Help With The Greek

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

It might help to know what substantial difference or doctrinal upheaval would be generated--that benefitted the Oneness view over and against the Trinitarian view--if "God was the Word" in place of "the Word was God" is the better understanding and translation?

Does "God was the Word" make it seem more likely that the Logos is God the Father so that v. 14 means "God the Father was made flesh"?

What am I missing?

I was in a discussion/debate last week in a voice chat forum Paltalk.com. There were about approximately 6-7 Trins vs Two other Oneness believers and myself with another 30-40 Trins either helping their warriors in text or just watching and one or two other Oneness observing. It was pretty typical. Oneness holds the high ground going through the concept of one God and Christ's deity.

Then comes the moment when the Trins think they will prevail as the conversation goes to John 1:1. They present the Logos as the second person of God. They connect to Col. 1:12-16 and Heb. 1:1-3 showing the personality of the Creator and Paul identifying him with the Son.

The UPC brother who invited me to this debate went around with them twice presenting the mainstream Oneness view that the Logos was the plan in Gods mind for Christ.

The Trins hit hard with ridicule showing the Logos as a "him" in creation. This brother dropped out of the discussion. The other Oneness Brother fell apart. In about three straight times at the mic he went berserk, half in tears yelling the rest of his time.

They would continually use the straw man of "modalism" that was long ago thrust upon Sabellius against us. I presented the minority doctrine among Oneness and described true modalism as I see it as in post 10 in this thread.

They hit back with the second mention of God has no article in it therefore the Logos cannot be speaking of God the Father. To them the second time God is mentioned has to do not with God as a "person" but as a quality.

I responded what I have seen in the Interlinears concerning the verse, backed up by the agreement with the Aramaic and Latin versions as well as the earliest English versions that the ending words are "God was the logos".

If this is what John actually wrote it takes this argument away when your understanding is that the Logos is Gods visible, personal image. It would then have John plainy saying God himself....the Father, the only true God HIMSELF was that visible image,the Logos.

Not a second person, neither just a thought/plan in Gods mind.

This is it in a nutshell. I was attacked strongly and warned about "word order" making this impossible.

Thats why I am asking about it. If INDEED this is not a possible ending for the verse I will have to quit using it. At this time the rules and constructions of the Greek discussed here are way over my head!

I just see the finished product of an Interlinear which early on Scott said the language is spoken as it was written and that Logos was the last word of the sentence, agreeing with Aramaic, Latin, and German Bible versions.

So obviously if this is wrong I dont want my credibility to be smashed as I assume
(by faith) I will be teaching on John 1:1 for the rest of my life.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I was in a discussion/debate last week in a voice chat forum Paltalk.com. There were about approximately 6-7 Trins vs Two other Oneness believers and myself with another 30-40 Trins either helping their warriors in text or just watching and one or two other Oneness observing. It was pretty typical. Oneness holds the high ground going through the concept of one God and Christ's deity.

Then comes the moment when the Trins think they will prevail as the conversation goes to John 1:1. They present the Logos as the second person of God. They connect to Col. 1:12-16 and Heb. 1:1-3 showing the personality of the Creator and Paul identifying him with the Son.

The UPC brother who invited me to this debate went around with them twice presenting the mainstream Oneness view that the Logos was the plan in Gods mind for Christ.

The Trins hit hard with ridicule showing the Logos as a "him" in creation. This brother dropped out of the discussion. The other Oneness Brother fell apart. In about three straight times at the mic he went berserk, half in tears yelling the rest of his time.

They would continually use the straw man of "modalism" that was long ago thrust upon Sabellius against us. I presented the minority doctrine among Oneness and described true modalism as I see it as in post 10 in this thread.

They hit back with the second mention of God has no article in it therefore the Logos cannot be speaking of God the Father. To them the second time God is mentioned has to do not with God as a "person" but as a quality.

I responded what I have seen in the Interlinears concerning the verse, backed up by the agreement with the Aramaic and Latin versions as well as the earliest English versions that the ending words are "God was the logos".

If this is what John actually wrote it takes this argument away when your understanding is that the Logos is Gods visible, personal image. It would then have John plainy saying God himself....the Father, the only true God HIMSELF was that visible image,the Logos.

Not a second person, neither just a thought/plan in Gods mind.

This is it in a nutshell. I was attacked strongly and warned about "word order" making this impossible.

Thats why I am asking about it. If INDEED this is not a possible ending for the verse I will have to quit using it. At this time the rules and constructions of the Greek discussed here are way over my head!

I just see the finished product of an Interlinear which early on Scott said the language is spoken as it was written and that Logos was the last word of the sentence, agreeing with Aramaic, Latin, and German Bible versions.

So obviously if this is wrong I dont want my credibility to be smashed as I assume
(by faith) I will be teaching on John 1:1 for the rest of my life.

Whatever the word was with, the word WAS. The trinitarian position assumes ho theos = Father and plain theos = divine substance. But that would mean the logos was the divine substance. They switch back and forth to avoid being consistent lest they be exposed for their mishandling of the scripture. The overwhelming majority are just looking to validate themselves so the only people you will convince are the silent observers, not the ones you are actually debating.

And God was the Word vs And the Word was God... there is no difference. The logos was God and God was the logos. And unto us there is ONE GOD: THE FATHER. Not a divine substance possessed by more than one divine person. You and I are two persons with the same substance or nature and we are two MEN. Three persons with the same divine nature are properly called three GODS. Trinitarianism is monotheistic in name only.

[Michael The Disciple]

And God was the Word vs And the Word was God... there is no difference. The logos was God and God was the logos. And unto us there is ONE GOD: THE FATHER.

Yea exactly. I just was minded that from the God was the word side it would show it a bit stronger.

[Scott Pitta]

The best verse to use to understand Jn. 1:1 is First John 1:1. Similar phrases and vocabulary are found in each passage.

Translation is more important to me than the theology.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Yea exactly. I just was minded that from the God was the word side it would show it a bit stronger.

I don't believe that you'll get far with your debating partners if you were to say that there is no difference between "God was the Word" and "the Word was God." I would imagine that most would just first say that grammatically only one is a legitimate translation (the Word was God) and then second that theos without the article ho shows not an identity of person but an identity of divine essence, which of course, is classic Trinitarianism. To support this, all they will do is point to the context of vv. 1-18 and show that the Logos is described in personal times and is distinguished from the Father, so for them, the Logos is obviously not the Father, but is with the Father and is fully divine sharing the Father's essence.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I don't believe that you'll get far with your debating partners if you were to say that there is no difference between "God was the Word" and "the Word was God." I would imagine that most would just first say that grammatically only one is a legitimate translation (the Word was God) and then second that theos without the article ho shows not an identity of person but an identity of divine essence, which of course, is classic Trinitarianism. To support this, all they will do is point to the context of vv. 1-18 and show that the Logos is described in personal times and is distinguished from the Father, so for them, the Logos is obviously not the Father, but is with the Father and is fully divine sharing the Father's essence.

So do you surrender John 1:1 to the Trins?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

So do you surrender John 1:1 to the Trins?

No, I just don't think it's going to help your case to suggest that, overall, there is no difference in "the Word was God" and "God was the Word."

[Michael The Disciple]

Costeon,

Please forbear a bit longer.

" I would imagine that most would just first say that grammatically only one is a legitimate translation (the Word was God) and then second that theos without the article ho shows not an identity of person but an identity of divine essence, which of course, is classic Trinitarianism.

If only one is a legitimate rendering is the Aramaic version False? Is the Latin version false? How about the German?

Were the early English versions available to the common man false?

I guess I'm not ready to let this go until I understand this.

Could it be that we as Oneness could be following rules and constructions of language that maybe were created by Trinitarians?

[Michael The Disciple]

To support this, all they will do is point to the context of vv. 1-18 and show that the Logos is described in personal times and is distinguished from the Father, so for them, the Logos is obviously not the Father, but is with the Father and is fully divine sharing the Father's essence.

IMO they are correct to point out that the Logos is/was personal. The difference is to them the personality is a distinct person of God numerically.

The truth of the personality is that it is God himself, the Father in A PERSONAL FORM.

As in Heb. 1:3 The express image of HIS PERSON. Not another person but his OWN.

So yes the Logos is/was PERSONAL.

And yes the Logos IS disctinct from the Father in the sense of mode of being.

Distinct in that "God" is omnipresent eternal Spirit and the Logos is visible and local.

In this understanding yes, the Logos IS personal yet distinct and yet preserves the oneness of God.

[Scott Pitta]

Word order in Aramaic, German, and Latin are all different. I do not see any value in making comparisons between the word order between them.

I suggest abandoning the false version idea.