Difference in Operation and Nature of Trinity?

[votivesoul]

In Acts 28:6, of Paul, it is written that he was thought to be "a god". It's a very close construct to John 1:1c.

For Paul to have been "a god", it would naturally follow, that Paul was in fact "divine", to have survived the snake bite the way he did.

Of course we know Paul was not divine, but that the Lord protected him and kept him from being harmed by the snake venom. But grammatically, it's the same idea.

To the islanders, Paul was divine. Theos describes their view of Paul as the subject noun. It has nothing to do with his identity as Paul the person, but rather as a means of describing his nature, had Paul really been "a god".

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

"There was a man sent from God..."

Seems pretty open and shut to me.

Ah, but does theos have the definite article?

Or not?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

In Acts 28:6, of Paul, it is written that he was thought to be "a god". It's a very close construct to John 1:1c.

For Paul to have been "a god", it would naturally follow, that Paul was in fact "divine", to have survived the snake bite the way he did.

Of course we know Paul was not divine, but that the Lord protected him and kept him from being harmed by the snake venom. But grammatically, it's the same idea.

To the islanders, Paul was divine. Theos describes their view of Paul as the subject noun. It has nothing to do with his identity as Paul the person, but rather as a means of describing his nature, had Paul really been "a god".

So then, if Paul was "divine" then he was "a god". Likewise, if the Word is "divine" then the Word is "a god". So... how many gods are there, if the Word isn't "the God"?

But then again, they didn't say Paul was "divine", they said he was "a god"...

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Yes, there is a Greek word for "divine". But this doesn't preclude the idea that John was using the Greek word theos qualitatively.

If we really don't want theos to be qualitatively, that, is, to act as an adjective to describe the Word, then what remains is an anarthrous noun meaning "a god".

Not so. Otherwise the New World Translation is more accurate than every other reputable English Bible.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

All major translations of the Bible were created by Trinitarian committees, which had no difficulty at all asserting the Deity of Christ Jesus at the time translation occurred. They believed and still believe as much that Jesus is God as any devout Oneness believer, but in a different way.

In fact, it's impossible to be a Trinitarian and believe that Jesus is NOT God. That's the crux of the doctrine. Same as with Oneness.

For the Trinitarian, any difficulties with John 1:1c are solved by John 1:1b. Pros (or "with") does that for them, hence why they have no controversy in translating John 1:1c the way they do, because the meaning is understood by the translators, even if it's lost on the average reading Trinitarian.

And yes, there are plenty of other verses in the Holy Scriptures one can go to to talk about the Deity of the Son of God, whether one is Oneness or Trinitarian. However, John 1:1 is a little different, based on the grammatical construct.

If the phrase "and the Word was God" means, or is identical to, "And God was the Word", as I think all Oneness believers I know assume it to mean, then damage is done to the grammar and syntax of the verse, regardless of the eventual translation into English.

If John had wanted to mean "And God was the Word", which would have been the proverbial nail in the coffin for the Oneness camp regarding the Oneness v. Trinitarian discussion, he would have had to have written the text of John 1:1c like so:

ho theos en ho logos, or "the God was the Word", literally translated.

But he did not. He wrote it like so:

kai theos en ho logos, translated as we have today, as you noted.

Finally, a note on pros from John 1:1b. While it can at times mean pertaining to, or, as you put it "to interface...toward and/or with regard to" also realize that in terms of an "interface", we have very literally, a "something" that goes between (i.e. inter-, from Latin) two faces.

Pros can mean "face to face" IF the "Word" is actually identified as another person besides "God". If a person is not identified in that passage, which it doesn't, "with" would still mean "face to face", but not concerning a relationship. That is why it makes more sense as "toward and/or with regard to".

Case in point: Revelations 22:3-4: “And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.”

God is the lamb with ONE FACE and ONE NAME sitting on the throne.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Ah, but does theos have the definite article?

Or not?

This is immaterial, in that the grammatical construction in John 1:6 is not the same as John 1:1c. In John 1:6, even though theos is anarthrous, it doesn't mean it is qualitative, as it is in John 1:1c.

For example, the NASB translates to theo as "divinely" in 2 Corinthians 10:4.

See here:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...4&version=NASB

...for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.

It's also how www.biblehub.com translates it in their interlinear version. See here:

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_corinthians/10-4.htm

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Not so. Otherwise the New World Translation is more accurate than every other reputable English Bible.

This is where major theological bias informs translation.

The NWT translates John 1:1c as "a god" because they are desperate to rule out that the Word was actually and literally God in any way, because by 1:14, it would show that Jesus is God, something they are loathe to accept.

Conversely, Trinitarian translations, of which we have by the bucket-full, translate John 1:1c "was God" because they are anxious to make the Word equal to God in terms of deity, so that at 1:14, they can say Jesus, as the Word made flesh, is God (the Son), not the same person/being as God the Father, per John 1:1b.

Oneness believers are eager to see John 1:1c translated as "God was the Word", so that, come 1:14, with no differentiation in Person, the Word made flesh, i.e. Jesus, is then God, not as a second person in the Godhead, but unequivocally God the Father. But in order to do this, the Oneness position takes some interpretative leaps to get there, as it pertains to pros in John 1:1b.

Secondly, to arrive at such a translation is to destroy the Greek and render the way it was written meaningless.

And so, since there isn't any real Oneness translation of the Bible available to anyone, Oneness adherents are left with "and the Word was God", meaning they require an interpretative mechanism, to allow the "Word" to be God the Father so Jesus, as the Word made flesh, in 1:14, can then be God the Father, even though the grammar and syntax of the verse doesn't allow for it.

Rarely, especially as it comes to Holy Scripture, will anyone find a translation that doesn't feature these biases. Any attempts at veering from the bias by another group, e.g. JW's and the NWT, causes them to be marginalized and/or ostracized, as heretics of a cult, even if what they have to say regarding John 1:1c actually has merit (for example, see how Trinitarians treat Oneness Apostolic because of their view on John 1:1. It's the same as the way Oneness adherents treat JW's).

It's just too bad for them, since they are not received as orthodox by any of the other in-groups who translate the Bible.

(By the way, I am not a JW and, among other things, I don't hold to their form of Christology. My points made above about them are merely salient to the greater argument and issues at hand. They are not meant as a personal defense of my own beliefs, lest any should wonder.)

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Pros can mean "face to face" IF the "Word" is actually identified as another person besides "God". If a person is not identified in that passage, which it doesn't, "with" would still mean "face to face", but not concerning a relationship. That is why it makes more sense as "toward and/or with regard to".

Case in point: Revelations 22:3-4: “And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.”

God is the lamb with ONE FACE and ONE NAME sitting on the throne.

Pros can mean any number of things, based on context. And it can still mean "face to face", or an "interface" like you mentioned before, in John 1:1b, without making the Word "another person besides 'God'", as quoted from above.

I argued elsewhere here at AFF some time ago that there is no real need to make logos at all personal. I will see if I can find the thread and provide a link.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Pros can mean any number of things, based on context. And it can still mean "face to face", or an "interface" like you mentioned before, in John 1:1b, without making the Word "another person besides 'God'", as quoted from above.

I argued elsewhere here at AFF some time ago that there is no real need to make logos at all personal. I will see if I can find the thread and provide a link.

Thanks. That would be interesting.