Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode
