Peanut Gallery: Tigger2 and the Tanager on John 1:1c

Post by **The Tanager** » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:05 am

This is the peanut gallery should anyone wish to comment on Tigger2 and the Tanager's head to head discussion on John 1:1c. I'm not sure if every head-to-head is supposed to have this, but wiploc set it up for the head-to-head I had with wiploc, so I thought I'd do the same if other people also want to discuss the same verse. And we are focusing on just John 1:1c and what it means.

I'm not sure if it fits here or should be moved to the Bible Study section, but will obviously let the moderators decide that.

Tigger2 and I are not allowed to post in this thread until our head-to-head is over. We can, however, keep up with and incorporate the discussion here into our discussion there.

The link for the head-to-head discussion is: viewtopic.php?t=34765

DPMartin · Post by **DPMartin** » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:22 pm

Well its obvious that this is a JW issue and frankly JWs by scripture definition are not â€œChristianâ€� because one must acknowledge the â€œSon of Godâ€� the â€œonly begotten Son of Godâ€� to be by scripture definition a deciple off Jesus Christ or commonly known as â€œChristianâ€�

Joh_3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Therefore, of God Himself not a son of some angle.

Even Adam in Luke is referred to as, was to be the son of God,
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Donâ€™t bother with we are all children of God horse dump or that all men are made in Godâ€™s image or likeness A&E died from the Life they had the moment they ate of the tree which is Godâ€™s likeness and image. And were left with the life of dust to dust and ashes to ashes which is not in Godâ€™s image just flesh as any animal made before A&E. though God made man in His image the sons of man are in mans image.

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

If one should remember the breath and then remember that Jesus breathed on the Apostles
Joh_20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

But the intent of a verse of scripture isnâ€™t verified by the second guessing of translators by amateurs. Its verified by scripture.

Trinitarian theology adopted by the Catholic Church some 1700 years ago is one thing and what God shows in scripture may or may not agree but all three are one despite any of manâ€™s theology associated to it.

First according to Jesus God is a Spirit

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

Just as we are flesh, our presence is flesh just as the Word of God was made flesh to be preserved present in the world amongst other things such as the fulfillment of Salvation. So the Presence of God is His Spirit commonly know as Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. Then there is His Word that goes out from Him and returns fulfilled. So there is God, His Presence and His Word that is spoken in His Presence. Just as any other life He has created in heaven or in earth. There is you your presence and the words you speak in your presence.

So lets go to the beginning where there is God and His Way demonstrated

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

(God Himself)

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

(The Presence of God moves into His creation and He chooses a place over the waters of the now called planet earth)

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

(in Godâ€™s Presence in His creation He speaks and the following shows its fulfillment according to His Judgement of what is good)

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

There is also

Abraham the father of nations, Isaac the beloved son of the father who was offered, and the Jacob God renamed Israel of which throughout the Torah writing days God calls them the children of Israel. And those who are children of God are born of His Spirit. And as Jesus says have the power to become sons of God.

So, the ministry of Father, Son and Holy Ghost is also shown.

It should also be noted that the start of creation the three are established and the start of what is now Israel the knowledge of the three are established.

Jesus is Son of God therefore of God not of another. The Apostles declares Him Son of God

1Pe_1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Now if you believe in the God of Jesus Christ in the name of Jesus Christ the same witnessed and attested to by the Apostles then you believe in the only begotten Son of God who is the savior according to the same. Hence the God of John Peter James Paul and the rest.

and for the record it is Jesus who fulfilled God's likeness and image in the Son of man to His Fathers satisfaction of which no one ever had done or could do.

it should also be noted that God is God, the Presence of God is God, and the Word of God is God to anything not God.

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:32 am

Tigger2 wrote:I would like to begin with the usage and grammar of John in order to see what was intended by him in John 1:1c. This would include

(1) Why have Trinitarian scholars felt it necessary to bring up various rules to justify the Trinitarian translation of 'God' over the years? Find if these rules are valid.

(2) Find rules by Trinitarian grammar experts which show that certain examples of the use/nonuse of the Greek article are invalid for use in discussing the meaning of article use/nonuse. These examples are generally uncertain in English translation. That is, whether the example uses the article or not, the English translation is uncertain.

(3) Does John always use the article (ho) when mentioning God (ho theos)? Can you find proper examples (other than John 1:1, of course) where John uses theos without the article?

(4) Find examples in John (excepting the uncertain examples as explained by Trinitarian grammarians) where the word order (predicate noun preceding verb) causes an anarthrous predicate noun to be understood to be definite (or 'qualitative).

(5) Compare all proper examples with John 1:1c.

(6) Continue discussion of John 1:1c.

I did a lot of reading tonight on prior debates T2 and numerous other people have had on this topicl. I think the crux of this H2H is directly related to this other thread T2 had with another member: viewtopic.php?t=33432&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

The main argument is about whether the word "god" in John 1:1c is definite, qualitative, or indefinite.

I need to make some notes so that I remember everything. This is my understanding of the outline listed in T2's OP in the H2H.

1) Some Trinitarian grammar scholars have made faulty grammar rules for this particular topic. So these rules should not be used. I don't see this as playing a big role in the meat and potatoes of this debate. The point is simply to not use faulty grammar rules. This first point seems more like an attempt to illicit suspicion of Trinitarians having ulterior motives in regards to this topic.

2. According to the first post in the other related thread, "invalid examples" are grammatical exceptions that render the use/lack of use of the article a non-determining factor for whether the article's noun is definite, qualitative, or indefinite. It is stated that genetives and prepositions render the articles invalid.

- An argument appears to be forming that so long as an invalid case isn't being analyzed, there's a rule which dictates that an article's use or lack of use has absolute bearing on what category its noun falls under. This rule seems to be discovered by examining every instance where these articles appear or do not appear and seeing what the resulting noun's type is (definite, qualitative, or indefinite). A pattern is discovered that is never violated in a large sample size and thus the rule is confirmed.

3) When he asks for proper samples I think he means samples that don't qualify as "invalid" from his number 2.

4) The argument is made very specific here. We are solely focused on the cases of anarthrous (lacking an article) predicate nouns (definition for predicate noun found here: http://www.dailygrammar.com/Lesson-105- ... native.htm) which preceed their linking verb in word order in their original Greek. The sentence must also qualify as proper from point number 3. Examining these cases could help us with properly interpreting the grammar of John 1:1c since it falls into that specific category. A list of these examples is given in post 13 of the other thread.

- Ultimately, this is a debate about whether the word "god" used in John 1:1c is properly interpreted as indefinite and thus properly translated as "a god" leading to a non-trinitarian view, or whether it is properly interpreted as definite or qualitative in which it would be properly translated as "God" leading to a trinitarian or at least binitarian view.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:10 am

RELATED POSTS

John 1:1 (JW)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 672#935672

SFBT Index John 1:1
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... n-11c.html

OTG Index John 1:1
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/john1files.htm

FOSTER search results
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... JOHN+1%3A1

General INDEX
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 594#936594

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:55 am

DPMartin wrote: Well its obvious that this is a JW issue and frankly JWs by scripture definition are not â€œChristianâ€� because one must acknowledge the â€œSon of Godâ€� the â€œonly begotten Son of Godâ€� to be by scripture definition a deciple off Jesus Christ or commonly known as â€œChristianâ€�

Moderator Action

DPMartin has been banned for continued disregard of forum rules. He has been warned previously about this very thing. It is not permissible on this site to say that someone is not a Christian when that person or group identifies as a Christian.

______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:48 am

I'm just wondering why it's called John1:1c. What does the c mean? If it was said just the once, I'd put it down as a typo, but it's repeated numerous times...

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:18 pm

rikuoamero wrote: I'm just wondering why it's called John1:1c. What does the c mean? If it was said just the once, I'd put it down as a typo, but it's repeated numerous times...

Purely my guess, but I think it's a way of signifying a part of the verse.

John 1:1 NIV
In the beginning was the Word (a), and the Word was with God (b), and the Word was God (c).

tigger2 · Post by **tigger2** » Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:14 pm

[Replying to post 7 by jgh7]

You're correct, jg.

Debating Christianity and Religion

Peanut Gallery: Tigger2 and the Tanager on John 1:1c

Peanut Gallery: Tigger2 and the Tanager on John 1:1c

Re: Peanut Gallery: Tigger2 and the Tanager on John 1:1c