Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Jeremiah 23v5-6 & John1v1c

Expand Messages
  • Ken Hutson
    Hello, First let me say that I believe in the Trinity so that no one will misunderstand my perspective when I write. I also belong to another forum, which is
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      First let me say that I believe in the Trinity so that no one will
      misunderstand my perspective when I write.

      I also belong to another forum, which is more accurately described as
      a debate board. I have participated in the JW and the Islam forums.
      The debate type of format is quite a challenge, but I think it is
      improving my ability to defend the eesential doctrines of the
      Christian faith.

      I noticed on the JW board they (JWs) dismiss the OT prophecies we
      consider to prove the Deity of Jesus Christ because of what I would
      call their "a god" doctrine which basically says that angels and men
      are also called gods (elohim)so Jesus is nothing more than a god
      (elohim) as well.

      I came across another reference to Jesus deity in Jeremiah 23:5-6
      where YHWH says the name of the Messiah will be "YHWH our
      Righteousness."

      "Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD,
      "When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;
      And He will reign as king and act wisely
      And do justice and righteousness in the land.
      In His days Judah will be saved,
      And Israel will dwell securely;
      And this is His name by which He will be called,
      `The LORD our righteousness.'"

      From my perspective, when I compare this passage with Jon 1:1c: "the
      Word was God", I see YHWH calling Jesus "YHWH." I consider this to be
      proof their objection to "the God" (ho theos) calling Jesus "God" is
      false, and proof Jesus posesses the same nature/essence as the
      Father. In other words, it seems to me it refutes their claim
      that Jesus has a God, so he cannot at the same time be that very same
      God.

      Is my assertion that Jeremiah 23:5-6 shows Jesus and the father must
      posess the same nature valid?

      How would you express that Jeremiah 23:5-6 refutes their claim Jesus
      has a God, so he cannot at the same time be that very same God?

      Is it valid to say that when comparing "YHWH our Righteousness" with
      John 1:1c, the two statements are in agreement?

      How would you use this passage as an exegetical defense of John 1:1c?

      What comments would you make in defense of the Trinity concerning
      this verse?

      I've asked a lot of questions, so I will understand if you choose not
      to try and answer them all in your reply.

      Thanks and blessings,
      Ken
    • Paul Leonard
      Uh, Your position leads to Oneness not the Trinity. Maybe a good question you can answer. Where in the NT do we find the word Theos/God used explicitly of
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 30, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Uh,

        Your position leads to Oneness not the Trinity.

        Maybe a good question you can answer.

        Where in the NT do we find the word "Theos/God" used explicitly of the Triune God or the Godhead?

        Ken Hutson <postoak777@...> wrote:
        Hello,

        First let me say that I believe in the Trinity so that no one will
        misunderstand my perspective when I write.



      • Tesfaye Robele
        Dear Ken, There are a lot of OT passages which affirms that Jesus is YHWH (for example compare Ps. 102:25 with Heb. 1:10; Ps. 34:8; with 1Pet. 2:3-8; Isaiah
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 30, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Ken,
           
          There are a lot of OT passages which affirms that Jesus is YHWH (for example compare Ps. 102:25 with Heb. 1:10; Ps. 34:8; with 1Pet. 2:3-8; Isaiah 8:12-13 with 1Pet. 3:14-15). We come up with this conclusion in the way you exegete these passages (Jeremiah 23:5-6; Jon 1:1c). Please know that in the NT the word theos refers substitute that the OT YHWH and we should translate OT in the light of NT since God’s revelation is progressive.
           
          I do not understand Paul Leonard’s argument. What is his reasons in order to come up with, “Your position leads to Oneness not the Trinity”. If John 1:1c used definite article as it is John 1:1b (ton theon) it could lead us Oneness view/Jusus and Father are one person.
          As far as my knowledge is concerned, your exegesis is very much right!
          In His Grip,
           
          Tesfaye Robele
          Director of the Society
          ====================================
          Tesfaye Robele, Founder and Director
          The Evangelical Society for Apologetics (TESFA)
          Post Office Box 23045, Code 1000
          Addis Ababa , Ethiopia
          Tel. 251911247524
          E-mail: <apologetics@...>
          ===================================


          Ken Hutson <postoak777@...> wrote:
          Hello,

          First let me say that I believe in the Trinity so that no one will
          misunderstand my perspective when I write.

          I also belong to another forum, which is more accurately described as
          a debate board. I have participated in the JW and the Islam forums.
          The debate type of format is quite a challenge, but I think it is
          improving my ability to defend the eesential doctrines of the
          Christian faith.

          I noticed on the JW board they (JWs) dismiss the OT prophecies we
          consider to prove the Deity of Jesus Christ because of what I would
          call their "a god" doctrine which basically says that angels and men
          are also called gods (elohim)so Jesus is nothing more than a god
          (elohim) as well.

          I came across another reference to Jesus deity in Jeremiah 23:5-6
          where YHWH says the name of the Messiah will be "YHWH our
          Righteousness. "

          "Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD,
          "When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;
          And He will reign as king and act wisely
          And do justice and righteousness in the land.
          In His days Judah will be saved,
          And Israel will dwell securely;
          And this is His name by which He will be called,
          `The LORD our righteousness. '"

          From my perspective, when I compare this passage with Jon 1:1c: "the
          Word was God", I see YHWH calling Jesus "YHWH." I consider this to be
          proof their objection to "the God" (ho theos) calling Jesus "God" is
          false, and proof Jesus posesses the same nature/essence as the
          Father. In other words, it seems to me it refutes their claim
          that Jesus has a God, so he cannot at the same time be that very same
          God.

          Is my assertion that Jeremiah 23:5-6 shows Jesus and the father must
          posess the same nature valid?

          How would you express that Jeremiah 23:5-6 refutes their claim Jesus
          has a God, so he cannot at the same time be that very same God?

          Is it valid to say that when comparing "YHWH our Righteousness" with
          John 1:1c, the two statements are in agreement?

          How would you use this passage as an exegetical defense of John 1:1c?

          What comments would you make in defense of the Trinity concerning
          this verse?

          I've asked a lot of questions, so I will understand if you choose not
          to try and answer them all in your reply.

          Thanks and blessings,
          Ken



          Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

        • Ken Hutson
          ... of the Triune God or the Godhead? Hi Paul, I may be wrong, but it seems as though you might be, in an indirect way, trying to state a Oneness position. My
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 30, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard
            <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
            > Your position leads to Oneness not the Trinity.
            >
            > Maybe a good question you can answer.
            >
            > Where in the NT do we find the word "Theos/God" used explicitly
            of the Triune God or the Godhead?

            Hi Paul,

            I may be wrong, but it seems as though you might be, in an indirect
            way, trying to state a Oneness position. My personal belief is in the
            Oneness of the Trinity, but I really don't have any desire to discuss
            this further if my assumption is correct. My apologies if I'm wrong.

            Blessings,
            Ken Hutson
          • Ken Hutson
            To Paul Leonard, I just realized you are a JW. Please give your interpretation of what is meant by YHWH calling the Christ YHWH our Righteousness ? Thanks,
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 31, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              To Paul Leonard,

              I just realized you are a JW. Please give your interpretation of what
              is meant by YHWH calling the Christ "YHWH our Righteousness"?

              Thanks,
              Ken Hutson
            • Robert Nusom
              Ken, I don t know if my response will have any merit in your eyes at all, given that I do not see the Hebrew Sriptures in the light of the Christian
              Message 6 of 13 , Aug 31, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Ken,

                I don't know if my response will have any merit in
                your eyes at all, given that I do not see the Hebrew
                Sriptures in the light of the Christian Scriptures.
                Rather I believe the former to be the work of God and
                the latter to be the work of man. Given that
                perspective, I am not qualified to point out
                similarities or discrepancies between and betwixt
                Jeremiah 23:5-6 and John 1:1. However, the idea that
                Jeremiah is indicating that the messiah will be a God
                is absolutely not warranted by the scripture sited.

                To begin with, the passage discussed regards the idea
                that one day the Hebrew people will be brought back
                together into Isreal from the diaspora. In other
                words, the focus of the passage (beginning at verse
                one) regards the scattering of the Hebrew people and
                the bad leadership they had suffered under. God
                promises that he will rise up a King (not a God) who
                will lead them back to Israel. This idea is repeated
                several places, including isaiah 11:11-12. The idea
                is not to establish a divine nature of the Messiah,
                but what that Messiah will do. Now, it is important
                to note that the very thing discussed here, a return
                of the Hebrew people from the diaspora, was never
                accomplished by Jesus. Of course, it is said that
                Jesus will come back and do it some other time, and if
                he does, then we can start talking about him being the
                Messiah.

                Second, the language does not say that the messiah
                will be "The LORD our righteousness", but that he
                would be called "The LORD our righteousness." This is
                a common practice in the Hebrew Scriptures. Israel,
                Hezekiah, Gabriel and Isaiah are all examples of names
                that include God (struggles with God, Powerful God,
                etc.). The idea of confusing a name by which someone
                is called with actually being that entity is something
                that Christians do a lot. We see it done to Isaiah
                7:14 and Isaiah 9:6 as well. To read these passages
                in the Christian way, the Messiah will have a whole
                lot of names. In truth, the three scriptures refer to
                three seperate individuals and identities, two of
                which were prophesied and the prophesies fulfilled in
                the Hebrew Scriptures. It is important to note that
                Jesus' name was not any of these, it was Jesus (or
                Yeshua, if you prefer).

                I only offer this because of the nature of your post,
                which uses the verse as a link between Jesus and the
                Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, there really is no such
                link expressed or intended.

                --- Ken Hutson <postoak777@...> wrote:

                > Hello,
                >
                > First let me say that I believe in the Trinity so
                > that no one will
                > misunderstand my perspective when I write.
                >
                > I also belong to another forum, which is more
                > accurately described as
                > a debate board. I have participated in the JW and
                > the Islam forums.
                > The debate type of format is quite a challenge, but
                > I think it is
                > improving my ability to defend the eesential
                > doctrines of the
                > Christian faith.
                >
                > I noticed on the JW board they (JWs) dismiss the OT
                > prophecies we
                > consider to prove the Deity of Jesus Christ because
                > of what I would
                > call their "a god" doctrine which basically says
                > that angels and men
                > are also called gods (elohim)so Jesus is nothing
                > more than a god
                > (elohim) as well.
                >
                > I came across another reference to Jesus deity in
                > Jeremiah 23:5-6
                > where YHWH says the name of the Messiah will be
                > "YHWH our
                > Righteousness."
                >
                > "Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD,
                > "When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;
                > And He will reign as king and act wisely
                > And do justice and righteousness in the land.
                > In His days Judah will be saved,
                > And Israel will dwell securely;
                > And this is His name by which He will be called,
                > `The LORD our righteousness.'"
                >
                > From my perspective, when I compare this passage
                > with Jon 1:1c: "the
                > Word was God", I see YHWH calling Jesus "YHWH." I
                > consider this to be
                > proof their objection to "the God" (ho theos)
                > calling Jesus "God" is
                > false, and proof Jesus posesses the same
                > nature/essence as the
                > Father. In other words, it seems to me it refutes
                > their claim
                > that Jesus has a God, so he cannot at the same time
                > be that very same
                > God.
                >
                > Is my assertion that Jeremiah 23:5-6 shows Jesus and
                > the father must
                > posess the same nature valid?
                >
                > How would you express that Jeremiah 23:5-6 refutes
                > their claim Jesus
                > has a God, so he cannot at the same time be that
                > very same God?
                >
                > Is it valid to say that when comparing "YHWH our
                > Righteousness" with
                > John 1:1c, the two statements are in agreement?
                >
                > How would you use this passage as an exegetical
                > defense of John 1:1c?
                >
                > What comments would you make in defense of the
                > Trinity concerning
                > this verse?
                >
                > I've asked a lot of questions, so I will understand
                > if you choose not
                > to try and answer them all in your reply.
                >
                > Thanks and blessings,
                > Ken
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >


                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              • Paul Leonard
                Hi Ken, Noi I am not promoting Oneness. I am simply pointing out that most Trinitarian positions on scripture actually promote Oneness. John 1;1c is a perfect
                Message 7 of 13 , Aug 31, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Ken,

                  Noi I am not promoting Oneness. I am simply pointing out that most Trinitarian positions on scripture actually promote Oneness. John 1;1c is a perfect example. If "Definite" (in 1:1c) it makes the "God" in 1:1b the same "God" in 1:1c. That is Oneness, since Trinitarians say that the 1:1b "God" is the Father.
                  Tranlsating it "the Word was God" is a Definite translation of theos in 1:1c.

                  Ken Hutson <postoak777@...> wrote:
                  --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Paul Leonard
                  <anotherpaul2001@ ...> wrote:
                  > Your position leads to Oneness not the Trinity.
                  >
                  > Maybe a good question you can answer.
                  >
                  > Where in the NT do we find the word "Theos/God" used explicitly
                  of the Triune God or the Godhead?

                  Hi Paul,

                  I may be wrong, but it seems as though you might be, in an indirect
                  way, trying to state a Oneness position. My personal belief is in the
                  Oneness of the Trinity, but I really don't have any desire to discuss
                  this further if my assumption is correct. My apologies if I'm wrong.

                  Blessings,
                  Ken Hutson


                • Ken Hutson
                  Hi Robert, Thanks for sharing your views with me. I will assume you are familiar with Christian views. Paul/Saul said the truths of Christianity are
                  Message 8 of 13 , Aug 31, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Robert,

                    Thanks for sharing your views with me. I will assume you are familiar
                    with Christian views.

                    Paul/Saul said the truths of Christianity are spiritually discerned.
                    I believe my faith was given to me through Divine illumination, and I
                    am dependent on Him for my continued sanctification through His grace.

                    My understanding is that a name is often an indication of an
                    individual's character/nature. Hence Hashem reveals Himself as YHWH
                    Nissi as well as other names. In Jeremiah 23, I see Hashem revealing
                    the essential nature of Messiah as YHWH, and in particular YHWH our
                    Righteousness.

                    I liken this to Hashem manifesting Himself in human form in Genesis
                    18. Can Hashem become a man and not cease to be Himself? Another way
                    of asking would be did Hashem continue to possess all of who He is
                    (i.e. continue being Hashem in heaven, omnipotent, omnipresent, and
                    all knowing) when in human form? For me the answer is yes.

                    Paul calls this a mystery in 1 Timothy 3:16. I read somewhere that a
                    mystery may be intellectually apprehended, but not fully
                    comprehended. This mystery has to be accepted by faith.

                    I see a parallel in Jeremiah 23:5-6 and John 1:1-2,14. God is
                    describing the eternal Word as being with Him and possessing His
                    essential nature, even when in human form.

                    I like the Kenneth Weust's Expanded translation of John 1:1:
                    "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in
                    fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence
                    absolute deity."

                    Hopefully, I have made my views clear, and not abused the use of
                    Hashem either.

                    Grace and peace,

                    Ken Hutson
                  • Ken Hutson
                    Hello Paul, Sorry for my confusion. ... Trinitarian positions on scripture actually promote Oneness. John 1;1c is a perfect example. If Definite (in 1:1c) it
                    Message 9 of 13 , Aug 31, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello Paul,

                      Sorry for my confusion.

                      --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard
                      <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi Ken,
                      >
                      > Noi I am not promoting Oneness. I am simply pointing out that most
                      Trinitarian positions on scripture actually promote Oneness. John
                      1;1c is a perfect example. If "Definite" (in 1:1c) it makes the "God"
                      in 1:1b the same "God" in 1:1c. That is Oneness, since Trinitarians
                      say that the 1:1b "God" is the Father.
                      > Tranlsating it "the Word was God" is a Definite translation of
                      theos in 1:1c.

                      I believe the Oneness view is the Son and the Father are identical.
                      I'm no Greek scholar, so I'm dependent on the comments of those who
                      are. F.F. Bruce makes the following comment: "Had theos as well as
                      logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that
                      the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if
                      the Word was also 'with God'. What is meant is that the Word shared
                      the nature and being of God…" (pg.. 31, The Gospels and Epistles of
                      John)

                      What do you mean by: "'the Word was God' is a Definite translation of
                      theos in 1:1c"? I am not familiar with the term "definite'.

                      How do you think the Greek should be worded if John was trying to say
                      the Word shared the same nature and being as God?

                      Thanks and blessings,

                      Ken Hutson
                    • Robert Nusom
                      Greeting Ken, Of course, we are all free to see scripture as we believe God directs us. I am not here to say that you are wrong or that you don t have the
                      Message 10 of 13 , Aug 31, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Greeting Ken,

                        Of course, we are all free to see scripture as we
                        believe God directs us. I am not here to say that you
                        are wrong or that you don't have the right to believe
                        what you believe. I thank you for the gentle way that
                        you speak to the issue.

                        However, since this is an apologetics group, I feel
                        that I have an obligation to show where scripture ends
                        and supposition begins. Believe me, if I am wrong and
                        you point it out to me, there will be no hard feelings
                        of any kind (Indeed, there would be deep appreciation,
                        given that anmy time I can learn more about the nature
                        of God, or learn where I am in error, the one to show
                        me as much is doing me a favor). At any time, if you
                        feel that I am "butting in" to a thread where I do not
                        belong, feel free to so indicate, likewise without
                        hard feelings.

                        As to the reference to Hashem, your usage shows the
                        consideration you have for traditional Jews who would
                        never speak the word God itself or Yahweh. It is a
                        kindness and sensitivity that is well noted, but
                        unnecessary. I am not Jewish and have no problem with
                        the usage of God's name. Even so, you had no way of
                        knowing that and so your thoughtfulness is deeply
                        appreciated.

                        I am, of course, absolutely unqualified to speak to
                        one's sense of divine inspiration. However, when one
                        uses the Hebrew Scriptures as a proof-text of that
                        inspiration, then I tend to look to the text to see if
                        that interpretation is supported. I am not familiar
                        with God becoming a man in the eighteenth chapter of
                        Genesis, perhaps you might point it out for me. As
                        near as I can tell, Abraham sees God, then he sees
                        three men (possibly angels), the three men leave and
                        Abraham is left with God. The text says nothing about
                        God taking the form of a man, although the first few
                        chapters of Genesis makes it clear that man is made in
                        the image of God.

                        If what I say is offensive, I apologize, it is not my
                        meaning. Given that this thread was intended for an
                        entirely different purpose than as a proof-text of New
                        Testament foundations in the Hebrew Scriptures.
                        However, you did imply that there was indeed such a
                        foundation in your earlier post and I felt compelled
                        to point out that there is nothing therein that is so
                        indicative.

                        The idea that the Hebrew Scriptures indicate a divine
                        nature to a Messiah is absolutely foreign to that body
                        of scripture, it is a creation of the Christian
                        Scriptures and lacks the foundation often alluded to.
                        I think it important that where such a foundation is
                        hinted at, it should be illustrated that it simply
                        doesn't really exist. Again though, I cannot speak to
                        divine inspiration, only to what is written in the
                        word of God.

                        May God Bless and Keep you,

                        Robert

                        --- Ken Hutson <postoak777@...> wrote:

                        > Hi Robert,
                        >
                        > Thanks for sharing your views with me. I will assume
                        > you are familiar
                        > with Christian views.
                        >
                        > Paul/Saul said the truths of Christianity are
                        > spiritually discerned.
                        > I believe my faith was given to me through Divine
                        > illumination, and I
                        > am dependent on Him for my continued sanctification
                        > through His grace.
                        >
                        > My understanding is that a name is often an
                        > indication of an
                        > individual's character/nature. Hence Hashem reveals
                        > Himself as YHWH
                        > Nissi as well as other names. In Jeremiah 23, I see
                        > Hashem revealing
                        > the essential nature of Messiah as YHWH, and in
                        > particular YHWH our
                        > Righteousness.
                        >
                        > I liken this to Hashem manifesting Himself in human
                        > form in Genesis
                        > 18. Can Hashem become a man and not cease to be
                        > Himself? Another way
                        > of asking would be did Hashem continue to possess
                        > all of who He is
                        > (i.e. continue being Hashem in heaven, omnipotent,
                        > omnipresent, and
                        > all knowing) when in human form? For me the answer
                        > is yes.
                        >
                        > Paul calls this a mystery in 1 Timothy 3:16. I read
                        > somewhere that a
                        > mystery may be intellectually apprehended, but not
                        > fully
                        > comprehended. This mystery has to be accepted by
                        > faith.
                        >
                        > I see a parallel in Jeremiah 23:5-6 and John
                        > 1:1-2,14. God is
                        > describing the eternal Word as being with Him and
                        > possessing His
                        > essential nature, even when in human form.
                        >
                        > I like the Kenneth Weust's Expanded translation of
                        > John 1:1:
                        > "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the
                        > Word was in
                        > fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as
                        > to His essence
                        > absolute deity."
                        >
                        > Hopefully, I have made my views clear, and not
                        > abused the use of
                        > Hashem either.
                        >
                        > Grace and peace,
                        >
                        > Ken Hutson
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >


                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com
                      • Paul Leonard
                        Hi, I will try to answer this weekend. Gonna be out of town Saturday. Maybe Rob will comment on the difference bewteen Definite, Indefinite, etc as to
                        Message 11 of 13 , Aug 31, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi,

                          I will try to answer this weekend. Gonna be out of town Saturday. Maybe Rob will comment on the difference bewteen Definite, Indefinite, etc as to grammar.

                          Ken Hutson <postoak777@...> wrote:
                          Hello Paul,

                          Sorry for my confusion.

                          --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Paul Leonard
                          <anotherpaul2001@ ...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Hi Ken,
                          >
                          > Noi I am not promoting Oneness. I am simply pointing out that most
                          Trinitarian positions on scripture actually promote Oneness. John
                          1;1c is a perfect example. If "Definite" (in 1:1c) it makes the "God"
                          in 1:1b the same "God" in 1:1c. That is Oneness, since Trinitarians
                          say that the 1:1b "God" is the Father.
                          > Tranlsating it "the Word was God" is a Definite translation of
                          theos in 1:1c.

                          I believe the Oneness view is the Son and the Father are identical.
                          I'm no Greek scholar, so I'm dependent on the comments of those who
                          are. F.F. Bruce makes the following comment: "Had theos as well as
                          logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that
                          the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if
                          the Word was also 'with God'. What is meant is that the Word shared
                          the nature and being of God…" (pg.. 31, The Gospels and Epistles of
                          John)

                          What do you mean by: "'the Word was God' is a Definite translation of
                          theos in 1:1c"? I am not familiar with the term "definite'.

                          How do you think the Greek should be worded if John was trying to say
                          the Word shared the same nature and being as God?

                          Thanks and blessings,

                          Ken Hutson


                        • Tesfaye Robele
                          Dear Paul Leonard, Which is completely wrong. First, If there is definite article in both theos (1:1b and 1:1c) your argument could be right. There is definite
                          Message 12 of 13 , Aug 31, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Paul Leonard,
                             
                            Which is completely wrong. First, If there is definite article in both theos (1:1b and 1:1c) your argument could be right. There is definite article in 1:1b but there is no definite article in 1:1c. Second, the word is with (pros) God. When pros proceeded in accusative case it always shows a relationship. So how could it be the Word (logos) is with God the Father and he is also God the Father?
                             
                            I highly recommend you to read the following two books: Murray Harris’s “Jesus as God” and Rob Bowman’s “Jehovah Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John”
                             
                            I hope the discussion should be plausible arguments than a confession of faith.
                             
                            Tesfaye Robele


                            Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
                            Hi Ken,

                            Noi I am not promoting Oneness. I am simply pointing out that most Trinitarian positions on scripture actually promote Oneness. John 1;1c is a perfect example. If "Definite" (in 1:1c) it makes the "God" in 1:1b the same "God" in 1:1c. That is Oneness, since Trinitarians say that the 1:1b "God" is the Father.
                            Tranlsating it "the Word was God" is a Definite translation of theos in 1:1c.

                            Ken Hutson <postoak777@aol. com> wrote:
                            --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Paul Leonard
                            <anotherpaul2001@ ...> wrote:
                            > Your position leads to Oneness not the Trinity.
                            >
                            > Maybe a good question you can answer.
                            >
                            > Where in the NT do we find the word "Theos/God" used explicitly
                            of the Triune God or the Godhead?

                            Hi Paul,

                            I may be wrong, but it seems as though you might be, in an indirect
                            way, trying to state a Oneness position. My personal belief is in the
                            Oneness of the Trinity, but I really don't have any desire to discuss
                            this further if my assumption is correct. My apologies if I'm wrong.

                            Blessings,
                            Ken Hutson




                            All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

                          • Paul Leonard
                            Hi I will be responding to this, but am really pressed for time this week and next. Tesfaye Robele wrote: Dear Ken, There are a
                            Message 13 of 13 , Sep 3, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi I will be responding to this, but am really pressed for time this week and next.

                              Tesfaye Robele <tesfa_apologetics@...> wrote:
                              Dear Ken,
                               
                              There are a lot of OT passages which affirms that Jesus is YHWH (for example compare Ps. 102:25 with Heb. 1:10; Ps. 34:8; with 1Pet. 2:3-8; Isaiah 8:12-13 with 1Pet. 3:14-15). We come up with this conclusion in the way you exegete these passages (Jeremiah 23:5-6; Jon 1:1c). Please know that in the NT the word theos refers substitute that the OT YHWH and we should translate OT in the light of NT since God’s revelation is progressive.
                               
                              I do not understand Paul Leonard’s argument. What is his reasons in order to come up with, “Your position leads to Oneness not the Trinity”. If John 1:1c used definite article as it is John 1:1b (ton theon) it could lead us Oneness view/Jusus and Father are one person.
                              As far as my knowledge is concerned, your exegesis is very much right!
                              In His Grip,
                               
                              Tesfaye Robele
                              Director of the Society
                              ============ ========= ========= ======
                              Tesfaye Robele, Founder and Director
                              The Evangelical Society for Apologetics (TESFA)
                              Post Office Box 23045, Code 1000
                              Addis Ababa , Ethiopia
                              Tel. 251911247524
                              E-mail: <apologetics@ ethionet. et>
                              ============ ========= ========= =====


                              Ken Hutson <postoak777@aol. com> wrote:
                              Hello,

                              First let me say that I believe in the Trinity so that no one will
                              misunderstand my perspective when I write.

                              I also belong to another forum, which is more accurately described as
                              a debate board. I have participated in the JW and the Islam forums.
                              The debate type of format is quite a challenge, but I think it is
                              improving my ability to defend the eesential doctrines of the
                              Christian faith.

                              I noticed on the JW board they (JWs) dismiss the OT prophecies we
                              consider to prove the Deity of Jesus Christ because of what I would
                              call their "a god" doctrine which basically says that angels and men
                              are also called gods (elohim)so Jesus is nothing more than a god
                              (elohim) as well.

                              I came across another reference to Jesus deity in Jeremiah 23:5-6
                              where YHWH says the name of the Messiah will be "YHWH our
                              Righteousness. "

                              "Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD,
                              "When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;
                              And He will reign as king and act wisely
                              And do justice and righteousness in the land.
                              In His days Judah will be saved,
                              And Israel will dwell securely;
                              And this is His name by which He will be called,
                              `The LORD our righteousness. '"

                              From my perspective, when I compare this passage with Jon 1:1c: "the
                              Word was God", I see YHWH calling Jesus "YHWH." I consider this to be
                              proof their objection to "the God" (ho theos) calling Jesus "God" is
                              false, and proof Jesus posesses the same nature/essence as the
                              Father. In other words, it seems to me it refutes their claim
                              that Jesus has a God, so he cannot at the same time be that very same
                              God.

                              Is my assertion that Jeremiah 23:5-6 shows Jesus and the father must
                              posess the same nature valid?

                              How would you express that Jeremiah 23:5-6 refutes their claim Jesus
                              has a God, so he cannot at the same time be that very same God?

                              Is it valid to say that when comparing "YHWH our Righteousness" with
                              John 1:1c, the two statements are in agreement?

                              How would you use this passage as an exegetical defense of John 1:1c?

                              What comments would you make in defense of the Trinity concerning
                              this verse?

                              I've asked a lot of questions, so I will understand if you choose not
                              to try and answer them all in your reply.

                              Thanks and blessings,
                              Ken



                              Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.