Debating a Watchtower BRUTE...

[El_Jibaro]

[i]

John 1:1

En arKHey eyn ho LOGOS kai ho LOGOS eyn pros ton THEON kai THEOS eyn ho LOGOS.

In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with the_GOD and GOD was the WORD.

Perhaps you never took classes in Grammar at school, I took it twice , once in English and the other time in Spanish . Perhaps that is why I spend so much time spelling and punctuating right in Spanish.

Anyway, if you noticed when you were taking your high-school grammar, if you took BOTH Spanish and English, they are quite different. Did you notice that in English when you are describing someone's possession you have to end the name differently? That phenomenon is called INFLECTION. Though Spanish in most instances is more complicated than English , it did drop half of its heavy GRAMMAR on its way from Latin to its derivative language Spanish, particularly all the INFLECTIONS.

Let me show you:

In Spanish we say:

"La bicicleta de José."

In English we say:

"José's bycicle."

Did you notice any difference in the name "Joseph"?

English still retains the Genitive INFLECTION, but Spanish dropped all of them altogether.

So, if you studied Latin at college level, like I did , you would have known that in older INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES, of which Latin, Greek and Old Germanic Languages (like Icelandic), they had at least SIX INFLECTIONS for nouns:


Nominative (the Subject of the Sentence)
Accusative (the Direct Object of the Sentence)
Genitive (the Possessive Case)
Vocative (Direct Address)
Dative (Object of words like "to" or "for")
Ablative (Adverbial Usages: "by", "with")

That is why in Latin, the word Deus, which means God, and from which we get our Spanish word Dios, changes in INFLECTION according to the function it performs in a sentence:

Nominative, when He is the subject doing the action in a sentence God is Deus,

Accusative, when He is the direct object of a sentence God is Deum,

Genitive, when He is the owner of something God is Dei,

Vocative, when one asks a favor of Him God is Dei,

Dative, when one does something for Him God is Deo,

Ablative, and when one is talking about things located with respect to Him God is Dei.

My dear "Genius" friend , the same applies to the Greek language.

That is why when talking about God in Latin the word Deus changes according to the grammatical place in the sentence.

For example, lets take a guy called Brutus, which has the sames cases as Deus:

In English we say:

SUBJECT:

"Brutus is bad."

In Latin we say:

"Brutus malus est."

POSSESSIVE CASE, i.e. Genitive:

In English we say:

"The work of Brutus."

In Latin we say:

"Opus Bruté."
(in God's case, His Genitive is with "i", not "e", and the sentence would read "Opus Dei".)

Now, surely you can't say that Deus and Dei are two gods just because the words end differently, do you ?

The same applies in Greek to the word Theus, God: the noun God changes according to the place it is performing in the Sentence.

Thus, anyone with a limited understanding of Greek Grammar can see that when describing Logos to be with Theus, Theus becomes Theon, (by the way, adding the determinative article "ton", which means "the" in English [in Spanish "el"], is just clarifying that the writer is not talking about any common god, but about "the" God, "The Real One", "the Biggest of them all", "the Superlative God", so that no one gets confused...); and when in the second phrase in that sentence John writes that the Logos is God, what he is actually describing is that Theus, the Great God he clearly spelled out before, is the Logos, in other words: Theus is the subject of that phrase in the compound sentence.

So, "panita"[b], you have got to take a few years of college level grammar, particularly in Greek or Latin, before you can barge in here and try to place everyone at your level, which is a big step down, not a step up.

[conciencia]

Jibaro,

You can start and continue with your defamation and stupidy....but debated this issue before....and you admit to the fact...Antique Greek is extremelly difficult and it can really be compared with modern Greek...the same gramatical laws you are applying CANNOT....so Jibaro stop confusing the people here...be truthful...although I know you are possessed by the some Demon named Jibaro and Manuel and sometimes Another Rican...hmmmmm....I see that you are defending your other personality! Boy que fallo....now both Jibaro and Another Rican are acting un Christian like....Now how can you hide?
Remember this...?

This lesson can not be applied to the specific....
Scripture, since it is more of modern Greek or latin and the problem here is far more difficult they you may potray. I suggest you to take advance Koine Greek because that is the level here, so do not try to confuse the audience. Anyway, John1:1 occurance is a qualitative and not definite since it really demands a indefinite sense, that is why the the use of an English indefinite articule "a" is best used here. The fact is that all grounds can be defended on grammmatical stance, the problem arises because of the Trinitarian bias attitude to keep The Father and the Son at the same level when in reality they are not. Ackowledging the overwhelming supporting facts of pagan Trinity is a Dogma and that God is the Father and Jesus Christ is a godlike figure and not THE GOD JEHOVAH completely brings us to the context of the distinction between Father and Son whereas the Holy Spirit is not even part of this translation topic.

Because the Trinitarian know how confusing is too support such dogma, the accuse the JW of many atrocities when in fact they believe in Monotheism at the very core.

Godlike is not by definition or nature meaning a god, instead a qualities of a god status, a far of definition for what they are falsely and maliciouly accused.

[Tertullian]

Thank you for welcoming me, conciencia,

To reply to your last message. I have taken 2.5 years of graduate level Koine Greek and so I feel as if I have the authority to speak on this issue. However, if you would like to dialogue on this level and have the academic and linguistic credentials, I would welcome an open discourse.

This debate about the anarthrous "theos" in the introduction of John has been extensively debated, however I could not better word it than the response given below by Phillip Harner:

When John says that the "Word is with God" the word God possesses the definite article (the word "the" in English is the definite article in English - but please note that Greek and English usage of the article differ in important ways).

The next time the word "God" is used ("the Word was God") it does not posses this article (note that there is no indefinite article in Greek, the indefinite article in English is the word "a"), and it is in a special form called a predicate nominative. Also (although word order is less significant in Greek) the subject precedes the noun. The significance of all this is that the word is made qualitative, but is not changed in its basic meaning.

To help get a handle on this, Philip Harner listed several different Greek phrases which John could have written (but did not) so that we can compare them with what John did say and thereby better understand what John meant and did not mean to say. The alternatives presented were as follows:

1) ho logos en ho theos: The logos (the Word) and theos (God) are completely equivalent and interchangeable - they are identically the same. This is how most people mistakenly read the verse. If this had been what John had written, then we would not believe in the Trinity today. Rather, we would be monarchists.

2) theos en ho logos: This is what John actually wrote. This differs from (1) in that it makes the word theios qualitative. It's meaning is something like the New English Bible's translation: "What the Word was, God was." Moffat, Goodspeed, and other scholars have translated the qualitative word "God" using words like "divine" or "deity" but what they are trying to express with these words is prone to misunderstanding. Their meaning is in keeping with the NEB, that "divine" or "deity" refers to the unique divinity of the one True God.

3) ho logos theos en: This would have the same meaning but a different emphasis than the previous list item. This version would put the emphasis on the Word rather than on the nature he possessed.

4) ho logos hen theos: This would mean that the word was a divine being of some kind - perhaps like an angel.

5) ho logos hen theios: Similar in meaning to the last clause. Uses an adjective theios rather than a noun theos.

So as you can see, the most likely translation of John 1:1 actually supports the Trinitarian view of the Godhead more than any other. However if you have any linguistic questions or other questions concerning either ancient or Koine greek, please do not hesitate to ask.

[conciencia]

Tertullian,

Hi, how are you? I do not recall giving you a welcome, but I would have.

I am glad that you admite the difference between Kione and english and Kione and Modern Greek...Great that proves the point to Jibaro and Another Rican.

I have discussed this topic before, here are two URLS that will assist you get in the frame of mind we are currently.

http://www.puertorico.com/forums/sho...?threadid=6985

http://www.puertorico.com/forums/sho...?threadid=6950

[Tertullian]

"There is no question that Thomas was speaking to Jesus in John 20:28, as Jesus was the object of his astonishment and wonder. Thomas now believed, for the evidence stood before him in the person of Jesus, and Thomas reply was spoken to him (eipen auto). But was it directed to him? This question arises not only from the aforementioned observations on the use of article in John 20:28, but on the context, and the form of the words used. It is manifest that Thomas reply was in response to his conviction that Jesus had indeed been raised from the dead. It would not be out of place for Thomas to offer an exclamtion of praise to the Father as "LOrd" and "God," for He proved to be such by raising His Son from the dead. Another fact that seems to favor this conclusion is the use of the word "Lord". Thomas words are not recorded with "Lord" in its typical vocative (direct address)form (kyrie); rather, the nominative form (kyrios) is used. Of course, students of ancient Greek are likely to respond quickly by pointing out that numerous words lost their vocative form to the nominative by the time the NT was written. That is true, for the most part."

Thank you for the background on the discussion, conciencia. I would have to disagree with the above quote that was used in both your responses; in fact the more important discussion when talking about John 20 is not syntactical at all; the rendering of "My Lord and My God" in John 20 in english gives a very good translation of exactly what Thomas meant (a note: the vocative was not a typical use at the time in Koine Greek- but that actually isn't the point). The point of contention arises whether or not one finds it more likely that "My Lord and My God" is directed toward Jesus or simply as an exclamation.

The expression does follow the occurance of Thomas encountering Jesus post-resurrection and the fact that he now acknowledges the messiahship of Jesus. Within the context of John, as well, it follows many of Jesus' statements of His own identification with the Father.

I see where you are coming from; your point of view is that Thomas meets Jesus, is astounded by the resurrection, and then exclaims to the Father "My Lord and My God!" This is one explanation (among many) of the passage. However in the context and in the overall context of the New Testament thematically, I find it more believable that Thomas was addressing Jesus. The situation tends to lean more toward a direct response toward the subject of his address as well.

However, in order to arrive at this conclusion, it is a matter of the worldview that you impose on your hermeneutic. I think that what we all need to strive for is to remove ourselves from the process of interpretation and seek to understand what the authors of the New Testament were trying to speak to their first century audience- their authorial intent. Rationally, this is the only reasonable epistemological standard. If you truly are satisfied that you have done this in a fully reasonable and rational manner, there really is not much that I can say to your and not much you can say to me in order to have you change your interpretation of this or any of the other NT passages that seemed to have been discussed on this board. It's my hope that we all come, put our ad hominim arguments aside, and openly explore each other's point of view. I am not confident that truth prevails in all hearts and minds because we all have our own misconceptions but the best way to get at it is with open, educated discussion.

[conciencia]

Thanks for your prompt response. Indeed, I must agree with you, in that we must respect each other debates especially in a very educated manner. You thus far have demostrated very professional and educated anwsers and you merits same level of responses.

I invite you see this written portion of a debate from the second URL I posted above. I hope you understand that lots of scriptures have been found lately, much to the extend and prove the extensive use of the "Lord" in it retained vocative form, surely you are not discounting such facts, I understand your educational experiences, however we must also adhiere and adjust our education to undisputable geological findings.

The fact is "Lord" retained its vocative form in classical Greek, the LXX, the NT, and the papyri,with barely a handful of cases where (ho kyrios) is used as a vocative. Abbot observes: "The Egyptian Papyri use (kyrie) freely, but never, so far as alleged,(the kyrios) vocatively. Thus, a great mass of evidence from all extant Greet shews that, had the vocative been intended (kyrie) would have been employed. This is confirmed by the Latin versions, which have 'dominus."' The only example from the LXX which has (kyrios) used as a vocative is Psalm 35(34):23, where Jehovah is addressed with the words (ho theos mou kai ho kyrios mou). But here "God" precedes "Lord." This is the opposite of John 20:28, and significant in explaining why the nominative is used as a vocative: "[Lord' in Psalm 35:23 (34:23 LXX)],as it follows the nominatival form of the vocative, (ho theos mou), it is rendered for conformity ho theos mou. In Jn [20:28], (ho kyrios) precedes (ho theos).