I already told you explicitly, the purpose was to show that your “consistency argument” results in a nonsensical result.
But your results do not contradict my interpretation of John 1:1. And I never knew that was called the ‘Scutum Fidei’. I will look to read it, but frankly I meant it as a visual representation of what I was talking about. Jesus and the Father are both persons of the same being. Isn’t that basic Trinitarianism? To be a Modalist, I would have to affirm that the Father and Son are not only same in being, but in person. But that’s obvious nonsense.
Concerning the part of your post I did not post a response to, that appears to be the sections where you develop your grammatical arguments. But I have noted that none of your authorities say that ‘divine’ is a superior grammatical translation or that God is an inferior grammatical translation. It has already been shown that the grammar is consistent with both translations. The only remaining considerations we should be debating are contextual arguments. I consider no logic in the claim that the grammar does not allow for a God translation since it obviously does. I do not think you would go so far as to claim that either. I am simply resting my claim on the multitudes of Greek scholars who all affirm this is a valid grammatical translation. I do not know why you are trying to claim it is not.
NOTE: What do you mean read the Scutum Fidei? I appear to have become confused – I searched it up but my results say that this is only a picture. Are you saying to read the visual itself? In that case I find my interpretation of it fine. I am not saying the Father and Son are the same in person, they are the same in being.
And you did exactly that when you said that Jesus is the Father. Jesus is a person. The Father is a person. You have claimed that Jesus is the Father. That is classic modalism, and the Scutus Fidei contradicts it flatly.
The Scutum Fidei is the image you found, except your version of it had three parts missing. I posted the correct version. It is a summary of the Athanasian Creed. It states explicitly that Jesus is not the Father. What you are saying, by saying Jesus is the Father, is that Jesus is the same person as the Father. Trinitarian doctrine prohibits this. I already quoted two scholars saying this. This is precisely why Irons says that saying “Jesus is God” is confusing, because “God” can mean either the entire Trinity (which Jesus is not), or (in the New Testament), it can mean “God the Father”.
Oh, the Scutum Fidei is the summary of the Athanasian creed. My knowledge of the church from 150 AD onwards is pretty muddled and I’ve only recently started working on it – you have my thanks! I will look into this. I want to get Peter Brown’s book Through the Eye of a Needle (or whatever it’s called) but my reading list as it is is so long that it’ll be forever before I can try to read that.
I’m finding that commentaries contain commentary on the Bible, because the Bible has the translation. What commentary would have the prologue correctly translated?
A Trinitarian could not be an objective scholar, anymore than any believer could be an objective scientist. And once one dismisses Trinitarian views, one is left with only non-Trinitarian views. .
Jesus asserted the fact without saying it that He is the Messiah, the Christ, the One Chosen by YHWH to save People. The Messiah was more that human, but it was not clear that He was God. I think it is clear that Jesus know that the Messiah is divine.
The clearest passage that indicates that the Messiah is divine, the Son of God is Psalm 2. The earliest Christians quoted this Psalm.
Jesus is not portrayed as the same of God, YHWH. Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. It was the Trinity which clarified the Persons of God the/Father/Creator, God the Son/Logos, and God the Spirit/Love.
We can connect the dots and see that God the Son is divine. The prophets told the people to turn to God. In Matthew 11, Jesus says, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy to bear, and my load is not hard to carry.”
Agreed. Jesus spoke with the authority of God, but He was also human. He was both God and Human, beyond what people can understand, except YHWH made humans in God’s Own Image so Jesus could be the true image of the invisible God.
I have cited a number of them previously. I have cited some of them twice.
Of course Trinitarians can be objective scholars. But when most grammarians choose a particular translation, and most theologians reject that translation for another translation, it’s pretty clear that theology is being preferred over grammar.
I have thought about this some more because the explanation you are giving doesn’t quite add up. I still agree that I was mistaken about synizesis contracting theoteros, but as I look at it more, the entry does appear to be talking about synizesis throughout this section. The thing that is really odd about the explanation that you gave is that you are saying that it says a meaning of a word would be changed by whether or not the word following it begins with a vowel. It is much more in line with the way languages work that the pronunciation(not the meaning) would change by having a vowel following a word. If you look at the entry, there are brackets around the entire section in question and all the words given in the brackets as examples have successive vowels that would be candidates for synizesis. So when it says, “even in nom. θεός before a vowel, E.Or.399 (cf. Pors. ad loc.),”, I believe it is saying that synizesis occurs even in the nominative before a vowel. This appears to be talking about how the word is spoken before a vowel, not what it means. Again, you see the last note within the brackets says, “apptly. a short monosyll.”, referring to the pronunciation when it mentions a short monosyllable. Smyth(page 21 entry 60) says, “In poetry two vowels, or a vowel and a diphthong, belonging to successive syllables may unite to form a single syllable in pronunciation, but not in writing. … This is called Synizesis”. Thus, my original comment that the rule is about synizesis and that it applies to poetry appears to be correct. I was wrong about contracting theoteros, but not about the nominative theos before a vowel being an example of synizesis, as opposed to being an example of when a word is to be translated as an adjective instead of its normal use as a noun as you are claiming. So going back to John 1:1, it is not poetry and should not be translated as an adjective because of the vowel that follows it.
No, the brackets are around the section which is describing different examples of theos to mean “divine” in Epic and Tragic literature; the section starts “In Ep. and Trag.”. As I have already shown you, this section cites θεοῖσιν, which is not monosyllablic, nor can it be contracted to monosyllables by synizesis. Contracting θεοῖσιν by synizesis would result in a bisyllabic pronunciation similar to θοῖσιν. Regardless, all of these are under the heading of θεὸς used as an adjective, so even if you think the entry is saying that θεοῖσιν and all the other words are pronounced as monosyllables by synizesis, all of them are being used as examples of θεὸς used as an adjective.
The fact that John 1:1 is not poetry (though this is disputed), is irrelevant, since the adjectival use of θεὸς is not confined to poetry. As I have already pointed out, grammarians overwhelmingly agree that θεός in John 1:1c is being used as an adjective, and consequently they prefer the translation 'divine".
John what did Mathew mean when Jesus said in Mathew that he is the IAM?
Remember Moses ?
And what about
And what did the apostolic fathers say ? Polycarp whi wa a disciple of the apostle john says this
""Polycarp (AD 69–155) was the bishop at the church in Smyrna. Irenaeus tells us Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. In his Letter to the Philippians he says,
Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth…and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.[1]""
Ignatius of Antioch who also was a disciple of john said this
""Ignatius (AD 50–117) was the bishop at the church in Antioch and also a disciple of John the Apostle. He wrote a series of letters to various churches on his way to Rome, where he was to be martyred. He writes,
Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.[2]
Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.[3]
There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.[4]
For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.[5]""
Ignatius a disciple who was taught by the apostle john called Jesus our God?
Now if you want the proper interpretation of scripture do you go to anyone 1900 years after the apostles or someone who was taught by the apostles themselves ?
I am referring to your saying it should be translated as an adjective because it is followed by a vowel.
Yes, these are examples of these words being used as adjectives, but if they are also examples of synizesis, as they appear to be, then the vowel after theos in John 1:1 does not prove that it is used as an adjective. All that a vowel after theos in poetry can mean is that it is pronounced differently. It implies nothing about the meaning.
I was just pointing out that your use of the argument that the vowel after theos means it is an adjective is not correct. As far as grammarians overwhelming agreeing that theos in John 1:1c is being used as an adjective, I would have to read your posts that substantiate it and I haven’t read them all in detail. It sounds unlikely to me. As I posted before, my old (non-Christian) Greek professor said without hesitation that it was without the article to show which was the subject and predicate and it fits Colwell’s rule for a predicate nominative before the verb. I can discuss this more later if the others are done with their comments. I want to let them finish before I add anything more.
I know you are. I am not saying the vowel changes the meaning at all.
Well here you are.
“It is interesting to note that although the grammarians mainly opt for interpreting θεὸς as “divine”, this is not favoured by theologians in their commentaries.”, Jan Van der Watt and Chrys C. Caragounis, “A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 21 (2008): 118.
And again.
“A fourth option is to translate θεὸς as “divine” (an adjective). This option seems to enjoy the majority vote of the grammarians as became clear in 2.3 but not of the commentators (like Barrett, Carson, Bultmann, Schnackenburg, Wilckens, etc. against Keener and Haenchen who seem to favour the qualitative interpretation).”, Jan Van der Watt and Chrys C. Caragounis, “A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 21 (2008): 133–134.
Why can’t I go to the apostles? the Bible makes the humanity of Christ the test of orthodoxy, not his deity.
1 John 4:
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God
3 but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.
The one predicate is ‘Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?’. This is the opposite of what most Christians claim.
If we look at what the apostles taught, we find they taught that Jesus (even after his resurrection and going to heaven), is a man. In his speech to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter tells them that Jesus is a man approved by God (note the distinction between Jesus and God). In listing and commenting on the following passages I’m not trying to preach to you, I’m just explaining why I think this issue is really simple; when the apostles taught people about Jesus before baptizing them, they taught people he was a man. Whether or not we believe Jesus is God, we can’t insist that such a belief is a test of orthodoxy or who is a Christian, because the apostles obviously never did, and they should have known if anyone should.
Acts 2:
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him, just as you yourselves know -
The apostle Peter taught that Jesus is a man, not God, or even a God, or even on the same level as God. In his speech to the people after he had healed the lame man, the Peter tells them that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Moses, that God would send them a Messiah who was a man like them.
Acts 3:
22 Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him in everything he tells you.
Here Moses says that the prophet God would send (the Messiah), would be ‘of your brethren, like unto me’; in other words, a man, a human being. Note again the distinction between God and this man.
In his speech to a law court, the apostle Stephen tells them that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Moses, that God would send them a Messiah who was a man like them.
Acts 7:
37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers.’
He uses the same quote as the apostle Peter had used, telling them that the prophet God would send (the Messiah), would be ‘of your brethren, like unto me’; in other words, a man, a human being. Note again the distinction between God and this man.
When he was in Athens, the apostle Paul was speaking to some people about who Jesus was. In his speech, he told them clearly that Jesus was a man who received authority from God.
Acts 17:
30 Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent,
31 because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
Here Paul says that Jesus is a man appointed by God to judge the world. Note again the distinction between God and this man.
In his first letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul says that there is one God, and that there is one mediator between God and men, and that is Jesus Christ, who he says is a man.
1 Timothy 2:
5 For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, revealing God’s purpose at his appointed time.
Note again the distinction between God and this man. We have God, and we have an intermediary between God and humanity, and the intermediary is identified as human (not God).
The apostles all taught time and time and time again that Jesus was a man at his birth, and was still a man after his resurrection and going to the Father.
Yes I know that’s how you interpreted it. But I didn’t say the vowel changes the meaning. There are structures in Greek in which a particular meaning is found in a particular syntax, like Colwell’s Rule, but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything is being changed by anything else.
Still sounds like you were saying the vowel changed the meaning to me. I highlighted your words below saying,“before a vowel… being used… to mean.”
You said, “That is telling us that when theos is used in the nominative, without an article, before a vowel, it’s being used in the adjectival sense to mean divine.”