Član
- Učlanjen(a)
- 03.10.2010
- Poruka
- 1.305
"the Word was with the Deity and the Word was deity"
"and the Word was with the Divinity and the Word was divine"
"and the Word was with God and the word was god"
SUMMARY Trinitarians try to claim that John is telling us "Jesus was God" by identity and as we have shown this is most certainly not the case. John was telling us the Son of God had the nature of deity because he was with the Deity, that is, "God" who is to be understood here as the Father. Because they are caught in this dilemma here, Trinitarians will then further claim that having the nature of "God" therefore makes one God by identity, that is, "what" you are by nature makes you "who" you are by identity. We will easily demonstrate elsewhere in a separate article why this is a false premise. But for now all we need to see is that John meant, "and the Word was god/deity/divine" and is not identifying Jesus as "God."
Notes:
1. Trinitarians often employ this deceptive maneuver and few people catch it. They claim that if Jesus is "God" but not "the God" then he is another god and therefore a false god since there is only one true God. But this is a deception because we are not talking about identity here but nature. It is not a question of two gods but a question of whether more than one person can have the nature of deity. It is true that Jesus is not the one true God and would indeed be a false God but it is also true he is also not a false god either just as it is true that Eve is not the true Adam but she is indeed adam. It is simply a subtle game of letters.
Key Points
1. The brilliant theologian Origen and respected Trinitarian scholars today indicate the presence or absence of the definite article in John 1:1 is significant and is present in the first instance of theos and not at the other for a reason. Although Trinitarians scholars acknowledge this, Trinitarian translators and apologists continue to mistranslate John 1:1 anyway and mislead uninformed readers.
2. The presence of the definite article in John 1:1 indicates the word theos in the first instance is used in a quantitative sense (referring to "that" person or "who" the Word was with) and the absence of the definite article in the second instance indicates that the word "theos is used in a qualitative sense (referring to "what" the Word was).
3. If John had indeed used the definite article in the second instance he would have been telling us that the Word was "the God" in the same sense that we would say "God was the Word" which would mean that only the Word was God and no one else. Trinitarian scholars admit this to be the case and the absence of the definite article is required to indicate the Word was something that God also was.
4. John is telling us that the Word was divine or that the Word was deity or "the Word was god" where all three translations intend the same sense. The capital 'G' is extremely misleading as it suggestively invites English readers, accustomed to English capitalization conventions, to assume John is telling us "who" the Word was which is most definitely not the case, and such translations violently do injustice to truth.
Pitanja za trinitance
Ako je trojstvo biblijsko naučavanje, zašto prepravljate pisma?
Kako je ime jednog istinitog Boga? (Jovan 17,3)
"and the Word was with the Divinity and the Word was divine"
"and the Word was with God and the word was god"
SUMMARY Trinitarians try to claim that John is telling us "Jesus was God" by identity and as we have shown this is most certainly not the case. John was telling us the Son of God had the nature of deity because he was with the Deity, that is, "God" who is to be understood here as the Father. Because they are caught in this dilemma here, Trinitarians will then further claim that having the nature of "God" therefore makes one God by identity, that is, "what" you are by nature makes you "who" you are by identity. We will easily demonstrate elsewhere in a separate article why this is a false premise. But for now all we need to see is that John meant, "and the Word was god/deity/divine" and is not identifying Jesus as "God."
Notes:
1. Trinitarians often employ this deceptive maneuver and few people catch it. They claim that if Jesus is "God" but not "the God" then he is another god and therefore a false god since there is only one true God. But this is a deception because we are not talking about identity here but nature. It is not a question of two gods but a question of whether more than one person can have the nature of deity. It is true that Jesus is not the one true God and would indeed be a false God but it is also true he is also not a false god either just as it is true that Eve is not the true Adam but she is indeed adam. It is simply a subtle game of letters.
Key Points
1. The brilliant theologian Origen and respected Trinitarian scholars today indicate the presence or absence of the definite article in John 1:1 is significant and is present in the first instance of theos and not at the other for a reason. Although Trinitarians scholars acknowledge this, Trinitarian translators and apologists continue to mistranslate John 1:1 anyway and mislead uninformed readers.
2. The presence of the definite article in John 1:1 indicates the word theos in the first instance is used in a quantitative sense (referring to "that" person or "who" the Word was with) and the absence of the definite article in the second instance indicates that the word "theos is used in a qualitative sense (referring to "what" the Word was).
3. If John had indeed used the definite article in the second instance he would have been telling us that the Word was "the God" in the same sense that we would say "God was the Word" which would mean that only the Word was God and no one else. Trinitarian scholars admit this to be the case and the absence of the definite article is required to indicate the Word was something that God also was.
4. John is telling us that the Word was divine or that the Word was deity or "the Word was god" where all three translations intend the same sense. The capital 'G' is extremely misleading as it suggestively invites English readers, accustomed to English capitalization conventions, to assume John is telling us "who" the Word was which is most definitely not the case, and such translations violently do injustice to truth.
Pitanja za trinitance
Ako je trojstvo biblijsko naučavanje, zašto prepravljate pisma?
Kako je ime jednog istinitog Boga? (Jovan 17,3)