Is the Holy Spirit just an aspect of God?

[polonius]

In Catholic dogma, when did the Holy Spirit become a "person" of the Trinity such as the Father and Son?

[JehovahsWitness]

If you had consulted the article, you would have seen which articles are used for a proper name such as God. The translator takes the liberty which article to use for aesthetic purposes, if at all, because any article just improves the aesthetics and not the meaning.

What is this nonsense? The "L'Oreal rule of grammar"? ... Translators (at least competent ones) don't throw words on the page to make pretty (aesthetic) patterns, translation in principle, follows the rules of grammar of both the source and the target languages. I don't speak or read Greek or or ancient Hebrew but I know enough to know the use of an article in these languages (as indeed is the case with English) does have an impact on the meaning of a text. "Aesthetic purposes" indeed!



JW

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 77 by Claire Evans]

Article usage (articular) and non-usage (anarthrous) has a few exceptions to the general rule. One is that abstract nouns and personal names use the article irregularly and are, therefore, not proper examples for proving rules concerning article usage.

Another exception is that prepositional phrases (e.g., 'in beginning,' 'of temple,' etc.) and anarthrous nouns governing genitives ('man of God,' 'son of me,' also cause irregular article usage and are not proper examples for rules concerning article usage.

So, 'in beginning' for example may easily be understood as 'in the beginning' simply because of the 'prepositional' usage. In such cases context is more important than grammar.

Another exception is the use of mass nouns and plurals. Since these don't take the indefinite article in English anyway, they are also improper examples. For example we wouldn't normally say 'a soup' (mass noun) or 'a prophets' (plural).

If you had consulted the article, you would have seen which articles are used for a proper name such as God. The translator takes the liberty which article to use for aesthetic purposes, if at all, because any article just improves the aesthetics and not the meaning. It all depends on the titles of intimacy.



The dog bit Mother.
(The speaker's mother is implied here: quite intimate! Notice that no article is used.)

The dog bit a mother.
(...as opposed to a policeman. (How rude and unfeeling!) The speaker's mother is NOT implied here: less intimate. Notice that an indefinite article ("a") is used.)

The dog bit the mother.
(...as opposed to her child. The speaker's mother is NOT implied here either, however, there is slightly more specificity of meaning. This example too, is less intimate than the 1st example. Notice that a definite article ("the") is used.)


Because God is intimate, there is no article usage. Saying "a god" is very impersonal.

So despite the translation as "a god", because of the lack of the definite article, we see that saying "a god" loses the intimacy. A god is a title name and not a proper name. Therefore the translators wanted to maintain the intimacy by saying:

in the beginning was the word and the word was with * god
and a god was the word


http://www.greeknewtestamentaudio.com/john11.htm

If one was to literally believe it was really meant to be "a god", then one is admitting there are more than one God. Did not Paul say there is only one God?

I've got to work on my frustration level when I encounter people operating on the surface and unable to grasp simple meanings. I pray for patience!

Yes, Paul said there is only one God, and that is the entire point of these discussions! There is just one true, most-high God---THE FATHER. (I Corinthians 8:6) He didn't say the Father AND THE SON. He said just "the Father." He also said that there ARE "many gods" that men worship, though they are not equal with the Father.

"For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there ARE many gods and many lords, yet FOR US there is but one God, the Father." (I Corinthians 8:5,6, NASB)

Even though there are other persons and things that men call gods, there are none that are equal to the one true God Almighty, which is the Father. He is the only one that mankind should worship as the Most High God.

[tigger2]

The scriptures clearly show that men and angels are sometimes called 'gods' because they have been appointed by God to fulfill his will.

The respected (and very trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:

"The word [theos, 'god' or 'God'] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34" - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, "Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation":

"65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28...."

Both Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 (listed above by Young) show God calling Moses "a god" (elohim). [This also shows the error of some that the plural elohim must mean a "plural oneness" for this word which is often used for God.]

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing,
"430. [elohim]. el-o-heem'; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, ... x (very) great, judges, x mighty." - p. 12, "Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary."

The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

Elohim: "a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97:7 ..."

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's angels as gods include:

1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, "Hints and Helps...," Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press,1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);
18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.
27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.
28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.
29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.
30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.

(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)

And, of course the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for "God"/"a god" about the same time the NT was written. - See the LOGOS study.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of "The Epistle to Diognetus"; and even super-Trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for "a god." And, as we saw above, many respected NT scholars of this century agree.

So, in short, there is no reason to dismiss the fact that Jesus (and others) may be called "a god" in scripture. (John 1:1c; John 10:33-35; etc.)
……………………………….............


Psalm 82/John 10:34

Ps. 8:5/Heb. 2:7

1 Cor. 8:5 legomenoi is not ‘so-called’ but ‘called’ (compare Ephesians 2:11).

Psalm 136:2 “God of gods�

[liamconnor]

Has the last, I don't know, twenty exchanges been in keeping with the OP? Or have then been a bunch of slandering?

Members here need to feel free to report Off topic posts.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 112 by liamconnor]

If you are referring to my last post, it replies to the last sentence in post 110 by onewithhim and also the last sentence in Claire Evans quote also found in post 110.

[onewithhim]

The scriptures clearly show that men and angels are sometimes called 'gods' because they have been appointed by God to fulfill his will.

The respected (and very trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:

"The word [theos, 'god' or 'God'] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34" - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, "Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation":

"65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28...."

Both Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 (listed above by Young) show God calling Moses "a god" (elohim). [This also shows the error of some that the plural elohim must mean a "plural oneness" for this word which is often used for God.]

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing,
"430. [elohim]. el-o-heem'; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, ... x (very) great, judges, x mighty." - p. 12, "Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary."

The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

Elohim: "a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97:7 ..."

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's angels as gods include:

1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, "Hints and Helps...," Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press,1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);
18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.
27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.
28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.
29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.
30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.

(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)

And, of course the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for "God"/"a god" about the same time the NT was written. - See the LOGOS study.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of "The Epistle to Diognetus"; and even super-Trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for "a god." And, as we saw above, many respected NT scholars of this century agree.

So, in short, there is no reason to dismiss the fact that Jesus (and others) may be called "a god" in scripture. (John 1:1c; John 10:33-35; etc.)
……………………………….............


Psalm 82/John 10:34

Ps. 8:5/Heb. 2:7

1 Cor. 8:5 legomenoi is not ‘so-called’ but ‘called’ (compare Ephesians 2:11).

Psalm 136:2 “God of gods�

Excellent! Scholarly presentation of irrefutable facts. You wonder how someone can resist factual information and refuse to be moved from a theological position no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. Most are of the mind-set: "Don't confuse me with the facts!"

[Claire Evans]

Claire wrote:

Jesus clearly claimed to be God and the Son. He claimed that He and the Father are one.

John 17:11 (cf. 17:21, 22) - "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." - KJV.

".... Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. - NASB.

Lets look at Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

And if Jesus was created, then He could not have claim preexistence as He did when He said He existed before Abraham.

Commentary on John

"That they may be one, as we are."

This clause depends upon the words, “Keep them in Thy name.� They had so far realised the revelation of God that they had known Christ’s whole life to be the utterance of God to their spirits (John 17:6-8). He prays that they may be kept in this knowledge in order that they may so know the Father through Him, as to become themselves one with the Father.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/17-11.htm

They must have the same relationship with God (be one with God) as Jesus did and that only happened when the Holy Spirit came into the world.

How can I put this so you will stop and think?----You say that "if Jesus was created, he could not have claimed pre-existence as he did when he said he existed before Abraham." How do you get that idea? I can't follow you.

Here is the time-line in our discussion: (1) Jesus' creation; (2) all other things created, including angels, and eventually Abraham.

If Jesus was created first, then he could claim pre-existence before Abraham, could he not? Can you answer that?

If Jesus was created first, then where was He? Did He walk around in the Garden of Eden?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 61 by Claire Evans]

John 1:1 is translated like this in the Emphatic Diaglott and in centuries-old Coptic versions:

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




No connection with Jehovah's Witnesses when they were written.

Your confusion is that the issue of translating Greek into English. Unlike English, it does not have an indefinite article, which is "a".

See example:

"In the material immediately following, we will examine the difference between HOW English and Greek use their respective articles to assign the notion of grammatical "definiteness" or "indefiniteness" to associated nouns.

English first...

Notice the subtle shades of meaning generated by use of these articles in the sentences below as they express grammatical "definiteness" and "indefiniteness" with regard to the man and the woman being discussed...

AND, to provide a beneficially meaningful dimension to these sentences, imagine that you are in a park in an unfamiliar locale, and you encounter two tourists whom you do not know. One of the tourists is telling the other about an event he witnessed at a picturesque gazebo in the park. With this in mind, imagine that the tourist who witnessed this event tells 4 different one-sentence versions of what he saw...as follows:

"A man married a woman."
Notice what is implied by the indefinite article preceding both man and woman in this sentence: Neither tourist knows the man or the woman. That is, they are indefinite entities. All we know about them is that they are human and of opposite gender.

"The man married a woman."
Now notice what is implied by the definite article preceding man and the indefinite article preceding woman in this sentence: Both tourists know the man. They don't necessarily know him well, but they know who he is, e.g., the man in the room down the hall at their hotel. Thus, the man becomes a definite entity. He has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize him! On the other hand, neither tourist knows the woman. She is still an indefinite entity.

"A man married the woman."
In this example, we have the exact opposite of the previous example: Neither tourist knows the man. HE is now the indefinite entity...and now both tourists know the woman. SHE is the definite entity. She has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize her! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)

"The man married the woman."
And finally, notice what is implied by the definite article preceding both man and woman in this sentence: Both tourists know the man and woman. Both are now definite entities with a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. The tourists recognize them! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)


Regarding the 4 examples above, there is absolutely nothing foreign or mystical about their meaning. They simply illustrate HOW the English language uses its definite and indefinite articles to express notions of "definiteness" and "indefiniteness."

We are going to look at the Greek translation remembering that there is no indefinite article.



" anqrwpoV egamhse gunaika
man married woman
Notice what is implied to a Greek speaker by the LACK OF Greek definite articles preceding anqrwpoV and gunaika: Neither tourist knows the man or the woman. That is, they are indefinite entities. All we know about them is that they are human and of opposite gender.

o anqrwpoV egamhse gunaika
the man married woman
Now, notice what is implied to a Greek speaker by the Greek definite article preceding anqrwpoV and the LACK OF the Greek definite article preceding gunaika: Both tourists know the man. They don't necessarily know him well, but they know who he is, e.g., the man in the room down the hall at their hotel. Thus, the man becomes a definite entity. He has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize him! On the other hand, neither tourist knows the woman. She is still an indefinite entity.

anqrwpoV egamhse thn gunaika
man married the woman
In this example, we have the exact opposite of the previous example: Neither tourist knows the man. HE is now the indefinite entity...and now both tourists know the woman. SHE is the definite entity. She has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize her! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)

o anqrwpoV egamhse thn gunaika
the man married the woman
And finally, notice what is implied by the Greek definite articles preceding anqrwpoV and gunaika in this sentence: Both tourists know the man and woman. Both are now definite entities with a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. The tourists recognize them! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)

At this point the reader should see clearly that, inasmuch as Greek does NOT have an INDEFINITE article, it can, nevertheless, perfectly express the notion of "indefiniteness" by simply NOT using its DEFINITE article! This mechanism is very typical of Greek's many elegant efficiencies of expression."

But it doesn't seem aesthetic when translated into English.

Referring to segment three:

"Note that, because we are dealing with actual Greek along with a word-for-word literal English translation to express the equivalent Greek thought, the only articles we see high-lighted are DEFINITE articles.

AND, we notice immediately that, because we are experiencing literal Greek thought here, we see (from an English perspective) at least two aesthetic irregularities which will require fixing with our linguistic "glue:"

The 1st irregularity:
"in beginning" sounds a little strange to an English speaker.

The 2nd irregularity:
"with the god" also sounds a little strange to an English speaker.

The translator must, therefore, apply his linguistic "glue" to these two irregularities such that they may sound aesthetically proper to the English speaker. AND he must bear in mind his sterling rule of conduct as well: Accuracy of critical meaning must NOT be compromised...

So what did the Apostle John mean when he said "en arch?" (that is, "in beginning")

He was thinking in Greek, therefore we may assume that he was thinking of an indefinite "beginning" because he did NOT use the Greek definite article here. Based on what we learned earlier, the translator would, therefore, put the little red "a" before "beginning." to convey accurately what John (thinking in Greek!) meant, e.g., "in a beginning."

But that STILL sounds strange to an English speaker! However, if the translator puts the DEFINITE article "the" before "beginning," then it sounds correct. (e.g., "in the beginning")

But this is NOT what John said or meant!

So... If the translator leaves the "the" there for aesthetic purposes, will it compromise critical meaning?

Surprisingly enough, NOT REALLY! This is because the difference in meaning can be shifted semantically in English to mean what John said anyway.

Thus, even though a very subtle difference in meaning is conveyed now to an English speaker, (a meaning which John did not really intend) it is, nevertheless, aesthetically sound, AND the difference in meaning is not really critical - it can be compensated for semantically. Therefore, the translator may apply his "glue" here (depicted in red) and we end up with a satisfactory phrase in English: "in the beginning."

In order to fully appreciate this, please refer to this link:


http://www.greeknewtestamentaudio.com/john11.htm

Always take into account translation issues!

It is not "my confusion." You are the one who is confused and apparently unable to understand the nuances of the topic of translating from Greek to English. There are no indefinite articles ("a" or "an") in Greek. The only way you can understand what or who is the ONLY person or thing being referred to is the DEFINITE article "the." If something has NO article, then it is not the same as the person or thing that has the definite article "the." So how was John supposed to present the Father, God, and the Word, an important individual but NOT God, in the same sentence?

The sentence word-for-word, translated from the Greek, is: in [no article] beginning was the word and the word was with [the] god and [no article] god was the word.

Obviously the two "gods" are not the same. The first has the definite article, the second has no article. The rules of grammar for translating Greek to English are that when there is no article, an English article must be placed in the sentence to make it readable to an English reader. Therefore the "god" which has no article would be a god, and the reader would be able understand just what the second "god" actually was. It is distinct from "the" god (which in English we capitalize, though the Greeks do not).

Unfortunately your sources do not understand the rules of Greek grammar when translating into English, or, probably, they have not explained John 1:1 clearly to the reader so that we could understand just what John was talking about.

I know there is no indefinite article. I just mentioned that.

There are instances when the definite article can be used instead of the indefinite one. Here is an example:


There are the articles used for a proper name such as God. The translator takes the liberty which article to use for aesthetic person hence if at all because any article just improves the aesthetics and not the meaning. It all depends on the titles of intimacy.


The dog bit Mother.
(The speaker's mother is implied here: quite intimate! Notice that no article is used.)

The dog bit a mother.
(...as opposed to a policeman. (How rude and unfeeling!) The speaker's mother is NOT implied here: less intimate. Notice that an indefinite article ("a") is used.)

The dog bit the mother.
(...as opposed to her child. The speaker's mother is NOT implied here either, however, there is slightly more specificity of meaning. This example too, is less intimate than the 1st example. Notice that a definite article ("the") is used.)


Because God is intimate, there is no article usage. Saying "a god" is very impersonal.

So despite the translation as "a god" because of the lack of the indefinite article, we see the that saying "a god" loses the intimacy. A god is a proper name and not a title. Therefore the translators wanted to maintain the intimacy by saying:

in the beginning was the word and the word was with * god
and a god was the word


http://www.greeknewtestamentaudio.com/john11.htm

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 61 by Claire Evans]

You completely ignored my reference to the blind man at John 9:9 who used the same words Jesus used at 8:58----"ego eimi."

If that man said the exact words Jesus used a few verses before, then shouldn't the blind man be God as well?

They said the same words, so what? It's just that they must have understood that Jesus was calling Himself God. They were infuriated. To say one was there before Abraham is hardly going to make them see red.

You say, "So what?"?? It's quite important to understand that if Jesus and the blind man said the same words, then that means that what Jesus said at John 8:58 DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE IS GOD, or else THE BLIND MAN IS ALSO GOD.

Look at the different reactions of the people to Jesus and the blind man respectively. One did not have a reaction, the other was threatened with stoning. Clearly there is a difference.

The Jews did NOT understand that Jesus was calling himself God. They knew that he always claimed to be---not God, but---the SON OF GOD. (Matthew 27:43) Regardless, they always searched for a way to bring him down, and they used false witnesses against him. (Matthew 26:59; Matt. 27:18; Mark 14:55-59)

If you look up those scriptures and do not ignore them, you will see that the Pharisees were looking for ANY WAY to get him out of their hair, and resorted to false witnesses. Therefore they TWISTED everything he said and FALSELY accused him of claiming to be God.

You are ignoring the John scripture and giving your own meaning explaining it away. Jesus would not have pointed out their hypocrisy of calling themselves gods and then being offended calling Himself God. He did not deny it. They needn't have made up a false claim that Jesus claimed to be God. Saying He was the Son of God was enough (Matthew 26:64-65)

They were outraged at him as the passage in John shows, but not for claiming to be God, which they knew wasn't true. They were highly incensed that he would claim to be in existence BEFORE THEIR GREATLY ESTEEMED FOREFATHER ABRAHAM. As one Bible scholar has said: "It is Jesus' claim to be superior to Abraham, and to have a superhuman longevity, NOT A CLAIM TO BE GOD, that enrages his audience." (Truth in Translation, Jason BeDuhn, page 111)

.

Since the Son of God was not created, then obviously He had to be God incarnate. Consult John 17:5

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.� So Christ clearly existed before the world did.

1 Corinthians 10:4: “And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.�

Hebrews 1:10: “And: ‘You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.’� This is quoted from Psalm 102:25 and supports the previous verse from Colossians.



Titus 2:9-10 as well: “Exhort bondservants … that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.� Verse 13 caps it off: “Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.�

There both God and Jesus are interchangeable because they are both deemed the Saviour.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 61 by Claire Evans]

No, Jesus wasn't taking credit for himself when he said things like "I am the way, the truth and the life." He was saying just what his Father told him to say.

"I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak....The things I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak." (John 12:49,50)


So when Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life," he was doing so on his Father's orders. It was true, also, that Jesus was the means by which the Father saved the world of mankind, so he could rightly say that he was the way to be saved. The Father had supplied NO OTHER way to be saved.

So the Father told Jesus to say that only He was the way, truth and life? If Jesus is only that, then what is God?


Can we worship both Jesus and the Father if they are not one?

Jesus is the only way to be saved because that is what the Father, God, has determined. Jesus is God's way of salvation. How can you say, "what is God?"? God is the One who planned mankind's salvation and instructed His Son in what to say and do. That's quite a lot, wouldn't you agree? Jehovah is the SOURCE of salvation, and that salvation COMES THROUGH JESUS.

We do not worship Jesus the same way that we worship the Father. "Worship" basically means to respect. First century people worshiped high officials, and they didn't necessarily think they were worshiping them as God Almighty. We "worship" Jesus with honor and respect as the Son of God, not God. We worship the Father, God, as God Almighty---the only true God, above all others. (Psalm 83:18, KJV; John 17:3)

When Jesus said that he and the Father were "one," (as I have explained before) he was saying that they were always in agreement. He said the same thing about his disciples (John 17:21,22), and yet the disciples are not also God, are they?


.

You say that worship means to respect but in the case of religious matters, it means to worship as a deity.

Lets look at Acts 14:11


When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have become like men and have come down to us.� 12And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. 14But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out 15and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God,

Why did Jesus not say, "Do not worship me as worship is reserved for the Father alone?" They did worship Him as the Son of God, worship that is reserved for divine being.

They were not merely "respecting" Jesus.

Jesus is the source of salvation:

Hebrews 5:9

and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him


Acts 4:12New International Version (NIV)

12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.�


This clause depends upon the words, “Keep them in Thy name.� They had so far realised the revelation of God that they had known Christ’s whole life to be the utterance of God to their spirits (John 17:6-8). He prays that they may be kept in this knowledge in order that they may so know the Father through Him, as to become themselves one with the Father.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/17-11.htm

They must have the same relationship with God (be one with God) as Jesus did and that only happened when the Holy Spirit came into the world. They can continue to have a relationship with Jesus through the relationship they will have with the Father when He is gone.