Does Father = Word

[sipes]

Was God the Father the Word who was made flesh?


Joh 1:14 And the Word was made 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.

[coadie]

NIV
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-26049d)] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

KJV14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.

looks like the niv changed the doctrine in the verse,
The kjv added in parenthesis

[sipes]

NIV
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-26049d)] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

KJV14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.

looks like the niv changed the doctrine in the verse,
The kjv added in parenthesis


This is not the topic.

[coadie]

Joh 1:14 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Joh+1%3A14) And the Word was made 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.

Same scripture pal. Just a different translation.

NIV
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-26049d)] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Two translations with diffferent looking doctrine. Why was there addition in parenthesis?

[sipes]

Joh 1:14 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Joh+1%3A14) And the Word was made 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.

Same scripture pal. Just a different translation.

NIV
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-26049d)] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Two translations with diffferent looking doctrine. Why was there addition in parenthesis?



You are not on topic. If you have a translation issue, take it up with those who translated those Bibles or start another thread. :wall:

[Inspired-Eyes]

The word is with the speaker and is the speaker.







1Ti 3:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Ti/1Ti003.html#16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[sipes]

Joh 1:14 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Joh+1%3A14) And the Word was made 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.

Same scripture pal. Just a different translation.

NIV
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-26049d)] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Two translations with diffferent looking doctrine. Why was there addition in parenthesis?



That still is not the topic. Using any translation you want try to stay on course and answer the question.


Was God the Father the Word who was made flesh?

[sipes]

The word is with the speaker and is the speaker.







1Ti 3:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Ti/1Ti003.html#16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

This is speaking of the Son of God who was manifested in the flesh. It was the Son of God who was recieved up into glory.

[coadie]

That still is not the topic. Using any translation you want try to stay on course and answer the question.




I suspect these are bait posts and you will not contribute. It is called an unsupported hypothesis.

[Inspired-Eyes]

The word is with the speaker and is the speaker.







1Ti 3:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Ti/1Ti003.html#16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


The word is with the speaker and is the speaker.
The word is with the speaker and is the speaker.

Jhn 1:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html#1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


The word came forth while never leaving where He was.
The word came forth while never leaving where He was.

Jhn 14:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn014.html#10) Believest thou not that I am *in* the Father, and the Father
*in* me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth *in* me, he doeth the works.

The word is *in* the father not sitting beside Him.
The word is *in* the father not sitting beside Him.



Jhn 14:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=14&verse=18&version=kjv#18)I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
Jhn 14:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=14&verse=19&version=kjv#19)¶Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
Jhn 14:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=14&verse=20&version=kjv#20)At that day ye shall know that I [am] *in*my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

It is when the comforter comes and abides in us that He
teacheth us all things, its when He comes that we shall know
for sure without controversy that He is IN the Father and
that we are In Him and He is in us.


1Cr 2:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Cr/1Cr002.html#13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

In the beginning was the spoken,
and the spoken was with the speaker,
and the spoken Was the speaker,
The spoken was made flesh and dwelt among us.

[coadie]

This is not the topic.

If you can't listen and contribute other than trying to play school teacher/critic, discussion will no flow.

Having said that, You seem to keep saying all the posts are off topic or miss the point. go ahead and share the point. Try to make a point.

I will start with an observation. The Father is substitued for the word God. That is done by presumption. and not from the translation.

[John Atkinson]

The other side of John 1:14


(16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


(16) And great and important and weighty, we confess, is the hidden truth (the mystic secret) of godliness. He [God] was made visible in human flesh, justified and vindicated in the [Holy] Spirit, was seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, [and] taken up in glory.

Why doesn't it say "A God" or "The Son" or "the second person of the Godhead?"

[coadie]

The other side of John 1:14





Why doesn't it say "A God" or "The Son" or "the second person of the Godhead?"
There has to be some modifier in front of God. or the theory falls.Part of God or Son of


God was made flesh.

[sipes]

The other side of John 1:14





Why doesn't it say "A God" or "The Son" or "the second person of the Godhead?"


Does this mean that your answer to the question of the thread is that the Father IS the Word?

To answer your question. The Son is God. The early church knew that the Son was God and didn't question that fact.
They knew that it was the Son of God who was manifested in the flesh.

God was manifested... 1 Tim 3:16

And the Son of God was manifested... 1 John 3:8.

I see you like the Amp. Bible, do you truth the translation?

[John Atkinson]

Does this mean that your answer to the question of the thread is that the Father IS the Word?

To answer your question. The Son is God. The early church knew that the Son was God and didn't question that fact.
They knew that it was the Son of God who was manifested in the flesh.

God was manifested... 1 Tim 3:16

And the Son of God was manifested... 1 John 3:8.

I see you like the Amp. Bible, do you truth the translation?
Did you "truth" the NIV? There is only one God manifested as the Father in creation, the son in redemption and the Holy Ghost in regeneration. One Spirit whereby we are baptised into one body. The words "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost do not exist in scripture. not even the NIV.

[Sister Alvear]

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 1 John 1:1

[Sister Alvear]

Was God the Father the Word who was made flesh?


Joh 1:14 And the Word was made 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.


you might want to ask an old testament Jew who they waited for???

Shema...

[Sister Alvear]

That is why the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus they understood that he a man made himself God...Of all the OT writings they knew that their GOD would come but when He came they missed Him...

[sipes]

Did you "truth" the NIV? There is only one God manifested as the Father in creation, the son in redemption and the Holy Ghost in regeneration. One Spirit whereby we are baptised into one body. The words "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost do not exist in scripture. not even the NIV.


I don't normally use the NIV when discussing Scripture. I like to read it for personal enjoyment.

You said: There is only one God manifested as the Father in creation, the son in redemption and the Holy Ghost in regeneration.

Are you saying that God is not longer in the mode of the Son, and that He is now in the mode of the Holy Spirit?


You said: The words "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost do not exist in scripture. not even the NIV.

Are you saying that because certain theological phrases and terms are not in the Bible we should just put them aside? Should we list all the terms and phrases that are used by OP's and Trinitarians alike and toss them out because they do not exist in Scripture?

Now back to my original question. Do you trust the Amplified Bible?

[sipes]

That is why the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus they understood that he a man made himself God...Of all the OT writings they knew that their GOD would come but when He came they missed Him...


Yes, I totally agree with this. Jesus being the Son of God did make Himself equal with God the Father. That is why they were going to stone Him.

[sipes]

you might want to ask an old testament Jew who they waited for???

Shema...

The Jews of that day didn't recognized the Messiah, even as He was fulfilling OT prophecy.

[sipes]

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 1 John 1:1

Yes, one of my favorite chapters. The Word of Life is the Son of God. As we continue to read further we see that our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

1Jn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

[Rulkiewicz]

Yes, I totally agree with this. Jesus being the Son of God did make Himself equal with God the Father. That is why they were going to stone Him.

He didn't make himself equal with God the Father (that's an assumption from trinitarians), Jesus made himself equal with God.

[Mike]

The WORD was and is the visible expression of the Father. The image of the invisible God. Not another person who is ALSO God.

The WORD is to the omnipresent Spirit like a word is to a sentence. Part of it but not all.

[coadie]

Yes, I totally agree with this. Jesus being the Son of God did make Himself equal with God the Father. That is why they were going to stone Him.
These Jews were not trinitarians. Not even close. You are extrapolation your doctrine backward from rome to the NT topics. God the Father was not an old Testament expression. they also were not using it. There was no OT trinity. They stoned Him or wanted to because He claimed to be God. I see you have not been to bible school. They would tell you the NT folks did not have a copy of the trinitarian doctrine nor a copy of the New Testament. Jesus expressed the authority to forgive and Only The LORD God could do that.

[Gods Child]

Was God the Father the Word who was made flesh?


Joh 1:14 And the Word was made 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.


Colwell's Rule and John 1:1 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+1%3A1)

by

William Arnold III


A Greek scholar named E. C. Colwell discovered a rule which applied to certain uses of the Greek article (in English this is the word “the”). His rule stated that “definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article.” The word theos (God) in John 1:1c (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot) is a predicate noun and it is anarthrous (it lacks the article). The question I would like to address is: “How does this rule apply to John 1:1 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot) and how does this relate to a Oneness perspective of this passage?”

In the past, Trinitarians have argued that Colwell’s rule proves that the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot) (the Word was God) must be taken as definite. They have done so to combat Arianism and modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses. The New World Translation, the official Bible of Jehovah’s Witnesses, translates John 1:1c as “the Word was a god.” So we can see why Trinitarian scholars would object to such a translation and instead argue for a definite theos, thus proving the deity of Christ in this passage. However, as Daniel Wallace has pointed out, simply appealing to Colwell’s rule alone does not prove that theos must be taken as definite. His rule would only say that if theos is definite then it would probably lack the article (and it does). But the reverse is not necessarily true. Simply lacking the article in this construction does not make the noun definite.

Wallace goes on to argue that theos should not be taken as definite but instead as qualitative, thus emphasizing “the nature of the Word, rather than his identity.” The glosses which he suggests bring out this idea are, “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt translation). He also states that a definite theos in this passage would imply Sabellianism or Modalism (making Jesus to be God the Father, i.e., a Oneness perspective). In a footnote he quotes several other Greek scholars which concur, some even more emphatically (Westcott, A. T. Robertson, Lange, Chemnitz, Alford and even Martin Luther).

My question to all of these grammarians is this: “Why does a definite theos have to refer to God the Father, since all three persons are co-equal in Trinitarian theology?” The Holy Spirit is identified as “God” with the article present in Acts 5:3-4 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot). Jesus is identified as “God” with the article present in John 20:28 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot), Titus 2:13 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot) and 2 Peter 1:1 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot). Wallace acknowledges these passages, but states that (in John 20:28 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot)) “there is nothing in that context that would identify [Jesus] with the Father.” But if God is a Trinity, I see nothing in John 1:1b (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot) (“the Word was with God”) that would require that this occurrence of theos be identified as God the Father either. It simply says that “the Word was with God (article present).” Why could this not be referring to God the Holy Spirit? Surely if God is an eternal Trinity then Jesus would have been with him (God the Holy Spirit) in the beginning as well.
The point we should note here is that when a Trinitarian reads the word “God,” he (rightly) assumes that it refers to God the Father, unless there is reason to believe otherwise. Somehow, the Father is more ‘God’ than the other two people. So if a definite theos in this passage would make Jesus God the Father (as Wallace and the other grammarians above have stated) then I see no reason why a definite theos applied to Jesus anywhere else in the New Testament would not also make Jesus God the Father! (such as in the passages noted above).

So what other options were open to John? He could have easily left theos anarthrous and still put it after the verb, thus retaining the qualitative sense that Wallace argues for. So it was not necessary to place it before the verb merely for that reason. The fact that he chose to put it before the verb and to the beginning of the phrase would seem to indicate emphasis (The Word was God!). As mentioned before, Colwell’s rule states that “definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article.” So if John intended a definite theos and wanted to emphasize the word “God,” then he would have said it exactly how he did! Now, I am in agreement with Wallace, that Colwell’s rule does not prove a definite theos, but it most definitely supports it. Even he admits that a definite theos is “certainly possible grammatically.”

Furthermore, you could only derive a Trinitarian interpretation from John 1:1 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot) if you come to this passage with an already developed Trinitarian theology. If you approached it with a strict Monotheism (which is what I believe John held to) then this passage would definitely support such a view. If John had wanted to emphasize the word theos then he would have moved it to the beginning of the phrase before the verb and thus, (according to Colwell’s rule) it would be anarthrous (as it is).

Heres the link http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm

Footnotes:

1. E. C. Colwell, A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament, p. 20, quoted in Wallace, GGBB, 257.
2. Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 269.
3. Wallace, 269. He does not however suggest that these glosses should actually be used in a translation since they can be misleading.
4. Wallace, 268.
5. Wallace, 268.
6. Which is how a Trinitarian reads this passage - ". . . the Word was WITH God the Father, and the Word WAS God the Son" (emphasis added).
7. Colwell, A Definite Rule, quoted in Wallace, GGBB, 257.
8. Wallace, 268. He still argues against it for reasons of frequency and theology, p. 269.

[sipes]

He didn't make himself equal with God the Father (that's an assumption from trinitarians), Jesus made himself equal with God.

same thing. we need to remember that Jesus was calling God His own Father, which was why they were trying to stone Him.

[Gods Child]

Yes, one of my favorite chapters. The Word of Life is the Son of God. As we continue to read further we see that our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

1Jn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

I have a question for you since you believe that everytime it says God the Father and Jesus Christ that its talking about seperate eternal persons.
Actually i have many questions that you will have a hard time with but i will ask one for now.

Do you believe that God the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD like Jesus and Paul believed?

JESUS SPEAKING: John 17: 3 ~ "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Notice that Jesus called God the Father the only true God, then it says "AND" Jesus Christ meaning that God the Father is the only one who is God. It would be strange that if God was a Trinity that he would leave out the second and third person of the Trinity. Either Jesus is a liar or either God the Father is the only true God.

PAUL SPEAKING: 1 Cor 8: 6 ~ "But to us [there is but] ONE GOD, THE FATHER, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; AND one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

Notice the "AND"

Ephesians 4: 6 ~ "ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

According to them, they believe God our Father to be the only true God, do you believe that God the Father is the only True God as well?

[Mike]

I have a question for you since you believe that everytime it says God the Father and Jesus Christ that its talking about seperate eternal persons.
Actually i have many questions that you will have a hard time with but i will ask one for now.

Do you believe that God the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD like Jesus and Paul believed?

JESUS SPEAKING: John 17: 3 ~ "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Notice that Jesus called God the Father the only true God, then it says "AND" Jesus Christ meaning that God the Father is the only one who is God. It would be strange that if God was a Trinity that he would leave out the second and third person of the Trinity. Either Jesus is a liar or either God the Father is the only true God.

PAUL SPEAKING: 1 Cor 8: 6 ~ "But to us [there is but] ONE GOD, THE FATHER, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; AND one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

Notice the "AND"

Ephesians 4: 6 ~ "ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

According to them, they believe God our Father to be the only true God, do you believe that God the Father is the only True God as well?

Very excellent post:)

[Inspired-Eyes]

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 1 John 1:1


:):) :whistle::whistle:

[HSdad]

you might want to ask an old testament Jew who they waited for???

Shema...
sis,
please provide us with what you understand about "who they waited for".

btw, I do not believe they expected or were waiting for God to become a man.

[Gods Child]

Very excellent post:)

Notice that he didn't answer. I have many more hard questions i can ask but ill take it easy on him/her at the moment.

[Rulkiewicz]

Notice that he didn't answer. I have many more hard questions i can ask but ill take it easy on him/her at the moment.

Amen.

[coadie]

You are not on topic. If you have a translation issue, take it up with those who translated those Bibles or start another thread. :wall:

Does Father = Word

Was God the Father the Word who was made flesh?


Joh 1:14 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Joh+1%3A14) And the Word was made 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.



Are you struggling with your self to understand what you yourself are posting?

Your false doctrine pushed by the trinitarian beliefs really is comfortible with what the NIV added. GOd's Word answers your quesion. Please take God's word for what it says. God was the Word and God/The Word was made flesh. I love the Word and it seems every chance they get, the fringe religions want to change it's expressions.


What the Catholic bible says:1 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm#foot1)2 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm#foot2) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm#foot1)2 He was in the beginning with God. (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm#foot1)

[TheLayman]

A Greek scholar named E. C. Colwell discovered a rule which applied to certain uses of the Greek article (in English this is the word “the”). His rule stated that “definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article.” The word theos (God) in John 1:1c (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot) is a predicate noun and it is anarthrous (it lacks the article). The question I would like to address is: “How does this rule apply to John 1:1 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot) and how does this relate to a Oneness perspective of this passage?”






In the past, Trinitarians have argued that Colwell’s rule proves that the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot) (the Word was God) must be taken as definite. They have done so to combat Arianism and modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses. The New World Translation, the official Bible of Jehovah’s Witnesses, translates John 1:1c as “the Word was a god.” So we can see why Trinitarian scholars would object to such a translation and instead argue for a definite theos, thus proving the deity of Christ in this passage. However, as Daniel Wallace has pointed out, simply appealing to Colwell’s rule alone does not prove that theos must be taken as definite. His rule would only say that if theos is definite then it would probably lack the article (and it does). But the reverse is not necessarily true. Simply lacking the article in this construction does not make the noun definite.
Wallace goes on to argue that theos should not be taken as definite but instead as qualitative, thus emphasizing “the nature of the Word, rather than his identity.” The glosses which he suggests bring out this idea are, “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt translation). He also states that a definite theos in this passage would imply Sabellianism or Modalism (making Jesus to be God the Father, i.e., a Oneness perspective). In a footnote he quotes several other Greek scholars which concur, some even more emphatically (Westcott, A. T. Robertson, Lange, Chemnitz, Alford and even Martin Luther).
My question to all of these grammarians is this: “Why does a definite theos have to refer to God the Father, since all three persons are co-equal in Trinitarian theology?” The Holy Spirit is identified as “God” with the article present in Acts 5:3-4 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot). Jesus is identified as “God” with the article present in John 20:28 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot), Titus 2:13 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot) and 2 Peter 1:1 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot). Wallace acknowledges these passages, but states that (in John 20:28 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot)) “there is nothing in that context that would identify [Jesus] with the Father.” But if God is a Trinity, I see nothing in John 1:1b (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot) (“the Word was with God”) that would require that this occurrence of theos be identified as God the Father either. It simply says that “the Word was with God (article present).” Why could this not be referring to God the Holy Spirit? Surely if God is an eternal Trinity then Jesus would have been with him (God the Holy Spirit) in the beginning as well.
The point we should note here is that when a Trinitarian reads the word “God,” he (rightly) assumes that it refers to God the Father, unless there is reason to believe otherwise. Somehow, the Father is more ‘God’ than the other two people. So if a definite theos in this passage would make Jesus God the Father (as Wallace and the other grammarians above have stated) then I see no reason why a definite theos applied to Jesus anywhere else in the New Testament would not also make Jesus God the Father! (such as in the passages noted above).
So what other options were open to John? He could have easily left theos anarthrous and still put it after the verb, thus retaining the qualitative sense that Wallace argues for. So it was not necessary to place it before the verb merely for that reason. The fact that he chose to put it before the verb and to the beginning of the phrase would seem to indicate emphasis (The Word was God!). As mentioned before, Colwell’s rule states that “definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article.” So if John intended a definite theos and wanted to emphasize the word “God,” then he would have said it exactly how he did! Now, I am in agreement with Wallace, that Colwell’s rule does not prove a definite theos, but it most definitely supports it. Even he admits that a definite theos is “certainly possible grammatically.”
Furthermore, you could only derive a Trinitarian interpretation from John 1:1 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm#foot) if you come to this passage with an already developed Trinitarian theology. If you approached it with a strict Monotheism (which is what I believe John held to) then this passage would definitely support such a view. If John had wanted to emphasize the word theos then he would have moved it to the beginning of the phrase before the verb and thus, (according to Colwell’s rule) it would be anarthrous (as it is).

Guess what you left out of the above? The following:


Colwell's Rule and John 1:1


by

William Arnold III



WmArnold@apostolic.net






That can be found here: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm


That is called plagiarism.

Plagiarism: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work

So unless you are William Arnold III (and you're not), I really would have no further reason to discuss anything with you.

Incidentally, he is wrong as is another Oneness Pentecostal who posted at some length in a thread regarding John 1:1. You can see my response to that beginning in post #71 on page 5 of the following thread:

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9523&page=5 (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9523&page=5)

What you will find is that the idea of "if you don't know what you're talking about copy and paste from someone you think does," isn't a good idea if:

1. They don't know what they're talking about.

2. If you don't give the other person credit for their own writing (this is very important).

TheLayman

[Gods Child]

Guess what you left out of the above? The following:

That can be found here: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm


That is called plagiarism.

Plagiarism: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work

So unless you are William Arnold III (and you're not), I really would have no further reason to discuss anything with you.

Incidentally, he is wrong as is another Oneness Pentecostal who posted at some length in a thread regarding John 1:1. You can see my response to that beginning in post #71 on page 5 of the following thread:

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9523&page=5 (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9523&page=5)

What you will find is that the idea of "if you don't know what you're talking about copy and paste from someone you think does," isn't a good idea if:

1. They don't know what they're talking about.

2. If you don't give the other person credit for their own writing (this is very important).

TheLayman








I noticed i forgot to put the name of the person when i pressed submit and also i am friends with the people who wrote this so that was my mistake. I didn't mean to plagairize anything, i was just giving what the rule was of Colwell. Interesting that you say that he was wrong but give no proof of anything. So that you will know, i usually give the credit to the people who wrote it and i was just showing him the rule that applyed to John 1: 1. I haven't even give an explaination yet. By the way, i have seen your post # 72 before.

[TheLayman]

I noticed i forgot to put the name of the person when i pressed submit and also i am friends with the people who wrote this so that was my mistake. I didn't mean to plagairize anything, i was just giving what the rule was of Colwell. Interesting that you say that he was wrong but give no proof of anything.

You "noticed when you hit submit" but you didn't edit or write another post? BTW, usually when you copy and paste it's not forgetting, it's leaving out. Your great Hillary Clinton impersonation notwithstanding, as far as "proof" I most certainly did offer it, I gave you the link and the post numbers. My guess is you really don't know anything about Greek or even grammar in general so my opinion is you would be wise to read to learn rather than to argue.

TheLayman

[coadie]

Yes, I totally agree with this. Jesus being the Son of God did make Himself equal with God the Father. That is why they were going to stone Him.


If God is equal to the Son of God, it would take stones the size greater than the universe to stone Him. It would take a Cross taller than the Milky Way to hang Him. Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. Jesus had size 9 feet and they fit into size nine sandals. They wanted to stone Jesus because their logic did not allow for God to be 6' tall or less.

Our President is George Bush. Being equal to President is not the same as the expression The actual President.

Do you insist God the Father was also 6'tall and wore size 9 or whatever sandals? If the answer is not, then they are not equal.

"It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host." (Isaiah 45:12)
Not a single Trinitarian can explain when they say the Son of God is not God, but they are equal, what size of cross and nails it would take to nail God's hands to a cross.

The other trinitarian dilema. God and Jesus both have creation on their resume. Which is correct. Genesis 1 says in the beginning god created the heaven..

John 1 says "all things were made by "Him". (Jesus)

It does not say made by the trinity or Us.

[Gods Child]

You "noticed when you hit submit" but you didn't edit or write another post? BTW, usually when you copy and paste it's not forgetting, it's leaving out. Your great Hillary Clinton impersonation notwithstanding, as far as "proof" I most certainly did offer it, I gave you the link and the post numbers. My guess is you really don't know anything about Greek or even grammar in general so my opinion is you would be wise to read to learn rather than to argue.

TheLayman


Wow, it would be sad for someone to assume anything about someone, I am new to this forum as i have said before and i didn't even know that i could edit when i put it up their and since you provided the name then i didn't bother to edit the name but i will since you think im trying to plagairize. I ask you to please don't assume what i know about this forum and if i know how to do something or not. Their is no edit button by the sumit button but now i see that their is one after the submission. Im not a Greek scholar and neither are you but i do know some Greek and the Grammer so please don't assume. By the way, i didn't argue about anything as i have said before, i only showed the rule.

[coadie]

You "noticed when you hit submit" but you didn't edit or write another post? BTW, usually when you copy and paste it's not forgetting, it's leaving out. Your great Hillary Clinton impersonation notwithstanding, as far as "proof" I most certainly did offer it, I gave you the link and the post numbers. My guess is you really don't know anything about Greek or even grammar in general so my opinion is you would be wise to read to learn rather than to argue.

TheLayman

Are you saying people that do not agree with you need to learn to read and do not know Greek?

I suspect if someone read Greek outloud to you, you would not be able to take notes in Greek. Google scholaring Greek one word at a time is called illiterate in Greek buddy.

[Gods Child]

Are you saying people that do not agree with you need to learn to read and do not know Greek?

I suspect if someone read Greek outloud to you, you would not be able to take notes in Greek. Google scholaring Greek one word at a time is called illiterate in Greek buddy.


Hes saying that he disagrees with Mr. Arnold on Colwells Rule and thus he says that he is wrong. So since he believes that he is wrong then he is saying that i don't even know anything about Greek or its grammer. I made a mistake about not putting Mr. Arnolds name on one of my posts and im getting jumped on for it. It was a mistake and im trying to let layman know that but its all good though. I won't argue over foolish minor things

[coadie]

Hes saying that he disagrees with Mr. Arnold on Colwells Rule and thus he says that he is wrong. So since he believes that he is wrong then he is saying that i don't even know anything about Greek or its grammer. I made a mistake about not putting Mr. Arnolds name on one of my posts and im getting jumped on for it. It was a mistake and im trying to let layman know that but its all good though. I won't argue over foolish minor things
Other boards have sermons on making people cite sources. Jesus even cited. He said, "Ye believed not Moses,"

John 5........- Had Ye Believed Moses, Ye Would Have Believed Me

Moses made no reference to the trinity either. Jesus didn't These people have beliefs they can not cite back to bible verses. They insist on translating scripture through their trinitarian presuppostions. That is a taboo for atheists called "quote mining". Taking quotes out of context,.

If you want to have fun with a trinitarian, when they use or abuse a non biblical expression, demand they quote the origin or source of it. :icon_seesaw:

[Gods Child]

Other boards have sermons on making people cite sources. Jesus even cited. He said, "Ye believed not Moses,"

John 5........- Had Ye Believed Moses, Ye Would Have Believed Me

Moses made no reference to the trinity either. Jesus didn't These people have beliefs they can not cite back to bible verses. They insist on translating scripture through their trinitarian presuppostions. That is a taboo for atheists called "quote mining". Taking quotes out of context,.

If you want to have fun with a trinitarian, when they use or abuse a non biblical expression, demand they quote the origin or source of it. :icon_seesaw:

Truth, they mostly rely on the early church writings not even knowing that the early church didn't believe in the Trinity at all until Turtillian came on the scene, they didn't even believe the Holy Spirit to be a person. I will remember to cite the quotes next time because some people always look for errors that you make so they can say something.

[OriginalPraxeas]

Was God the Father the Word who was made flesh?


Joh 1:14 And the Word was made 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.

The Logos was internal to the Father. Not a separate person or a distinct person but rather something pertaining to the Father Himself...perhaps The Father's own hypostasis

Heb 1:3 who being the shining splendor of His glory, and the express image of His essence, and upholding all things by the word of His power, through Himself cleansing of our sins, He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high,

Or maybe His very own Life Force.

Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of Life,
1Jn 1:2 (for the Life was revealed, and we have seen it and bear witness, and show to you the everlasting Life, who was with the Father and was revealed to us),

Joh 5:26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life within Himself,

Logos as it is used in Greek according to the ISBE
Logos signifies in classical Greek both "reason" and "word." Though in Biblical Greek the term is mostly employed in the sense of "word," we cannot properly dissociate the two significations. Every word implies a thought. It is impossible to imagine a time when God was without thought. Hence, thought must be eternal as the Deity. The translation "thought" is probably the best equivalent for the Greek term, since it denotes, on the one hand, the faculty of reason, or the thought inwardly conceived in the mind; and, on the other hand, the thought outwardly expressed through the vehicle of language. The two ideas, thought and speech, are indubitably blended in the term logos; and in every employment of the word, in philosophy and Scripture, both notions of thought and its outward expression are intimately connected.

Reason...Thought...not A thought, but just thought. Thought is internel to our being and is only external when spoken.

[BroRutledge]

Everybody on this thread is invited to continue the Trinity-Oneness discussions on the new Site that we have just built. We also invite you to stay with the GNC and work with us in our new format.

Our new site is http://www.godchatcafe.com

On this new site everybody can have full liberty of expression with no fear of admins banning you or even reprimanding you regardless of how strong you post. Trinitarians have full liberty to teach your doctrines over there as well as oneness and all other beliefs. Anybody can post anything they believe on the new site and even debate and get rough with the person that does not agree if that is your style of posting.

On the new site I will be joining in on many of these discussions, and I have some very strong views that I wish to express, so that will be the place where I will take my liberty also.

God bless
BroRutledge