Christ Divinity Explained in John 1:1c

[JW Insider]

33 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Exactly - I now live in a country where only one letter is changed to indicate if it is a definite article or not. This changes the meaning. It is NOT the same..... no matter how technical you try to get! !

Meaning?  Different...... 

Then you must have missed the point.

• Theo-n means either god, God, a god, or the God.
• Theo-s means either god, God, a god, or the God.

It all depends on other things going on in the sentence (and sometimes context). It is NOT about whether the word theo-n or theo-s was used. To explain John 1:1, you indicated that "theo-s" means "a god" and "theo-n" means "the God." As you can see from the scriptures: this is plainly wrong. It can even be the opposite. John 3:16 (quoted) calls "The God" theo-s, and John 10:33 calls "a god" theo-n. This is the OPPOSITE of your claim about John 1:1.

• (John 10:33) "... for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” [theo-n] (NWT)
•  

And, it's also not true that just because the Bible writer leaves out the word "the" that it must mean "A god."

Just because Luke 12:21 says "theo-n" without a THE in front of it doesn't mean it should be translated:

 "So it goes with the man who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich toward a god.”

 Οὕτως Thusὁ the (one)θησαυρίζων treasuringαὑτῷ to himselfκαὶ andμὴ notεἰς intoθεὸν Godπλουτῶν. being rich.

So that supposed rule does not apply in general. In fact there are about 280 places where "the God" is meant by just the word "god," even though there is no "the" (or other form of definite article) in front of it.

But there are good examples of "theos" such as in Luke 20:38 where the Greek form would be supportive of the translation "a god" in John 1:1, rather than "God" or "divine."

(Luke 20:38, Kingdom Interlinear Translation)

θεὸς

Godδὲ   butοὐκ notἔστιν isνεκρῶν of dead (ones)ἀλλὰ butζώντων, of living (ones),πάντες allγὰρ forαὐτῷ to himζῶσιν. they are living.

³⁸  He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.” (NWT)

[JW Insider]

14 hours ago, BroRando said:

One way, is in the Masculine sense as in the first instance of (John 1:1) But what about in the second instance as in John 1:1c? Isn't that scripture describing his qualitative sense? His divinity in being divine?

No. It's too much of a stretch to say that John 1:1c being used in a feminine sense. It's BOTH the word theos (theon) in John 1:1a AND the word theos (theos) in John 1:1 c that can be used in both a feminine and a masculine sense. Also the word "logos" (word) happens to be "masculine" in Greek (and Hebrew, too.) [Although "wisdom" in Hebrew and in Greek is a feminine noun.]

It may very well be that John 1:1c intends to imply that Jesus is divine in a qualitative sense. But NOT because of any possible use of THEOS as either masculine or feminine. The Greek word THEOS can be used to refer to a female god (feminine) or a male god (masculine) or effectively, even a "neutral" god.

(Philippians 3:19) Their end is destruction, and their god is their belly . . .

[Although "belly" happens to be a feminine noun in Greek, and it can also mean womb.]

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

15 hours ago, Witness said:

2 Tim 3:16,17  🙂

When that was written only the Hebrew scriptures were known, and some of the Greek scriptures hadn't even been written. I think that scripture is misused, unless it was a prophesy.  But once again I say that the scriptures were written for the Anointed,  so I do wonder how much the 'little dogs' need to understand.

[Space Merchant]

1 hour ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Wow, How to make a simple thing more complicated. 

Because information is vital. It is one of those things, annoying things when dealing with Jehovah Warriors, KJV-Onlyist and Trinitarians, etc who primarily use the verse to "prove" Jesus is God - hence the crusade of core Christianity, in this sense.

[Space Merchant]

32 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It may very well be that John 1:1c intends to imply that Jesus is divine in a qualitative sense. But NOT because of any possible use of THEOS as either masculine or feminine. The Greek word THEOS can be used to refer to a female god (feminine) or a male god (masculine) or effectively, even a "neutral" god.

Most of the time - this.

Some people who simply read the verses when they see THEOS quickly come to a conclusion. The title can be applied to anything or anyone, for it does not automatically make them The True God. Other similar examples would be Isaiah 9:6 and Titus 2:13, where as for this verse, Trinitarians often appeal to the Granville Sharp Rule in order to identify Jesus as God. 1 Timothy 3:16 is also another interesting one, for "God" being included into the verse proves problematic.

[Witness]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Thanks for showing the same thing from other scriptures. There is a sense in which the Word is God and that is the basic point of John 1:1. But it is not the point, of course, that Jesus himself is God, but that Jesus so fully represents God. It's not so strong as Trinitarians make it out to be. But the Gospel of John, in general, introduces us to the idea that Jesus is "divine" but not himself "God."

Agree.  If Jesus was in all sense, the Almighty God, he wouldn't have said...

"Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner."  John 5:19

"I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me."  John 5:30

 

[BroRando]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No. It's too much of a stretch to say that John 1:1c being used in a feminine sense. It's BOTH the word theos (theon) in John 1:1a AND the word theos (theos) in John 1:1 c that can be used in both a feminine and a masculine sense. Also the word "logos" (word) happens to be "masculine" in Greek (and Hebrew, too.) [Although "wisdom" in Hebrew and in Greek is a feminine noun.]

It may very well be that John 1:1c intends to imply that Jesus is divine in a qualitative sense. But NOT because of any possible use of THEOS as either masculine or feminine. The Greek word THEOS can be used to refer to a female god (feminine) or a male god (masculine) or effectively, even a "neutral" god.

(Philippians 3:19) Their end is destruction, and their god is their belly . . .

[Although "belly" happens to be a feminine noun in Greek, and it can also mean womb.]

 

A few scriptures that support John 1:1c in the Feminine Sense.  (Other Feminine Nouns)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of All Creation; (Col 1:15) Trinitarians make the claim Jesus is God. Well then, can we conclude that God is the firstborn of All Creation?  

Strong's Concordance ktisis: creation (the act or the product) Original Word: κτίσις, εως, ἡ Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: ktisis Phonetic Spelling: (ktis'-is) Definition: creation (the act or the product) Usage: (often of the founding of a city), (a) abstr: creation, (b) concr: creation, creature, institution; always of Divine work, (c) an institution, ordinance. HELPS Word-studies Cognate: 2937 ktísis – properly, creation (creature) which is founded from nothing (this is also the sense of this term from Homer on); creation out of nothing (Lat ex nihilo). This leads us back to John 1:1.  Notice the introduction... "In the Beginning was the Word" (John 1:1)  The Beginning is descriptive of whom?  The Word.   Strong's Concordance arché: beginning, origin Original Word: ἀρχή, ῆς, ἡ Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: arché Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khay') Definition: beginning, origin Usage: (a) rule (kingly or magisterial), (b) plur: in a quasi-personal sense, almost: rulers, magistrates, (c) beginning. HELPS Word-studies 746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning (temporal sense), i.e. "the initial (starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent"). Do you see the consistency? Feminine nouns are pointing to a Creation that is brought forth and begotten as with labor pains. Read (Proverbs 8:22-31) The scripture plainly tell us that Christ is the Wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:24)

[BroRando]

6 hours ago, Witness said:

2 Tim 3:16,17  🙂

 Then he said: “Go, Daniel, because the words are to be kept secret and sealed up until the time of the end.  Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but those having insight will understand." (Daniel 12:9-10) 

[BroRando]

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Most of the time - this.

Some people who simply read the verses when they see THEOS quickly come to a conclusion. The title can be applied to anything or anyone, for it does not automatically make them The True God. Other similar examples would be Isaiah 9:6 and Titus 2:13, where as for this verse, Trinitarians often appeal to the Granville Sharp Rule in order to identify Jesus as God. 1 Timothy 3:16 is also another interesting one, for "God" being included into the verse proves problematic.

Most don't recognized the the truth when it is staring them in the face.  I'm saying this in general not pointing at you.

"During that time {Jesus Christ} will stand up, the Great Prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. And many of those asleep in the dust of the earth will wake up, some to everlasting life and others to reproach and to everlasting contempt." (Daniel 12:1-2)

"And war broke out in heaven: {Jesus Christ and his angels} battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven." (Rev 12:7-8)

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, BroRando said:

A few scriptures that support John 1:1c in the Feminine Sense.  (Other Feminine Nouns)

You offered 3 scriptures so far, and you could easily find more. For every one of them, there are at least twice as many that refer to Jehovah God the Almighty Father, with the same supposedly "feminine" nouns. You are playing with the kind of Talmudic "wordplay" that Jewish rabbis got caught up in for many centuries. Whether a word ends up being masculine, feminine or neutral in a language is not part of any divine plan or purpose. In general, Hebrew and Greek and German and many other languages that split words into "genders," will tend to treat attributes, concepts, ideas, and qualities as "feminine" more often than as "masculine," but not always.

As a basis for any doctrinal support, this is about as meaningless as saying that a bed or couch is "feminine," just because the Hebrew word is "feminine." Or that a table is "masculine" just because the Hebrew word is "masculine." Or that a lampstand is "feminine." Or that rain, snow, hail and cloud are "masculine." But "rainbow" and "wind" (and therefore also "spirit") is "feminine."

A man's birthright (like the one Jacob wanted to buy from Esau) is "feminine."

Even though a bull is obviously masculine, both male and female cattle (or beasts) are referred to with a feminine noun. That includes the great Behemoth in Job, or when Nebuchadnezzar is referred to:

• (Daniel 4:16) Let the heart of a beast (feminine) be given to him.

And it's the same "feminine" word for beast used everywhere else, including here:

• (Daniel 7:19) . . . the fourth beast (feminine), which was different from all the others; it was extraordinarily fearsome, with iron teeth and copper claws, and it was devouring and crushing, and trampling down what was left with its feet;

There was nothing especially "feminine" about Behemoth, or Nebuchadnezzar, or the fearsome fourth beast with iron teeth and copper claws.

And there is nothing especially "feminine" about Jehovah God, even though he is described as the Creator (feminine), and in the Beginning (feminine), and a God of Salvation (feminine), and a God of Jealousy (feminine), and God of Greatness (feminine).

And there is nothing especially "masculine" about the female breast or bosom, and yet the word for a female breast is masculine.

(Ruth 4:16) Na·oʹmi took the child and held him to her bosom [masculine], and she cared for him.

19 hours ago, BroRando said:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of All Creation; (Col 1:15)

If Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, then he is the firstborn from the viewpoint of the father of all creation; the Creator himself; which would just as easily suggest that Jehovah is feminine. And he isn't.

19 hours ago, BroRando said:

This leads us back to John 1:1.  Notice the introduction... "In the Beginning was the Word" (John 1:1)  The Beginning is descriptive of whom?  The Word.

The Word (masculine) was in the beginning (feminine). But it wasn't just the Word associated with Creation and with the Beginning. What about Genesis 1:1?

(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The beginning is associated with whom? God. The creation is associated with whom? God.

You could do this for 100 other scriptures. Jehovah's qualities are described very similarly to the qualities seen in Jesus.

Think about Hebrew and Greek word genders in about the same way that you would think of German word genders. A common example is the typical set of eating utensils. A spoon is masculine, a fork is feminine, and a knife is neuter (neutral).

• der Löffel (the spoon),
• die Gabel (the fork)
• das Messer (the knife)

Why should a spoon be masculine, a fork feminine, and a knife neuter? ("Neuter" means neutral gender here, not the implication about knives in Galatians 5:12.)

[BroRando]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

You offered 3 scriptures so far, and you could easily find more. For every one of them, there are at least twice as many that refer to Jehovah God the Almighty Father, with the same supposedly "feminine" nouns. You are playing with the kind of Talmudic "wordplay" that Jewish rabbis got caught up in for many centuries. Whether a word ends up being masculine, feminine or neutral in a language is not part of any divine plan or purpose. In general, Hebrew and Greek and German and many other languages that split words into "genders," will tend to make attributes, concepts, ideas, and qualities more often feminine than masculine, but not always.

As a basis for any doctrinal support, this is about as meaningless as saying that a bed or couch is feminine, just because the Hebrew word is feminine. Or that a table is masculine just because the Hebrew word is masculine. Or that a lampstand is feminine. Or that "rain" "snow" and "hail" are masculine. But "rainbow" and "wind" (and therefore also "spirit") is feminine. And cloud is masculine. A man's birthright (like the one Jacob wanted to buy from Esau) is "feminine."

Even though a bull is obviously masculine, both male and female cattle (or beasts) are referred to with a feminine noun. That includes the great Behemoth in Job, or when Nebuchadnezzar is referred to:

• (Daniel 4:16) Let the heart of a beast (feminine) be given to him.

and it's the same "feminine" word for beast used everywhere else, including here:

• (Daniel 7:19) . . . the fourth beast (feminine), which was different from all the others; it was extraordinarily fearsome, with iron teeth and copper claws, and it was devouring and crushing, and trampling down what was left with its feet;

There was nothing especially "feminine" about Behemoth, or Nebuchadnezzar, or the fearsome fourth beast with iron teeth and copper claws.

And there is nothing especially "feminine" about Jehovah God, even though he is described as the Creator (feminine), and in the Beginning (feminine), and a God of Salvation (feminine), and a God of Jealousy (feminine), and God of Greatness (feminine).

And there is nothing especially "masculine" about the female breast or bosom, and yet the word for a female breast is masculine.

(Ruth 4:16) Na·oʹmi took the child and held him to her bosom [masculine], and she cared for him.

If Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, then he is the firstborn from the viewpoint of the father of all creation; the Creator himself; which would just as easily suggest that Jehovah is feminine. And he isn't.

The Word (masculine) was in the beginning (feminine). But it wasn't just the Word associated with Creation and with the Beginning. What about Genesis 1:1?

(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The beginning is associated with whom? God. The creation is associated with whom? God.

You could do this for 100 other scriptures. Jehovah's qualities are described very similarly to the qualities seen in Jesus.

Think about Hebrew and Greek word genders in about the same way that you would think of German word genders. A common example is the typical set of eating utensils. A spoon is masculine, a fork is feminine, and a knife is neuter (neutral).

• der Löffel (the spoon),
• die Gabel (the fork)
• das Messer (the knife) Why should a spoon be masculine, a fork feminine, and a knife neuter? (Neuter means neutral here, not the implication about knives in Galatians 5:12.)

Are you now denying that Jesus is the faithful and true witness, "the Beginning of Creation" at Rev 3:14? Since Jesus was brought forth (begotten), then at one time he did not exist.  

Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago. From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth. When there were no deep waters, I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water. Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth, When he had not yet made the earth and its fields Or the first clods of earth’s soil. When he prepared the heavens, I was there; When he marked out the horizon on the surface of the waters, When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep, When he set a decree for the sea That its waters should not pass beyond his order, When he established the foundations of the earth, Then I was beside him as a master worker and was the one he was especially fond of day by day; rejoiced before him all the time; I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men. (Proverbs 8:22-31) 

This is how Jesus became known as the Son of Man.... God is not the Son of man. (Numbers 23:19)

[Witness]

11 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

God is Truth and Jesus fully expressed that Truth by everything he said and did. God is Light and Jesus fully expressed the Light of the Father in all the words he spoke and works he did in the name of his God. God is Love and the flesh named Jesus fully expressed the Father's Love; dead flesh crucified for the sins of mankind. The Word of God was something the man named Jesus always kept. The Word became flesh, that is, God the Father was manifested in flesh, that flesh named Jesus. Jesus came so that we might know the Father and Jesus fully expressed the Father in all the things he did because he always kept His Father's Word. Jesus' words and works were not his own but the Father's. For the Word of which Jesus speaks is God's Spoken Word.

SM, I don't normally agree with you, but this is beautiful.