- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
John 1:1
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV)
1. It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as “Word” in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated “Word” (some versions even write “Jesus Christ” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translators’ decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture.
As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (thus “logic” is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a “word,” “saying,” “command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words.
Any good Greek lexicon will also show this wide range of meaning (the words in italics are translated from logos):
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
John 1:3 (short version)
1. Trinitarians use this verse to show that Christ made the world and its contents. However, that is not the case. What we have learned from the study of John 1:1 above will be helpful in properly interpreting this verse.
John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word [the wisdom, plan or purpose of God], and the Word was with God, and
the Word was divine.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by it [the Word]; and without it was not anything made that was made.
2. The pronoun in verse 3 can legitimately be translated as “it.” It does not have to be translated as “him,” and it does not have to refer to a “person” in any way. A primary reason why people get the idea that “the Word” is a person is that the pronoun “he” is used with it. The Greek text does, of course, have the masculine pronoun, because like many languages, including Spanish, French, German, Latin, Hebrew, etc., the Greek language assigns a gender to all nouns, and the gender of the pronoun must agree with the gender of the noun. In French, for example, a table is feminine, la table, while a desk is masculine, le bureau, and feminine and masculine pronouns are required to agree with the gender of the noun. In translating from French to English, however, we would never translate “the table, she,” or “the desk, he.” And we would never insist that a table or desk was somehow a person just because it had a masculine or feminine pronoun. We would use the English designation “it” for the table and the desk, in spite of the fact that in the original language the table and desk have a masculine or feminine gender.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Hebrews 1:2
But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. (NIV)
1. The Greek word translated “universe” (or “world” in many translations) is the plural of the Greek word aion, and actually means “ages.” There are other Greek words that mean “world,” such as kosmos and oikoumene, and when the Devil tempted Jesus by showing him all the kingdoms of the “world,” these words are used. This verse is referring to the “ages,” not the “world.” Vine’s Lexicon has, “an age, a period of time, marked in the N.T. usage by spiritual or moral characteristics, is sometimes translated ‘world;’ the R.V. margin always has ‘age.’” Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon has:
“Aion [age], from ao, aemi, to blow, to breathe. Aion denoted originally the life which hastes away in the breathing of our breath, life as transitory; then the course of life, time of life, life in its temporal form. Then, the space of a human life, an age, or generation in respect of duration. The time lived or to be lived by men, time as moving, historical time as well as eternity. Aion always includes a reference to the filling of time” [1]
Since most translators are Trinitarian and think that Jesus was the one who made the original heavens and earth, they translate “ages” as “world” in this verse. But the actual word in the Greek text means “ages,” and it should be translated that way.
2. Trinitarians use the verse to try to prove that Jesus Christ created the world as we know it, but the context of the verse shows that this cannot be the correct interpretation. Verses 1 and 2 show that God spoke through Jesus “in these last days,” whereas He had spoken “in the past” in various ways. If indeed it were through Jesus that the physical world was created, then one of the ways that God spoke in the past was through Jesus. But that would contradict the whole point of the verse, which is saying that God spoke in other ways in the past, but “in these last days” is speaking through the Son.
3. Since verses 1 and 2 say that it was “God” who spoke through prophets and through His Son, it is clear that God is the prime mover and thus different from the Son. These verses show that the Son is subordinate to God and, as a “mouthpiece” for God, is compared to the prophets.
4. The fact that God appointed the Son to be “heir” shows that God and the Son are not equal. For the Son to be the “heir” means that there was a time when he was not the owner. The Bible was written using common words that had common and accepted meanings in the language of the time. The doctrine of the Trinity forces these words to take on “mystical” meanings. Yet there is no evidence in Scripture that the writer changed the meaning of these common words. We assert that if the Bible is read using the common meanings of the words in the text, there is simply no way to arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity. The word “heir” is a common one and, because death and inheritance are a part of every culture, it occurs in every language. Any dictionary will show that an heir is one who inherits, succeeds or receives an estate, rank, title or office of another. By definition, you cannot be an heir if you are already the owner. No one in history ever wrote a will that said, “My heir and the inheritor of my estate is…ME!” If Christ is God, then he cannot be “heir.” The only way he can be an heir is by not being the owner.
That Christ is an “heir” is inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine, which states that Christ is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. If Christ were God, then he was part owner all along, and thus is not the “heir” at all. These verses teach that God is the original owner, and will give all things to His heir, Jesus Christ. It is obvious from the wording of these first two verses that the author of Hebrews does not consider Christ to be God.
5. The entire opening section of Hebrews, usually used to show that Christ is God, actually shows just the opposite. More proof of this is in verses 3 and 4. After Christ sat down at the right hand of God, “he became as much superior to the angels” as his name is superior to theirs. “God” has always been superior to the angels. If Christ only became superior after his resurrection, then he cannot be the eternal God. It is obvious from this section of Scripture that “the Man” Christ Jesus was given all authority and made Lord and Christ.
6. Since aionas means “ages” and not “world,” it is fair to ask in what sense God has made the ages through Jesus. First, it must be understood that the word “made” is extremely flexible. It is the Greek word poieo, which, both alone and in combination with other words, is translated more than 100 different ways in the NIV, and thus has a wide range of meaning. Some of the ways poieo is translated are: accomplish, acted, appointed, are, be, bear, began, been, bring, carry out, cause, committed, consider, do, earned, exercise, formed, gain, give, judge, kept, made, obey, performed, preparing, produce, provide, put into practice, reached, spend, stayed, treated, was, win, work, wrote, and yielded. Although most people read poieo in Hebrews 1:2 as referring to the original creation, it does not have to mean that at all. The context dictates that the “ages” being referred to are the ages after Christ’s resurrection. In verse 2, Christ became heir after his resurrection. In verse 3, he then sat at God’s right hand after his resurrection. Verses 5 and 6 also refer to the resurrection. The context makes it clear that God was not speaking through His Son in the past, but that He has spoken “in these last days” through His Son, and “given form to” the ages through him
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by RJHindsJohn 10:30
At a later time Jesus said, "I and My Father are one.”
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
(John 10:30-33 NKJV)
The Instructor
I and my father are one. (KJV)
1. There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up “one God.” The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what he meant—he and his father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, “he who plants and he who waters are one” (1 Cor. 3:8 – KJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up “one being.” Furthermore, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as “he who plants and he who waters have one purpose.” Why translate the phrase as “are one” in one place, but as “have one purpose” in another place? In this case, translating the same phrase in two different ways obscures the clear meaning of Christ’s statement in John 10:30: Christ always did the Father’s will; he and God have “one purpose.”
2. Christ uses the concept of “being one” in other places, and from them one can see that “one purpose” is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God’s children “one.” In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be “one” as he and God were “one.” We think it is obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being or “substance” just as he and his Father were one being or “substance.” We believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose, a prayer that has not yet been answered.
3. The context of John 10:30 shows conclusively that Jesus was referring to the fact that he had the same purpose as God did. Jesus was speaking about his ability to keep the “sheep,” the believers, who came to him. He said that no one could take them out of his hand and that no one could take them out of his Father’s hand. Then he said that he and the Father were “one,” i.e., had one purpose, which was to keep and protect the sheep.
Originally posted by checkbaiterYes, one could interpret it that way and many do. However, that interpretation is lacking because it does not explain how Jesus could be both a creature and the Creator that is also proclaimed in the Holy Bible.
Alright, but could it be this?....
1. “Origins” literally signifies a “going out,” hence a beginning or birth, and thus the verse is saying that the birth of the Messiah has been determined, or appointed, from everlasting. In contrast to the Messiah who had an origin, the true God is without origin.
2. The ancient Jews read this verse and realized that ...[text shortened]... n and stand in the strength of Yahweh his God.
Morgridge, p. 120
Racovian Catechism, pp. 69-71
Manny is connecting this verse with the following words of Jesus (Yahshua) spoke to the Jews:
"Before Abraham was, I AM."
(John 8:58)
Those Jews understood this as a claim to be God and immediately picked up stones to throw at him. (John 8:59)
Those Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be the messenger of God that appeared to Moses from the burning bush in Exodus 3 who told Moses that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and provided the name "Yah" in Hebrew as the name of God to Moses. That name has been translated as "I AM" in English from both the Hebrew and the Greek text.
Hebrew names have meaning and Biblical scholars claim that both the full phrase of the name translated as "I AM WHO I AM" and the shortened form translated as "I AM" are both derivatives of the same verb "to be" and conveys the idea of eternal self-existence.
We must not forget many other things that Jesus also said when speaking to the Jews, like the following:
"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." ... But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
(John 2:19, 21 NASB)
Jesus did not say God or My Father will raise His body up, but He said I will raise it up.
We must be able to reconcile all of scripture with our interpretation and the interpretation; and the understanding that you suggest does not work.
The Instructor
Originally posted by checkbaiterYes, there are several meanings given to many words. That is why we must use context to understand the right meaning. So in this case we must not stop at one verse, but we must read more of the context to discover John's meaning. so let's look at more.
John 1:1
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV)
1. It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as “Word” in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John l ...[text shortened]... icon will also show this wide range of meaning (the words in italics are translated from logos):
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”
And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
(John 1:1-4, 14-18 NKJV)
So now it seems more clear that John must be using the "Logos" or "Word" to refer to the pre-incarnate Christ in the beginning when God spoke His creations into existence by the Word.
The above ties in with what Jesus said in the following statements:
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
(John 14:6-9 NKJV)
So the Church has concluded that Christ is also God just as His Father is God from the above verses along with many other verses.
The Instructor
Originally posted by checkbaiterSurely, I am not saying you can not interpret it that way as well and perhaps there was a double meaning in what Jesus said. However, the Jews listening to Jesus did not interpret it your way, now did they?
John 10:30
I and my father are one. (KJV)
1. There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up “one God.” The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what he meant—he and his father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry t ...[text shortened]... at he and the Father were “one,” i.e., had one purpose, which was to keep and protect the sheep.
The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
(John 10:33 NKJV)
The Instructor
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by RJHinds1. Any difficulty in understanding this verse is caused by the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verses 34 and 35, then it would read, “…you, a man, claim to be a god.” In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as “god,” not “God.” The point was made under John 1:1 that usually when “God” is meant, the noun theos has the definite article. When there is no article, the translators know that “god” is the more likely translation, and they are normally very sensitive to this. For example, in Acts 12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translated it “god.” The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, “they changed their minds and said he was a god.” Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated “a god.” It is a general principle that theos without the article should be “a god,” or “divine.” Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was “God.” On the other hand, Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God’s work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be “a god” or “divine.”
Surely, I am not saying you can not interpret it that way as well and perhaps there was a double meaning in what Jesus said. However, the Jews listening to Jesus did not interpret it your way, now did they?
[b]The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
(John 10:33 NKJV)
The Instructor[/b]
Originally posted by checkbaiterYou are mistaken. The presents or absence of the Greek article has nothing to do with the translation as God or god or gods. That is only a part of Greek grammar in the construction of the language. The determination to use God or god or gods is based on the meaning of the text and not grammar alone.
1. Any difficulty in understanding this verse is caused by the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verses 34 and 35, then it would read, “…you, a man, claim to be a god.” In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as “god,” not “God.” The point ...[text shortened]... , it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be “a god” or “divine.”
The Instructor
Originally posted by checkbaiterYes it all makes sense but as good as your responces are, it's been shown to them many times and in many ways.
1. Any difficulty in understanding this verse is caused by the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verses 34 and 35, then it would read, “…you, a man, claim to be a god.” In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as “god,” not “God.” The point ...[text shortened]... , it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be “a god” or “divine.”
But when they've been taught that one "HAS TO BELIEVE" the trinity in order to be saved or one will burn in hell forever, they see no other way then to stick to it and ignor the truth in the bible, even to the point of ignoring such scriptures as you've shown and I posted in my comments.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo responce.....
You know the writer is using poetry in speaking of the Wisdom of God. Wisdom is not actually a being or something that can be created. You are being deceptive in applying this to Jesus and claiming He was Michael the Arch Angel and the first creature created by God. Jesus is certainly a human and therefore a creature, however, scripture tells us that He ...[text shortened]... You certainly can't believe God was ever without wisdom and had to create it.
The Instructor
Originally posted by checkbaiterTake it how you will......It reads how it reads and this word eternity why use this word of the ruler ? And of course the messiah was born in Bethlehem (Translated means House of Bread BTW) so this does not nullify that He could be God
Alright, but could it be this?....
1. “Origins” literally signifies a “going out,” hence a beginning or birth, and thus the verse is saying that the birth of the Messiah has been determined, or appointed, from everlasting. In contrast to the Messiah who had an origin, the true God is without origin.
2. The ancient Jews read this verse and realized that ...[text shortened]... n and stand in the strength of Yahweh his God.
Morgridge, p. 120
Racovian Catechism, pp. 69-71
Manny
Originally posted by galveston75I don't think or I would never be so presumptuous as to say if one does not believe in the trinity there going to go to hell......I'm not God and God alone is the judge. G-Man likes to paint with a broad brush all of Christianity but that is his choice as in his mind all Christians are warmongers and hate God and blah blah blah but this is so far from the truth.
Yes it all makes sense but as good as your responces are, it's been shown to them many times and in many ways.
But when they've been taught that one "HAS TO BELIEVE" the trinity in order to be saved or one will burn in hell forever, they see no other way then to stick to it and ignor the truth in the bible, even to the point of ignoring such scriptures as you've shown and I posted in my comments.
Manny