pretty divisive issue.
Hi.. i just want to aks you about the gramatical rules regarding the articles.
Is that true there is rules if in 1 clause you found 2 nouns where each noun have an article, like kai ho logos en pros ton theon, that is shown that ho logos and ton theon is 2 diferent "person"?
And if in 1 clause there are 2 nouns, but only 1 noun that have an article, this mean the non article noun is explaining the quality of the noun whit article? Like kai theos en ho logos, this mean theos is describing the quality of ho logos, which mean ho logos is having a divine quality?
Thank you for your time to answer my question.
St. John is an incredible writer of theology.
I have so many questions, what is the use of tòv and what is the difference between the two different words both used to mean God, why use two different words, is this implicate of the trinity? I love John, but I only know it’s English translations and am just starting to learn Greek and Hebrew.
So much to learn! Im grateful for this channel
Rich text of Greek! Thank you
Thanks for this!
Direct, to the point, & great as a review or for those new to Koine Greek.
Amen and Gen 1 -3 Jn 1:3 1st creation 2nd strong meat. this reading deserves a Study into " I Am. "
Amen. I'm here from Mike Winger's channel & subscribed!
Add the English in writing by the Greek word.
That will increase the value and help me to select verses quickly.
some greek scholars translate this passage as " the word was deity" or "the word was divine ".
Also, in John 17:3 Jesus clearly says that the only true God is the Father.
Very confusing, for it to be the word of God....
kindly teach definite article noun on passage Jonh1:1-5..thank you
For those of us that want to jump back directly to the Greek reading:
Start: 0:08
End 0:20
I don't think I know English well enough to understand this lol
Do 2 Peter next!
Okay, I'm working through the theological implications of this verse from the Greek, and it appears that we can infer that there is a distinction between God and the Word, while deity is being predicated of the Word in much the same way that "maleness" is being predicated of the Word in this made up verse:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the male, and male was the Word.
The reason for substituting "male" for God, and including the definite articles seen in the Greek is that I think that this bypasses the peculiarities of the word "God" in English. (God is a name in English, and also a noun) However, in the Greek the presence of the definite article indicates that God is not a name, so the article is needed to show that the subject is particular.
Hence, the word "God" in Greek is analogous to the word "Male" in English. Consequently, as it the case that "Male" and "the male" are not equivalent, and therefore we may not infer that "the male" is the Word, so it is also the case that the two instances of the word "God" in the English translation are not equivalent, and therefore we may not infer that God was the Word (Modalism).
Yet, as in our made up verse maleness is predicated of the Word equally as it holds of "the Male", we must similarly infer that in John 1:1 deity is predicated of the Word, I.e : The Word was God.
So I would argue, out of ignorance of Greek knowledge, that adding the word “the” in a typical modern Bible is equivalent to JWs adding the word “a” at the end of the verse. The reasoning you gave to adding “the” is similar to the reasoning they gave to adding “a”.
I would disagree because the reason JWs use to defend the indefinite article is theological as opposed to it being grammatical. They assume the indefinite article because it proves their point.
Either rendering is ultimately theological. Whether it be “a god” or “God”. There’s no rule of Greek grammar which demands either translation (in this instance). It ultimately depends on the theological background assumptions of the translators.
@@fearoftehdark That is untrue. Their's, the NWT's, is a grammatical and syntactical basis for an indefinite translation of the anarthrous theos of John 1.1c. It basically concerns it being a singular anarthrous predicate nominative. It is one of predication not identification. There is no basis for it being definite which the "the Word/Logos was God" translation requires.
Great video series on John - Any thanks
Many thanks.
For Jesus.. from india.. tq
Is there anything in the greek context or following verses that would refute the common unitarian idea that "the word" is simply God the Father's wisdom and later on when the "word becomes flesh" they just see this as the wisdom of God becoming flesh and not an actual person?
If you are going to swap around the word order on the last part why not the first part also? It looks like the sentence structure is the same.
The Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinate article ("a" or "an"), so it is not surprising that indefinate articles are missing from the original ancient text. As to the meaning of John 1:1, one must then consider the context. The fact that the verse says that the Word was with God helps to clarify the meaning, since one cannot be "with" another being, and also "be" that being. Also, consider the context of the chapter, further on in verse 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.”
John 1:18. Some translate this bosom position as being close to his heart, which, Jesus, being beloved, was and is close to his Father's heart.
So, no man has seen God AT ANY TIME, in other words, EVER, but many people, both men and woman saw Jesus Christ. The scriptures refer to Jesus Christ many times as the Son of God, but did Jesus ever say that he was God? No.
A voice from a cloud, from God, however clearly identified who Jesus was, "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." Luke 9:35. Also, at Jesus baptism God speaking from heaven clearly identifed who Jesus was, "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17. Was God declaring that he was pleased with Himself? Or does it not make more sense that he was pleased with his Son Jesus and wanted others to know that this was the long awaited Messiah and that they should listen to and follow Chist? Jesus referred to his Father as his God at John 20:17, "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."
Therefore, by considering the context of John 1:1, the chapter of John 1, and the book of John, the true identity of Jesus becomes very clear. There are many other Bible verses that clearly identify Jesus.
Truth is revealed by searching the entire word of God, not just one verse by itself, which can be misunderstood due to translation.
Your presupposition that Jesus could not be with God and be God is just wrong. It confuses the essence of the Being with the person.
That's aways where anti-trinitarian interpretations fall apart. However TBH one does not have to be a scholar to figure out this. The implications of making Jesus a god with a lower case basically destroys all the rest of Christian theology and empties it from any meaning die to it's inconsistency.
@@Luiz__Silva I'm sure that we can agree that God is a God of truth, and therefore He cannot lie, nor can He contradict himself. Also, it appears that you view the Scriptures as God's word of truth, do you not? Therefore, it should be considered that Jesus stated clearly in Scripture that he was God's son, however, Jesus never states anywhere in Scripture that he is God. It is only men who said this, enemies of Jesus when accusingnhim of blasphemy actually said Jesus was making himself equal to God.
Another thought to consider or question to ask is this: We know that Jesus was a real person, a real man, and many men were eyewitnesses of this fact, correct? How is is then, that the Bible clearly states that no man has seen God at any time? John 1:18 And, in addition God himself states in Scripture that 'no man may see me and yet live', Exodus 33:20, and yet again, many, many people saw the man Jesus Christ. How is this possible?
Another question to consider, if Jesus is God, why did he pray to God, was he pleading with tears and sweat like drops of blood to himself, pleading with himself to give help to himself? Jesus speaks of his Father as his Father, but also as his God. John 20:17 Was Jesus a god to himself? At w Cor 1:3 the Apostle Paul states that the Father is the God of Jesus Christ.
Far from being un-Christian to state the truth of God's word, it is entirely Christian to speak the unadulterated truth.
The trinity doctrine is not found anywhere in Scripture, but Jesus simple and truthful words about himself and his Father are found in the Bible, as well as God's own statements about himself ("no man may see me and live"), and additionally the Apostles and other Bible writer's statements about Jesus and about the Father, the only true God John 17:3, are found in Scripture for all who seek and desire the truth.
Sorry about typos above: 2 Cor. 1:3 is where Paul state that the Father is the God of Jesus. Jesus enemies, when accusing Jesus of blasphemy said Jesus was making himself equal to God.
Yes, I believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God. However, I don't presume the being of God can be easily understood by the human mind. Actually, the Bible clearly states unregenerate minds cannot understand spiritual things.
Now, in all your answers, you tried to use basic human logic but failed to understand important truths about God.
When you argue that Jesus would not pray to God if he was God, you fail to recognize, again, the distinction between the being and nature of God and the personhood of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And also how the Son emptied himself from the equality he had with the Father.
Jesus is the logos and the Word incarnate. Nothing that was created was created without Him. And all that was made was made by and for Him.
You also misunderstood the naturen of His Sonship. Why would you assume that being called Son of God means He was created? He is also called Son of Man, isn't he? Does it mean he was created by men? These are messianic titles and they denote Jesus had two natures: divine and human. Being called Son of God, just as then gospels affirm, attests to the fact that Jesus made himself equal with God, again, in nature and not in person.
Making Jesus less than God would make him less than an ideal salvation. Animal sacrifices would not pay for our infinite offenses to God, our sins. Human sacrifices wouldn't do either. An angelic sacrifice, maybe? An angel, no matter how powerful, wouldn't have power to give his life and to take it back away, because angels don't have power over life or death, as they are not divine and not creators.
My sins were paid on the cross by the God-man Jesus to save His chosen people and that's what gives me confidence of an eternal life I cannot lose or forsake. There's nothing more precious than my savior because God is my savior and no one else.
@@Luiz__Silva
@Luiz Silva
You obviously have very deep seated beliefs, strong convictions about what you believe. I agree that, as humans, and especially as imperfect, fallen humans, we cannot fully understand all that there is to know about God, (Rom 11:33-34) however, the Scriptures clearly inform us that our very salvation is completely dependant upon our coming to know God (John 17:3, 1 John 4:6), that it is possible to know God and understand Him (Jeremiah 31:34) to the extent required for salvation, and they, the Scriptures, also inform us that Jesus has explained God, made him known, in order that we may come to know Him, that is Our Father. "No man has ever seen God at any time; the only begotton god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him." John 1:18.
Jesus taught his followers to pray and address God in prayer as, "Our Father" just as he addressed his Father as Father. Does this mean that we, because we address God as "Our Father" that we are also God. No, it is very simple and clear that we are to have a close, personal relationship with God, as children have with their Fathers (or ought to). God is not to be to us a being so strange and foreign that we cannot relate to Him and really love Him. James says that if we "Draw close to God" He will draw close to us. James 4:8.
And, it is certainly true, Jesus did enjoy a pre-human existance with his Father, in heaven, and as a spirit person, prior to his Father sending him to earth (John 1:15; John 3:16; see also John 13:17, "For God sent fort his Son into the world..." "Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is the one sent forth greater than the one that sent him.", this shows the Father is greater than the Son, whereas the trinity doctrine states none is greater or less than the other.. Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I am." John 14:28) He, Jesus, at that time was "with God" John 1:1. Also, being a heavenly Son of God, he was a spirit and had a divine nature, being a god, god-like, thus John says so in John 1:1, where a number of translators use the term "and he was divine" in order to convey the writer's intended meaning. As stated above, the ancient Greek had no article "a" so it would not read in Greek as "a god"; the meaning can only be determined by the context of the phrase, and that context, by saying the Word was "with God" makes it obvious that the Word was "with God", and and therefore apart from and outside of God. He was like God, being of divine nature, the same type of spirit being. Also, in understanding John 1:1, the surrounding context of John 1 needs to be considered as well, vs. 18 states clearly, "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotton god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him." And, the Scriptures state, when he was with his Father, all other things were created through him and for him.
Along this line of thought if we examine Genesis we see that when about to create mankind, there is more than one person spoken of involved in the creation of man, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness..." Therefore, even prior to Jesus being sent by his Father to the earth, they was more than a single personage, referred to as, "us" and the possessive "in our image....our likeness".
Further on that thought then, man, being created in God's image and likeness and also like his Son, was mankind created as a trinity, three persons in one? Of course not. We know that a son is not the same person as a father, and a father is not his son, though they are of the same nature and may be very much alike in many ways. The Scriptures, in portraying God the Creator as a Father with a son, make God understandable and relatable to his human children, as we understand the relationship of fathers and sons, they are not the same people, although alike, and related.
As for the ransom for our souls, you are correct, animals are below man and could not truly be an adequate sacrifice for mankind's sins. The Scriptures state that a corresponding or equal ransom was required to pay the price. Only a perfect man could pay the price and repurchase mankind from sin and death. Jesus is referred to as the "last Adam" because by giving his perfect human life he repurchased mankind from sin and death and opened the way to reconciliation with God and the hope of eternal life. John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22; 1 Tim 2:6; Matt. 20:28
Should be hard for me since I am Chinese, but still so very useful!
Great video thanks
Question: Similar to the last statement (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), is not the first statement (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος) an example where λόγος is the subject-nominative? In other words, I submit an English translation might better read, "The Word was in the beginning, the Word was with God and the Word was God." Thoughts?
Interesting. To bad no response.
For some reason these videos are blurred for me.
I don’t speak Greek but I’m becoming more and more interested in a non biased take on John 1 because people seem to need this verse to confirm the divinity of Jesus.
I’m a believer who doesn’t believe Jesus is God. “Pros” means “towards” right? The piece should say “… and the logos was towards God”. “With” is not a great word to solve the closeness between this logos and God. If pros means towards as in the logos was moving in the direction of God, then use a word like “followed” “chased” “moves with” anything that doesn’t suggest equality between the logos and God.
The sentence structure early in this verse reads like English: “in the beginning was the word”. I see the definite article next to logos and yet it doesn’t say “the logos in the beginning”. If we don’t change the structure due to the article in this part of the verse, why do reverse the Greek word structure at the end of the verse from “God was the word” to “The word was God”???
I don’t want my bias to inform what I’m reading in the Greek. Are there any thoughts about this?
So what is Jesus? Is he someone picked up off the street an decided to use?
What are the good points and bad point of Jesus being God, or Jesus NOT being God?
You will die in your sins and go to hell if you don't believe Jesus is God
Writing with Johnnie: I find it interested that you say you are a believer and yet you add that you do not believe Jesus is God. By that, I assume you are saying you don't believe that Jesus share the attributes that the Father has. If we were looking at only this verse, perhaps you could have reason for your conclusion. However, by reading the rest of the Gospel of John and by reading the other gospels, I would have a hard time understanding why you do not think Jesus had the same attributes that his Father had. There is so much to say here, but I would ask you what do you think about Jesus.
@@barryhohulin5634 Jesus was a man, "born of a woman" flesh and blood, not God. God can not be born, or grow older, or hunger and thirst, or feel pain, or die. If a god can die, I don't think a cross and nails could kill it. Jesus was the messiah, the anointed, and he was a man. He becomes the Son of God, and THIS is the only claim that Jesus made. How do I know this? Consider the trial scene in each gospel account. Imagine watching the OJ Simpson trial and no one in the prosecution brings up the murder of two people. Imagine watching the Bill Cosby trial and no one in the prosecution brings up drugging women or rape. In the prosecution of Jesus, "false witnesses" were used, which is odd, if he is on trial for blasphemy wouldn't he have truthful witnesses? But also the high priest asks the question, "are you the christ, the son of Son" and Jesus responds, "you have said". If an objective non bias law student read the case file of Jesus's blasphemy trial, they would come to the conclusion that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God but his opponents didn't believe him. They would not say, Jesus claimed to be God. The prosecution has him, got him, all they need is proof, and no one mentions John 10:30, no one quotes Jesus from John 8:58, the false witnesses only say that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple and rebuild it. To them this guy was crazy, not someone who claimed to be God or else the case files would reflect it. Or perhaps, the prosecution sucked and refused to use the claims to divinity that you read in the gospels, but I doubt that. I think we have been taught poorly about the divinity of jesus and are recycling bad teachings, teachings I used to believe
@@writingwithjohnnie2024 Thanks for your reply.
2:19 tri-un god is Greek or English?
I would suggest reading Philip B Harners take on this.. I think you'll find most of the time if a predicate noun precedes the verb it has a primarily qualitive meaning, a better rendering is probably "and the word had the nature of God"
If John wants to say The Word is a third person in a triune God, why make "God" the object of the sentence?, Why not "The Father" and "Holy spirit"
isn't identity definite in Greek? e.g The Peter/ The Satan/ The Jesus?
Amen❤🎉
Elohai which we have been told is singular of Elohim is the only word found in both the OT and NT.
This word is divine or immortal in meaning. It corresponds to Theos in the NT. If it meant god then that would make Abraham, Issac and Jacob all gods also but looking at Luke 20:37-39 in context of what is being said you can tell that immortal is a better meaning for the word "Theos"
No my friend theos means God. In that verse it says that God is immortal but Θεός (theos) is definitely the Greek word for God.
@@ΊριδαΠρωτοσύγκελλου
Ancient Greek
Alternative forms
θέος (théos) - Lesbian
θεύς (theús) - Doric
θιός (thiós) - Boeotian, Arcadocypriot
θιός (thiós) - Laconian
Etymology
From Proto-Hellenic *tʰehós (whence also Mycenaean Greek 𐀳𐀃 (te-o)), a thematicization of Proto-Indo-European *dʰéh₁s, from *dʰeh₁- (“to do, to put, to place”) + *-s. Cognate with Phrygian δεως (deōs, “to the gods”), Old Armenian դիք (dikʿ, “pagan gods”) and Latin fēriae (“festival days”), fānum (“temple”) and fēstus (“festive”).
Despite its similarity in form and meaning, the word is not related to Latin deus; the two come from different roots. A true cognate of deus is Ζεύς (Zeús).[1][2]
Pronunciation
IPA(key): /tʰe.ós/ → /θeˈos/ → /θeˈos/
Adjective
θεός • (theós)
divine (used only in comparative: θεώτερος (theṓteros))
Noun
θεός • (theós) m or f (genitive θεοῦ); second declension (Epic, Attic, Ionic, Doric, Koine)
a deity, a god, God
title of a ruler
sometimes feminine (ἡ θεός): a goddess
@@ΊριδαΠρωτοσύγκελλου θεῖος is the usual adjective for “god-like” or “divine”, but θεός sometimes doubles as an adjective, “divine” being probably the best English rendering (rather than, say, “holy” which has connotations in English that would be misleading).
Hellenistic and Roman kings often ascribed the title of θεός to kings, though almost no one took that literally as a statement of belief: it’s better read as a symbol of exaggerated respect. It could be used that way outside of politics too; for example, when the Jewish philosopher Philo describes Plato as θεώτερος (the ending is just the superlative form of θεός) he definitely does not mean that Plato is a god. In some cases you can find Christian writers using this sense relating to, for example, Christians who have become θεοί by adhering to virtue: they have become “divine” - maybe here “holy” would work - but not deities.
In the Greek version of the Old Testament θεοί is sometimes used to indicate appointed authorities, especially judges, where the Hebrew has Elohim. אֱלֹהִים (showing a different version of the one-many tension present in Greek). If you don’t know about that usage something like Exodus 7.1
If Theos means god then Jesus called ABRAAM, ISSAC AND JACOB all gods
@Scriptural Truth you are right they took the title of god but they where also worshipped as gods so I think what happened there was that they claimed to actually be gods.
In exodus it is explained also in 4:16 and there it says that in the eyes of pharaoh he would have the place of god. He was not god but that is what he would be for pharaoh.
I haven't studied Greek literature so I can't tell you about Plato but I am pretty sure that Θεός means god. I am from Greece and that's always the word that is used in the place of the English word god.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
📚 I clearly read
πρὸς τὸν Θεόν (With ([The)] GOD)
καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος (AND GOD was (the) Word).
ΤΌΝ ΘΕΌΝ and ΘΕῸC it is SO different. Is not like latin Deus and Deum, or Iesus and Iesum grammatical rule. Koine Greek and Attic Greek are different too.
Plus, there's NOT ONE mention, from Genesis 1:1 all the way through Revelation 22:21, about ANY "tri-un" god. Not even a Pagan god.
What you posted shows there are two persons. The Holy Spirit is the 3rd.
@@leef_me8112 that is correct. There is only one Almighty God and a god with him: a righteous person, a prophet, word of God, delivering the word of God. Please check how word 'god (Elohim) is used for entities other than Almighty God in old testament.
Interesting Logos is mentioned three times and Theos is mentioned twice.
I don’t believe in the Trinity. When scripture states that they are one, I think of celestial events such as eclipses or conjunctions that have two bodies as one.
The full prologue read in Greek is here: m.ua-cam.com/video/EYK_OkDfjCg/v-deo.html . There are subtitles in Greek and English. Useful and emotional
I heard him mention Colwell's Rule. But this rule does not determine whether an anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative is definite. Also, he keeps saying theos of 1.1c is "God"(it appears he means God not god)but that would make theos definite and most scholars today reject this understanding of it. In fact many translators and commentators for many years have rejected this and why there are translations that read "and the Word was divine" or give non-literal interpretative renderings. To use what one reads at John 20.28 to determine the definiteness of the theos of 1.1c is unsound as one must not pour into the simple Greek clause of 1.1c everything John wrote elsewhere! Translate it correctly first then interpret it along side other places John used theos for the Son. All in all I am unimpressed with this short video.
So does this prove that the Jehovah Witness translation is wrong ?
After reading many Jehovah’s Witnesses’s comments on this and other platforms I have noticed they do a lot of cut and paste from Watchtower articles and presenting them as their own thoughts.
Is a fair translation of “..καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος” -> “and the Word was ‘Divine’”? edit: (I'm a Christian in full agreement that Jesus is God (ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, John 20:28))
Do you believe God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
@@brucebarnard Yes. God is eternally existent as three persons (revealing Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Sprit) of One Divine Essence or Nature, without division of nature, essence, or being. Trinity.
@@jonathanputnam2178
Originally you stated that "Jesus is God". Now you say " God is three persons".
So a syllogism from the above premises will be:
1. Jesus is God
2. God is three persons.
So the conclusion is
3. Jesus is three persons.
Whenever the expression "one God" occurs in the NT who is the referent? Whenever the expression "true God" occur in the NT who is the referent? Whenever the expression "only God" occur in the NT who is the referent? Whenever a NT author writes "our God" who is the referent?
And example of the Greek (2316) “God” in the nomitive case, and without the article, as being capitalized: Mark 12:27 “He is not (the) God of the dead, but of the living: ye do greatly err.” (hint!) Interlinear: “ not He is God of [the] dead but”
The article “the” is not there preceding the noun. And yet the context demands the capitalization of “God.” And so it does in JN 1:1C
Using this example, Jn 1:1C could just as legally, by biblical Greek example, be translated: “The Logos was the God.”
I would say "not a god of the dead" is right as Jesus is saying what kind of god he is.
Why does nobody ever address the fact that "ton" is left out in translations?.. 🙄 "and The Word was with The/ton God"..🤔
In English we can safely omit "The" as We don't do this behind names, In Greek for a person however you put the article infront of a name, making it definite
The nominative [Subject] clause is heavily reliant on the article to be considered definite..
Because "God" being virtually a proper noun in English is definite without the definite article so no need to translate τὸν of τὸν θεόν. The Greek article here before a noun in the accusative will make the noun definite. It is like saying "I was with Jesus," rather than saying "I was with the Jesus" when context shows who is being mentioned. We in English needn't use the article before a proper name in a prepositional phrase
I honestly can’t believe that this scripture plainly teaches that there isn’t a second or third person in the trinity.. this scripture actually teaches the oneness of God and the truth is that you can’t see it.. but it’s there in plain sight… If you need assistance I can definitely help you.. if you’re interested and willing to be corrected?
John 17 3
Amen. Jesus is the only begotten Son meaning unique, Jesus the man was not God because flesh cannot be God but Jesus was God because “ on him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily” Colossians 2:9 and also we see Jesus declares his deity in John 8:58 by saying “before Abraham was, I Am” than after this verse the Jews try to stone him because they knew what he was claiming to be, Jesus claimed to be the I AM or the hâyâh in exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 43:13
@@SunnyLaraJr. Test Paul as a true apostle. I don't know if he wrote Colossians. Maybe you could interpret the text as saying that the father was in Jesus like Jesus said.
He did not declare the deity, see ego eimi usage in John 4 in the Samaritan woman passage that Jesus says that he is the messiah and John 9 9. He also did not cite all that is in Exodus and see the passage in Isaiah with context with the verse before.
What is the difference between "a person" with or "a god" with God? Especially when logos by definition definition didn't mean person/son. No second person here. Understanding the meaning of logos in ancient Greek. Word is how someone reading this and Understand my logos. My logos is my is my thoughts, ideas, reason, logic, wisdom, and plan. God created nothing without this. Just as my thoughts, ideas have always been with me, but I already am flesh. We are not told Jesus took on the form of man. Nor are we told the 2nd person or the Son was manifest in the flesh. God was manifest. Unless we can show that there was a person with God we need to stay with what we are told..
if only English translations had kept the Greek word order because as the JWs would like to purport then would be silly-sounding : "the Word was with God, and a god was the Word."
The word God isn't exclusive the Almighty. Kings, Priests, judges, Moses and Abraham and Angels are called God. Elohim doesn't make Jehovah a plurality anymore than Ba'al being called Elohim made him a plurality.
0:41.... In NO way is this obvious.. In fact this verse is speaking of the BEGINNING of the New Creation. That is why it immediately introduces John the Baptist.
In a beginning (of something) the logos was with YHWH and the logos was YHWH.
Great.... What is the logos? It is YHWH and also something which was in His possession at a beginning of something?
LOL 2:15 I laughed with you.... Because it is NOT very clear. And since a lot CAN be said, it should be said. You are making a case for polytheism because you are translating this verse through the lens of a false man made doctrine.
2:54 I had to laugh with you again... Because John literally tells us what the purpose of his gospel is. Lets see:
John 20 : 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Repent of this false teaching and step into the light of the Truth.
THE ONE TRUE GOD IS JESUS CHRIST'S GOD. John 20:17
so τὸν means 'the': the word was with THE God (τὸν theos.) And the word was a god. So why Bibles don't translate this correctly? it seems like they want to give the impression that all same God. Word God is used for a lot of people oe entities as well throughout the old and new testaments. It is what it is.
This is quite dismissive regarding usage of the word 'theos' and 'theon' when it comes down to Greek historical context. The Greeks did not have a word for God as they believed in many gods.
I disagree the Logos/Word is being identified as "God." The anarthrous theos of 1.1c surely is not definite? As the English noun "God" is, to translate it with this English noun is incorrect. John is describing what, not who, the Word was. Or he was placing the Word in the category of theos. This is why some translate "the Word was divine."- Moffatt and Goodspeed being two that opt for this. Whether this is the best translation or not(as Greek had a word meaning "divine") it does show that scholars recognise John was not saying the Word "was God".
If John is describing what, not who, isn’t that just a matter of depth. If the what is actually a who, why is it illogical to take the next step. Something like, Mr. Jones was the doctor. Or the man. Or the ____ “particular thing”. The what, noun, being a who.
@@andyayala5639 None of your nouns are proper names. They are describing what Mr Jones was or is, not who. That is why you used lower case letters in both.
@@brucebarnard exactly. So if someone asks “who is the doctor?” the answer is Mr Jones. The noun is a stepping stone of understanding who
@@andyayala5639 Yes, the doctor is the what(a predicate nominative)the who, Mr Jones, is. It is describing what Mr Jones is, not making a personal identification. Hence this fits with the anarthrous predicate theos of John 1.1c. The Logos(the who) was a what(theos). In English we supply the indefinite article many times when translating Greek anarthrous predicate nominatives in equative(is) sentences.
@@brucebarnard understand. And The Who is made up of many what’s. The what’s are portions of the fullness of the who. So is it accurate to say that the what is is indicative of the who?
John 20:28. The entire context of the story is important. As always.
Jesus Christ first appeared to Mary Magdalene and told her. Go to my brothers and tell them. I ascend to my Father and to your Father.
1Messiah
1GOD. Also John 17:3
This clearly confirms that the true monoteistic belief is the one and only GOD YHWH. Mark 12:29.
And neither Jesus claimed anywhere that He was GOD, nor can you find other people who called Him GOD.
The slang
But gods often appear as an expression of authority for people in powerful positions.
Shalom.
Read the context John 17: 1-5
If you check out 'John 1:1 in 'Google', under the heading 'English translations there are at leastr over 20 that translate the greek "The word was a god"! So all these attacks on the JW translastion are not correct on this verse! ( I am not a JW)
I doubt any English translation could really highlight what John was trying to say
@@Hikariett Good point. The greek of the bible is 2000 years old! However the best way to understand what John meant about the Christ is in the verse by verse narative which clearly presents Jesus as 'God's Son, who was 'sent forth' whom God 'gave' who is' entirely dependant on the Father' who 'lives becaause of the Father' who has been 'granted life' e.t.c. ( John chapter 5-7 almost every word therein!). John 20:31 sums up John's purpose in writing the gospel, he says "These things have been written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through your faith in him you may have life". Amen to that!
@@kiwihans100 I don't disagree with you, I'm not advocating Jesus is God.. I say he is the son of God.
"a god" - really just denotes the category to which The word belongs.. Angels, Moses, human judges and Satan are all called "gods"
Philip B Harner explains it best imo, Jesus had the "nature of God" i.e image of the invisible God/ reflection of his very being [or nature] having the nature of God doesnt make him God... as we are all encouraged to have the "nature of God"
@@Hikariett Totally agree! The fact that the Father has given His Son full authority to act on His behalf has caused many to misunderstand the relationship between the Father & the Son. They give ultimate worship to the one sent and appointed, rather than the sender, appointer and originator of it all ! ( Phil 2:11 sums up the correct attitude we should have!).
@@kiwihans100
if he was already God he wouldn't be "Given" that authority he would already have it, he would be speaking and doing of his initiative, He wouldn't have to be exalted above the angels and inherit a better name than theirs.. The one who sent is greater than the one sent.. and a whole lot more
John 1:1 is a minefield and to pretend everything is clear in ancient Greek is misleading. I don't even mean the standard point of contention regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ, which should actually be clarified by the overall statement of the text if you have understood it to some extent. I tend to think of such abstract concepts as ἀρχῇ and especially λόγος. The dictionaries allow for many more possible interpretations than is suggested by the monotonous repetition of church translation traditions (Vulgate, Luther, etc.). Is it because of the simplemindedness or rather the fear of speculation à la Faust?
OR the reason the translation "and the Word was God" or "and the Word was fully God" has endured is because it is the correct way to translate the verse.
@@BasicBiblicalTruth Of course, everyone is free to accept what they want. However, if you want to investigate further how the matter is doing, you should have something better to show for it.
@@kataiwannhn I've done my own video on John 1:1. Do you want to look at the verse more closely?
@@BasicBiblicalTruth In the meantime, I've watched your first video on the subject and it does contain approaches to independent thinking, so in that respect it's quite a step forward. But look, in my Greek dictionary the meaning of Ἐν ἀρχῇ εἶναι is given as “to administer or hold a (principal) office”, yet all your standard translations do so, as if by analogy with Gen 1:1 it says ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν would. Ultimately, this just shows that you are all copying each other.
@@kataiwannhn You have to read v. 1 in context. In v. 3 the word is the one who made all things. Even Non-Christian scholars like Daniel Boyarian recognize John 1:1-5 as a Christian midrash on Gen 1.
The various elements of "beginning," "word," things that "came into existence," "light," "darkness," "life," all point back to the original creation.
John will use the same elements throughout his Gospel to show that the Word (Jesus) is effecting new creation.
The "darkness" is not simply the absence of light as it was in the original creation, but evil forces that oppose the gospel.
Jesus is the light that brings salvation.
At the end of the gospel he breathed (ἐνεφύσησεν) on his disciples which echoes the original creation (Gen 2:7) but this time it is in reference to new creation or eternal life.
Anyways, my point is that we are not copying each other, as you claim, rather we reiterate the same things because we are in agreement on what the text is proclaiming.
ἦν IS PECIFICALLY "I WAS"
G2258
ἦν
ēn
Thayer Definition:
1) I was, etc.
Verb
ἦν • (ên)
first/third-person singular imperfect indicative of εἰμί (eimí): I/he/she/it was
Why is this consistently mis-translated ?
Did you know that in John 1:1-3, there are different Greek words for both Gods mentioned?
The Word, Jesus, (Λόγος or Logos), was with God (Θεόν, or Theon).
The Word was God (Θεὸς, or Theos).
He, Jesus, was in the beginning with God (Θεόν, Theon).
Even though these are different cases of the same word, they are nevertheless differentiated.
Satan was also called θεὸς, or Theos at 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Is Satan also God?
Don’t know Greek? Neither do I.
Let’s break this down a little further shall
we?
In the beginning was the word (Jesus, Son of God), and the word (Jesus, Son of God) was with God (Almighty God, God the Father), and the word (Jesus, Son of God) was God (Almighty God, God the Father)?
No matter how you put it, it doesn’t make sense!!
What does make sense is that Jesus, being in the beginning with God (Genesis 1:26, John 1:1), in fact being God’s very first creation (Colossians 1:15, Proverbs 8:22, Revelation 3:14), actually calls God his God and worships God the Father. (Revelation 3:12, John 20:17)
It is sad that this has brought out from the woodwork those people who like to tear Jesus away from his eternal father and demote him to a mere man or creation.
John 1:1 Does not tell us who the word is.
In John 1:3 We learn that all things were made through HIM.
In John 1:18 we read “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made (HIM) known.
Notice how Jesus has made HIM known, who is HIM ?
The word = HIM
And if you can bear to hear it
HIM is the Holy Spirit The WORD of God.
If you read John 1 :1-18 And replace HIM with THE HOLY SPIRIT/WORD
You will understand that THE WORD is the HOLY SPIRIT which is the word of God…
Those with ears let them hear.
Those with eyes to see Let them see.
Its easier if you become Greek Orthodox
Logos = Jesus. God = trinity. In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with the trinity, Jesus was the trinity. Jesus was in the beginning with the trinity. Not a chance, folks. Deut 6.4-6, Mark 12.28-32, John 17.3, John 20.17, Rom 15.6, Rom 16.27, I Cor 8.6, II Cor 11.31, I Tim 2.5, Rev 3.2, Rev 3.12, and many other scriptures.
Hello
Where is the word of God ever a person in the Old Testament?
In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with the Father and Jesus was the Father??
That won’t work
The word is a personification of God’s word
Similar to Wisdom in Proverbs
Jesus is referred to by Paul as the Wisdom if God
Does that mean a female spirit being named Wisdom transformed into a human named Jesus?? And the word did to? Two being transformed into a human?
No
Jesus is the embodiment of God’s word and wisdom
Jesus is the Messiah
The Son of God
The Son of David
The Son of man
The man God has chosen to be his anointed king
The man God will judge the world through
The man God raised from the dead
Jesus will return and rule the nations with believers in the kingdom of God on the earth
Jesus has a God
There is no triune god in scripture
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
-
Acts 3
13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him.
14 But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you,
15 and killed the Prince of life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
Notice Jesus is NOT the God of Abraham
13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him.
John 20:28 doesn’t imply Jesus is God. Politely ask a JW if they buy that assertion.
“Theos” is a count noun just as is “G/god” in English. So if Jesus is “with God” (the Father) and is God he is either the Father or he’s a separate and distinct G/god. When count nouns are applied to separate and distinct individuals they MUST BE counted separately. Therefore if two people are called “G/god” you have two “G/gods”. Thus, this verse either teaches Modalism or it harmonizes with John 1:18 (Christ is the “only begotten god”) John 10:35, 36, (Christ is a son of God or “a god” just like the angels Ps. 82:1, 6) and 1 Cor. 8:4-6 (which clearly says not only are there those “called gods” but that there “are many gods whether in heaven or on earth”) It certainly doesn’t teach Trinitarianism. That’s just laughable and anyone that uses this verse to prove/teach it is an embarrassment to Christianity.
In the beginning was the Word, (Jesus) and the Word (Jesus) was with (in) God and the Word (Jesus) was God.
I see you didn’t address ton Theon (The God). The word was with The God and was god. To simplify this for a Greek scholar such as yourself. The word was a god (theos, Elohim) and was with The God aka the Father. The one and only true God. Sorry to see the false trinity doctrine make you do linguistic gymnastics and ignore obvious signs attesting to the supremacy of the Father.
Yea, truly the worst pronunciation I have ever heard.
bible does not have a trinity of gods in any form. We are not sure who told catholics to add or use or imply a trinity. Jews also no nothing of trinities
It was Satan who blinded them to believe that God is a trinity. The SHEMA tell us: Hear O Israel, Jehovah our God is ONE Jehovah! (Deut 6:4)
Jesus foretold the apostasy in his parable of the Wheat and the Weeds.
@@othenz9966 one in unity
@@othenz9966 Is the Trinity taught in the Old Testament?
The word Trinity is not used in the Bible, but the doctrine of the tri-unity of God is clearly taught in the New Testament. The Old Testament does not explicitly teach the doctrine, but the concept of the Trinity is hinted at in certain places. We could say that the Old Testament lays a foundation for the later revelation concerning the Trinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the Hebrew concept of plurality in unity:
Deuteronomy 6:4 is a verse that seems, at first, to wholly negate the doctrine of the Trinity: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” (Interestingly, the singular Yahweh is coupled with the plural Elohim in this verse.) The word translated “one” is ehad, which means “one” or “unity”; however, the word is also used in other contexts to suggest a plurality within unity. For example, the word ehad also appears in Genesis 2:24, which considers two persons as one: “[A man] is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one [ehad]” (NLT). Obviously, the husband and wife are distinct persons, but they are called “one”-there is diversity within the unity.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the names for God:
The very fact that God reveals Himself using multiple names in the Old Testament could be a clue pointing to His triune nature. Two of the names show up right away: Elohim in Genesis 1:1, and Yahweh in Genesis 2:4. Some scholars believe the multiple names for God imply a diversity within the Godhead.
One of the Hebrew names for “God” in our Bible, Elohim, is plural in form. The -im suffix is plural, and elohim, when not referring to the One True God, is translated as “gods” (plural) in Scripture. The plural form of a name for the One God could be seen as implying a perfect unity of Persons and is certainly consistent with the New Testament teaching of the Trinity.
Adonai, translated in our Bibles as “Lord,” occurs about 300 times in the Old Testament. This title for God is also plural. One writer comments on the word Adonai, “It is significant that it is almost always in the plural and possessive, meaning ‘my Lords.’ It confirms the idea of a trinity as found also in the name of Elohim” (Stone, Nathan, The Names of God, Moody Publishers, 2010, p. 35).
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the appearances of the Angel of the Lord:
In several places, the Old Testament records encounters with someone called “the Angel of the Lord.” This supernatural presence speaks as if He is God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God. For example, in Genesis 16:10, the Angel of the Lord says to Hagar, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.” Of course, God is the One who blesses Ishmael, but it’s the Angel of the Lord who personally makes the promise to his mother.
The same Angel of the Lord appears to Abraham and assumes the role of God, saying, “Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son” (Genesis 22:12, emphasis added ). See also Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8. In several passages, those who see the Angel of the Lord fear for their lives because they had “seen the Lord.” It’s clear that the Angel of the Lord was no mere angel. Viewed through the lens of the New Testament teaching of the Trinity, it’s easy to conclude that the Angel of the Lord could be a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in its descriptions of the Spirit of God:
The post-exilic Levites speak of the Spirit of God as being sent by God and speaking for God: “You also gave Your good Spirit to instruct them” (Nehemiah 9:20, NKJV); and “For many years you were patient with them. By your Spirit you warned them through your prophets” (Nehemiah 9:30). Both verses seem to make a distinction between God and another personality called the Spirit of God. See also Isaiah 48:16 and Isaiah 63:10.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in God’s self-references:
Most of the time, God speaks of Himself using singular pronouns (e.g., Exodus 33:19; Hosea 11:9); at other times, He uses plural pronouns:
“Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness’” (Genesis 1:26, emphasis added).
“And the LORD God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil’” (Genesis 3:22, emphasis added).
As sinful humanity was erecting the tower of Babel, God said, “Come, let Us go down and confuse their language” (Genesis 11:7, BSB, emphasis added).
In Isaiah 6:8, God refers to Himself in both singular and plural terms: “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’” (emphasis added).
We could assume that, in each of the above passages, God is simply using the majestic plural to emphasize His power and greatness. Or we could also assume that there’s something more going on-viz., that these statements hint at discrete personalities existing as a unified whole.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in Messianic passages:
In Psalm 110:1, David writes, “The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool’” (NKJV). Here is an example of Yahweh speaking to Adonai and giving Him the place of highest honor in heaven. Jesus pointed to this psalm as proof that the Christ is more than David’s descendant-He is the pre-existent Lord and much greater than David (Matthew 22:41-45).
Another Messianic prophecy is found in Psalm 45:6-7: “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” The psalmist, addressing Elohim, suddenly speaks of “your God” who honors and anoints the Addressee.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the repetition of God’s qualities or His name:
In Isaiah 6:3, the angels surrounding God praise Him as being “holy, holy, holy.” The threefold repetition expresses the intensity and completeness of God’s holiness. Some scholars also infer from the angels’ words an expression of the triune nature of God, as the three Persons of the Godhead are each equal in holiness and majesty.
Similarly, we have a threefold repetition of God’s name in Numbers 6:24-26:
“The Lord bless you
and keep you;
the Lord make his face shine on you
and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn his face toward you
and give you peace.”
The blessing’s appeal to “the Lord . . . the Lord . . . the Lord” is seen by some scholars as providing a glimpse of the Trinity.
In many ways, the Old Testament gives a preview of the New Testament’s fuller revelation, including the doctrine of God as a triune Being. While the Trinity is not clearly seen in the Old Testament, there are certainly indicators of that truth.
@@othenz9966 are you a Jehovah witness? I see you mentioned the wheat and weeds parable, he inspected the spiritual temple in 1919 right? 😂😂😂
@@SunnyLaraJr.
Centuries before Jesus gave the illustration of the wheat and the weeds, Jehovah inspired prophet Malachi to foretell events that are reflected in Jesus’ illustration.
Malachi 3:1-4 “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight. Look! He will certainly come,” says Jehovah of armies.2 “But who will endure the day of his coming, and who will be able to stand when he appears? For he will be like the fire of a refiner and like the lye of laundrymen.3 And he will sit as a refiner and cleanser of silver and will cleanse the sons of Leʹvi; and he will clarify them like gold and like silver, and they will certainly become to Jehovah people presenting a gift offering in righteousness.4 And the gift offering of Judah and of Jerusalem will actually be pleasing to Jehovah, as in the days of long ago and as in the years of antiquity.
John the Baptizer was the ‘messenger who cleared up the way.’ (Matt. 11:10, 11) When he came in 29 C.E., a time of judgment for the nation of Israel had drawn close. Jesus was the second messenger. He cleansed the temple in Jerusalem twice-first at the start of his ministry and second toward the end. (Matt. 21:12, 13; John 2:14-17) Hence, Jesus’ cleansing work involved a period of time.
The larger fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy is during the decades leading up to 1914, C. T. Russell and his close associates did a work like that of John the Baptizer. That vital work involved restoring Bible truths. The Bible Students taught the true meaning of Christ’s ransom sacrifice, exposed the hellfire lie, and proclaimed the coming end of the Gentile Times. Still, there were numerous religious groups who claimed to be Christ’s followers. So a crucial question needed to be answered: Who among those groups were the wheat? To settle that question, Jesus began to inspect the spiritual temple in 1914. That inspection and cleansing work involved a period of time-from 1914 to the early part of 1919.
When Jesus began his inspection, he find a small group of zealous Bible Students who for well over 30 years had given their strength and fortunes to pursue a vigorous preaching campaign. What a joy it must have been for Jesus and the angels to find that those relatively few but sturdy wheat stalks had not been choked by Satan’s weeds! Still, there arose a need to “cleanse the sons of Levi,” the anointed ones. (Mal. 3:2, 3; 1 Pet. 4:17)
In late 1914, some Bible Students were disheartened because they had not gone to heaven. During 1915 and 1916, opposition from outside the organization slowed down the preaching work. Worse, after Brother Russell’s death in October 1916, opposition arose from inside the organization. Four of the seven directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society rebelled against the decision to have Brother Rutherford take the lead. They tried to cause division among the brothers, but in August 1917, they left Bethel-a cleansing indeed! Also, some Bible Students gave in to the fear of man. Still, as a whole, they willingly responded to Jesus’ cleansing work and made the needed changes. Hence, Jesus judged them to be true Christian wheat, but he rejected all imitation Christians, including all of those found within the churches of Christendom. (Mal. 3:5; 2 Tim. 2:19)
Jesus cannot be God. God cannot be a man. Blasphemy !
If God can do whatever he wants, he can become man
@@jokage_ Nope. He cannot and will not do what opposes what He says!
Polomolok reformed christian church
This would be great if the pronunciation was good..
PART 2
THEY CELEBRATE ALL THE PAGAN GODS AND TRADTIONS>... JUST IMPLEMENTED IN CHRISTIANITY FROM CONSTANTINE WHO USE THE RELIGION TO GO TO WAR... AND WHAT YESHUA TEACHES ABOUT THOSE WHO USE SWARDS... TO NOT USE THEM... TO NOT KILL, TO LOVE THEIR NUMBERS... WHY BECAUSE IN ORDER TO INHERIT HEAVENLY KINGDOM, YOU SHOULD OBEY YAHS COMMANDMENTS WHICH ARE THE SAME IN OLD AND NEW TESTAMeNT... CAUSE THEY ARE THE MORAL STANDARD OF YAH... AND NOT CEREMONIAL THAT WAS GIVEN AS INSTRUCTION TO SAVE PEOPLE FROM DISEASES, PURITY AND NOT LIKE HOLY... BUT REALLY DON'T EAT THESE ANIMALS < CAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE VETS, TO CHECK THE MEAT< AND YOU ARE IN THE DESERT AND DOES ANIMA EAT DEAD MEANT WIT BACTERIA... YOU SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM MEN WHO HAVE WET DREAMS... CAUSE MAYBE THERE IS A CHANCE THAT YOU CAN CONCEIVE THE BABY THAT YOU DON'T WANT... YOU SHOULD PUT YOUR PUP OUTSIDE OF THE CAMPUS AND BURIED... IN ORDER TO FLY DON'T PASS THAT TO FOODS... AND YOU ALL CAN BE REAL...AND WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT... IT WAS IMPORTANT SO MESSIAH CAN COME FROM THE CLEAN BLOODLINE OF MARY... CAUSE PROMISES WERE GIVEN ABUT WOMAN SID...AND YESHUA'S FATHER WAS NOT MAN... BUT YAH... THAT'S WHY HE WAS A PERFECT PASSOVER LAMB...CAUSE SIN WAS NOT PASSED THROUGH HIM OVER FATHERS BLOOD... MARY WAS FROM DAVID LINES...AND JOESPH WHO WAS NOT HIS FATHER... AND WHO IS THE DAN MESSIAH... CAUSE PROMISES WERE GIVEN FROM WOMAN SEAD... AND DAVID BLOODLINE... MARY HAS DAVID DNA... EVEN IF SHE DIDN'T PASS HIS BLOOD THROUGH, CHRIST... WHY? CAUSE HE CAN'T BE A SINNER... THAT'S WHY DISCIPLES TACH THAT GENEALOGY WAS GIVEN TO SEE, BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT... AND THAT WHAT HE CLEAN IT WAS CLEAN... AND HE DIDN'T CLEAN OUR FLESH AND BLOOD... CAUSE THEY ALL DIE IN FLASH, OR STILL HAVE DESIS, AND STILL ARE OPPRESS..> BUT HE TEACH THEM THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN ME WILL LIVE EVEN IF THEY DIE...AND JOHN SEES THEM IN HEAVEN... SOULS THAT WERE KILLED FOR HIS NAME... CAUSE THEY DIDN'T FIGHT BACK... AND DIDN'T DENIED HIM... AND HE SAW THAT THEY GOT NEW WHITE GARMENTS... WHAT (NEW GLORIFIED BODYS) THEY WERE IN HEAVEN ... ALL THE TIMES... FROM SEALS< TRUMPETS< BOWLS WITCH WAS EVENT NOT IN ONE DAY>... BUT ITS THE SERIES OF EVENTS... FOR DIFFERENT TIMES...THEY ALL BELIEVED THAT RESURRECTION WILL BE ON THE LAST DAY... BUT HE RISEN PROPHETS AS THE FIRST FRUIT TO GODS..>TO SEAT ON THORNES... AND HE SEYS IN JOHN... NOW IS THE TIME TO JUDGE THE WORLD... AND THOSE WHO DIE IN CHRIST WILL LIVE EVEN IF THEY DIE... CAUSE THEY WILL GET NEW BODYS IN HEAVEN, IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE... AND THAT IS HOW THOSE WHO DIE IN HIM WILL BECOME LAST... AND THOSE WHO DIDN'T KNOW HIM (GENERATIONS BEFORE HIM) THE FIRSTS WILL BECOME LASTS...CAUSE THEY WILL HAVE RISEN IN THE END...BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO DIE IN CHRIST... AND HE TELLS THEM YAH IS NOT GOD OF THE DEATH... LIKE THEY BELIEVED EVEN DAVID WROTE ABOUT THAT...AND WHO APPEAR WHEN YESHUA TRENSFIGURATES... ARE MOSES WAS NOT DEAD? MOSES APPEARS AND ELIJAH...WHAT MOESE IS ALIVE? AND WHAT PARABLE ABOUT LAZURUS HE TELLS... AND LATER LAZARUS DIE AND HE RISEN HIM... HE WAS NOT SAD BECAUSE HE DIES... BUT BECAUSE LAZARUS WAS WITH AVRAHAM...ON A GOOD PLACE>...AND HE TAKES HIM BACK TO THIS PURGATORY... ON EARTH... AND HE KNOWS THAT THEY WILL CHASE HIM, OPPRESS HIM AND TRY TO KILL HIM AGAIN... AND WHEN HE SAW HOW PEOPLE DONT HAVE AN IDEA ABOUT THE DETH... HE WAS SAD FOR THEIR UNKNOLAGE>...HE SAW HOW THEY CRY...AND HE DOESN'T HAS AN IDEA... THAT'S WHY HE LATER SAYS I GIVE YOU PEACE THAT THE WORLD WHO DOESN'T KNOW THAT DOESN'T HAVE...CAUSE THEY AFRAID OF DEATH, CAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW>... BUT YOU KNOW... AND YOU HAVE PEACE>... YOU WILL HAVE PERSECUTION, AND SOME OF YOU WILL DIE...BUT DONT BE AFRAID OF THOSE WHO CAN KILL YOUR BODY...BUT BE AFRAID OF THOSE WHO CAN KILL YOUR SOUL... THAT'S WHY BY THAT TEACHINGS FIRST BELIEVERS DIE IN HIM...NOT AFRAID BUT WITH SONG...BE BLESSED AND UNDERSTAND WHAT HE TEACHES...NOT WAT CONSTANTINE'S RELIGION EXPLAIN CAUSE THEY ARE FALSE TEACHERS...CAUSE THEY PREACH AND TWIST HIS WORS...
This John 1:1 means Jesus is God. Read Rev 1:8. There is no trinity. Made man philosophy. Read the 1st commandment. If you believe there are commandments.
Is Jesus just a man?
@@bobpolo2964 to ask me that: I dont think you read Rev 1:8. “"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the ALMIGHTY."”
- Rev 1:8 (NKJV) HE doesn't say his another person besides God. He claims to be God. So how then do you arrive at a trinity? On Earth God came as a part of himself a man on earth. He had to die, so on earth in flesh he was not fully God in flesh, but had the Spirit of the Almighty. God cannot die, a man can. So saved by His blood. He returns to heaven as the Almighty. God is Spirit in heaven. One spirit, one God. Please read the first commandment in exodus 20. And read deuteronomy 6. Hope you understand. Lets move from being fed milk and solid food. From babes to men led by the spirit of the Most High. God bless you further.
@@bobpolo2964 not at all. On earth Jesus is a man because He had to die for our sins. Mine and your included. God cannot DIE. So john 1:1 God put on flesh and died. Not He returns to being the Father in Heaven again. In the fullness Rev 1: 8 I Am the Almighty. Jesus said. Who is worthy of opening the scrolls? No not one...Not God...God can't open the scrolls? Because its open Him on the throne. Seated at the right hand is not literal...its an expression to mean...My right hand man..He is the one who can do it. Him only. There is no evidence in the entity of book of revelation that three or even two sit on the throne. Please Note further that in Heaven God is not a man but a Spirit. ...if you holding to a bodily Jesus in heaven then this leads to the carnal thinking that God is three. I hope you understand. Ask again or dispute this its fine brother. I am in the Father and the FATHER the Lord Lord Jesus is in me. I choose to walk in HIM and not pagan christian philosophy. Dr dee and dr dum cannot help you serve God and he will reveal himself to you. GOD IS a Great God and he is powerful and Mighty as one ....he don't need to be lowered as 3 persons in one. GOD IS NOT A PERSON!! He is the Great I AM. NOT want you want to define him as. He defines Himself. I am not screaming or ranting I'm just highlighting the point. THE ALMIGHTY bless you.
@@johnp3081 The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Is this a relationship?
@@bobpolo2964 No. The Earthly reign of Jesus is over. HE reigns in the heart of man as a Spirit. At one stage two thousand years ago Jesus walked the earth. He is not Walking the earth now. Please note God is a Spirit and one spirit. Please search in a bible app one Spirit, then one God. TYPE god the son, and god the holy spirit. You do it and search these phrases. Search " faith alone". You will be alarmed my friend. God The Almighty be with you.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
Translation: In the beginning. Comment: And you will notice that there is no Greek word ‘τη’, the article corresponding with the English translation “the”, but Greek can often imply the definiteness of the object in a prepositional phrase. Therefore, within the context, I think we are very right to add the word, “the” here. The word “The” is often implied for the object of a preposition.
The author is clearly alluding to Genesis chapter one verse one. This phrase, “Ἐν ἀρχῇ” is referring to the pre-temporal existence of the λόγος.
Notice how your nominative subject (ὁ λόγος) is marked with the article. The word was in existence.
The verb ἦν is the third-person singular imperfect indicative of the verb εἰμί, to be.
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
The Word was with God. The Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (EGGNT) Murray J. Harris. Dr. Rob Plummer says, “I think Murray Harris is right in his EGGNT commentary to note that the preposition “πρὸς” is frequently used to speak of just close personal relationship among people. Therefore, we should not make too much of the word “πρὸς” within this phrase. Therefore, we can translate this phrase to say that the λόγος is in close communion with or close relationship with God, τὸν θεόν.
The Word was with God.
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Here we have the verb ἦν, and it is acting like an equal sign. We have a subject nominative and we have a predicative nominative.
A question arises. How do we know which one is the subject of this sentence? The subject in such cases is marked frequently with the article.
Therefore, we can translate this phrase to say, “…and the Word was God.” This is a striking language. In this verse, we see that the Word is distinguished from God. We see this concept in the second statement. The Word is with God. Yet, the Word is himself also called “God”.
"We can say so much about this." Rob Plummer says, “I think what is very clear is that the full deity of the second person of the triune God is being asserted here. He is called, “God”.
We can get into all the reasons why the article is not present here. I will put a footnote here. If you struggle with why the article is not in front of the word “θεὸς”, there are many different ways we can explain this. Colwell's Rule and sentence structure. Yet, if you look at John chapter 20 and verse 28, Jesus is unambiguously called ὁ θεὸς. The article is there." He goes onto say, “If there is any gospel in the New Testament that is extremely clear about the full deity of the second person of the triune God, it is the Gospel of John.”
@AmericanJesusTV