Cringe mate. Just put the JW tag on this and be done with it. It doesn’t take much googling to figure out that the author is a JW and is not coming to this issue from a neutral perspective.
I know of many a Biblical scholar who is evangelical or catholic or what have you and they are not barred from scholarly discussion. It is the argument that counts, not the choices people make in their personal lives.
Cringe. You may want to do some better research. Here are some interesting quotes on John 1:1c: John L. McKenzie: “Jn. 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.’” (Dictionary of the Bible, 1965), p. 317 - Jason David BeDuhn PhD: “Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression… A minimal literal (‘formal equivalence’) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: ‘And the Word was a god.’” (Truth in Translation), p. 132 _ C.H.Dodd writes: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [theos en ho logos]; would be “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No.1, January 1977. Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone,[QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p.60. _ J. W. Wenham, in The Elements of New Testament Greek, writes: “As far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed theos estin ho logos, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’. The interpretation of John 1.1 will depend upon whether the writer is held to believe in only one God or in more than one god.” Thus, theology rather than grammar is the stated reason for preferring ‘The Word was God.'” _ "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos. ... "In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that [the.os'] and [ho the.os'] ('god, divine' and 'the God') were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was 'God' ([ho the.os']; cf. Joh 17:3); 'the Son' was subordinate to him (cf. Joh 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities." ~Ernst Haenchen (Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar) (1984). [John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, pages 108-10, translated by Robert W. Funk.] .... "If a noun has no definite article in front of it, we would normally translate it as 'a'. (Exploring New Testament Greek: a way in, Escrito por Peter Kevern, Paula Gooder, pg. 60-61, 2004) .... "It avoids using the definite article (ho theos) and simply says that the Word was theos-we should perhaps translate 'was divine'"(The Bible: the basics, Escrito por John Barton, pg. 87,88, 2010) "'God', without article, is predicate here and not subject. It is therefore not identical with ho theos mentioned earlier." (JESUS THE CHRIST, NEW EDITION, BY WALTER KASPER pg. 158, 2011) .... "in fact sometimes the meaning of the English indefinite article a or an, cannot well be denied; and in conformity with this usage, the Greek article might sometimes be so employed en the New Testament. (Geseb. Lehrgeb, pg. 655. Stuart 163.4) .... "When the predicate nominative precedes the linking verb, the noun preceding this copula emphasizes quality. So the predicate "God" (theos) preceding "was" indicates that the Logos is divine" (Magnifying God in Christ: A Summary of New Testament Theology, Escrito por Thomas R. Schreiner, cap. The centrai, 2010) .... "a or, Deity, Divine (wich is actually a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)" (The Great Book: The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Plain English, Escrito por Destiny Image Publishers, pg. 181, 2003) .... "Part of the explanation of why the author of the Prologue chose to use "God" without the article to refer to the Word while he used "God" with the article to refer to the Father is that he desired to keep the Word distinct from the Father. (An introduction to New Testament Christology, Escrito por Raymond Edward Brown, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary, pg. 187, 1994) .... *Origen appealed to John 1:1, which has no definite article in the expression "the Word was God" & therefore could be translated "the Word was a God" (or perhaps "divine"). Christology: A Global Introduction By Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen __ *Scholar David Bentley Hart in his earlier work, "Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies" wrote concerning John 1:1: "As a general rule, the 'articular' form ho Theos-literally, 'the God'-was a title reserved for God Most High or God the Father, while only the 'inarticular' form theos was used to designate this secondary divinity. This distinction, in fact, was preserved in the prologue to John, whose first verse could justly be translated as: 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was a god.'" ___ Scholar & Professor Paula Fredriksen on Philippians 2: “The Greek, however, does not quite correspond to the RSV’s English. In Philippians 2.6, Jesus is not ‘in the form of the [high] God,’ but in the form of ‘[a] god.’ Jesus does not demur from equality with God the Father, but from ‘god-status’ or, close to Paul’s word choice, equality with ‘[a] god.’ The god who exalts Jesus in verse 9, by contrast, is the high god (ho theos, the god), referred to as ‘God the Father’ in verse 11. The conventions of English capitalization-‘God’ with the upper-case G in all clauses-obscure Paul’s Greek. Paul distinguishes between degrees of divinity here. Jesus is not ‘God.'” (Paul: The Pagan’s Apostle), Kindle location 2654
@@Gymnarius no because the argument he makes is based on his beliefs not simply the available textual evidence. and his own bias was not presented up front. no one is saying this gentleman shouldn't speak. What I am saying is if you are going to present this paper to viewers you must provide the context in which this paper was made. The point of the paper is to advance JW theology. The paper does not exist in a vacuum.
The research paper on which this video is based was rigorously peer reviewed and published in a very serious academic Biblical Journal (see description). Writing an academic paper is all about double checking and then double checking again. You are welcome to post a serious question or objection as to the argumentation.
@@Gymnarius you don't get it. Peer reviewed doesn't = correct or new or better argument. it means the work was done to a certain standard. JW have no doubt published many articles in journals. "very serious academic journal" =/ orthodox or ground breaking or even insightful, it just means the writing must reach a certain academic standard. but my point is that you have not indicated that the author of the paper is a JW pushing JW theology. This is not some discussion between atheists or classicists, the paper is advancing the JW theology and should be indicated as such. either in the title of the video or the description.
I think it refers to jesus.. he reincarnated into the word.... idk, i see a lot of mistakes on all abrahamic religions . I do believe the message of jesus saves humanity... to love each other and be all brothers is the way to avoid apocalypse, now we are at the border of a ww3... 🤷♂️ we should focus on the message and not on all the books.
A clash of paradigms (geocentrism/heliocentrism, flat earth/round earth, evolution/design, trinity/subordinancy) usually causes emotions. However, discussion remains vital and can be done without arms.
The difference you’re making between the textual differences makes Jehovah’s Witnesses more right about their theology. Due to all the church fathers and all meetings between them it’s being clear throughout history that you need to believe Jesus is God to be a Christian and not a God. That’s why I think this interpretation is not (as you said) good in a religious way, because it’s false.
Thank you for sharing. I'd say the doctors of the church after Justin Martyr saw a problem that did not exist in Justin's view. We have the choice to read John either as Justin did or as, say, Athanasius did. You have made up your mind and I have mine.
in the beginning was Jesus.Jesus was with Father and Jesus was Father,Jesus became flesh and came to earth,Jesus was God who took a small part of his own spirit and came to earth,why Jesus prayed?prayer means comunication when Jesus was in earth in human body heaven was not empty and God still everywere not only there where is Jesus,Jesus said Father greater then i he means im small part of God in human body and right now im not equal too Father becuse Father is enternal but im just part of Gods spirit right now,in Genesis God says lets make man in OUR image,not my but OUR which means Jesus was there,thats why jesus said i and the Father are one,who has seen me has seen the Father im in Father and Father in me,in gospel of John Jesus says Father glorfiy me with that glory that i had with you before everyting existed,in exodus moses asks God whats your name God says I AM,Jesus said Before Abraham was born I AM,which means God which spoke with Moses was Jesus,proverbs 30 3-4 What is his name and the name of his SON?so God is spirit who felt alone and created friend and called him son?and called him Jesus?i dont think Jesus first creation of God because its not logical God makes another God,God is 1 and he made him triune in 3 diffrent roles one part of God sits on throne in heaven.second part our saviour and cleans us from our sins,we are dark and second part gives us light,and the Holy spirit is that power that with us and in us which help us live with faith and a true life i hope i explained well sorry for my bad Engish
It's simple. There is God the Father; the Almighty God, and His Only Begotten Son; the Mighty God. The Son recognizes One God; His Father; and the Father recognizes His One and Only Son in whom all authority was given because He was well pleased with Him. The Son was begotten out of time and space; before creation. Born of the Eternal essence of His Father and NOT created. Therefore, He is the Only One who can know His Father's will perfectly. After the incarnation, He came to know our need perfectly as well; thereby becoming the Great Reconciler between God and man.
John Patrick, in his Clement of Alexandria (circa. 155-220 C.E.) notes: "Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and in another "First-begotten," to the Word." "But this seems to be rather a question of language than question of doctrine, At a later date a sharp distinction was drawn between “first - created” and “first - born", “first - born" or "first begotten";5 but no such distinction was drawn in the time of Clement, who with the Septuagint rendering of a passage in Proverbs before him could have had no misgiving as to the use of these terms." p.103,104, note 6. From The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Volume 1 Faith, Trinity, Incarnation, by Harry Austryn Wolfson, 2nd Edition, Revised: "Zahn casually remarks that Clement 'always makes a sharp distinction between the only uncreated God the Father and the Son or Logos who was begotten or created before the rest of creation.'...1. cf. Th. Zahn, "Supplementum Clementinium", (1884), 144, p. 204, 92"It is undoubtably with reference to this "coming forth" of the Logos prior to the creation of the world that Clement speaks of the Logos as "firstborn" [protogonos] and of wisdom, which he idtentified with the Logos, as the "first-created" [protoktistos]...30 Strom. VI, Ibid. V. 14., ibid. p 209 Quote: CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 155-220 C.E.): “...For ( WE ) thus understand: “I begot thee before the morning star,” with reference to THE FIRST-CREATED LOGOS OF GOD and similarly: “thy name is before sun,” and moon and before all creation...” - (Chapter 1, Paragraph 20, Verse 1; [1.20.1], “EXTRACTS FROM THEODOTUS,” By Robert Pierce Casey ; Quoted on Pages 40-91, “The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria,” Studies and Documents 1; London: Christophers, 1934.)
Bible writers frequently used the concept of “birth or begotten” in place of “made” or “created.” For instance, the Hebrew word for “brought forth” in some Bible versions is related to birth (“born”). (Deut 32:18; Psalm 51:5; Isaiah 51:2; 66:8-9; Proverbs 8:24-25.) The Hebrew word yalad means "to bear, bring forth, beget"- Gesenius, #3205, but it can be used (as the equivalent English word also can) for "cause to be." For example, when God says he "begot"/"fathered" (yalad) the nation of Israel (Deut. 32:6, 18), he clearly means that he caused it to be or created it as a nation. There is no implication that it was somehow begotten out of the very substance of his body. In like manner God calls the nation of Israel his son, his firstborn because it was the very first nation created by him and for him (cf. Ex. 4:22). Again, anything Jehovah causes to be may be said to be "begotten" by him and is his "offspring." "Do you thus repay [YHVH], O foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?" - Deut. 32:6, NRSV. "You forsook the creator who begot [yalad] you and ceased to care for God who brought you to birth." - Deut. 32:18, NEB. "Men of Athens [non-Christians], .... The God who made the world and everything in it ... does not live in shrines made by man. .... Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold or silver, or stone..." - Acts 17:22, 24, 29, RSV In Ps. 90:2 we also see yalad used in the sense of created: "Before the mountains were born [yalad] or you brought forth the earth" - NIV, AT, JB, NJB, NAB (1991), NASB; "begotten" - NAB (1970); "were given birth" - MLB. Or, "Before the mountains were created, before the earth was formed." - Living Bible, cf. TEV. So, the Hebrew word most often translated "begotten, brought forth" may also be understood (as in English) to mean created or produced.
This is a Jehovah's Witness false gospel video just be aware of that, they are absolutely twisting things and asserting things exist that do not exist.
Here are some interesting quotes about John 1:1c: Yale New Testament scholar Adela Yarbro-Collins notes that: “…the third clause of John 1:1 may be translated either ‘the Word was God’ or ‘the Word was a god’. Justin Martyr apparently understood the passage in the latter way. According to Henry Chadwick, ‘Justin had boldly spoken of the divine logos as ‘another God’ beside the Father, qualified by the gloss ‘other, I mean, in number, not in will.’” (Adela Yarbro-Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God), pp. 175 & 176 She and Henry Chadwick were referring to this comment by Martyr: “Then I replied, ‘I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wishes to announce to them.'” _ John L. McKenzie: “Jn. 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.’” (Dictionary of the Bible, 1965), p. 317 - Jason David BeDuhn: “Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression… A minimal literal (‘formal equivalence’) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: ‘And the Word was a god.’” (Truth in Translation), p. 132 _ C.H.Dodd writes: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [theos en ho logos]; would be “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No.1, January 1977. Trinitarian Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone,[QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p.60. _ J. W. Wenham, in The Elements of New Testament Greek, writes: “As far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed theos estin ho logos, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’. The interpretation of John 1.1 will depend upon whether the writer is held to believe in only one God or in more than one god.” Thus, theology rather than grammar is the stated reason for preferring ‘The Word was God.'” _ "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos. ... "In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that [the.os'] and [ho the.os'] ('god, divine' and 'the God') were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was 'God' ([ho the.os']; cf. Joh 17:3); 'the Son' was subordinate to him (cf. Joh 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities." ~Ernst Haenchen (Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar) (1984). [John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, pages 108-10, translated by Robert W. Funk.] .... "If a noun has no definite article in front of it, we would normally translate it as 'a'. (Exploring New Testament Greek: a way in, Escrito por Peter Kevern, Paula Gooder, pg. 60-61, 2004) .... "in fact sometimes the meaning of the English indefinite article a or an, cannot well be denied; and in conformity with this usage, the Greek article might sometimes be so employed en the New Testament. (Geseb. Lehrgeb, pg. 655. Stuart 163.4) .... "a or, Deity, Divine (wich is actually a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)" (The Great Book: The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Plain English, Escrito por Destiny Image Publishers, pg. 181, 2003) .... "Part of the explanation of why the author of the Prologue chose to use "God" without the article to refer to the Word while he used "God" with the article to refer to the Father is that he desired to keep the Word distinct from the Father. (An introduction to New Testament Christology, Escrito por Raymond Edward Brown, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary, pg. 187, 1994) .... Origen appealed to John 1:1, which has no definite article in the expression "the Word was God" & therefore could be translated "the Word was a God" (or perhaps "divine"). Christology: A Global Introduction By Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen .... Scholar David Bentley Hart wrote in one of his earlier work "Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies" regarding John 1:1: "As a general rule, the 'articular' form ho Theos-literally, 'the God'-was a title reserved for God Most High or God the Father, while only the 'inarticular' form theos was used to designate this secondary divinity. This distinction, in fact, was preserved in the prologue to John, whose first verse could justly be translated as: 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was a god.'"
John was a Hebrew and was a Hebrew speaker (most likely spoke Aramaic as well). The word for God/god in Hebrew was EL -אל-. The Aleph א meant strong/powerful and the Lamed ל meant leader = Strong/Powerful Leader. As examples, Peter boldly spoke the words at Acts 5:31, referring to Jesus: God exalted this one as a Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And Ps 110:1 states: "Jehovah (Yahweh) declared to my Lord" Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet" and used as reasoning by Jesus at Matt 22:43 & 44. (there are other scriptures). The right hand of God is a powerful position, that would make Jesus a powerful leader. Paul stated at 1Cor 15:24-28 " For he (Jesus) must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his (Jesus) feet. vs 28 .... the Son himself will also subject himself to the One (God) who subjected all things to him (Jesus) , that God may be all things to everyone. Jesus is in relative authority and power to his Father, the Almighty One but he is not God himself but like-god. Thank you for your video, very informative,
Learned and translated κοινή greek for five years as part of my high school curriculum in Italy and dude, translating Θεός into A GOD, is kinda of a stretch tbh. In greek indefinite 'A' is always explicit as τις. In absence, determinate article is rightfully assumed: the traditional translation makes way more sense I'm sorry. Also this shows how a mistranslation (be it intentional or not) can lead to serious doctrinal errors and how important it is to examine context and tradition alongside grammar when approaching any translation.
It is worth noting that at John 10:33-36, Jesus was using Ps.82: to REFUTE the Jews assertion that Jesus was claiming to be God. Rather, Jesus said, "... because I said, 'I am God's Son.,'". Jesus was in effect saying that the Scriptures themselves speak of others that can be referred to as gods, but that this does not diminish the ONLY TRUE God. It does not need to mean that all other powerful godlike ones are FALSE gods. Ps.8:5 actually reads, "elohim", but obviously refers to angels.
@@Gymnariuscool, because I was just studying John and I had a new revelation of who Jesus says He is, I would like to know more of your thoughts would it be possible to have a connection with you via email?
God is the divine Elohim of Genesis 1 that speaks as "Us" and creates mankind, male and female in "Our" image. And after the fall the Most High declares that man has became as "one of Us". There was no El (a singular God that was introduced. Instead, an Elohim ("gods" in Hebrew) was introduced So right from the beginning the ONE God of Israel is a UNION of divine Beings, not one Being. Because of their perfect unity they are not like the mythological Gods of the pagans. Elohim is usually used with singular verbs to show the perfect "echad" oneness of these divine Beings. But in Gen 35:7 Elohim is used with a plural verb - so the passage should be translated to say the "the gods" appeared to the patriarch Jacob. And this matches the vision of Stephen who saw Jesus standing on the right hand of his Father in heaven. In fact many times in the New Testament it testifies that the resurrected Jesus is on the right hand of God.
"Elohim is plural un form, but is usually singular in construction (used with a sg. verb or adjective). When applied to the one true God, the plural is evidently due to the Hebrew idiom of a plural of magnitude or majesty... used to heathen gods or of angels or judges as representatives of God, Elohim is plural in sense as well as form. (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Escrito por J. D. Douglas, Merrill C. Tenney, buscar elohim, 2011) "Elohim, the ordinary Hebrew name [title] for God. ... it is use, as an ordinary plural of heathen gods, or of supernatural beings (1Sam 28:13), or even of earthly judges Ps(82:1,5, cf. Jn 10:34): but when used of the One God it takes a singular verb" (Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible) "That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in ELOHIM, is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute" "The pluralis exvellentiae or maiestatis"(Hebrew Grammar, Gesenius, pg. 398,399) "It is characteristic of Heb. that extension, magnitude and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expresed by the plural." (The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol. II, pg. 1265, 1982) "That the language of the OT has entirely given up the idea of plurality in ELOHIM is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably constructed with a singular verbal predicate and takes a singular adjectival attribute. ... ELOHIM must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness, and majesty, being equal to The Great God. It ranks with the plurals ADHONIM and BEALIM, employed with reference to human beings." (The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature, Vol. XXI, pg 208) "In days gone by, Genesis 1:26--"Let us make man in our image"--was the key Old Testament text appealed to in support of the Trinity. But in the last generation that interpretation has rightly been abandoned. The plural in Genesis 1:26 is more likely a plural of majesty, referring only to God, or perhaps a plural referring to the heavenly court of Yahweh." (From Plato to Jesus: What Does Philosophy Have to Do with Theology?, Escrito por C. Marvin Pate, pg. 197, 2011) "The form with -im is also a plural form in Hebrew. But names are not pluralized so this is a title using the -im form to say that the abstract concept of deity is applied to or realized in this person. (Human kings are also referred to as "my lord" using the "plural" form. The -im form of 'Elohim has nothing to do with the Trinity" (The Essential Bible Companion to the Psalms: Key Insights for Reading God's Word, Escrito por Brian Webster, David R. Beach, bajo God, 2010) “Elohim, is grammatically plural, but does not indicate a numerical plural (i.e., “gods”). Hebrew uses the plural form to indicate honor or intensity, sometimes called the "plural of majesty." The consistent appearance of a singular adjective (Ps 7:9) or verb (Gen 20:6) used with Elohim shows that the one God is intended.” (Apologetics Study Bible-HCSB, Escrito por Chuck Colson, Norm Geisler, Hank Hanegraaff, pg. 3, 2007) “a “plural of majesty,” thus meaning “Godliest God” or “Highest God” or something like that.” (Genesis from Scratch: The Old Testament for Beginners, Escrito por Donald L. Griggs, W. Eugene March, pg. 54, 2010) “Scholars consider the form to be a plural of majesty, indicating the superior nature of Israel's God over the gods of other people.” (An introductory dictionary of theology and religious studies, Escrito por Orlando O. Espín, James B. Nickoloff, pg. 396, 2007) “The usual Hebrew word for God is Elohim (‘elohim), another plural of majesty with a singular meaning when used of Yahweh.” (The Oxford companion to the Bible, Escrito por Bruce Manning Metzger, Michael David Coogan, Oxford University Press, pg. 548, 1993) “Since this word [elohim] is always used with a singular verb, it is probably a plural of majesty rather than a true plural.” (Israel's wisdom literature: a liberation-critical Reading, Escrito por Dianne Bergant, pg. 21, 1997) “The plural does not hint at polytheism when referring to Israel's God but is a plural of majesty, a revelation of the infinite nature of God (compare Gen. 1:26).” (Holman Concise Bible Dictionary, Escrito por Holman Bible Editorial Staff, pg. 443, 2011) "Theology has not found easy to take plurality in God seriously" (Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit, Escrito por Clark H. Pinnock, pg. 32, 1999)
Genesis 1:26 says let us Make, not Create-big difference. Father is the Elohim alone of Genesis 1. He alone is the origin or source of creation. Jesus, identified as Wisdom in the parallel accounts of Luke 11:49-51 and Matt 23:34-36, himself said the Father created him and was a Master Worker or Master craftsman alongside the Father in creation. He was not a co-creator but a worker or builder alongside his God and Father. PROVERBS 8:22-31(New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition) “The Lord [YHVH] CREATED me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago. 23 Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. 24 When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth, 26 when he had not yet made earth and fields or the world’s first bits of soil. 27 When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, 28 when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, 29 when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, 30 then I was beside him, like a master worker, and I was daily his delight, playing before him always, 31 playing in his inhabited world and delighting in the human race. The Bible tells us that Jesus was the very first creation by Jehovah God (Jehovah became the Father at that point). Being the first (and only direct) creation by Jehovah makes Jesus "the firstborn of all creation" (Col. 1:15), and the beginning of the creation of God" (Rev. 3:14), and "the only-begotten Son" of God (1 John 4:9). Furthermore, Yehovah made all the rest of creation through Jesus, his firstborn Son, who is the Master Worker. The proper understanding of the NT Greek word dia ("through") clearly tells the whole story.
This was really insightful and thought provoking. I am clearly not knowledgeable in linguistics. However, I do understand why the “a” could have been used. I do disagree with it though. Most likely because I’m biased. Haha. ( a man must know where he is weak) I personally believe John is trying to imply that Jesus is God himself but not the father. Think the more you read John’s gospel this is the conclusion you come to. A God, Seems to imply that Jesus is separate from the father thus making him another God Contradicting the rest of the gospel in my opinion. Thank you so much for this very informative video. Much appreciated.
Dear Polycarp, I appreciate the politeness with which you express your own opinion. Of course there are more passages involved. The video does not cover what the research paper on which it is based also discusses, and then there are still other parts. But the point is: the translation "the Word was a god" is justifiable in that it at least represents an early 2nd-century interpretation (the times of Polycarp!), long before the Nicene creed.
It's interesting because most early Church fathers did think of subordanency. Meaning they thought the father was greater than the son and the Holy spirit
Agreed. This view of the Word in John 1 or Jesus, being a lesser subordinate god was a widely accepted view for hundreds of years in the early church. It is consistent with beliefs associated with Arianism. The final nation in Europe to convert from Arianism to Nicene Christianity in 671 CE was Lombardy. * It took over 600 years from the crucifixion of Jesus for the belief that he was fully God to be accepted everywhere in Christian Europe.
I think that you are wrong on two grounds. The first is translational. Putting the word ''a'' where it doesnt exist, is a basic error in translation. Because the word ''a'', doesnt exist in the original text. On why it should be there in order for your case to have a chance, relates to the next ground. The second ground is contextual. In the New Testament, the polemic against the gods of other nations, simply doesnt exist anymore. In the Old Testament the word ''θεος'' contextually indeed was generic, in order to present to us the supernatural background of the double rebellion against YHWH as well as the constant clash between YHWH's people and the idolaters. In the New Testament however, up until the Gospel of John, ''θεος'' as a term is employed to refer simply to YHWH. It would be incohesive at least to say that John is using Old Testament background to tell us that Jesus is a lesser god, when especially adding in John 8:42 ''Ι came out of God'' and in John 8:58 '' Before Abraham was I AM (ehyeh)''.
@@omegaarts8317 *Regarding John 8:58 we need to look closely at John chapter 8 to see what Jesus was saying. Earlier in John chapter 8 those Jews had asked how Jesus could have possibly known Abraham who had died nearly 2000 years before. Jesus reply was obviously an explanation that he had been in existence even before Abraham had been born and was not merely an explanation of identity. Now, why, someone may ask, would the Jews get so worked up over Jesus' claim of being older than Abraham? The answer is found in the Jewish view of Abraham. Abraham was so important to them that he was the equivalent of Christ for us. Abraham was so important to the Jews because they claimed that being children of Abraham was a special title reserved for them. For Jesus to claim that he was older than Abraham was sacrilegious to the Jews. When someone is older, they have more power and authority. In short, they are better than younger people. To any Jew, Abraham would have been better than Jesus, mainly because Abraham was older. For Jesus to say that he was alive before Abraham was alive would mean that Jesus was better than Abraham. Proof of this thought process, older being synonymous with greater, is found in another account in the Bible. "John answered them, saying: 'I baptize in water. In the midst of you, one is standing whom you do not know, the one coming behind me, but the lace of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.' These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing. "The next day, he beheld Jesus coming toward him, and he said: 'See, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world! This is the one about whom I said, Behind me there comes a man who has advanced in front of me, because he existed before me. Even I did not know him, but the reason why I came baptizing in water was that he might be made manifest to Israel.'"-John 1:26-31 John would have been considered greater than Jesus because John was born about six months before Jesus. But since Jesus was alive in heaven before his birth, then Jesus was better than John, or "advanced in front of [him]." Since the Jews did not accept the pre-human existence of Jesus Christ, these words would be weird to them, but they wouldn't throw them into a blind fury as they did with Christ's statement about Abraham. But it was accurate because the apostles John and Paul tell us Jesus is the Firstborn of all creation and the beginning of the creation of God. (Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14)
@@omegaarts8317 *Notice these translations render ego eimi at John 8:58 as: 1. 4th/5th century: “before Abraham was, I have been” Syriac-Edition: A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith, London, 1894. 2. 5th century: “before Abraham ever came to be, I was” Curetonian Syriac-Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by Francis Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904. 3. 5th century: “before Abraham existed, I was” Syriac Peshitta-Edition: The Syriac New Testament Translated into English from the Peshitto Version, by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London, 1896. 4. 5th century: “before Abraham came to be, I was” Georgian-Edition: “The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,” by Robert Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950. 5. 6th century: “before Abraham was born, I was” Ethiopic-Edition: Novum Testamentum . . . in Æthiopic, by Thomas Pell Platt, rev. F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899. 6. 1937: “Before Abraham was, I have been”-Dr. Franz Delitzsch [not ’ehyeh, but instead ’ă·nî hayithi, which in English translation in context here has the continuous present perfect tense. 7. 1968: “Before Abraham was born, I was-Sagrada Biblia, Nácar-Colunga, Madrid (Antes que Abraham naciese, era yo). Additional translations on John 8:58. (1) “I HAVE BEEN”[4] - alternate reading in 1960 thru 1973 reference editions of NASB (2) “I HAVE BEEN” - The New Testament, G. R. Noyes (3) “I HAVE BEEN” - “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest, A. S. Lewis (4) “I HAVE ALREADY BEEN” - The Unvarnished New Testament (5) “I HAVE EXISTED” - The Bible, A New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt (6) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed., Beck (7) “I EXISTED” - An American Translation, Goodspeed (8) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams (9) “I EXISTED” - New Simplified Bible (10) “I WAS IN EXISTENCE” - Living Bible (11) “I WAS ALIVE” - The Simple English Bible (12)“I WAS” - Holy Bible - From the Ancient Eastern Text, Lamsa (13)“I WAS” - Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1st ed. (Also see Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 61 of “The New Covenant.”). (14) “I WAS” - The Syriac New Testament, Jas. Murdock (15) “I WAS” - H. T. Anderson (16) “I WAS” - Twentieth Century New Testament (17) "I EXISTED" - New Living Translation (NLT) Additional (found in an on-line post): The Living New Testament: "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The 20th Century New Testament: "before Abraham existed I was." Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T.: Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed. Cotton Patch Version (1970): To this Jesus replied, I existed before Abraham was born. Good News for the World (1969) Jesus answer, I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born. New Believers Bible, New Living Translation: "I existed before Abraham was even born." The New Testament, Kleist and Lilly: "I am here-and I was before Abraham." Wakefield, G. N.T. (1795) Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham was born, I am He. The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Burkitt & The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, Blake & Briere: "Before Abraham came to be, I was." The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant, Sharpe: "I was before Abraham was born." The New Testament, Stage: "Before Abraham came to be, I was." The Documents of the New Testament, Wade: "Before Abraham came into being, I have existed." Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961) Jesus answered them: Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born. The Concise Gospel and The Acts, Christianson: "I existed even before Abraham was born." The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born." The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham." Swann, G. N.T. (1947) Jesus said to them, verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before Abraham was born International English Version (2001) "I was alive before Abraham was born" It's interesting to see that even the paraphrase Bible, the Living Bible (also published as The Word and The Book), which often takes great liberties with the literal text in order to better bring out trinitarian interpretations, denies an " 'I' AM' = God" interpretation for John 8:58. It brings out, instead, the obvious intended meaning of John 8:58 as: "the absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born!" ' not "I was God before Abraham...." Even the oldest English translations do not render this as "I am": Joh 8:58 Se hælend cwæð to him. ic was [was] ærþam þe abraham was [was] - Anglo-Saxon Gospels, Manuscript 140, Corpus Christi College circa 1000 by Aelfric. Joh 8:58 Se hælend cwæð; to heom. Ic wæs ær þonne þe abraham wære. - Anglo-Saxon Gospels, Hatton Manuscript 38, Bodleian Library circa 1200 by unknown author.
@@omegaarts8317 JOHN 8:58; TATIAN'S DIATESSARON TATIAN THE ASSYRIAN (circa. 120-180 C.E.): "...Thou art not fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? He answered them, ( before ) Abraham was ( I already existed )..." - (Page 37, John 8:58; A-J. VII. 12-59. E. 196-197. "THE DIATESSARON OF TATIAN" - A Harmony of the Four Holy Gospels compiled in the Third Quarter of the Second Century ; Now first edited in an English form with Introduction and Appendices. By the Rev. Samuel Hemphil. London, Hodder & Stoughton 1888.)
Hm, Jehovah's witness propsganda that purposely mustangs the Greek. Greek has no indefinite article. The definite article is not always used but does not indicate an indefinite article. The sentence construction indicates that the same God is being talked about in both cases. This is straight up misinformation being offered.
I enjoyed it very much. The explanation is easy for most, like me, who do not understand the linguistic issues surrounding John 1:1c. Trinitarians use theology to render Jn. 1:1c as " the Word was God." If a verse can be rendered in two permissible ways, theology will influence the Translators of any Bible translation choice.
Thank you for your comment. The answer is in the text: κύριος ὁ θεός. This video focuses exclusively on the Gospel of John, not John's letters or Revelation.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Jesus was not speaking in Revelation 1:8. Please consider this. Revelation 1:4-6 (KJV): 4 “John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from HIM WHICH IS, and WHICH WAS, and WHICH IS TO COME; and from the seven Spirits which are before HIS throne; 5 AND FROM Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” In Revelation 1:4-6, the apostle John clearly distinguishes between “HIM WHICH IS, and WHICH WAS, and WHICH IS TO COME," the seven spirits before HIS throne (the Father's throne), and Jesus Christ. These verses show us that “HIM which is, and which was, and which is to come” and Jesus are not the same person. As a matter of fact, in verse 6, Jesus is to make his faithful followers “kings and priests unto God and his Father.” Also, the seven spirits are before the throne of “HIM which is, and which was, and which is to come” and not Jesus. Verse 7 is linked to verses 5 & 6 about Jesus which John made a clear distinction between him and from HIM WHICH IS, and WHICH WAS, and WHICH IS TO COME, which is Jesus' Father and God. In verse 7 of chapter 1, John then ends by saying, "Amen." (Amen is used in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim practices as a concluding word, or as a response to a prayer - Harper, Douglas. "amen." Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 20 August 2007). Now, someone totally new begins to speak. Notice Revelation 1:8: 8 “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, WHICH IS, and WHICH WAS, and WHICH IS TO COME," the Almighty.” Here in this verse, we see the Alpha and Omega, who is the One “which is, and which was, and which is to come.” In the earlier verses, John clearly distinguished between “HIM which is, and which was, and which is to come,” which the seven spirits are before His throne and Jesus Christ. This shows us “HIM which is, and which was, and which is to come,” who is the Alpha and Omega is clearly different from Jesus Christ. In verses 9-16, the apostle John resumes speaking. Then Jesus began speaking in verses 17-20. Revelation 1:18 and Revelation 2:8 shows Jesus died, as he said he was dead in those verses. Other scriptures in the NT show the Father and God of Jesus resurrected him back from the dead. The Alpha and Omega, YHVH, cannot die. Habakkuk 1:12 Christian Standard Bible Are you not from eternity, LORD [YHVH] my God? My Holy One, you will not die... NET Bible LORD [YHVH], you have been active from ancient times; my sovereign God, you are immortal... Another thing to keep in mind. One Biblical Scholar, who is also a Jew, said the Divine Name Yehovah/Jehovah combines three forms of the verb "to be." Hayah-He who was, Hoveh-He who is, Yihyeh-He Who Will Be or He is to Come. This lines up with the person speaking in Revelation 1:8. (Source ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4vgXMmBst8w.htmlsi=MUXqAdcyy8xovHIY ) It was the God and Father of Jesus Christ that spoke in Revelation 1:8.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 “and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” - Revelation 1:18(ASV) Jesus goes on to say that he was dead, and now he’s alive. It is then reasonable to conclude that when taken in context , being “the first and the last” is in reference to being dead and then being made alive. In what way? “and killed the Prince of life; whom GOD RAISED from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.” - Acts 3:15 (ASV) God raised Jesus directly. Since Jesus will be the one fulfilling God’s act of the resurrection. Which Jesus tells us this much at the end of the verse when he says, “I have the keys to Hades”. So Jesus was “the first and the last” person to be resurrected directly by Jehovah God himself. That is not the only reason in which Jesus could be called “the first and the last.” Remember, Jesus is God’s only begotten son. His first and only direct creation. Jehovah created Jesus, then through Jesus everything else was created (Colossians 1:15, 16). Jesus was actually “the first and the last” creature made by Jehovah directly. One ancient Greek manuscript of Revelation 1:17 says, "Firstborn and Last." Jesus is not the First and Last mentioned in Isaiah 44:6 or Isaiah 48:12. This One here declares his eternal Godship or his Ultimate authority. This is also the One who gave Christ his authority.
Many people don't realize that Jesus is the agent or representative of the Father. He comes in the agency of Father. Unfortunately, many people don't understand agency. This is how agency or shaliah works: "The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum [an authoritative pronouncement or a noteworthy statement], "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself. Therefore, any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder -- GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic law as follows: "One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the SHALIACH] is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This is more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times, the messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 18). -- Additional helpful information for understanding a shaliach is found in The Jewish Encyclopedia, page 232. It describes the "Jewish Law of Agency": "The Law of Agency deals with the status of a person (known as the agent) acting by direction of another (the principal), and thereby legally binding the principal in his connection with a third person. The person who binds a principal in this manner is his agent, known in Jewish law as sheluach or sheliach (one that is sent): the relation of the former to the latter is known as agency (shelichut). The general principle is enunciated thus: A man's agent is like himself." In Jewish law, a shaliaḥ is a LEGAL AGENT. In practice, "the shaliaḥ for a person is as this person himself." Accordingly, a shaliaḥ performs an act of legal significance for the benefit of the sender, as opposed to him or herself. So, this is in a legal sense, not an ontological sense. This is why a slave could speak as his Master or an angel could speak as his God. They represent the Sender, yet they are still obedient and subject to the Sender. Dr. James D. Tabor, Professor of Christian Origins and Ancient Judaism in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, points out the crux of the problem: "The confusion comes when people misunderstand the basic idea of agency. As chief agent of YHVH the Messiah does carry out the Divine Will. In that sense he too can be seen as King, Judge, Shepherd, Redeemer, Savior, Lord, etc. But he is never called YHVH, and all such roles are clearly given to him by YHVH Himself. Shared rulership, task, and mission, do not imply shared identity. For example, according to Revelation 3:21 the Messiah promises his faithful followers that they can "sit with me on my throne, as I sat with my Father (YHVH) on His throne." The idea here is unity of task and mission, not a merging of personal identity. "The same is the case with the oft quoted statement of Yeshua that "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Christians, trying to defend the non-biblical doctrine of the Trinity, often rip this verse totally out of context and completely ignore the commentary of Yeshua himself in John 17:21-23. He makes it clear that the "oneness" he has with "the only true God" (see 17:3!), is precisely equivalent to the "oneness" he has with his followers. Such language never implies "ontological identity" but unity of purpose and mission! The problem is that these texts are written in Greek, and particularly in the Gospel of John, have been given a Hellenistic cast. Subsequently, Christians who have totally lost all contact with Judaism and with the basic Biblical, Hebraic, thought-world, read them and make out of them what was never intended by their Jewish [Israelite] authors" (Restoring Abrahamic Faith, Genesis 2000, Charlotte, NC 1993, p. 78). Dr. James D. Tabor also notes that: "There are a few New Testament texts which speak of the Messiah as reflecting the image of YHVH God (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3). Again; this is not to be confused with identity. An image is just what the word implies, representation. The idea here is that YHVH Himself is invisible and unseen, but the Messiah can reflect the image of God. In other words, the Messiah can function as a human representation and manifestation of God. "One must never confuse the reflection, no matter how functionally important, with the One reflected. The angel of YHVH of whom YHVH speaks at the time of the Exodus, could speak for God and even represent Him with full power and authority. He was a visible manifestation of the Invisible One whom no man can see or behold, but nonetheless, the two are distinguished (*Exodus 23:20-21; Exodus 33:12-17; Zechariah 1:12-14). Indeed, Moses is quite concerned that this representative one whom YHVH says He will send is not the actual and direct Presence of YHVH Himself. "The Messiah is also called "Son of God" as we have seen (Psalm 2:7). This does not make him YHVH God. Rather it implies faithfulness and intimacy (see 2 Samuel 7:14!). The son remains just that, a "son." As such, he carries out the will of his Father, YHVH God. Never are the roles confused (see 1 Corinthians 15:28). The later Christian Church made a subtle but fateful shift in concept here: the Hebrew image of "Son of God" became God the Son, a "Second Person" of the Trinity or "Godhead." Such an idea is blasphemous and is nowhere found in Scripture. The entire God-man idea, as developed in Christianity, is an Hellenistic, pagan, concept, completely foreign to Biblical Hebraic thought" (Restoring Abrahamic Faith, pps. 78-79). Notes Tabor -- "As one can clearly see in Acts 3:13, 4:24 and 17:24, YHVH God, the One who appoints and exalts the Messiah, is always named as the Creator -- the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the YHVH of the Hebrew Bible (O.T.). To speak of Yeshua as YHVH God, as some have dared to do, is to totally ignore and trample the very language patterns and careful distinctions of the New Testament writers themselves!" (Restoring Abrahamic Faith, p. 78).
Regarding John 10:33, the Greek word for "God" here is anarthrous which means it can be translated with the indefinite "a." Now take note of how others have translated this: “Claim to be a god.”-New English Bible “Makest thyself a god.”-John Bowes, 1870 “Makest thyself a god.” Rev. Timothy Kenrick “Makest thyself a god.” Charles Voysey 1872 “Makest thyself a god.” Joseph Cohen (Jewish) 1872 “Makest thyself a God.”-James Stark 1866 “Makest thyself a god.” Rev. R. Shepherd D.D. 1841 “Makest thyself a god.” Abiel Abbot Livermore 1844 “[M]akest thyself a god.”-Samuel Sharpe, 1881. “Make Yourself out to be a god.”-Ferrar Fenton, 1909. "being a man, pretend to be a God." Daniel Mace New Testament "thou makest thyself a God" Leo Tolstoy (See also Emphatic Diaglott & Revised Version Improved and Corrected) “Make yourself a god.” Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p. 84 "making himself a god." C.H. Dodd - The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 205, Cambridge University Press, 1995 reprint. “[M]akest thyself ‘a god’ not ‘God’ as in C[ommon].V[ersion, KJV]., otherwise the definite article would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses,- ‘gods..[.] gods,’ where the title is applied to magistrates, and others, because in a certain sense they are God’s representatives. Compare also Acts 28. 6; 2 Cor. 2. 4.”-Robert Young, Concise Commentary, in loc. cit. “[F]or making a mortal like yourself into a god.”-Andy Gaus, The Unvarnished New Testament, 1991. The Revised English Version has "make yourself a god" with a footnote that adds: "'a god.' The Greek word Theos (2316 QEOS), God or god, does not have the definite article and should be translated “a god” or “divine.” Since the Jews would never believe a man could be Yahweh, and since it was common in the Aramaic and Hebrew to call an important man 'god,' that is the way we translated it." Even MARTIN LUTHER translated the passage as "a God!" "Any difficulty in understanding this verse is caused the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verse 34 and 35, then it would read, "...you a man, claim to be a god." One God/One Lord by Graeser, Lynn and Schoenheit p.482 "Purely on the basis of the Greek text, therefore, it is possible to translate [John 10:33] 'a god,' as NEB does, rather than to translate God, as TEV and several other translations do. One might argue on the basis of both the Greek and the context, that the Jews were accusing Jesus of claiming to be `a god' rather than 'God.' "- p. 344, United Bible Societies, 1980. "'...you are making yourself God [or a god].' The Greek word for 'god' here has no definite article. I personally suspect that we are intended to understand the statement as the accusation that Jesus is compromising God's uniqueness in making extravagant claims for himself. That is, Jesus is accused of making himself 'a god.' But commentators and translators are divided on exactly how to render the accusation." ~How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? by Larry W. Hurtado It also makes literary sense to have the indefinite article A here: "thou, being A man, makest thyself A god." --------- Now let's take a different look at Phil 2:5-7..."Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave... You have to wonder if QEOU should be taken as indefinite here, such as “form of a god”? This would highlight a parallel that is overlooked by most, the parallel between "the form of a god" and "the form of a slave." "In the epistle to the Philippians, 2. 6-11, he represents the Logos, as being first in the form of a god, and afterwards humbling himself, laying aside his majesty, and taking the form of a servant..." [A Monotessaron; Or The Gospel of Jesus Christ, According to the Four Evangelists by John Samuel Thompson 1828] "Agreeably to the language here made use of, it is said in another place, that Christ, being in the form of God, or in the form of a God, took upon himself the form of a servant." ~Rev. Timothy Kenrick 1828 *Scholar & Professor Paula Fredriksen on Philippians 2: “The Greek, however, does not quite correspond to the RSV’s English. In Philippians 2.6, Jesus is not ‘in the form of the [high] God,’ but in the form of ‘[a] god.’ Jesus does not demur from equality with God the Father, but from ‘god-status’ or, close to Paul’s word choice, equality with ‘[a] god.’ The god who exalts Jesus in verse 9, by contrast, is the high god (ho theos, the god), referred to as ‘God the Father’ in verse 11. The conventions of English capitalization-‘God’ with the upper-case G in all clauses-obscure Paul’s Greek. Paul distinguishes between degrees of divinity here. Jesus is not ‘God.'” (Paul: The Pagan’s Apostle), Kindle location 2654 *Scholar David Bentley Hart made a big update to the philippians hymn in Philippians of his Bible translation: "On the glorification of Jesus. Hart mentions that he is working on a second edition of his New Testament translation, where he plans to render the line in Philippians 2:6 about the preexistent Christ Jesus being ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ as “in the form of a god” rather than “in the form of God.” The 2nd edition of the DBH (David Bentley Hart) NT👇🏿: Philippians 2:6 is “who, subsisting in a god’s form, did not deem existing in the manner of a god a thing to be grasped,”
Gli risposero i giudei: «Non ti vogliamo lapidare per un’opera buona. ma per la bestemmia. cioè che tu, essendo un uomo, ti fai un dio» (Evangelo secondo Giovanni, G. Nolli, Libreria Editrice Vaticana). a god ED - FEN - NEB - 2001T - The New Testament translated from Griesbach’s text, Samuel Sharpe - The Unvarnished New Testament, A. Gaus - The Bible; Analyzed, Translated and Accompanied with Critical Studies, Published in Parts of Books, Single Books and Collections of Book, L. A. Sawyer - A Natural New Testament - Little Watchman Translation - Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe god The Four Gospels, A New Translation, Charles C. Torrey a God An English version of the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from the text of the Vatican Manuscript, Herman Heinfetter - A Liberal Translation of the New Testament dieu La Bible, Nouveau Testament, Grosjean e Léturmy dios El Nuevo Testamento de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, Pablo Besson
And now, let’s tackle the main issue- why does it even matter? Why would it matter if the Pharisees, who were always against Jesus, said “you make yourself out to /be God” or “make yourself out to be /a god/?” I mean honestly, they’re ARGUING, for another point. Imagine if I said “you make yourself out to be crazy” as opposed to “you make yourself out to be A crazy person.” What part of the phraseology actually denotes me stating a belief on the amount of crazy people that exist? Also… are you claiming you’ve never made an error while writing? Yet another good point to explain how irrelevant and trivial something like this is. We get it, you don’t believe, you just want to be right.
@Gymnarius if you agree, you should reconsider your perspective on life and actually do some real leg work on studying the topics you’re talking about. Y’know, instead of just launching an emotional campaign to misrepresent a religion?
Terwijl de video aan het afspelen was dacht ik al dat "theos" misschien een andere context/betekenis had voor de grieken dan "god" voor ons, maar dat addresseer je rond 14 minuten. Doet denken aan de term "kami" in het Shintoïsme, wat "god" betekent maar ook dingen zoals geesten van dode voorouders en "de zielen die in alle objecten leven". Verwarrend zonder destijdse context.
@@Gymnarius eu só falei os nomes gregos pela fama deles serem usados em todo o tipo de mídia, e pra todos entenderem que se tratava da mitologia greco-romana.
Thank you for your feedback. I did not dare to use my own voice with Dutch accent. What accent would you have preferred? And who really pronounces Ancient Greek as it should be pronounced? You can also watch a version of this video entirely in Modern Greek: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TUfftUwUi14.html
