Who is God?

[JoshuaStone7]

I am willing to share my understanding of who God is if you are willing to have the conversation. I mentioned previously I had a chapter on this subject in my book, and I should clarify: There are only four chapters in the book, but each chapter has seven subchapters. One-fourth of my 260-page book is on the Trinity. Nothing below is copied or pasted from my book...

I understand many Trinitarian devotees are very touchy over this subject; just as when I'm being called a heretic in another thread for even suggesting the Trinity is not Biblical. Now, that is the attitude that every so-called father of the church had when burning at the stake those like Martin Luther.

So I guess if your faith isn't strong enough to read a counterargument, then you don't have to read this post. But if you're interested in making sure of all things such as the Boreans, then join in the conversation.

-------

Let's start with two points:

Firstly, the original text had no punctuation or capitalization or verse separation. So, each translation uses a committee to decide what modern language words to use, where to punctuate, and so on.

Let's take John 1:3 for a second,

"Through Him all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind." Jhn 1:3,4

Now, why are these two scriptures presented as they are? Well, men decided among themselves this was the originally intended writer's context.

Now, what happens if I move one period?

"Through Him, all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him. Life came about, and that life was the light of mankind." Jhn 1:3,4 (Joshua)

Who is to say that I am wrong and the current rendering in most translations is correct? "Who do I think I am?" Is that a good argument? Is the argument that every single hundreds of translations around the world have God's direct hand on them? The New World Translation utilizes the first rendering above and disagrees with mine. So, would you defend the NWT?

-------

Second, what is the definition of Theos/Theon, and how is it used within scripture?

I would like to make clear; first, I believe Jesus is God/GOD.

2316 - theos = (a) God, (b) a god, generally.

"The god (theos) of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2Cor 4:4

"As indeed there are many “gods” (theos) and many “lords” 1Cor 8:5b

I think it's helpful to first establish the definition of the word god in scripture before moving forward and discussing which god we are talking about, IMO. Now please don't just be angry and start spouting apostolic tradition; I am well versed. Stay with me for a second...

I'm sure you are familiar with most translations removing a word from John 1:1-4. In my view, it's a very important word, and it's the word "the." Let's restore it for argument's sake,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with the God." Jhn 1:1-3 (Joshua)

So the Word was with the God and was in the beginning with the God, and the Word was God.

-------

Does the word theos alone identify the Almighty?

If two Gods are spoken of in the same sentence, do you simply assume they are equal?

Does Jesus have a God?

"Go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God'” Joh 20:17

In the original text, all letters were capital, so what does it matter if we write god, God, or GOD? Isn't it only the context that matters?

-------

John 1 clearly tells us Jesus is God, but does that mean He never had a beginning and is the Almighty?

I'm not making any conclusion here; I'm simply discussing it...

All Christian love.

Joshua

[Athanasius]

One-fourth of my 260-page book is on the Trinity. Nothing below is copied or pasted from my book...

That's a shame. I don't really want to drop money on a book for one-fourth of it.

I understand many Trinitarian devotees are very touchy over this subject; just as when I'm being called a heretic in another thread for even suggesting the Trinity is not Biblical. Now, that is the attitude that every so-called father of the church had when burning at the stake those like Martin Luther.

You and Randy can work this one out between yourselves.

But I will say that the ECFs and Martin Luther weren't concurrent, nor was Luther burned at the stake. If anything, those ECFs played fun games like, "exiled to an island" (Athanasius and Arius liked to trade blows on this one) or "cut out the tongue of the confessor" (poor Maximus). Do you really think that Randy's attitude is sufficiently similar to 4th-century attitudes so as to draw a connection?

I'm suspect.

I will also say that on your forum header you wrote:

"an online community of true believers."

What is it you would call 'false believers'? You're a big boy.

So I guess if your faith isn't strong enough to read a counterargument, then you don't have to read this post. But if you're interested in making sure of all things such as the Boreans, then join in the conversation.

Sigh.

Firstly, the original text had no punctuation or capitalization or verse separation. So, each translation uses a committee to decide what modern language words to use, where to punctuate, and so on.

KOINEGREEKWASALLCAPITALSBUTYESTHATSHOWTRANSLATIONFROMLANGUAGETOANOTHERWORKS
ANDTRANSLATORSARENTTRANSLATINGARBITRARILYWHENTHEYADDINTHINGSLIKEPUNCTUATIONFOR
EXAMPLEYOUWOULDDOEXACTLYTHEVERYSAMETHINGWHENPARSINGOUTTHISTHOUGHTTIVENHOWDI
FFICULTITISTOPARSEINTHISFORMATANDJUSTASYOUWOULDNTDOTHISARBITRARILYNEITHERWOULDA
NYTRANSLATOR

Let's take John 1:3 for a second,

"Through Him all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind." Jhn 1:3,4

Now, why are these two scriptures presented as they are? Well, men decided among themselves this was the originally intended writer's context.

Now, what happens if I move one period?

"Through Him, all things were created, and without Him, not nothing came into being that was created through Him. Life came about, and that life was the light of mankind." Jhn 1:3 (Joshua)

Who is to say that I am wrong and the current rendering in most translations is correct? "Who do I think I am?" Is that a good argument? Is the argument that every single hundreds of translations around the world have God's direct hand on them? The New World Translation utilizes the first scripture above and disagrees with mine. So, would you defend the NWT?

Translators with a deep knowledge of Greek would say that your translation is wrong. Your translation - which is not just a misplaced period - is also just plain awkward, even in English.

I'm not going to tolerate taunting. So, after I post this, cut it out.

Second, what is the definition of Theos/Theon, and how is it used within scripture?

I would like to make clear; first, I believe Jesus is God/GOD.

I'm not sure that you do. What you seem to be saying is that you believe Jesus is 'a' 'g'od, not God/GOD, given that you hold Jesus to be distinct from God. Presumably this turns worship of Jesus into idolatry in your view, unless you believe God somehow bestows on Jesus His divine nature or substance?

2316 - theos = (a) God, (b) a god, generally.

"The god (theos) of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2Cor 4:4

"As indeed there are many “gods” (theos) and many “lords” 1Cor 8:5b

I think it's helpful to first establish the definition of the word god in scripture before moving forward and discussing which god we are talking about, IMO. Now please don't just be angry and start spouting apostolic tradition; I am well versed. Stay with me for a second...

I'm sure you are familiar with most translations removing a word from John 1:1-4. In my view, it's a very important word, and it's the word "the." Let's restore it for argument's sake,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with the God." Jhn 1:1-3 (Joshua)

So the Word was with the God and was in the beginning with the God, and the Word was God.

Still, context is important, and while Scripture interprets Scripture, we ought not get loose with John.

The reason 'the' is missing from English translations is because τὸν θεόν shows definitiveness. This isn't needed in English, so it's dropped. Even if it were kept, 'the God' and 'God' hold the same semantic meaning. We capitalise where Greek throws in a τὸν. What your translation does not do is create a scenario where the Word is one God and 'the God' is another God. You'd need an indefinite article somewhere in there if you wanted that scenario.

Does the word theos alone identify the Almighty?

If two Gods are spoken of in the same sentence, do you simply assume they are equal?

Does Jesus have a God?

"Go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God'” Joh 20:17

In the original text, all letters were capital, so what does it matter if we write god, God, or GOD? Isn't it only the context that matters?

Are you asking, what does it matter if we faithfully translate the text? The answer should be obvious, I hope.

John 1 clearly tells us Jesus is God, but does that mean He never had a beginning and is the Almighty?

Yes. That's clearly what John is conveying in v3. Also, πρός in v2.

I'm not making any conclusion here; I'm simply discussing it...

Mhmm.

[JoshuaStone7]

Your translation - which is not just a misplaced period - is also just plain awkward, even in English.

I'm not going to tolerate taunting. So, after I post this, cut it out.

My "translation" was mistakenly written; I have corrected it.

"Not going to tolerate taunting?" You're going to have to point that out; I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Athanasius]

My "translation" was mistakenly written; I have corrected it.

"Not going to tolerate taunting?" You're going to have to point that out; I have no idea what you're talking about.

"The New World Translation utilizes the first scripture above and disagrees with mine. So, would you defend the NWT?"

The fixed translation is still awkward. What reasons do you have for translating it that way?

[JoshuaStone7]

My "translation" was mistakenly written; I have corrected it.

"Not going to tolerate taunting?" You're going to have to point that out; I have no idea what you're talking about.

"The New World Translation utilizes the first scripture above and disagrees with mine. So, would you defend the NWT?"

The fixed translation is still awkward. What reasons do you have for translating it that way?

All I did was move the period. And it completely agrees with the first part of the scripture. All things came into being through the Word, right?

All things came into being that were created through Him.

"Through Him all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him. Life was, and that life was the light of all mankind." Jhn 1:3,4

I did exactly what any translation does, placed a period. I already know others disagree; that's not why I'm sharing. I'm sharing to give you the opportunity to show me why I can't do that. And yes, I always use an interlinear...

Joshua

[Athanasius]

I'm sharing to give you the opportunity to show me why I can't do that. And yes, I always use an interlinear...

Why is this an opportunity for us to demonstrate the majority translation, and not an opportunity for you to argue for moving the period, if you think it ought to be moved? That's backwards. On what grounds are you arguing for the change? Punctuation isn't arbitrary, so...?

Here's the broader context of the change you're suggesting.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Life was, and that life was the light of all mankind.
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God whose name was John.
He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe.

John, the humanist, who was sent from God to glorify mankind. So again, why move the full stop?

[JoshuaStone7]

Why is this an opportunity for us to demonstrate the majority translation, and not an opportunity for you to argue for moving the period, if you think it ought to be moved? That's backwards. On what grounds are you arguing for the change? Punctuation isn't arbitrary, so...?

Here's the broader context of the change you're suggesting.

Which is it, present things as fact, or invite a conversation as an interchange? If I sat here telling you exactly why I moved the period, wouldn't you say I was just telling you what is truth; at which point you say, "What need is there for me to comment?"

I'm presenting to you that I changed the period location and offered to you to share with me why that can't be done. If you are looking for me to say more then you'll have to write that down so I know what I should say next time. (facepalm)

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Life was, and that life was the light of all mankind.
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God whose name was John.
He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe.

John, the humanist, who was sent from God to glorify mankind. So again, why move the full stop?

I asked why I couldn't? Why shouldn't it read: "Through Him all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him. Life was, and that life was the light of all mankind." Jhn 1:3,4

Beginning John 1:3, all things were created through the Word, right? Then what's wrong with the next half of that sentence saying, "and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him?" Does that not agree with the first part of the sentence? Life existed, and that life was the light of mankind.

Again, all I did was move the period.

If I'm approaching this rationally and without influence from any previous bias, then this period can be placed here.

The problem someone might have with this is the possible consequences to the view of the Trinty (At least one major supporting scripture). At which point we can discuss the meaning of Theos/Theon, and the Bible's use of those words, as well.

These are just the first two points in an otherwise complex subject, as you know.

Joshua

[RandyPNW]

I understand many Trinitarian devotees are very touchy over this subject; just as when I'm being called a heretic in another thread for even suggesting the Trinity is not Biblical. Now, that is the attitude that every so-called father of the church had when burning at the stake those like Martin Luther.

I'm not touchy at all on the subject of the Trinity. I love discussing it. Calling one a heretic for rejecting the Trinity is a fact of history. Doctrinally orthodox Christians considered non-Trinitarian Christians "heretics!" And no, it does not mean that Trinitarians have to be hostile in calling you a heretic, nor does it mean at all that they always want to burn you at the stake.

Anti-Trinitarians may want to burn Trinitarians at the stake for all I know. But I would never say that means *you,* as a non-Trinitarian have to feel that way. So an apology is in order, I should think? Saying I want to burn you at the stake, or even insinuating that publicly, does make me a bit "touchy!"
 
I must say that some heretical Christian groups make a point of feeling "persecuted." They consider it a badge of honor to be rejected by those "corrupt" religious people. JWs may be one of the worst groups like this. I try very hard not to make them feel bad so that they don't use their being "persecuted" as an argument to validate their religion. Persecuted people must be the righteous, right?

"Through Him, all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him. Life came about, and that life was the light of mankind." Jhn 1:3,4 (Joshua)

I don't see much in the way of distinction. Perhaps it's how you're reading it in your mind?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with the God." Jhn 1:1-3 (Joshua)

Again, I don't see the big distinction, unless you're trying to say, like the JWs, that God is just one God among many. The text certainly isn't contradicting the OT statement that God is one. God may be expressed as 3 distinct persons, but never as 3 distinct gods.

[JoshuaStone7]

Calling one a heretic for rejecting the Trinity is a fact of history.

Let's get one thing straight: I am not a heretic, and I don't appreciate it. I'm well aware of what history did to those who were branded heretics, thank you very much.

Maybe you are....

Joshua

[RabbiKnife]

Why is this an opportunity for us to demonstrate the majority translation, and not an opportunity for you to argue for moving the period, if you think it ought to be moved? That's backwards. On what grounds are you arguing for the change? Punctuation isn't arbitrary, so...?

Here's the broader context of the change you're suggesting.

Which is it, present things as fact, or invite a conversation as an interchange? If I sat here telling you exactly why I moved the period, wouldn't you say I was just telling you what is truth; at which point you say, "What need is there for me to comment?"

I'm presenting to you that I changed the period location and offered to you to share with me why that can't be done. If you are looking for me to say more then you'll have to write that down so I know what I should say next time. (facepalm)

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Life was, and that life was the light of all mankind.
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God whose name was John.
He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe.

John, the humanist, who was sent from God to glorify mankind. So again, why move the full stop?

I asked why I couldn't? Why shouldn't it read: "Through Him all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him. Life was, and that life was the light of all mankind." Jhn 1:3,4

Beginning John 1:3, all things were created through the Word, right? Then what's wrong with the next half of that sentence saying, "and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him?" Does that not agree with the first part of the sentence? Life existed, and that life was the light of mankind.

Again, all I did was move the period.

If I'm approaching this rationally and without influence from any previous bias, then this period can be placed here.

The problem someone might have with this is the possible consequences to the view of the Trinty (At least one major supporting scripture). At which point we can discuss the meaning of Theos/Theon, and the Bible's use of those words, as well.

These are just the first two points in an otherwise complex subject, as you know.

Joshua

Your version destroys the obvious parallelism of the “items in a series” use of “through him”, “within him”, and “in him”, the agency of the logos being the primary focus.. the life and light and things are secondary subjects

[JoshuaStone7]

Your version destroys the obvious parallelism of the “items in a series” use of “through him”, “within him”, and “in him”, the agency of the logos being the primary focus.. the life and light and things are secondary subjects

Here, is this better? Let's use them all from Romans 11:36

“For from him and through him and to him are all things” (Romans 11:36

"Through Him, all things were created, and without  Him, not even one thing came into being that was created through Him." (Joshua Stone)

"For the sake of Him all things were created, and without Him, not even one thing came into being that was created for Him." (Joshua Stone)

"On account of Him all things were created, and without Him, not even one thing came into being that was created on account of Him." (Joshua Stone)

-------

I use an interlinear, not any specific Bible, so it doesn't matter to me which words you use. Let's use them all according to Romans 11:36.

My placement of the period is still a premise that has yet to be overcome.

Joshua

[RabbiKnife]

I just showed how your period placement in John 1 destroys the parallelism that emphasizes the agency fo the logos in creation instead of emphasizing the secondary subjects

[JoshuaStone7]

I just showed how your period placement in John 1 destroys the parallelism that emphasizes the agency fo the logos in creation instead of emphasizing the secondary subjects

My period placement emphasizes the context of the sentence. The context is about creating things through Him. That's the context...

"parallelism that emphasizes the agency fo the logos in creation." You're going to have to explain what that means to me.

[RabbiKnife]

Sure

The emphasis is not on creation but on the creator
The entire prologue is about the logos not about the stuff the logos does


It’s a chiastic parallel, a classic Greek rhetorical device

The logos is the agency of the creation
The parallel through him, without him, in him emphasizes the same thing as the rest of the prologue

If I remember correctly John Crystosom dealt with this exact issue in his commentary

[JoshuaStone7]

Sure

The emphasis is not on creation but on the creator
The entire prologue is about the logos not about the stuff the logos does


It’s a chiastic parallel, a classic Greek rhetorical device

The logos is the agency of the creation
The parallel through him, without him, in him emphasizes the same thing as the rest of the prologue

If I remember correctly John Crystosom dealt with this exact issue in his commentary

Then you agree with my period placement?

Because everything you just said there agrees, as far as I am understanding. Unless I have misunderstood.

Joshua

-------

“For from him and through him and to him are all things” (Romans 11:36

"Through Him, all things were created, and without  Him, not even one thing came into being that was created through Him." (Joshua Stone)

"For the sake of Him all things were created, and without Him, not even one thing came into being that was created for Him." (Joshua Stone)

"On account of Him all things were created, and without Him, not even one thing came into being that was created on account of Him." (Joshua Stone)