The point I was making was that Colwell thought that his rule addressed that issue. I don’t know what Carson meant because I didn’t read all that he wrote. Like I said, I am guessing that he is saying Colwell didn’t write much on it, but my original point was that Colwell thought that his rule did imply the Word was God was a more likely translation. I will agree with you that I wasn’t clear on everything I typed. I didn’t take the time that I should have to clearly lay it out. Also, I am still forming an opinion on some of the grammar. What seems clear is that Colwell’s rule shows that the noun not having an article does not mean it is indefinite but that it could be definite and follows the usual syntax for a definite noun before the verb. It is also clear that Colwell thought that his rule showed that the Word was God is a much more likely translation.
Do you understand why he was wrong?
I gave you Carson’s words in full context. What is it about his words that you don’t understand?
Carson is not saying Colwell “didn’t write much about it”. He states explicitly that “Colwell’s rule does not address this issue at all”. What part of “does not address this issue at all” is confusing you?
But Colwell’s rule was established on inadequate data, and as Carson points out “Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb”.
I have already shown you scholarship saying that Colwell’s rule does not apply to John 1:1, and would result in a theological error even if it did apply. You’re still writing as if everything Colwell wrote was correct, and as if all the subsequent scholarship never happened.
Do you understand why modern scholars say this conclusion of Colwell’s was wrong? I gave you nearly half a dozen quotations, so you should understand it by now.
No I realized what Harner was saying. He did say it could be both definite and qualitative.
As for Harner’s Vawter quote, when he said, " he must mean that the word is divine in the same sense that o theos is divine", he is talking about o theos meaning the father. I didn’t give you enough of the quote so that you could see that and I think that is why you said you agreed when you do not. Again, you may disagree with Harner and Vawter, but that is what they were saying.
I also explained his use of qualitative with the phrase 'the word became flesh". This seems to me to be different than how you are understanding his use of qualitative.
I quoted the sentence where he is addressing the issue of how the verse should be translated. I think we agree that he mentioned that. As far as not addressing the things that Carson says are wrong with his conclusion, I agree that he does not address that. I think we are in agreement.
But you had already argued that it could not be qualitative.
I know what Harner wrote, I have read his work myself. I know he is speaking of o theos meaning the Father. I agree with him. I agree that if theos in John 1:1c is read as “divine”, it must mean “divine” in the same sense that o theos in John 1:1b (the Father), is divine.
It isn’t.
Of course Colwell talks about how the verse should be translated. But Colwell’s actual rule does not say anything at all about whether “divine” is a better translation than “God”. Carson makes this abundantly clear.
Thank you.
First, we can point to the Annunciation story found in Luke:
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!” 29 But she was greatly troubled by his words and began to wonder about the meaning of this greeting. 30 So the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God! 31 Listen: You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and his kingdom will never end.” 34 Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?” 35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God.
That’s showing the Holy Spirit intimately connected with God, and overshadowing Mary, before Jesus is even born. It doesn’t even show the Holy Spirit interacting with Jesus. It also describes the Holy Spirit as God’s power (not as a person).
We are talking about the conception of Jesus here. I didn’t say it showed the Holy Spirit interacting with Jesus, did I? (But stand by, we are going to get to that eventually.)
In the context of “the Holy Spirit as frequently and intimately connected with God and Jesus”, you said “First, we can point to the Annunciation story found in Luke”. That looks like you’re offering the annunciation as an example of “the Holy Spirit as frequently and intimately connected with God and Jesus”. Since it’s clear that this has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit as a person, I don’t see the point of citing it.
Right now I’m speaking of the Holy Spirit’s connection with Jesus. The Child conceived in Mary was from the Holy Spirit.
Ok, well this isn’t controversial. We both agree with this. Why not just cut to the part where the New Testament speaks of god as “they”, or describes God as “three whos in one what”, or talks of God as three persons, or says Jesus is “God the Son”?
You said you didn’t see the connection between the Holy Spirit and Jesus. I pointed to one passage (there are plenty of others).
Don’t be rude. Do you want to see more about the connection between Jesus and the Holy Spirit, or should we go on to the Holy Spirit as a person?
I didn’t say I didn’t see the connection between the Holy Spirit and Jesus. I said I don’t see the Holy Spirit as frequently and intimately connected with God and Jesus. I see it as frequently and intimately connected with God, but not with Jesus. I gave my reasons for this.
I am not being rude. Why would you interpret that as rude? It’s a perfectly reasonable request. Why can’t we just get to that bit? It would save us both a lot of time.
I actually want to see the New Testament speaking of god as “they”, or describing God as “three whos in one what”, or talking of God as three persons, or saying Jesus is “God the Son”.
I think Bart Ehrman said it best. The Bible clearly portrays Jesus as Divine. If you open John’s Gospel, to chapter 15 v 5, you’ll find Jesus explicitly stating… “I am THE VINE…”
The Vine is a symbol of Israel. Jesus claims to be the true Vine, true Israel.
EDIT: Oh, shoot…I missed the joke.
I agree that what Colwell’s rule shows is that the lack of the article does not imply indefiniteness. It shows that it can be translated as the Word was God and does not have to be translated as the word was a god. He also gives examples where the same word is shifted from after the verb to before the verb (in the same sentene or paragraph I think) and loses the article.
Now the part about divine gets to something else you said. When Harner talks about divine, he means that the Word is completely God in the same way that the Father is completely God. You are not agreeing with what he is saying. He is not saying that they both share some lesser quality. This leads to my point about even if it was to be translated divine, it means divine as related to the God of the bible. There is only one of them as I said before and it calls three different people that one God. Your answer to that is quoted below.
All the many passages that describe Jesus as Yahweh cannot be reasonably stretched to mean he is just a representative of Yahweh. They are too strong for that. Thomas calls him my Lord and and my God. Lord is often used for Yahweh in the NT and in this context that is just what he means. This is just one example of where they say ‘what I am saying is Jesus is Yahweh’. By denying the clear cut declarations of the NT you are denying Jesus and according to I John, you are denying God. You are in rebellion against him and face an eternity in hell(whether you believe in it or not) if you do not repent.
Going back to John 1:1. As I showed above, the grammar can have theos as both definite and qualitative. Definite in the sense that the Word was 'the’ one and only God and qualitative in the sense that the nature of the Word was that he was the one and only God in his very essense. As far as how the three can be one? I have no idea. I only know that the Bible says there is only one true God and that it calls three different persons that one God. I will just believe God when he tells me it is so rather than try to figure out some way that makes more sense to me at the price of disbelieving God by denying either that all three are God or that there is only one God.
Oh, and on the gender question. Yes, a table may have a feminine word form and that does not make it a girl table. However, in reference to the Holy Spirit, the word for spirit is neuter and yet when Jesus talks about the Spirit of truth coming to them later in John 14 and 15, he does not use a neuter word for the relative pronoun(John 15:26) or the demonstrative, ekeinos(John 14:26). You would expect him to since the word ‘spirit’ is neuter. You would expect him to say when ‘it’ comes using a neuter relative pronoun to agree with the gender of the word spirit, but he does not. He uses the masculine pronoun, ‘he’. Likewise, he says the comforter will come and instead of using the neuter gender for comforter, which would be translated as a comforting force of some kind, he uses the masculine gender, showing that the Comforter, one of the names for the Holy Spirit, is a person.
In addition the Bible attributes personality traits to the Holy Spirit in many places. You are stretching the agency bit beyond reasonableness to try to say that Jesus is not God and the Holy Spirit is not a person.
One other error you make is that you assume that the authors of the Bible understood everything that they wrote. The Bible says in I Peter 1:10 that the prophets searched their own writings to discover what God meant when he had them write them. God inspired the Bible. He revealed more about himself as time went on. He gave indications of himself being a Trinity in Genesis and gave more details as time went on.
fmiddel said," I think Bart Ehrman said it best. The Bible clearly portrays Jesus as Divine. If you open John’s Gospel, to chapter 15 v 5, you’ll find Jesus explicitly stating… “I am THE VINE…”
He may have been copying Keith Green, although I don’t know if Keith was the first to say it. Probably not, now that I think about it. He may have been the first to sing it.
That’s rather bizarre! I don’t care if you think it’s a waste of time, we’re going to see why the Holy Spirit is a person.
(First, here’s a fun fact: Pneumatology is the branch of theology concerned with the Holy Spirit.)
Let’s look at John 14, starting at verse 15:
15 “If you love me, you will obey my commandments. 16 Then I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he resides with you and will be in you.
18 “I will not abandon you as orphans, I will come to you. 19 In a little while the world will not see me any longer, but you will see me; because I live, you will live too. 20 You will know at that time that I am in my Father and you are in me and I am in you. 21 The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him.”
22 “Lord,” Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “what has happened that you are going to reveal yourself to us and not to the world?” 23 Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and take up residence with him. 24 The person who does not love me does not obey my words. And the word you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me.
25 “I have spoken these things while staying with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you.
27 “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; I do not give it to you as the world does. Do not let your hearts be distressed or lacking in courage. 28 You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe. 30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me, 31 but I am doing just what the Father commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Get up, let us go from here.
So the Father Is sending the Holy Spirit (advocate, or helper) in the name of Jesus, who will teach the disciples everything, and will cause them to remember everything Jesus said to them.
More on the Holy Spirit:
Let’s look at Romans 8: 26-27
26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness, for we do not know how we should pray, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with inexpressible groanings. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes on behalf of the saints according to God’s will.
So the Spirit intercedes for believers.
Why is it bizarre to ask for specific evidence of specific claims? Yes I know what pneumatology is. I don’t see how you draw the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is a person (without a name), from that handful of verses. You don’t believe wisdom is a person, despite wisdom being personified far more consistently and extensively, both in the Bible and in Second Temple Period literature.